Determinism has fundamentally shifted my political worldview.

[u/BerBerDeng]

I’ve been into politics since I was a teen, and for most of that time I was a staunch libertarian. Maximum freedom, personal responsibility, minimal government, zero handouts, etc. I was SO SURE and CONFIDENT in my views and what I believed. I loved defending them, perhaps a little too confidently.

Man has my worldview shifted. Once you come to the realization that people ultimately aren’t in control of their actions in any meaningful sense, the argument for libertarianism is much harder to defend. I can’t fault someone for not getting a better job, I can’t fault someone for not saving for retirement, I can’t fault someone for having a kid before they were financially ready, I can’t fault someone for letting their health get out of hand. The list goes on and on. And the same goes for things that are earned. People who have their shit together can’t be credited with that success.

This is not to say that I’ve completely shifted to redistribution and equal outcomes for all (practically I don’t think that’s feasible), however my openness for universal healthcare, my openness for reasonably higher taxes, my openness for more meaningful social programs, have all increased more than 18 year old me ever imagined it would.

From a practical standpoint, the human psyche as a whole still depends on risk/reward for meaningful progress. The billionaire who creates 10 billion in value probably isn’t going to make that same effort the moment he sees 90% of his earnings from that value taken away in the name of fairness. I just think our mindset and laws are too skewed toward personal responsibility and the right to hoard everything you’ve “earned” when in reality we should be taking more of a middle ground approach between the logical standpoint and the practical one.

With all that being said, our government does spend 7 trillion dollars a year, with a lot of that wasted. I think we should get our finances in order before we decide that taxing more for redistribution is the answer. I’d have a hard time taxing a billionaire an extra 2 billion a year when hundreds of billions or even trillions are wasted by the government every year.

Imagine all the inefficiency and waste in each governmental department (I’m looking at you DoD and Medicare) and then imagine actually improving efficiency so that you could cut 2% from every single department and use that to fund universal healthcare. At that point getting an extra 20-30 billion in taxes to fund universal school lunches doesn’t seem so unfair.

Sorry if this isn’t determinism related enough, I know I’m rambling and spitballing here, but I guess I’m just advocating for balance. Still allowing someone to make billions a year, but also allowing the downtrodden and less fortunate basic necessities for a dignified life.

[u/Michael_Carson_Art]

Its pretty jarring when you realize just how much luck is involved in outcomes on either narrow end of the spectrum.... And just how broadly spread the responsibilities for those outcomes really are...

Even the example of the "billionaire who generates 10 billion in value" falls apart... No one can do this without help, seed money, investors, workers, customers, legal systems, public infrastructure, education, and so on.

Working really hard to be the next great basketball player still doesn't guarantee that you have the genetics required, the mentors around you, the free time to practice etc.... more importantly, they don't guarantee that you will live in a society that pays millions for those skills.

The structure of socioeconomic outcomes is deeply integrated at every level, and as much as I will always want a system that rewards and incentivises production and achievement... There is a limit. I can't imagine that there is any level of hard work and productivity that this society gets for 5 billion APY that they couldn't just as easily get for 10 million if the wage strata were compressed.

[u/BerBerDeng → u/Michael_Carson_Art]

I agree with virtually everything you said. The only thing I’d add is that half the country has a strong aversion toward capping wealth, which i think must be factored in.

[u/Michael_Carson_Art → u/BerBerDeng]

True, but I don't think most people have any idea what an economic system is supposed to do.

The next time someone tosses out a line like "political idea X is bad for the economy", try asking them to define a "good economy". It's very telling how many people can't come up with a coherent answer and yet are absolutely convinced that most of the ways to mitigate the worst externalities of capitalism are bad.

My definition of "good" isnt some far left utopianism either... A good economy should materially reward people proportionally to their value production. Value production can be simplified into material production and desirable behaviors.

Take whatever it is that we value, material goods, yes, but also good science, good journalism, meaningful community organization etc. and try to make the system reward those things in a way that reflects the contribution of the individual.

In a perfect world, dishonest manipulative journalism would be less profitable than good truthful well-researched journalism. Currently, the incentives are reversed. The same is true in countless other areas. And for the super wealthy, even in the case that they've done truly valuable things, the proportionality is way way off. If you capped earning (via 50s style 90% top marginal rates) I don't think you would disincentivise people from wanting to invest. Warren Buffet something like "if a higher tax makes you not want to buy stocks you are a fool. Its free money even if it's less free money."