In article <nicoya-657052.20415824072006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>First, define "deserve". Does a child "deserve" untold riches and fortunes
>for popping out of the right womb?
>What did that child ever actually do to
>"deserve" such things?
Popped out of the right womb, as you put it. But of course, that child is
comprised of the genetics of its parents, so it is a representation of them,
not simply some random 'soul' that was incarnated or reincarnated into a
generic shell of a body, and just happened to win the 'cosmic lottery' by
being born to the 'right parents'. Since that child is a genetic mix of its
parents it could ONLY be born to those parents, and could NOT be born to any
other parents, so your idea of what the child 'deserves' doesn't make sense.
The child deserves whatever its parents decide it deserves.
>What did other children do to "deserve" to be born into
Popped out of the wrong womb, according to your post-hoc fallacy
>The "free market" of birth rights leads to social stratification and castes,
>which leads to the denial of social mobility.
Actually the only societies in which that has happened have had to claim
authority by higher 'cosmic' power to keep it going. Caste systems aren't
simply the result of some people being born to wealthy parents and some being
born to poor parents, because the poor can always attack and rob the rich. In
caste societies, the reason they don't is because they believe that God or Gods
have put them in their place in the heirarchy and that the God or Gods don't
approve of violent means to move up that heirarchy. So it's the superstition
that maintains the caste systems. Where such superstition didn't take hold,
rich and poor trade places via revolution. But what happens after revolution
is that the revolutionaries impliment measures of govt. control to attempt to
equalize whatever disparities caused the revolution to occur in the first
place, in hopes of preventing the need for revolution to occur in the future.
And that's how we've ended up where we are today! Yay!
>You might want to spend a bit more time reading up on economics and game
>It's a fascinating subject full of all sorts of complex subtleties; very
>rewarding to learn.
Sure, but attempting to manage economies by switching babies around between
poor and rich parents would be micro-management gone ridiculously stupidly
wrong, and it would not help in any equalization of resources whatsoever.