> From:          Nathan Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:       [PEN-L:11865] Re: Risk and Unequal Opportunity under cap

> > Social policy debates have gotten so stupid it is
> > hard to see them as informed by any kind of
> > theory, liberal or conservative, much less anything
> > as high-falutin as risk theory.
> 
> .  .  .
> If risk is seen as a friend and an equal opportunity for entrepreneurship,
> then inequality becomes just a reward system for those willing to take the
> risks that drive wealth creation.   .  .  .

This is interesting but perhaps a little too ingenious to 
attribute to popular debate.  There is an individualist
ideology which holds that people choose their risks
and ought then to take the consequences of their
choices, just as they are entitled to the rewards of
a fortuitous choice.  If your point is that the way this
is viewed is politically important, I agree.  It's a little
more mundane than what I would think of as risk
theory, however.

> .  .  .
> up the messiest aspects of poverty, but there really is no solid left
> position on how we would ideally balance risk and security, while making
> both equitable.  In the broadest speculations of socialist theory, have
> market socialists grappled with that balance?

The market socialists devolve to welfare statism in this 
circumstance, which is perfectly well-taken in the context of that 
system.  I would say you have to be a rather extreme leveller to
argue against any scope for voluntary individual risk-taking, with 
its attendant rewards and losses, but I don't doubt that the more 
left among us would take exception since in their vision capital
is more-or-less completely socialized.

Max






===================================================
Max B. Sawicky            Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED]          1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice)      Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax)        Washington, DC  20036
http://epn.org/sawicky

Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================



Reply via email to