[ExI] Social Mobility and Bioconservatism

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 18/02/2009 10.24, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> According to a report published not by some fringe Trozkist group, but
> by the Bank of Italy, it would appear that social mobility in Italy
> has by now been reduced to a practical *zero*, even amongst contiguous
> classes, irrespective of the succession of governments.

This is not unsurprising.
I remember reading this prediction somewhere in the writings of Mises or 
Rothbard.
As the government enlarge is power, and in Italy the government in all 
its branch run a big chunk of the economy and of the job market, the 
people working in his branch will start to carve a niche of power and 
secure it.

Why a university professor or a doctor in a government hospital would 
not help their friends or relatives or allies to obtain a secure job?

> In other words, super-rich are bound to stay super-rich, middle-class
> people middle-class, blue-collar blue-collar and dropouts dropouts.

The super rich in Italy are often bound to obtain subsides from the 
government to continue to operate their factory and give a job to many 
people.
The rich people, with the public (government paid) schools, have no need 
to pay for university education, as it is "universal". But poor people 
will have not the ability to pay for their children education, as the 
other costs are not covered.
So the taxes of the poor go to pay for the education of the rich, in a 
very statalist and socialist country.

> This vastly exceeds whatever hypothetical role genetic traits may play
> in the achievement and maintaining of social positions in western
> societies and illustrates how routine, "humanitarian" attacks from the
> "left" against presumed Social Darwinist penchants in the conservative
> discourse deal in fact with a strayman, since no matter how weak,
> stupid, misfit and handicapped you are, your chances are today the
> best ever of your remaining nevertheless in the position you were
> born, and to have your children just do the same; while conversely
> being strong, clever, driven, etc. does not seem to change much in
> your lot, except perhaps in giving you more chances to become the war
> chief of a youth gang. Today, Howard Roark and John Galt would have
> clearly been employees in a post office, if this had been their
> parents' work.

Exactly.
In a market, whoever would give a job to an unqualified or less 
qualified person would  had paid with his money, not with the taxpayer's 
money. This would control the nepotism, and let able people to climb the 
social ladder.

> The fact that most people, including those relatively underprivileged,
> seem also to believe, owing perhaps also to an aging population, that
> they have more to lose than to gain from any change to such scenario
> may also explain why bioconservatism remains so popular. "Avoid
> rocking the boat" sounds as a the primary slogan in an increasingly
> Brave-New-Worldish scenario... :-(

The problem is that this scenario is inherently unstable and not 
sustainable. The market become inefficient and the coordination of the 
production forces start crumbling. This could happen slowly or fast, 
depend on the grade of statalization of the economy.

Any group isolating itself from the consequences of its behaviours in 
its society become always less useful for the rest of the society. And 
will come the time the rest of the society will get rid of it as it will 
only act like a parasite.

As C.S. Lewis noted in his "Screwtape's Files" :

"This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy's motives for creating a 
dangerous world�a world in which moral issues really come to the point. 
He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, 
but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the 
point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields 
to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. 
Pilate was merciful till it became risky."

Mirco