We don't need Postrel and Hayek to tell us this - why don't we substitute the phrase "god-given wealth" and return to the middle ages when we peasants could count on our nobles (and the church) to employs us via their status-testifying conspicuous consumption and provide a social safety net with their handouts? oh wait, no we couldn't. cause nobody (ie, the state) made them, until monarchs (states) consolidated their power over their heads and began national social provisioning -- including such stagnating, arbitrary, intrusive, coercive policies as, you know, sewers.

of course that "trickle down" effect requires cheapening production so those masses can afford the products, which historically (ie, empirically as opposed to the bs postrel and hayek seem to think constitutes truth) threw people off farms and out of crafts and into abject urban povery without state-based redistribution. remember the french revolution, bismark? why did all that happen? how did western europe and its progeny manage to circumvent these "natural" and oh-so superior economic processes and institute the welfare state? the devil must have made them do it.

broad unsupported truisms, facile black-and-whitisms -- i wish i'd been a political scientist. we shouldn't (inheritance) tax the idle rich because if we did, they'd all ... stop working (they weren't already, remember)? stop consuming? come on. and of course, society (and even those rich who would now be subject to the arbitrary actions of govt -- boo hoo!) wouldn't get ANYTHING back in return, would they?

per hayek, i'll just make some unsupported counter-assertions: inheritance taxes keeps more of the money invested where it can be employed with a superior multiplier effect for the economy. it keeps it from being dissipated in the coke and ectasy market. it keeps the majority of the wealthy and their projeny working -- not just contributing to new wealth-generation, but in contact with their fellow citizens and the real world, which is good for democracy. and god forbid, that some of the proceeds from that wealth-generation (and you'd be hard pressed to find a successful american industry that hasn't been bolstered by the state so give me a break, they can give something back) be invested in programs that stabilize society and benefit everyone, ensuring for example, that the rich can enjoy properly educated staff and the protection of the oil supply for their SUVs.

of course but we can't have that, could we. because then we'd have a community! and who wouldn't place conservative principles over, you know, the needs of fellow citizens in the real world? hayek would have to think in terms of costs and benefits for all of society, instead of privileging his own theorectical musings. talk about your ivory tower academic.

Some points in favor of the idle rich:

(1) They don't contribute to the economy. But for their consumption (which is, I admit, nonnegligible), you might regard them as the "conscientious objectors" of capitalism. Or at the very least, they're not ripping off people's 401(k)'s, sweatshopping the Third World, or stripmining the landscape. Sure, it's objectionable that a person's overall "worth" too often tends to be a function of his wealth. As a rule, we all object to that kind of worldview.

But another worldview worthy of serious reexamination is the one that values persons based on their contribution to the economy. You see this kind of talk everywhere, whether it's "from each according to their ability . . ." or "the best way to fight terrorism is to go to work everyday." It seems to me that economic model mobilizes against idleness. But really, I don't see a damned thing wrong with taking a life off, if you can get away with it.

We need to make clear that the idle rich are objectionable not because they're "idle," but because they're "rich."

(2) The idle rich tend to embarrass themselves in a way that wins support for the larger class war. They expose the fraud of Dubya-style "meritocracy," which would require that historically disadvantaged social groups get no preference in their competition for social goods . . . but if your father is an oil magnate, you get to go to Yale, and if he makes the Presidency, you'll be handed business-saving oil refining contracts with fawning Saudis.

The way I see it, people like Paris Hilton serve the greater good by providing an ongoing reminder that, despite the peddled ideology, those who thrive in a capitalist system are not necessarily the "most deserving." That's comforting for the lowly and disempowered, who are too often given the impression that it's their own fault.