|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 20, 2012 15:02:34 GMT 10
Who accumulates the surpluses or decides what the surpluses are? The government (hopefully having been legitimately elected and acting on expert advice). You may be surprised but I don't think that it is the place of government to redistribute wealth. It seems to be nigh impossible to do without taking it from others by force. Nobody has yet been able to explain to me how it is immoral to steal from your neighbor but it is the highest morality to use force through proxy to do so. I am not surprised, it is a familiar constellation. I expect you are not surprised that I believe that a government represents all its citizens, including those who are actively or passively underprivileged.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 20, 2012 16:39:23 GMT 10
If a government represented all of the citizens, what would that look like? Would there be a regression towards the mean thereby ignoring the most successful and the least successful? If it does take into account those two groups would it accomplish nothing because the sum of differences from the mean is zero? This is demonstrable mathematically.
Can there be freedom, and free exchange of goods and services (value for value) if there is no respect for private property?
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 20, 2012 17:58:04 GMT 10
Whereas it has long been known and declared that the poor have no right to the property of the rich, I wish it also to be known and declared that the rich have no right to the property of the poor John Ruskin(Died this day 1900)
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 21, 2012 6:51:44 GMT 10
If a government represented all of the citizens, what would that look like? A democracy. Would there be a regression towards the mean thereby ignoring the most successful and the least successful? If it does take into account those two groups would it accomplish nothing because the sum of differences from the mean is zero? This is demonstrable mathematically. Wonderful (no net economic loss). Can there be freedom, and free exchange of goods and services (value for value) if there is no respect for private property? Less socio-economic distance between the overprivileged and the underprivileged need not mean "No respect" for private property. Some more equitable societies seem to have a reasonable approach.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 21, 2012 7:09:51 GMT 10
A democracy or a republic? A true democracy or majority rule on all things is a dead end.
If I take $500 dollars from you and give it to someone else, or $100 to five other people, there is no net loss and there has then been no crime?
There is no reasonable approach unless we can agree that theft is a social virtue.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 21, 2012 20:35:17 GMT 10
A democracy or a republic? A true democracy or majority rule on all things is a dead end. Would you prefer a Plutocracy? If I take $500 dollars from you and give it to someone else, or $100 to five other people, there is no net loss and there has then been no crime? I guess you need to take into account how I came by the money and the circumstances under which it was appropriated. There is no reasonable approach unless we can agree that theft is a social virtue. We first need to agree as to what constitutes "theft."
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 22, 2012 2:07:15 GMT 10
I would prefer a republic. The idea that 51% can vote the destruction of the rights of 49% is contrary to my belief in personal liberty.
Theft is taking one's property unjustly. Where is the justice in taking the property of one and giving it to another? At what point is theft a social virtue? When is private property to be protected?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 22, 2012 10:26:31 GMT 10
Where is the justice in taking the property of one and giving it to another? I guess that depends on whether or not any injustices led to and underlie the top 1% of Americans owning about 40% of the nation's wealth, while the bottom 80% of your fellow citizens own only about 7%.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 22, 2012 11:06:27 GMT 10
How was that property and wealth acquired, by relationships with government or through honest work? If it is through government then more government is certainly not the answer.
In any case we have to examine the foundation. Do people have rights to their own property and the fruits of their own labors?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 22, 2012 12:40:32 GMT 10
How was that property and wealth acquired, by relationships with government or through honest work? Or indeed, through exploitation, dispossession, scams and crime (or luck)? In any case we have to examine the foundation. Do people have rights to their own property and the fruits of their own labors? Property and income exist with an economic system. Yet we commonly hear of those already overprivileged in the system who reap its benefits and yet decry its responsibilities.
|
|