4 ms·

Yes, and? Does that give an excuse to exploit most of them (which is what usury, interest, insurance, etc. are), only to have a few benefit? As I pointed out,

by azth 11y ago

Yes, and? Does that give an excuse to exploit most of them (which is what usury, interest, insurance, etc. are), only to have a few benefit? As I pointed out, Islamically, the rich people of the community would be responsible to aid the society. A tremendous amount of wealth is in the hands of a tiny, tiny minority of the population. They can put their money in interest bearing accounts and bonds, and live purely off of interest. This is exploitative, and not fair, and makes the problem worse.

SixSigma 11y ago
A population of strangers changes Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma - a game of co-operation where tit-for-tat is pretty much the optimal, to Prisoner's where default is optimal
- azth 11y ago
  Sorry, I did not get what you are saying. How is this related to the Prisoner's Dilemma? In an Islamic system, the rich would have an obligation toward the rest of society to lift it up, particularly in the case where there is a massive wealth gap, as we see today. The poor are consistently getting penalized, whereas the rich just get richer. This article was posted here on HN not too long ago: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low...
  - SixSigma 11y ago
    > there were no more poor people ... because everyone did their duties. In a society where people are scarce and visible, the social contract is enforced by association. Just like everyone looked after each other in most places around the world in small villages etc. - iterated prisoner's dilemma In a city of 20 million people this breaks down. - more defectors
    - azth 11y ago
      This was not a small society. Look up the Ummayad Caliphate[0] to see how large it reached. And yes, with more people there is a higher likelyhood that not everyone will do their duties. However, all that is needed is a critical mass (whether in the number of people, or the total wealth produced) that does. As I pointed out, if the ultra wealthy were forced to "pay up" in order to help out the poor and oppressed, we would be in a very different place. Not to mention all the tax money wasted on the military and invading other countries. The other point I brought up is that of dealing with interest, and other exploitative transactions, which are forbidden Islamically. These aid the wealthy, and hurt the poor. All these factors go hand in hand to raise the quality of life for society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate
      - SixSigma 11y ago
        Now you want to use force ...
        azth 11y ago
        Would you consider having the IRS come after someone because they don't pay their taxes as using force? This is similar. Islamically, the poor have a right to get money from Zakat; which is paid by the rich. In other words, the rich owe money to the poor. This is a fundamentally different system from what we see today in most countries.
        SixSigma 11y ago
        Yes, I would consider it force. A few posts ago you said it all worked nicely and there were no poor because people did their duty. But now in the Zakat system, you say that the rich are forced to give money to the poor. It is not fundamentally different from a basic social welfare economy like much of Europe.
        azth 11y ago
BerislavLopac 11y ago
So, you're saying that there still is wealth inequality, only that the wealthier took care of the less wealthy? This is exactly the point I've made (that no society has managed to remove it, ever).
- azth 11y ago
  The issue is that if wealth inequality were to come about (e.g. due to health issues, war, etc.), a rebalancing of sort would take place in order to address it.

by azth 11y ago

SixSigma 11y ago

A population of strangers changes Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma - a game of co-operation where tit-for-tat is pretty much the optimal, to Prisoner's where default is optimal

azth 11y ago
Sorry, I did not get what you are saying. How is this related to the Prisoner's Dilemma? In an Islamic system, the rich would have an obligation toward the rest of society to lift it up, particularly in the case where there is a massive wealth gap, as we see today. The poor are consistently getting penalized, whereas the rich just get richer. This article was posted here on HN not too long ago: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low-income-americans-often-have-pay-more-its-expensive-be-poor http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21663262-why-low...
- SixSigma 11y ago
  > there were no more poor people ... because everyone did their duties. In a society where people are scarce and visible, the social contract is enforced by association. Just like everyone looked after each other in most places around the world in small villages etc. - iterated prisoner's dilemma In a city of 20 million people this breaks down. - more defectors
  - azth 11y ago
    This was not a small society. Look up the Ummayad Caliphate[0] to see how large it reached. And yes, with more people there is a higher likelyhood that not everyone will do their duties. However, all that is needed is a critical mass (whether in the number of people, or the total wealth produced) that does. As I pointed out, if the ultra wealthy were forced to "pay up" in order to help out the poor and oppressed, we would be in a very different place. Not to mention all the tax money wasted on the military and invading other countries. The other point I brought up is that of dealing with interest, and other exploitative transactions, which are forbidden Islamically. These aid the wealthy, and hurt the poor. All these factors go hand in hand to raise the quality of life for society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Caliphate
    - SixSigma 11y ago
      Now you want to use force ...
      - azth 11y ago
        Would you consider having the IRS come after someone because they don't pay their taxes as using force? This is similar. Islamically, the poor have a right to get money from Zakat; which is paid by the rich. In other words, the rich owe money to the poor. This is a fundamentally different system from what we see today in most countries.
        SixSigma 11y ago
        Yes, I would consider it force. A few posts ago you said it all worked nicely and there were no poor because people did their duty. But now in the Zakat system, you say that the rich are forced to give money to the poor. It is not fundamentally different from a basic social welfare economy like much of Europe.
        azth 11y ago

BerislavLopac 11y ago

So, you're saying that there still is wealth inequality, only that the wealthier took care of the less wealthy? This is exactly the point I've made (that no society has managed to remove it, ever).

azth 11y ago
The issue is that if wealth inequality were to come about (e.g. due to health issues, war, etc.), a rebalancing of sort would take place in order to address it.