4 ms·

@jonathanstrange - I disagree. Being able to control your own wealth is akin to retaining the fruits of your labor, which is the guiding principal of John Lock

@jonathanstrange - I disagree. Being able to control your own wealth is akin to retaining the fruits of your labor, which is the guiding principal of John Locke's labor theory of property. Not being able to control it is merely a variant on slavery - they may not be forcing you to work, but society must produce to survive and if they can take whatever they want whenever they want, you are not free under any reasonable definition. Also, please consider the original coinage act of 1792. It carried a penalty of death (yes, death) for anyone caught debasing the currency. Why? Because debasing the currency was considered equivalent to the crime of counterfeit. And debasing the currency was effectively theft from literally every single person in the country through reduced value and less purchasing power via inflation. Counterfeit, debasement, and inflation were considered hidden taxes because they achieve the same goal. Later coinage acts removed this penalty, which is why (in part) we have the problems we have today. We are approaching 20 trillion in debt. That was money that was spent that debased our currency and drastically reduced our purchasing power. Make no mistake, we are not truly free anymore because we do not enjoy this basic human right. This is not to say "taxes are evil" or anything like that. But deficit spending through unbacked credit is theft. If the money were actually taxed instead of issued as unbacked credit, the value of the USD would not erode.

jly 10y ago
Locke lived and wrote in a time when populations were smaller and land and resources were generally far more available than the world we live in today. He stated the right to own property did not include the right to "spoil or destroy" it, and he also stated there was a moral limit to excess accumulation of property on the grounds that individuals have consumption and labor limits that should not be exceeded. His idea of property ownership was rooted in the idea that it would be somewhat fairly distributed. When humans start behaving like that, then I'll agree they should be able to fully control their wealth.
- turc1656 10y ago
  Yes, but John Locke also lived in a time and place where the average life expectancy was <40, meaning you could work until you died. There was no inherent need to accumulate wealth because most people could continue to labor right up until you got sick and died. You didn't have to save for retirement.

jly 10y ago

Locke lived and wrote in a time when populations were smaller and land and resources were generally far more available than the world we live in today. He stated the right to own property did not include the right to "spoil or destroy" it, and he also stated there was a moral limit to excess accumulation of property on the grounds that individuals have consumption and labor limits that should not be exceeded. His idea of property ownership was rooted in the idea that it would be somewhat fairly distributed. When humans start behaving like that, then I'll agree they should be able to fully control their wealth.

turc1656 10y ago
Yes, but John Locke also lived in a time and place where the average life expectancy was <40, meaning you could work until you died. There was no inherent need to accumulate wealth because most people could continue to labor right up until you got sick and died. You didn't have to save for retirement.