3 ms·

Basic fair reality: if you don't work, you starve. I'm working out the baseline effort required for "here's your fair share of Earth, and a bag of assorted see

Basic fair reality: if you don't work, you starve. I'm working out the baseline effort required for "here's your fair share of Earth, and a bag of assorted seeds - fend for yourself." The notion that you should be able to exist indefinitely without effort is preposterous. Either you put in that basic effort (which I'm trying to quantify), or that effort is taken under threat from someone else and redistributed to you. Finding the latter morally abhorrent, I have to conclude that "freedom" is predicated on the axiom that one must produce enough to sustain oneself. From there we can return to your assertion. If someone does not possess the means of independent subsistence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that someone to at least generate equivalent productivity under whatever circumstances are available, trading it for equivalent subsistence. "Produce 730,000 consumable kcals annually or starve" being a practical law of nature, it is not "unfair" nor "un-free" to enter into an employment contract trading productivity for sustenance. Your "freedom" is, however repulsive the choices, to either expire or produce enough to survive - and that either thru independent subsistence farming, or an equivalent effort traded for equivalent nourishment etc. It's not unfair to expect a baseline productivity of someone, and whether it's complete self-sufficiency or capitalistic contract to work makes little difference. (Whether someone takes "unfair" advantage of that arrangement is a different discussion.) Fair work for fair pay exchangeable for fair sustenance is fair.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Redistribution increases social mobility. It gives all people in society a better chance to achieve as much as they can. That sounds a lot more like freedom to me than what you are advocating.
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Redistribution takes away one's lawfully acquired resources under veiled threat of death. That sounds a lot more like oppression & theft to me. I believe social mobility comes from opportunity - and we live in a society with more opportunity than ever. The failure to leverage that opportunity will not be meaningfully improved by redistribution, as both require personal initiative - if that initiative is lacking for one, it's lacking for the other.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
    >I believe social mobility comes from opportunity - and we live in a society with more opportunity than ever. Actually social mobility is on the decline in America. It's also lower than in a lot of more redistributive states like the nordic countries, france, canada, etc. Is opportunity on the decline in America? Maybe if we did welfare like those states it would go back up. >The failure to leverage that opportunity will not be meaningfully improved by redistribution This is just not true. Could you please read this short blogpost? It distills some economic research down and should give you a better understanding of why I believe what I believe. http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-income-inequality.html http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-inco...
aidenn0 10y ago
If I don't work I won't starve. I have reached the point where my investments could sustain a very modest lifestyle, if I moved away from coastal California, indefinitely. Some of this is due to my job. A lot of it is due to the fact that my family could afford tuition, so I graduated debt free, and when my grandfather passed away, the inheritence allowed me to buy a house at the bottom of the market. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of wealth exists in the hands of people who did not create equitable value for society. Actually there are many cases in which people accrue wealth by generating negative value for society, because they are allowed to (or used their exiting influence to lobby for laws that) externalize many of their costs. I can see how a reasonable person could find taxation (and in particular progressive taxation) morally wrong. Can you really not see how a reasonable person could find it morally worse to create a world in which some people to have a high chance of starving due to being born into poverty, while others born into wealthy families have a near zero chance of that happening?
- ctdonath 10y ago
  Produce more value, enjoy the fruits thereof. Yes, one has a moral duty to help those unable, by circumstance, to reach up to that bottom line; provide food, shelter, and education until a minimum is reached and they can provide - so long as the individual is making a fair effort to get there, and not just enjoying a free ride. Compelling others to provide, and giving what's taken to the wantonly idle, is immoral. My thought experiment addresses those who seem to think no effort should be required for survival. If you are at all capable of that minimum level of productivity, it is expected of you; if you truly aren't capable, I'll choose to help you out.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >the wantonly idle This is a really silly phrase: achieving idleness and ease is the very purpose of work.
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      There is a vast difference between "idle" in terms of enjoying the fruits of your labors, vs "idle" in terms of enjoying the confiscated fruits of the labors of others. It's the difference between retiring early vs living on welfare checks.
klibertp 10y ago
> Basic fair reality: if you don't work, you starve. If you work, you get rich. If you don't work, you stay poor. Basically, there is no need for anyone to starve to make the system "fair". Why do you insist on killing people? Why do you think death is the right penalty for not working? Is a death of a person better than forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth? If so, why? I don't understand at all, but then I was born in Europe and live in EU, so I guess that's expected...
- ctdonath 10y ago
  It's not a "death penalty". It's natural reality, akin to stepping off a high cliff - a choice with natural consequences. Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. Why do you think death is the right penalty for not sharing a bit of wealth?
  - klibertp 10y ago
    > It's natural reality Well, yeah, but this is why we form a society: to make ourselves immune to what's natural (as in "what animals do"). There's no need for society rules to emulate a savannah we all come from, is there? > Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. ? I don't understand?
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      You say "share your wealth". I say "no". How do you intend to resolve this? likely by an escalation of force, via fines, incarceration, and (if I say "no" with enough force) siege or execution. That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        >That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death. Of course, but it goes the other way around, too. I say, "I'll take some fruit off this tree". You say, "die trespasser!" and shoot at me. You have now shot at me. You no doubt have an ideological justification: that property titles magically justify shooting at nonviolent people in a way that nothing else does. You equate alternative management schemes for natural resources with physical violence against a human being, which is why your scheme inevitably breaks down into you finding elaborate ways to say "fuck you and die" to everyone around you while spraying machine-gun fire everywhere.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>If someone does not possess the means of independent subsistence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that someone to at least generate equivalent productivity under whatever circumstances are available, trading it for equivalent subsistence. Of course it's unreasonable. Why should you be able to take the stuff I needed to fend for myself, blame it on me, and then "negotiate" from the profoundly advantageous position that I'll starve and you won't if I walk away?
- ctdonath 10y ago
  "Taking the stuff you need to fend for yourself" is theft. That's a crime for which the government exists to identify & prosecute. Aside from outright theft, you now have established you have all the stuff you need to fend for yourself. Put in that aforementioned basic effort, and you won't starve. You may have to relocate, you may have to enter a mutually-beneficial contract, but point is (assuming you're competent & able-bodied) you're obligated to exert at least that basic effort to expect survival.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >"Taking the stuff you need to fend for yourself" is theft. That's a crime for which the government exists to identify & prosecute. That's an interesting thing to say, since current governments largely exist precisely to effect and enforce the creation of a landless working class who are forced to sell labor-power for wages.[1] But at least we can now agree: property is theft. [1] -- http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/yasha-levine-recovered-economic-history-everyone-but-an-idiot-knows-that-the-lower-classes-must-be-kept-poor-or-they-will-never-be-industrious.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/yasha-levine-recovere...
    - ctdonath 10y ago
      Agree? I couldn't disagree more. Property is liberty. The government, at least in the form of the Constitution of the USA, exists to ensure & protect ownership of property. My whole thesis in this thread is that you can achieve complete self-sufficiency with little more than a few quite affordable acres, and that it is perfectly reasonable to expect every able-bodied adult to produce at least that much by some equivalent effort. Go to zillow.com, enter a very low price range as search criteria, and select whatever state you like. Land is absolutely available to anyone who wants it. Should you buy land, the government exists in major part to precisely identify what land is yours, to defend it, and to provide at least minimal infrastructure (roads, mail) to facilitate it. You are in no way forced to sell labor-power for wages, it's just a whole lot easier & more convenient & productive than tilling the soil the hard way. Capitalism succeeds precisely because mutually-beneficial contracts let people voluntarily leverage each other for greater mutual productivity. I'm not sure how you construe "taking [property] is theft" into "property is theft". Polar opposites to me. You're landless? you don't want to sell your labor-power for wages? For just $8000 (obtainable via gov't welfare or your own productivity) I can put you on 20 acres next week, with a comprehensive multi-thousand-page manual on how to live off it.

frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago

Redistribution increases social mobility. It gives all people in society a better chance to achieve as much as they can. That sounds a lot more like freedom to me than what you are advocating.

ctdonath 10y ago
Redistribution takes away one's lawfully acquired resources under veiled threat of death. That sounds a lot more like oppression & theft to me. I believe social mobility comes from opportunity - and we live in a society with more opportunity than ever. The failure to leverage that opportunity will not be meaningfully improved by redistribution, as both require personal initiative - if that initiative is lacking for one, it's lacking for the other.
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  >I believe social mobility comes from opportunity - and we live in a society with more opportunity than ever. Actually social mobility is on the decline in America. It's also lower than in a lot of more redistributive states like the nordic countries, france, canada, etc. Is opportunity on the decline in America? Maybe if we did welfare like those states it would go back up. >The failure to leverage that opportunity will not be meaningfully improved by redistribution This is just not true. Could you please read this short blogpost? It distills some economic research down and should give you a better understanding of why I believe what I believe. http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-income-inequality.html http://glineq.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-schumpeter-hotel-inco...

aidenn0 10y ago

If I don't work I won't starve. I have reached the point where my investments could sustain a very modest lifestyle, if I moved away from coastal California, indefinitely. Some of this is due to my job. A lot of it is due to the fact that my family could afford tuition, so I graduated debt free, and when my grandfather passed away, the inheritence allowed me to buy a house at the bottom of the market. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of wealth exists in the hands of people who did not create equitable value for society. Actually there are many cases in which people accrue wealth by generating negative value for society, because they are allowed to (or used their exiting influence to lobby for laws that) externalize many of their costs. I can see how a reasonable person could find taxation (and in particular progressive taxation) morally wrong. Can you really not see how a reasonable person could find it morally worse to create a world in which some people to have a high chance of starving due to being born into poverty, while others born into wealthy families have a near zero chance of that happening?

ctdonath 10y ago
Produce more value, enjoy the fruits thereof. Yes, one has a moral duty to help those unable, by circumstance, to reach up to that bottom line; provide food, shelter, and education until a minimum is reached and they can provide - so long as the individual is making a fair effort to get there, and not just enjoying a free ride. Compelling others to provide, and giving what's taken to the wantonly idle, is immoral. My thought experiment addresses those who seem to think no effort should be required for survival. If you are at all capable of that minimum level of productivity, it is expected of you; if you truly aren't capable, I'll choose to help you out.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >the wantonly idle This is a really silly phrase: achieving idleness and ease is the very purpose of work.
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    There is a vast difference between "idle" in terms of enjoying the fruits of your labors, vs "idle" in terms of enjoying the confiscated fruits of the labors of others. It's the difference between retiring early vs living on welfare checks.

klibertp 10y ago

> Basic fair reality: if you don't work, you starve. If you work, you get rich. If you don't work, you stay poor. Basically, there is no need for anyone to starve to make the system "fair". Why do you insist on killing people? Why do you think death is the right penalty for not working? Is a death of a person better than forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth? If so, why? I don't understand at all, but then I was born in Europe and live in EU, so I guess that's expected...

ctdonath 10y ago
It's not a "death penalty". It's natural reality, akin to stepping off a high cliff - a choice with natural consequences. Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. Why do you think death is the right penalty for not sharing a bit of wealth?
- klibertp 10y ago
  > It's natural reality Well, yeah, but this is why we form a society: to make ourselves immune to what's natural (as in "what animals do"). There's no need for society rules to emulate a savannah we all come from, is there? > Forcing another person to share a bit of their wealth IS a death threat. ? I don't understand?
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    You say "share your wealth". I say "no". How do you intend to resolve this? likely by an escalation of force, via fines, incarceration, and (if I say "no" with enough force) siege or execution. That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >That's how government fundamentally works: escalation of compulsion until submission or death. Of course, but it goes the other way around, too. I say, "I'll take some fruit off this tree". You say, "die trespasser!" and shoot at me. You have now shot at me. You no doubt have an ideological justification: that property titles magically justify shooting at nonviolent people in a way that nothing else does. You equate alternative management schemes for natural resources with physical violence against a human being, which is why your scheme inevitably breaks down into you finding elaborate ways to say "fuck you and die" to everyone around you while spraying machine-gun fire everywhere.

eli_gottlieb 10y ago

>If someone does not possess the means of independent subsistence, then it is not unreasonable to expect that someone to at least generate equivalent productivity under whatever circumstances are available, trading it for equivalent subsistence. Of course it's unreasonable. Why should you be able to take the stuff I needed to fend for myself, blame it on me, and then "negotiate" from the profoundly advantageous position that I'll starve and you won't if I walk away?

ctdonath 10y ago
"Taking the stuff you need to fend for yourself" is theft. That's a crime for which the government exists to identify & prosecute. Aside from outright theft, you now have established you have all the stuff you need to fend for yourself. Put in that aforementioned basic effort, and you won't starve. You may have to relocate, you may have to enter a mutually-beneficial contract, but point is (assuming you're competent & able-bodied) you're obligated to exert at least that basic effort to expect survival.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >"Taking the stuff you need to fend for yourself" is theft. That's a crime for which the government exists to identify & prosecute. That's an interesting thing to say, since current governments largely exist precisely to effect and enforce the creation of a landless working class who are forced to sell labor-power for wages.[1] But at least we can now agree: property is theft. [1] -- http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/yasha-levine-recovered-economic-history-everyone-but-an-idiot-knows-that-the-lower-classes-must-be-kept-poor-or-they-will-never-be-industrious.html http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/04/yasha-levine-recovere...
  - ctdonath 10y ago
    Agree? I couldn't disagree more. Property is liberty. The government, at least in the form of the Constitution of the USA, exists to ensure & protect ownership of property. My whole thesis in this thread is that you can achieve complete self-sufficiency with little more than a few quite affordable acres, and that it is perfectly reasonable to expect every able-bodied adult to produce at least that much by some equivalent effort. Go to zillow.com, enter a very low price range as search criteria, and select whatever state you like. Land is absolutely available to anyone who wants it. Should you buy land, the government exists in major part to precisely identify what land is yours, to defend it, and to provide at least minimal infrastructure (roads, mail) to facilitate it. You are in no way forced to sell labor-power for wages, it's just a whole lot easier & more convenient & productive than tilling the soil the hard way. Capitalism succeeds precisely because mutually-beneficial contracts let people voluntarily leverage each other for greater mutual productivity. I'm not sure how you construe "taking [property] is theft" into "property is theft". Polar opposites to me. You're landless? you don't want to sell your labor-power for wages? For just $8000 (obtainable via gov't welfare or your own productivity) I can put you on 20 acres next week, with a comprehensive multi-thousand-page manual on how to live off it.