13 ms·
But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they
by mjfl 10y ago
But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity.
Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = violence", which people do) because what you are doing is basically justifying violence against that system. Violence against capitalism has happened historically, multiple times, and has led to huge injustices, the slaughter of innocent people, and the ruin of every society that has tried it (unless they ease off like China). That alone is a great counterexample to the idea of capitalism = feudalism = violence.
- milesrout 10y agoCapitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.
- lukifer 10y agoCapitalism is absolutely violent, and just as concerned with with-holding value as providing it (the primary means of price negotiation is the threat of walking away). Look at how much food a grocery store throws away, or how many houses are unoccupied, all in the interests of accounting and bargaining leverage. However: I take umbrage with "natural right" (the only right nature guarantees is entropy and death), and "fair share" (as decided by whom?). I think a wealthy, free, and just society would include infrastructure investment and The Commons in addition to free enterprise and private property; but good luck getting every single person to agree on the same definition of "fair".
- WalterBright 10y agoGrocery stores throw a lot of food away due to regulation and liability issues, not for bargaining leverage.
- milesrout 10y agoCrap. They throw away food because it's cheaper to throw it away than to give it to those that need it. It has nothing to do with 'liability' or 'regulation', given they still do the same in NZ, which has neither the concept of personal injury liability nor onerous food regulations.
- type0 10y agoCorrect, even just paying for delivery to homeless shelters is the money no store owner wants to pay and even if you get volunteers they still have to pay for gas. Edit: forget gas even paying the employees to sort the food that is still edible costs too much.
- logicchains 10y agoPeople have a natural right to the results of others' toils solely by virtue of having been born?
- vixen99 10y agoWe could remedy that by taking privileged children away from their toiling parents who provide them with advantages not available to other kids.
- Nadya 10y agoAh, the "Don't read to your children" approach [0]. Don't worry, I know you weren't being serious. Sadly some people are. [0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-you-read-your-kids-youre-unfairly-disadvantaging-others-katherine-timpf http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-yo...
- rorykoehler 10y agoThat's kind of why the West is rich ... well it wasn't so natural but hundreds of years of on-going colonialism made it so.
- milesrout 10y agoPeople have a natural right to a fair share of society's toils solely be virtue of being human beings, yes, absolutely. What you have is not the result of your toils.
- metaphorm 10y ago> What you have is not the result of your toils. be careful with your phrasing. better to say "What you have is not solely the result of your toils."
- krzat 10y agoHumanity is inherently violent.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- majormajor 10y ago> Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity. What if they just inherited it? How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inheritance, or just being the first to colonise (or often just plain steal) some land, or some other less savory source?
- mjfl 10y agoIn an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.
- baursak 10y ago> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there. Like Queen of England's inheritance, for example? Or anybody inheriting land on American soil? Totally no violence involved in initially obtaining those assets?
- mhermher 10y agoYou don't think land lords provided positive economic activity under feudalism? That's absurd, but not as absurd as the implications that capitalist states don't have blood on their hands.
- 8note 10y agoeach system is as violent as the people running it. An ideal king is just the land owner collecting rents from the people on their land, and lending rights to people they think can make more wealth from it. Capitalism is perfectly happy with slavery; it didn't end because it wasn't profitable. There's still some rather violent things in today's capitalism like "give me all your money or die from cancer" which when the capitalists gave you cancer, isn't much different than the violent king forcing you to farm. You give them what they want or you die.
- WalterBright 10y ago> it didn't end because it wasn't profitable. Actually, it ended because it could not compete with free labor. It was dying around 1800 because of that, and then the cotton gin revived it. It was dying again in the 1850s, and a big driver of the Civil War was the slave states trying to protect their economy from free labor competition. I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what works best economically.
- baursak 10y agoSlavery still very much exists in places like Middle East, South Asia, and US prisons, so your argument is moot.
- WalterBright 10y agoAsk yourself why the USSR was unable to compete with the US economically, and could not even feed itself (Kansas in the 1970s was known as "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union". Why the Chinese could not compete with the US until they switched to free labor. Why N. Korea is starving and regular shipments of food from the west keeps things from getting much worse. The Middle East is not known for exporting factory goods. The examples go on and on. Where forced labor still exists there is something else propping it up or subsidizing it - like I mentioned with prison labor.
- baursak 10y ago
- metaphorm 10y agoJeff Bezos himself has not performed the productive economic activity that has generated his wealth. He has performed some labor for a corporation, similar to millions of other Americans, except that because of the ownership privileges granted to him by our capitalist system his share of the wealth produced by the corporation he works for is vastly out of proportion with the wealth share almost everyone else in the entire world receives. the wealth is Amazon's. Bezos owns quite a lot of Amazon. the system permits this level if inequality. that doesn't mean it is deserved or desirable.