4 ms·

I'd prefer to give them a universal basic income and a well-supported, cheap and/or free higher-education system so that they really do have options -- then the

I'd prefer to give them a universal basic income and a well-supported, cheap and/or free higher-education system so that they really do have options -- then they can choose to train for a job they'd prefer, or start a business of their own. In service of which, I will "paternalistically" redistribute some wealth, which fortunately is justifiable since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid.

Jabanga 9y ago
>since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid. You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. You're hiding behind the political process to illegitimately seize people's wealth. In a just society, you would be taken to court for libeling hundreds of millions of people with private wealth with your baseless demonization of them.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. Find me a plot of land whose present ownership isn't based on a chain leading to the last person who took it by force or fraud without someone else doing the same to them. I'll wait.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    You have to prove the chain goes back to force/fraud. People are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Moreover, most types of property are not naturally occurring, and simply claimed, like land is. They are man-made and much more likely than land to have a chain of voluntary transfers linking their creation to their present possessor. You're making sweeping generalisations about those with wealth and making weak arguments to justify it.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Moreover, most types of property are not naturally occurring, and simply claimed, like land is. All tangible (real or personal) property is (or rather, is relation created in law to something which is) either naturally occurring like land, or the result of action applied to such a naturally occurring item. Intangible personal property is a pure creation of law at the expense of everyone else's freedom that doesn't apply to a tangible item.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        The value provided by the naturally occurring inputs is minimal. It's almost always the case that the effort made to convert the natural inputs into the finished product provided the vast majority of the value. A cabin's value is immeasurably greater than the two trees felled for its natural material. Our own bodies are "the result of action applied to such a naturally occurring item". We have an absolute right to our bodies according to any modern conception of individual rights in existence. This idea that any one who has wealth should be presumed guilty of possessing stolen goods based only on a sweeping assumption that all naturally occurring property was acquired through fraud or force is completely unjust, and would never be accepted by a court of law.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The value provided by the naturally occurring inputs is minimal. It's almost always the case that the effort made to convert the natural inputs into the finished product provided the vast majority of the value Nonsense; neither has any value without the other. They each provide all of the value, which isn't additive. > We have an absolute right to our bodies according to any modern conception of individual rights in existence. As most modern systems of values allow restrictions onnbodily autonomy, many including situations in which others have a right to take your life which is the ultimate violation of such autonomy, it's clear that most such systems do not involve absolute rights of the kind you describe.
        deleted 9y ago

Jabanga 9y ago

>since all modern property ownership is rooted in the use of force and/or fraud, and thus is of course morally invalid. You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. You're hiding behind the political process to illegitimately seize people's wealth. In a just society, you would be taken to court for libeling hundreds of millions of people with private wealth with your baseless demonization of them.

ubernostrum 9y ago
You're engaging in mass-defamation against anyone who owns anything. Find me a plot of land whose present ownership isn't based on a chain leading to the last person who took it by force or fraud without someone else doing the same to them. I'll wait.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  You have to prove the chain goes back to force/fraud. People are presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Moreover, most types of property are not naturally occurring, and simply claimed, like land is. They are man-made and much more likely than land to have a chain of voluntary transfers linking their creation to their present possessor. You're making sweeping generalisations about those with wealth and making weak arguments to justify it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Moreover, most types of property are not naturally occurring, and simply claimed, like land is. All tangible (real or personal) property is (or rather, is relation created in law to something which is) either naturally occurring like land, or the result of action applied to such a naturally occurring item. Intangible personal property is a pure creation of law at the expense of everyone else's freedom that doesn't apply to a tangible item.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      The value provided by the naturally occurring inputs is minimal. It's almost always the case that the effort made to convert the natural inputs into the finished product provided the vast majority of the value. A cabin's value is immeasurably greater than the two trees felled for its natural material. Our own bodies are "the result of action applied to such a naturally occurring item". We have an absolute right to our bodies according to any modern conception of individual rights in existence. This idea that any one who has wealth should be presumed guilty of possessing stolen goods based only on a sweeping assumption that all naturally occurring property was acquired through fraud or force is completely unjust, and would never be accepted by a court of law.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > The value provided by the naturally occurring inputs is minimal. It's almost always the case that the effort made to convert the natural inputs into the finished product provided the vast majority of the value Nonsense; neither has any value without the other. They each provide all of the value, which isn't additive. > We have an absolute right to our bodies according to any modern conception of individual rights in existence. As most modern systems of values allow restrictions onnbodily autonomy, many including situations in which others have a right to take your life which is the ultimate violation of such autonomy, it's clear that most such systems do not involve absolute rights of the kind you describe.
        deleted 9y ago