3 ms·

Their definition of unfair is based on "need." That's why it's not making traditional justice-based sense to you. Which is to say, you can then proceed to defi

Their definition of unfair is based on "need." That's why it's not making traditional justice-based sense to you. Which is to say, you can then proceed to define unfair and need in any manner as you see fit to push an agenda. It's really quite simple, they're saying wealth - with absolutely no concern for how it was earned - must be taken from those who earned it and given to those who have not. Because one person has a need, it provides a claim against someone else's labor, earnings, wealth, life, time, etc. All forms of statist, gun-point wealth redistribution must derive from this philosophy, without exception and specifically without regard for any concern for an objective justice based on rule of law and property rights. Justice and the rule of law must be thrown out to fulfill true wealth redistribution, there's no other way to steal an honest person's assets and justify it.

vidarh 8y ago
There is no "objective justice based on rule of law and property rights". Property rights itself is subjective - they only exist to the extent they exist because of a willingness of a majority to support the use of violence to enforce it, rightly or wrongly. Hence e.g. Proudhon's "property is theft". What is "objective justice based on rule of law and property rights" to you, some see as a perverse use of violence to restrict the liberty of others Incidentally it is quite fascinating that you tie opposition to property rights as "statist, gun-point wealth redistribution" when the opposition to property rights originally came with the firmest opposition to the state. Proudhon was the founder of anarchism. Most others who argued against property rights argued against it from the point of view that property rights only exist through violence, and that the state is the ultimate guarantor of enforcement of what they see as coercion. Whatever point of view one has on how justified property rights are, presenting it as "objective" is ludicrous.

vidarh 8y ago

There is no "objective justice based on rule of law and property rights". Property rights itself is subjective - they only exist to the extent they exist because of a willingness of a majority to support the use of violence to enforce it, rightly or wrongly. Hence e.g. Proudhon's "property is theft". What is "objective justice based on rule of law and property rights" to you, some see as a perverse use of violence to restrict the liberty of others Incidentally it is quite fascinating that you tie opposition to property rights as "statist, gun-point wealth redistribution" when the opposition to property rights originally came with the firmest opposition to the state. Proudhon was the founder of anarchism. Most others who argued against property rights argued against it from the point of view that property rights only exist through violence, and that the state is the ultimate guarantor of enforcement of what they see as coercion. Whatever point of view one has on how justified property rights are, presenting it as "objective" is ludicrous.