4 ms·

Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. When they fail to do this,

Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. > When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty. True, revolution against and liquidation of the elites and their hoards isn't pretty. Which is a good reason the wealthy ought to voluntarily, in their own enlightened self-interest, act to convince the rest of society that they are committed to voluntary, ongoing redistribution; institutionalizing UBI enthusiastically would be a way of doing that.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either. The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term; the short-to-intermediate term, perhaps not as much.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term Because the system that's currently in place is quite different from what came just after the revolution. In any case, a period of such terror remains indelibly in history forever, as it should. No moral person should want to create another. As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > No moral person should want to create another Sure, just like no moral person wants war. (But yet some moral people find engaging in war preferable to the available alternatives in some circumstances.) OTOH, the thing is no moral person wants (or wants to continue) the conditions of oppression that invariably precede such revolutions either. Sometimes the choice is between morally bad and morally worse, and one's perception of which is which depends very much which side of the palace gates one lives on. > As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that. Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces. Which is precisely why the wealthy need to be voluntarily building up society, such that the fabulous potential of the world in 2019 is available to everyone, in the form of a noble, everywoman/everyman life.
rhizome 8y ago
it might not be pretty. The current arrangement is already not pretty, unless you have the means to ignore the unpleasant parts.
- burfog 8y ago
  It's a lot more pretty than the alternative. There are multiple places around the world that experimented with redistribution, and some are still doing it. You aren't about to move to one of those places, are you? Ignore the rich for a moment, put aside that jealousy, and ask yourself what it is like to be a typical or lower-income person in a place like Venezuela or Zimbabwe after things got redistributed. There is something deeply wrong with advocating for redistribution in your own country when you could simply migrate to a country that has implemented the policy you desire.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    There is more than one alternative.

Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. > When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty. True, revolution against and liquidation of the elites and their hoards isn't pretty. Which is a good reason the wealthy ought to voluntarily, in their own enlightened self-interest, act to convince the rest of society that they are committed to voluntary, ongoing redistribution; institutionalizing UBI enthusiastically would be a way of doing that.

stcredzero 8y ago
Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure. Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either. The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term; the short-to-intermediate term, perhaps not as much.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term Because the system that's currently in place is quite different from what came just after the revolution. In any case, a period of such terror remains indelibly in history forever, as it should. No moral person should want to create another. As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > No moral person should want to create another Sure, just like no moral person wants war. (But yet some moral people find engaging in war preferable to the available alternatives in some circumstances.) OTOH, the thing is no moral person wants (or wants to continue) the conditions of oppression that invariably precede such revolutions either. Sometimes the choice is between morally bad and morally worse, and one's perception of which is which depends very much which side of the palace gates one lives on. > As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that. Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces. Which is precisely why the wealthy need to be voluntarily building up society, such that the fabulous potential of the world in 2019 is available to everyone, in the form of a noble, everywoman/everyman life.

rhizome 8y ago

it might not be pretty. The current arrangement is already not pretty, unless you have the means to ignore the unpleasant parts.

burfog 8y ago
It's a lot more pretty than the alternative. There are multiple places around the world that experimented with redistribution, and some are still doing it. You aren't about to move to one of those places, are you? Ignore the rich for a moment, put aside that jealousy, and ask yourself what it is like to be a typical or lower-income person in a place like Venezuela or Zimbabwe after things got redistributed. There is something deeply wrong with advocating for redistribution in your own country when you could simply migrate to a country that has implemented the policy you desire.
- rhizome 8y ago
  There is more than one alternative.