4 ms·

So, in order: 1. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul 2. Good idea. Make it happen. 3. Also stealing, but if it were to replace the system we have now (which won’t h

by xkde 7y ago

So, in order: 1. Stealing from Peter to pay Paul 2. Good idea. Make it happen. 3. Also stealing, but if it were to replace the system we have now (which won’t happen) it would at least be more efficient.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
Call it what you want, but the alternative is living in a society with extreme wealth/income disparities.
- xkde 7y ago
  No, the alternative is adaptation.
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    Well, I guess all those people living in tents under the freeway in Seattle have "adapted" then. Problem solved!
    - xkde 7y ago
      And the only reason for that is you haven’t taken enough of my money?
brookhaven_dude 7y ago
It's not "stealing"
- xkde 7y ago
  What would you call 9 people in a group of ten voting to take away the tenth guy’s stuff because they wanted to? I call it what it is - stealing. Greed. Envy. Interestingly, it will probably lead to more equality; it just won’t be what you’re expecting and I don’t think you’ll like the result. At this point though, the people probably deserve to get what they want and get it good and hard.
  - pault 7y ago
    Except the 10th guy has more stuff than the other 9 combined.
  - xkde 7y ago
    > Except the 10th guy has more stuff than the other 9 combined. By that logic, you should be made to give everything you have to the people of Congo. Since when is morality determined by the size of one’s wallet?
  - throwaway34241 7y ago
    Small thought experiment: Imagine an agricultural society where the nobility own the land, and serfs work it for subsistence wages only. The nobility largely don't work, and live lavish lifestyles supported by others. Nothing too unusual historically. In those circumstances, is maintaining the status quo the only morally correct choice, and any deviation from that "stealing?" I don't think it's reasonable to measure a society's morality by its tax rates only or to draw an equivalence between taxes and theft. It's true that minimal government and taxes worked well in the US's early history. But if you think about it, that was an agricultural society where the main source of capital, land, was practically free. It's not surprising that relatively pure capitalism worked OK then, but historically it seems to have worked out less well in almost all other circumstances. These days a lot of capital is in stocks in global corporations, with barriers to entry measured in the billions of dollars. It's not as simple as moving to the frontier and finding your own plot of land. I think an ideal society delivers broad-based prosperity and individual freedoms with a dynamic market economy. And tax policy should preserve incentives to work and invest efficiently. But if there is a conflict between broad-based prosperity and zero tax rates / income redistribution, like in the example society above, the former should definitely be chosen over the latter. I think going the other way around, rather than leading to a capitalist paradise, will only lead to the rise of ideologies that advocate heavy-handed state control of the economy, probably to the detriment of everyone.

by xkde 7y ago

lotsofpulp 7y ago

Call it what you want, but the alternative is living in a society with extreme wealth/income disparities.

xkde 7y ago
No, the alternative is adaptation.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  Well, I guess all those people living in tents under the freeway in Seattle have "adapted" then. Problem solved!
  - xkde 7y ago
    And the only reason for that is you haven’t taken enough of my money?

brookhaven_dude 7y ago

It's not "stealing"

xkde 7y ago
What would you call 9 people in a group of ten voting to take away the tenth guy’s stuff because they wanted to? I call it what it is - stealing. Greed. Envy. Interestingly, it will probably lead to more equality; it just won’t be what you’re expecting and I don’t think you’ll like the result. At this point though, the people probably deserve to get what they want and get it good and hard.
- pault 7y ago
  Except the 10th guy has more stuff than the other 9 combined.
- xkde 7y ago
  > Except the 10th guy has more stuff than the other 9 combined. By that logic, you should be made to give everything you have to the people of Congo. Since when is morality determined by the size of one’s wallet?
- throwaway34241 7y ago
  Small thought experiment: Imagine an agricultural society where the nobility own the land, and serfs work it for subsistence wages only. The nobility largely don't work, and live lavish lifestyles supported by others. Nothing too unusual historically. In those circumstances, is maintaining the status quo the only morally correct choice, and any deviation from that "stealing?" I don't think it's reasonable to measure a society's morality by its tax rates only or to draw an equivalence between taxes and theft. It's true that minimal government and taxes worked well in the US's early history. But if you think about it, that was an agricultural society where the main source of capital, land, was practically free. It's not surprising that relatively pure capitalism worked OK then, but historically it seems to have worked out less well in almost all other circumstances. These days a lot of capital is in stocks in global corporations, with barriers to entry measured in the billions of dollars. It's not as simple as moving to the frontier and finding your own plot of land. I think an ideal society delivers broad-based prosperity and individual freedoms with a dynamic market economy. And tax policy should preserve incentives to work and invest efficiently. But if there is a conflict between broad-based prosperity and zero tax rates / income redistribution, like in the example society above, the former should definitely be chosen over the latter. I think going the other way around, rather than leading to a capitalist paradise, will only lead to the rise of ideologies that advocate heavy-handed state control of the economy, probably to the detriment of everyone.