4 ms·

> when people have access to same things but compete for different things, for example status, choice of partners, etc. People are already complaining about in

> when people have access to same things but compete for different things, for example status, choice of partners, etc. People are already complaining about inequality of status and partners. Why is inequality of wealth less just than those other things? > Inequality does not mean we need to have people who can't satisfy their most basic things I honestly don't understand why and moral arguments are not convincing.

duxut_staglatz 7y ago
What is the non-moral argument for "wealth creators" to keep their wealth?
autoexec 7y ago
Are you advocating for people to not have enough to satisfy their most basic needs?
- kjhkhkj 7y ago
  I'm advocating for not providing it to them.
  - autoexec 7y ago
    And you can't think of any reasons outside of ethical arguments why it might be a good idea to make sure everyone has their basic needs met? Really? Have you spent very long trying to come up with one? Here's one to get you started: When a very small number of people have everything and a great many people have nothing, not even what they need to survive, those hungry desperate masses will have nothing to lose and every incentive to take what they need by using any and all means. Next, try to think about what might be potentially lost when large numbers of people are needlessly dying. What contributions great or modest those lives might have made if they'd been able to survive. I'm not suggesting you should be personally responsible for providing for every person's basic needs, but it doesn't take a great amount of creativity or insight to come up with pragmatic reasons why we might be better off collectively if we work collectively to minimize the number of people around us who are struggling with the basic necessities of life and well-being.
    - kjhkhkj 7y ago
      It always comes down to violence and that argument makes me less sympathetic not more. I'm not interested in paying off what amounts to a rabid unproductive population for some hope of safety. Also, I'm not particularly scared of people that can't manage to find some success in the modern US either. So if you argument is that we should increase taxes so another Mao doesn't exist, I'd rather just kill Mao.
      - ahje 7y ago
        I get what you mean and I do sympathize somewhat. The fact is, however, that modern society doesn't fit everyone. Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle. Simply putting more pressure on those groups will result in the forming of parallel societies and in the long run that means that those parallel societies will form a separate culture and try to secede. If we stop that there will be conflict. History tells us such conflict will be very bloody, no matter who ends up on top. This is a cycle that Western Civilization has dealt with for thousands of years. Personally, I wouldn't mind trying to break it this time.
        autoexec 7y ago
        > Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle. Sometimes (although far less often than some people would like to assume) the person who withdraws is perfectly capable of handling the demands we force on people in our society, but they simply prefer to not participate. These people usually aren't sitting around all day collecting welfare checks, often they are the career homeless or living in isolated shacks in mountains. I can't really fault them if that kind of lifestyle is actually preferable to them.
        ahje 7y ago
        You're right, there are definitely people who choose a specific lifestyle willingly and by all means let them do so. We shouldn't assume it applies to anyone just because it applies to some indivuduals though.
  - WilliamEdward 7y ago
    With organisation and efficiency, providing basic needs to people is way easier than you think. With the wealth of a single rich country, food water and shelter (which are already in excess in rich areas) can be distributed to them. So given how possible it is without any real downside to you, your argument for not helping people essentially boils down to "i don't care about them".
    - kjhkhkj 7y ago
      > So given how possible it is without any real downside to you I would lose money. > boils down to "i don't care about them". Exactly, I don't care about the poor. The only reason we fetishize them is because of Christian influence on society. You go to Japan and Singapore and we always praise them for clean streets. They don't treat the poor well. If we raise taxes I don't think the people I would be giving money to have similar beliefs or values as I do, I don't think we would ever be friends and given the age we live in, I don't think they are part of my community, even if we live in the same country. Given we have so little in common I'm more sympathetic to people living in abject poverty (that don't live in the US) who truly have no chance of succeeding in this world without help.
      - friendlybus 7y ago
        Australia has clean streets as is reasonably christian. If you want the poor to live in hell, move to the UK, the bottom end of the class system is exactly that even with free healthcare. Where do you draw the line on unproductive? Hitler was a bum until he got into politics after trying and failing to 'be productive' in art. Your metric does not protect you from poverty, you can become ill and unproductive yourself, nor does it protect you from Mao/Hitler. They all became "productive" at some point. The poor will always be with us, it's not actually possible to draw the line such that they leave.
      - bufbupa 7y ago
        > I would lose money. I disagree. I'd argue the amount of money you "lose" due to redistribution is actually MUCH less than the additional value you are able to output due to social stability. You cannot be entirely decoupled from your environment - and that environment is rapidly globalizing. That's not to say that balance can't become skewed in the future, or that other communities haven't had bad balances elsewhere otherwise. But, its not a one or the other, its more of a balancing act. Some redistribution is likely good - too much is definitely bad. Specifically, sister comments are arguing redistribution is likely net-positive for everyone at least up to the point of providing basic needs (food, water, shelter) exactly because without those things people become disruptive. To argue that "I/we can fight anyone becoming disruptive" ignores the fact that that fighting takes away from other productive ventures (and not to mention is a wee arrogant). EG: I can make 100$ of value a day if I don't have to constantly fight for me and mine. Forfeiting 30$ of it makes sure that everyone around me is happy enough not to threaten me. If they were starving and began threatening me (or my tools), my output drops to 10$ because i spend most of my efforts in looking out for myself/mine rather than collaborating. I'm now MUCH worse off than if i participated in some well-moderated redistribution. If you disagree with the $100-$10 output reduction, i recommend you go try to do the same job you do now in a war-torn or economically repressed country (odds are you won't be able to find it, or it'll pay much, much less). I believe every developed nation has social safety nets precisely because of the economic sweet spot it enables.
danans 7y ago
> I honestly don't understand why When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society. This is a reason why such crime is strongly correlated with areas of endemic poverty. People have a strong will to survive, one way or another. We can provide them the tools and resources to do so in a prosocial way, or spend the resources defending ourselves against the crime that results from poverty stricken circumstances.
- restalis 7y ago
  "When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society." We should note that there is such things as free shelter and food for homeless and anything above that is "wants" rather than "needs". Taking care of equal opportunity is fair, but doing anything else to accomodate individuals otherwise inclined to crime is not fair at all. "This is a reason why such crime is strongly correlated with areas of endemic poverty." I agree with the correlation, but I go further to say that poverty just accomodates crime (i.e. troublesome individuals having it easier in those areas for encountering less action towards prevention and countering deliquent behavior), and thus is at most an indirect factor to crime, not a direct one.
- kjhkhkj 7y ago
  Japan, the safest country in the world has a GINI coefficient of 0.462. I don't think that's particularly good. > We should provide them the tools and resources to do so in a prosocial way. The reason why you default to this instead of simply defaulting to suggesting crushing any dissent (probably what was the default since the dawn of the modern era, and is the default in countries such as China) is because of moral values you have had instilled in you from your surroundings since birth.
  - 7y ago

duxut_staglatz 7y ago

What is the non-moral argument for "wealth creators" to keep their wealth?

autoexec 7y ago

Are you advocating for people to not have enough to satisfy their most basic needs?

kjhkhkj 7y ago
I'm advocating for not providing it to them.
- autoexec 7y ago
  And you can't think of any reasons outside of ethical arguments why it might be a good idea to make sure everyone has their basic needs met? Really? Have you spent very long trying to come up with one? Here's one to get you started: When a very small number of people have everything and a great many people have nothing, not even what they need to survive, those hungry desperate masses will have nothing to lose and every incentive to take what they need by using any and all means. Next, try to think about what might be potentially lost when large numbers of people are needlessly dying. What contributions great or modest those lives might have made if they'd been able to survive. I'm not suggesting you should be personally responsible for providing for every person's basic needs, but it doesn't take a great amount of creativity or insight to come up with pragmatic reasons why we might be better off collectively if we work collectively to minimize the number of people around us who are struggling with the basic necessities of life and well-being.
  - kjhkhkj 7y ago
    It always comes down to violence and that argument makes me less sympathetic not more. I'm not interested in paying off what amounts to a rabid unproductive population for some hope of safety. Also, I'm not particularly scared of people that can't manage to find some success in the modern US either. So if you argument is that we should increase taxes so another Mao doesn't exist, I'd rather just kill Mao.
    - ahje 7y ago
      I get what you mean and I do sympathize somewhat. The fact is, however, that modern society doesn't fit everyone. Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle. Simply putting more pressure on those groups will result in the forming of parallel societies and in the long run that means that those parallel societies will form a separate culture and try to secede. If we stop that there will be conflict. History tells us such conflict will be very bloody, no matter who ends up on top. This is a cycle that Western Civilization has dealt with for thousands of years. Personally, I wouldn't mind trying to break it this time.
      - autoexec 7y ago
        > Since we won't allow people to withdraw from society that means we're actively forcing people to live a specific way of life that some simply cannot handle. Sometimes (although far less often than some people would like to assume) the person who withdraws is perfectly capable of handling the demands we force on people in our society, but they simply prefer to not participate. These people usually aren't sitting around all day collecting welfare checks, often they are the career homeless or living in isolated shacks in mountains. I can't really fault them if that kind of lifestyle is actually preferable to them.
        ahje 7y ago
        You're right, there are definitely people who choose a specific lifestyle willingly and by all means let them do so. We shouldn't assume it applies to anyone just because it applies to some indivuduals though.
- WilliamEdward 7y ago
  With organisation and efficiency, providing basic needs to people is way easier than you think. With the wealth of a single rich country, food water and shelter (which are already in excess in rich areas) can be distributed to them. So given how possible it is without any real downside to you, your argument for not helping people essentially boils down to "i don't care about them".
  - kjhkhkj 7y ago
    > So given how possible it is without any real downside to you I would lose money. > boils down to "i don't care about them". Exactly, I don't care about the poor. The only reason we fetishize them is because of Christian influence on society. You go to Japan and Singapore and we always praise them for clean streets. They don't treat the poor well. If we raise taxes I don't think the people I would be giving money to have similar beliefs or values as I do, I don't think we would ever be friends and given the age we live in, I don't think they are part of my community, even if we live in the same country. Given we have so little in common I'm more sympathetic to people living in abject poverty (that don't live in the US) who truly have no chance of succeeding in this world without help.
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      Australia has clean streets as is reasonably christian. If you want the poor to live in hell, move to the UK, the bottom end of the class system is exactly that even with free healthcare. Where do you draw the line on unproductive? Hitler was a bum until he got into politics after trying and failing to 'be productive' in art. Your metric does not protect you from poverty, you can become ill and unproductive yourself, nor does it protect you from Mao/Hitler. They all became "productive" at some point. The poor will always be with us, it's not actually possible to draw the line such that they leave.
    - bufbupa 7y ago
      > I would lose money. I disagree. I'd argue the amount of money you "lose" due to redistribution is actually MUCH less than the additional value you are able to output due to social stability. You cannot be entirely decoupled from your environment - and that environment is rapidly globalizing. That's not to say that balance can't become skewed in the future, or that other communities haven't had bad balances elsewhere otherwise. But, its not a one or the other, its more of a balancing act. Some redistribution is likely good - too much is definitely bad. Specifically, sister comments are arguing redistribution is likely net-positive for everyone at least up to the point of providing basic needs (food, water, shelter) exactly because without those things people become disruptive. To argue that "I/we can fight anyone becoming disruptive" ignores the fact that that fighting takes away from other productive ventures (and not to mention is a wee arrogant). EG: I can make 100$ of value a day if I don't have to constantly fight for me and mine. Forfeiting 30$ of it makes sure that everyone around me is happy enough not to threaten me. If they were starving and began threatening me (or my tools), my output drops to 10$ because i spend most of my efforts in looking out for myself/mine rather than collaborating. I'm now MUCH worse off than if i participated in some well-moderated redistribution. If you disagree with the $100-$10 output reduction, i recommend you go try to do the same job you do now in a war-torn or economically repressed country (odds are you won't be able to find it, or it'll pay much, much less). I believe every developed nation has social safety nets precisely because of the economic sweet spot it enables.

danans 7y ago

> I honestly don't understand why When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society. This is a reason why such crime is strongly correlated with areas of endemic poverty. People have a strong will to survive, one way or another. We can provide them the tools and resources to do so in a prosocial way, or spend the resources defending ourselves against the crime that results from poverty stricken circumstances.

restalis 7y ago
"When people are inhibited from meeting their basic needs legally by structural impediments to their progress like severe inequality, they sometimes try to meet their needs via methods that are destructive to society, like crime, whether petty or violent. That behavior is usually damaging to people, property, or the fabric of society." We should note that there is such things as free shelter and food for homeless and anything above that is "wants" rather than "needs". Taking care of equal opportunity is fair, but doing anything else to accomodate individuals otherwise inclined to crime is not fair at all. "This is a reason why such crime is strongly correlated with areas of endemic poverty." I agree with the correlation, but I go further to say that poverty just accomodates crime (i.e. troublesome individuals having it easier in those areas for encountering less action towards prevention and countering deliquent behavior), and thus is at most an indirect factor to crime, not a direct one.
kjhkhkj 7y ago
Japan, the safest country in the world has a GINI coefficient of 0.462. I don't think that's particularly good. > We should provide them the tools and resources to do so in a prosocial way. The reason why you default to this instead of simply defaulting to suggesting crushing any dissent (probably what was the default since the dawn of the modern era, and is the default in countries such as China) is because of moral values you have had instilled in you from your surroundings since birth.
- 7y ago