5 ms·

It is seen by many as 'theft'. I worked for this, it is mine, and now it is being 'taken' and given to those that provided less obvious value. Its easy to see t

It is seen by many as 'theft'. I worked for this, it is mine, and now it is being 'taken' and given to those that provided less obvious value. Its easy to see the issue many have. The argument is really around what denotes 'value' to the arguer. The devide is that some see value as easily tallied by value of work (capitolism), some feel that each human is equally 'valuable' reguardless of economic input. The problem is that both sides are correct in some sense.

rebuilder 7y ago
I'm not sure most people on any side of this debate would agree with that assessment. IMO the more important disagreement is whether or not laissez-faire economics (for lack of a better term) will yield the best results for the most people, or whether some systemic inequalities exist that could be remedied to yield an overall increase in welfare.
- CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
  Does laissez-faire involve tax financed institutions such as a monopoly on violence to uphold a commonly decided rule of law, or would even such institutions be determined by the market? More to the point, who even decides the definition of “property” in a laissez-faire economy?
telesilla 7y ago
These same people conveniently forget that their wealth is provided in some part through social investment in them (public funding of education, security, transport, business-safe laws etc), and not acknowledging this is effectively 'pulling the ladder up behind them'
- jtbayly 7y ago
  Things that everybody else also got.
  - kijin 7y ago
    I dunno, the quality of public education varies significantly from neighborhood to neighborhood. So does security. Equality of opportunity is just an ideal that we occasionally strive for. I'm glad that we strive for it, but we can't take it for granted in an argument about actual policies.
  - telesilla 7y ago
    Globally?
    - jtbayly 7y ago
      That obviously isn’t what I meant. And it has no bearing on the discussion. If your proposal is to tax me and not only give the other citizens of my country a UBI, but also give everybody else in the world a UBI, I’ll just leave you to make it happen.

rebuilder 7y ago

I'm not sure most people on any side of this debate would agree with that assessment. IMO the more important disagreement is whether or not laissez-faire economics (for lack of a better term) will yield the best results for the most people, or whether some systemic inequalities exist that could be remedied to yield an overall increase in welfare.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
Does laissez-faire involve tax financed institutions such as a monopoly on violence to uphold a commonly decided rule of law, or would even such institutions be determined by the market? More to the point, who even decides the definition of “property” in a laissez-faire economy?

telesilla 7y ago

These same people conveniently forget that their wealth is provided in some part through social investment in them (public funding of education, security, transport, business-safe laws etc), and not acknowledging this is effectively 'pulling the ladder up behind them'

jtbayly 7y ago
Things that everybody else also got.
- kijin 7y ago
  I dunno, the quality of public education varies significantly from neighborhood to neighborhood. So does security. Equality of opportunity is just an ideal that we occasionally strive for. I'm glad that we strive for it, but we can't take it for granted in an argument about actual policies.
- telesilla 7y ago
  Globally?
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    That obviously isn’t what I meant. And it has no bearing on the discussion. If your proposal is to tax me and not only give the other citizens of my country a UBI, but also give everybody else in the world a UBI, I’ll just leave you to make it happen.