6 ms·

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want soci

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

notatoad 6y ago
>That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. yes, let's do that. we don't - there has never been such thing as a free society, and we don't live in one now. all society has rules - without rules, it's not a society anymore. Let's once and for all take away this absurd escape-hatch where one can avoid defending an idea on it's merits by claiming it restricts their freedom. If we truly lived in a free society, we wouldn't have estate law at all - wheover kills you should simply claim all your property.
- throwaway987978 6y ago
  100% agree. The only free society is a society of 1.
jakeva 6y ago
In a "free" society, what basis does society have to say how much stuff you owe based on your income each year? Or that you have to keep your sidewalk clear of snow each winter? Or that you can't just leave your car wherever you want? What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime? If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.
- mstratman 6y ago
  Limits on property ownership are a very different topic than taxation or crime. They are treated fundamentally different in law, economics, and philosophy.
  - chki 6y ago
    Taxation is basically a limit of property ownership. The inheritance tax comes to mind (also an estate tax although those are not well established everywhere in the world) but also income-taxation limits what you can earn as a person and therefore what you can own. And taxation is also not the only parallel one could draw. For example, limits on the usage of you property is also highly regulated in various ways. Usage and ownership are very closely related.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  You say that like that as though you're not just uncharitably describing what's basically a libertarian paradise. There are tons of people who want exactly what you find so abhorrent.
  - jakeva 6y ago
    You're making an assumption I ascribe any feeling whatsoever to what I described when in fact I was extending the comment to include things most societies currently do have a say in, without emotion. For all you know I am a libertarian making the argument for a libertarian paradise.
  - refurb 6y ago
    He's not saying that in the least. This is a conversation specifically about inheritance taxes. Where do you get libertarian paradise from? Plenty of countries don't have an inheritance tax and aren't libertarian in the least.
sandgiant 6y ago
Good luck doing business without society.
- jopsen 6y ago
  On the upside: software would have no bugs :D
nugget 6y ago
Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth? The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering and maximizes human opportunities" which leaves policy-makers with a broad canvas. Personally I don't think this is a particularly moral issue, except near the extremes; but even if it were, the answer isn't what you're hoping for.
- refurb 6y ago
  Your definition of freedom is just anarchy How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"? That's not what the OP said at all.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sofal 6y ago
    It was just a bald assertion that one should have freedom to do what they want because we live in a free society. If we live in a free society then we should be free to do what we want to do, because otherwise we wouldn't live in a free society. Any argument that justifies itself merely with "because freedom" can be used to argue for complete anarchy. After all, "rule" of any sort inherently implies restrictions on freedom. And if restrictions on freedom are inherently bad, then "rule" of any sort must be bad by definition.
nicoburns 6y ago
Society is the only thing enforcing the private property laws that allow you to amass stuff in the first place. If society wasn't involved there would be nothing to stop anyone simply taking your stuff. Society enforces such rules because they are conducive to a good society for everyone. It has every right to stop enforcing them at the point at which that ceases to be the case. > That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. This is exactly what we should do. There is no such thing as complete freedom. All freedoms come at the price of restricting some other freedom.
- tathougies 6y ago
  The only thing enforcing private property is the threat of violence if you violate someone else's property. This enforcement can come via a socialized system like government and this is preferable. But you are delusional to think the truly rich need to rely on government. Without 'society' you get survival of the richest and most violent instead of just wealth inequality
  - slickrick216 6y ago
    “Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”
  - nnt38 6y ago
    Wouldn't the rich not be rich anymore without a government giving their money value?
    - scsilver 6y ago
      The rich have plenty of assets
      - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
        Without a government, they have what they can keep.
MisterBastahrd 6y ago
Why should your kid have dominion over mine just because you became a billionaire? No society is truly free. That's antithetical the the idea of a society.
tasty_freeze 6y ago
Have you ever played monopoly? We are far along the path to the same type of conclusion -- one or a few people owning everything and setting all the rules, with everyone else living marginally and unable to avoid incurring further wealth extraction from the winners of the game. The government is there, supposedly, for the benefit of a healthy society, not to enforce some capitalists' idea of what they think is fair. It is the same reason why the rules change for a company when it becomes a monopoly (there is that word again). "I want society out of my business." This sounds like the libertarian mindset that takes for granted all the benefits that come from being a business operating in a healthy society. Although worker productivity has gone up tremendously over the past 40 years, nearly all of the incremental gains in wealth has accrued to a small fraction of the population. Yet that form of unfairness doesn't ruffle the people who think taxation is theft.
opportune 6y ago
I don’t see how a society with dynastic wealth is free, especially when that dynastic wealth further accumulates. The problem for me is not even that people amass such large amounts of money (do I think we should have some higher tax brackets on capital gains, sure) but that generational wealth creates power and economic structures which hurt the rest of us and ultimately impinges many more peoples’ freedom

notatoad 6y ago

>That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. yes, let's do that. we don't - there has never been such thing as a free society, and we don't live in one now. all society has rules - without rules, it's not a society anymore. Let's once and for all take away this absurd escape-hatch where one can avoid defending an idea on it's merits by claiming it restricts their freedom. If we truly lived in a free society, we wouldn't have estate law at all - wheover kills you should simply claim all your property.

throwaway987978 6y ago
100% agree. The only free society is a society of 1.

jakeva 6y ago

In a "free" society, what basis does society have to say how much stuff you owe based on your income each year? Or that you have to keep your sidewalk clear of snow each winter? Or that you can't just leave your car wherever you want? What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime? If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.

mstratman 6y ago
Limits on property ownership are a very different topic than taxation or crime. They are treated fundamentally different in law, economics, and philosophy.
- chki 6y ago
  Taxation is basically a limit of property ownership. The inheritance tax comes to mind (also an estate tax although those are not well established everywhere in the world) but also income-taxation limits what you can earn as a person and therefore what you can own. And taxation is also not the only parallel one could draw. For example, limits on the usage of you property is also highly regulated in various ways. Usage and ownership are very closely related.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
You say that like that as though you're not just uncharitably describing what's basically a libertarian paradise. There are tons of people who want exactly what you find so abhorrent.
- jakeva 6y ago
  You're making an assumption I ascribe any feeling whatsoever to what I described when in fact I was extending the comment to include things most societies currently do have a say in, without emotion. For all you know I am a libertarian making the argument for a libertarian paradise.
- refurb 6y ago
  He's not saying that in the least. This is a conversation specifically about inheritance taxes. Where do you get libertarian paradise from? Plenty of countries don't have an inheritance tax and aren't libertarian in the least.

sandgiant 6y ago

Good luck doing business without society.

jopsen 6y ago
On the upside: software would have no bugs :D

nugget 6y ago

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth? The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering and maximizes human opportunities" which leaves policy-makers with a broad canvas. Personally I don't think this is a particularly moral issue, except near the extremes; but even if it were, the answer isn't what you're hoping for.

refurb 6y ago
Your definition of freedom is just anarchy How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"? That's not what the OP said at all.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sofal 6y ago
  It was just a bald assertion that one should have freedom to do what they want because we live in a free society. If we live in a free society then we should be free to do what we want to do, because otherwise we wouldn't live in a free society. Any argument that justifies itself merely with "because freedom" can be used to argue for complete anarchy. After all, "rule" of any sort inherently implies restrictions on freedom. And if restrictions on freedom are inherently bad, then "rule" of any sort must be bad by definition.

nicoburns 6y ago

Society is the only thing enforcing the private property laws that allow you to amass stuff in the first place. If society wasn't involved there would be nothing to stop anyone simply taking your stuff. Society enforces such rules because they are conducive to a good society for everyone. It has every right to stop enforcing them at the point at which that ceases to be the case. > That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. This is exactly what we should do. There is no such thing as complete freedom. All freedoms come at the price of restricting some other freedom.

tathougies 6y ago
The only thing enforcing private property is the threat of violence if you violate someone else's property. This enforcement can come via a socialized system like government and this is preferable. But you are delusional to think the truly rich need to rely on government. Without 'society' you get survival of the richest and most violent instead of just wealth inequality
- slickrick216 6y ago
  “Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”
- nnt38 6y ago
  Wouldn't the rich not be rich anymore without a government giving their money value?
  - scsilver 6y ago
    The rich have plenty of assets
    - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
      Without a government, they have what they can keep.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago

Why should your kid have dominion over mine just because you became a billionaire? No society is truly free. That's antithetical the the idea of a society.

tasty_freeze 6y ago

Have you ever played monopoly? We are far along the path to the same type of conclusion -- one or a few people owning everything and setting all the rules, with everyone else living marginally and unable to avoid incurring further wealth extraction from the winners of the game. The government is there, supposedly, for the benefit of a healthy society, not to enforce some capitalists' idea of what they think is fair. It is the same reason why the rules change for a company when it becomes a monopoly (there is that word again). "I want society out of my business." This sounds like the libertarian mindset that takes for granted all the benefits that come from being a business operating in a healthy society. Although worker productivity has gone up tremendously over the past 40 years, nearly all of the incremental gains in wealth has accrued to a small fraction of the population. Yet that form of unfairness doesn't ruffle the people who think taxation is theft.

opportune 6y ago

I don’t see how a society with dynastic wealth is free, especially when that dynastic wealth further accumulates. The problem for me is not even that people amass such large amounts of money (do I think we should have some higher tax brackets on capital gains, sure) but that generational wealth creates power and economic structures which hurt the rest of us and ultimately impinges many more peoples’ freedom