6 ms·

It seems to me that the left is the side supporting freedom right now. I don't think someone is free if they don't have the material resources to make their own

It seems to me that the left is the side supporting freedom right now. I don't think someone is free if they don't have the material resources to make their own decisions. That's to say nothing of minority rights and ending the war on drugs.

tetrometal 6y ago
Redistribution of wealth is not promotion of liberty. Quite the opposite. Help your fellow man. Do not force others to do it for you at the point of a gun.
- Talanes 6y ago
  The distribution of wealth in the first place is a MUCH greater deprivation of liberty than any redistribution of wealth is. I didn't ask to be born into a world where all of the resources had already been claimed, and asking me to accept it is as much of a pointed gun.
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    Distribution of wealth is a metric, it can neither provide nor deprive of liberty. People protecting their property is an ethical action. People trying to take it from them against their will is not. This can't be reasoned away. Fortunately, we have agency in this world that does not require violence. We can work to improve our lot.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      It can absolutely be reasoned away, pretending it's a absolute fact is dogma, not logic. Look at any of the many shady things Nestle has done with water rights and tell me that's ethical. Pretending that property rights somehow are more real than human need is an unethical action.
      - tetrometal 6y ago
        Re: Nestle - Corporatist structures twisting the state to do their bidding isn't property rights. Property rights and human needs are both real things. I never argued otherwise.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        The enforcement of property rights is literally the reason why the state was implemented. All property that one owns is theirs and not someone else's (or no one's) ultimately because of unjustifiable violence. On this basis, property rights are not much more than a social construct and redistribution is not a problem if society deems that it is favorable to do so.
        crooked-v 6y ago
        One can easily follow this all the way back to medieval Europe, at least in the Western world: early post-Roman European kings were just well-organized warlords, and for a very long time any idea of 'legitimate governance' was just a thin papering-over of the realpolitik involved in armies based on personal loyalty.
        tetrometal 6y ago
        No, like the founders of the USA, I believe in natural rights. The right of people to be secure in their persons and their property being one of those rights. If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        There is no natural right to private property. There is only something close to a right to your own labour. You can make a claim to that spear, of course. It's the product of your labour, you would get to own it, and you made it with freely available resources. One would call this "personal property". However, imagine this scenario. You and I get marooned on an unclaimed island. I claim the island before you get the opportunity. Because of my claim on this land, which now becomes my private property, I force you to give me that spear. This is exactly what happened in all of the globe. People laid claim to land, resources and capital that they did not build, and this is precisely the base of all private property beforethen. If I were to get any object I own, I could trace my ownership of that object to someone that, at some point, violently decided that some land is theirs, and based on the idea that the land is theirs seized the product of the labour of various people who had no choice but to work it or die. So, unless you agree that seizing land that was not yours violently is a reasonable way of generating ownership, you come to the conclusion that the ownership of essentially everything in our society is illegitimate, and can only be motivated for utilitarian reasons. If you do, then you agree that I have a right to your spear :)
    - totony 6y ago
      Is claiming property over things ethical? What inherent human right gives ownership of a resource to someone?
      - artificialLimbs 6y ago
        Traditionally it's been violence, but at some point(s) we decided that wasn't the best course of action. The same can't be said of the government, of course.
        totony 6y ago
        Whatever the way in which something is obtained, it's possession does not seem to me to be an inherent right. My question was aimed at the OP stating as fact that >People protecting their property is an ethical action. Which does not seem true to me.
        tetrometal 6y ago
        If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.
        totony 6y ago
        If you constructed that spear with the only stick on the island, would you still hold that it is ethical for you to keep it for yourself? Can you claim ownership of part (or the whole) of the island?
- harimau777 6y ago
  I don't see any practical difference between not being free to live life on your terms because of a government restriction or because of poverty. The whole purpose of society is that people work together for the common good. When resources are not distributed such that that happens then I don't see anything wrong with redistributing them.
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    Government restriction is aggressive force or the threat thereof. It's unethical. That's the difference. I have no problem with people redistributing wealth. Just don't use aggressive force or the threat of it to do so.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The fact that one has the wealth for it to redistributed to begin with is because of aggressive force or the threat thereof.
      - rtx 6y ago
        You mean to say all of us are thieves, only reason we don't steal is due to threat of violence.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Absolutely not. I am saying that property, as it is right now, is not ethical, as all property in its current state was originally, or derives from something that was originally, stolen. As a result, accepting the current order of property can only be justified by utilitarianism, which also dictates that there is no issue with redistribution if it is helpful. In essence, private property is theft, but there is no feasible alternative (for now), so let's still have private property in a limited sense.
    - thomastjeffery 6y ago
      > Just don't use aggressive force or the threat of it to do so. Is there any other way? I don't know of any. Is it truly moral to reject the only method for equality? It's not like billionaires are going to have someone pointing a gun in their face. They can afford to pay taxes. 50 people literally hold as much wealth as 165 million[1]. Just because poverty isn't aggressive does not mean it is morally superior to taxation. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-richest-people-in-the-us-are-worth-as-much-as-poorest-165-million https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-ri...
- brynjolf 6y ago
  > Do not force others to do it for you at the point of a gun. Quite ironic considering the armed Trump supporters threatening the democracy of the country right now.
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > Help your fellow man. Do not force others to do it for you at the point of a gun. An alternative is that we could stop enforcing property rights at the point of a gun. What is more important; property or people? A selfish person in a society that provides for all may feel slighted but they will live comfortably. A selfish person in a society with strict protection of property can cause another person to die without lifting a finger. Frankly, if it's ethical to allow some individuals to die from neglect (thus losing everything of value) then it's at least as ethical to allow redistribution of some personal property (losing less than everything).
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  From my perspective, literally every word of your argument but one supports a progressive "left" policy. Wealth has been redistributed already. $50 trillion has gone from the poorest 90% to the wealthiest 1%[1]. The one word is "gun". The wealthy don't need firearms to compel the rest of us to work for them. In fact, we beg them for jobs every day. I want to help my fellow man, but I simply don't have the resources. They have all gone to the hands of 50 billionaires[2]. There is a way we can get them back. It doesn't require the point of a gun. It only requires better tax policy. [1] https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/ https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-richest-people-in-the-us-are-worth-as-much-as-poorest-165-million https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-ri...
- macg333 6y ago
  The comment you are replying to says nothing about redistributing wealth...only that people should have the material resources they need. To your point, however, when people are not being payed appropriately for their productivity and executives are making excessive amounts of money than what one could ever need in a lifetime that is the truly fraudulent redistribution of wealth.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
BurningCycles 6y ago
>I don't think someone is free if they don't have the material resources to make their own decisions. So who is the one who is to be forced to provide them with said material resources ? They don't just magically appear. The vast majority of people with material resources have worked very hard to aquire them, very often by working very hard at producing material resources. >That's to say nothing of minority rights What rights are being denied to minorities ? As someone who always saw myself on the left, being a proponent of universal healthcare and focused on class issues, I can no longer recognize myself on the left with them going all in on identity politics, dividing people not by economic class, but by immutable characteristics like race and gender.
- tkzed49 6y ago
  Your first point is a sentiment that I hear very frequently. I think the reaction that your hard-earned material wealth is rightfully yours is completely fair. However, it's worth pointing out that other people may also work hard and still live in poverty. Poverty can be systemic, in that things you're born into can limit your opportunity. Further, people are sometimes faced with unexpected situations such as health problems or pandemics that can make them unable to work. Many people have proposed plans that pay to distribute more wealth to these people by taxing corporate profits and the super wealthy. Some people will make a personal sacrifice to do this, but these people may actually have a better life experience if the majority of those around them are suffering less. > What rights are being denied to minorities ? Until recently, the right to get married or adopt children, among other things. I see your point though: people of all skin colors are theoretically equal in the law. If by "dividing people" by "race and gender" you mean movements for criminal justice reform or to end police brutality toward minorities, I disagree that these movements should be divisive. They become divisive when non-minorities take offense at them, which can happen due to poor messaging from particular individuals. It can happen due to a lack of clarity about the actual goals of the movement. Some more extreme leftists might simply have views that I would also disagree with. But ultimately, "the left" doesn't hate non-minorities. When a movement is focused on minorities, it is to reaffirm that they suffer discrimination which they should not under the law. These movements focus on minorities not to say that others don't struggle too, but to bring attention to societal issues that continue to affect some types of people just because of their "immutable characteristics".
dillondoyle 6y ago
Or you know protesting to stop counting votes!? Talk about freedom. I'm happy we won but my god I don't how we can move forward from here
pnw_hazor 6y ago
The left is abandoning enlightenment principles of individualism in favor of skin color. They define people based on external features rather than their actions or thoughts. That doesn't smell like freedom to me. Ala, I am racist because I am a white person who is not racist.
- mhoad 6y ago
  I don’t know you do I’m not going to pretend to understand your beliefs based on a couple of comments in this thread. Instead I wanted to try and reframe this in a way that is a lot more inline with how many people on the left talk about this issue which is in my mind fundamentally different from how I read your comments. I hope it offers a less inflammatory way to consider what often gets thrown under the umbrella of “identity politics”. When trying to understand the root causes of problems and outcomes in society it’s often helpful to cut the data in certain ways to identify where patterns might be emerging or have existed for a long time. This is basically the attempt to try and apply the scientific method to issues that simply can not be controlled in a lab environment. If you were to take an issue like poverty or incarceration rates for example and then attempted to break those issues down through the context of education for example you might start to notice some interesting correlations. However, there is nothing about this approach that does or should stop researchers from also looking at the data in the context of immutable traits either. A big part of the conversation that is happening around these topics is that certain groups keep appearing again and again in ways that very few other groups do. The follow up question to that is obviously why? This commonly gets reduced to comments such as the one you made like “I am racist because I am a white person who is not racist.” which is not at all what is being said. I too am in the straight white male group and I’m not unaware of how often it can feel like that label is thrown around to the point where it can feel like a dirty word but I would beg you to put aside that initial knee jerk reaction and maybe consider that we as a society (not necessarily you personally) do in fact have some pretty serious issues that are going to overlap with immutable traits like gender, sexuality and race.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Critical race theory and its sister anti-racism reject liberalism by assigning blame, power, guilt, victimhood, privilege, etc., to individuals based on their race. DiAngelo’s thesis [White Fragility]: All white Americans are racist. All white Americans are a product of white supremacy and are actively or unwittingly complicit in maintaining this power structure. If you say you are not racist, that is only proof that you are racist. If you believe you are not racist, same thing. Black people exist in America only to be oppressed by whites. In DiAngelo’s worldview, any progress black Americans have made is because white Americans have allowed such growth as pacifiers. https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/peddling-the-idea-that-all-white-people-are-racist-for-profit/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/peddling-the-idea-that-all-whi...

tetrometal 6y ago

Redistribution of wealth is not promotion of liberty. Quite the opposite. Help your fellow man. Do not force others to do it for you at the point of a gun.

Talanes 6y ago
The distribution of wealth in the first place is a MUCH greater deprivation of liberty than any redistribution of wealth is. I didn't ask to be born into a world where all of the resources had already been claimed, and asking me to accept it is as much of a pointed gun.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  Distribution of wealth is a metric, it can neither provide nor deprive of liberty. People protecting their property is an ethical action. People trying to take it from them against their will is not. This can't be reasoned away. Fortunately, we have agency in this world that does not require violence. We can work to improve our lot.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    It can absolutely be reasoned away, pretending it's a absolute fact is dogma, not logic. Look at any of the many shady things Nestle has done with water rights and tell me that's ethical. Pretending that property rights somehow are more real than human need is an unethical action.
    - tetrometal 6y ago
      Re: Nestle - Corporatist structures twisting the state to do their bidding isn't property rights. Property rights and human needs are both real things. I never argued otherwise.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The enforcement of property rights is literally the reason why the state was implemented. All property that one owns is theirs and not someone else's (or no one's) ultimately because of unjustifiable violence. On this basis, property rights are not much more than a social construct and redistribution is not a problem if society deems that it is favorable to do so.
        crooked-v 6y ago
        One can easily follow this all the way back to medieval Europe, at least in the Western world: early post-Roman European kings were just well-organized warlords, and for a very long time any idea of 'legitimate governance' was just a thin papering-over of the realpolitik involved in armies based on personal loyalty.
        tetrometal 6y ago
        No, like the founders of the USA, I believe in natural rights. The right of people to be secure in their persons and their property being one of those rights. If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        There is no natural right to private property. There is only something close to a right to your own labour. You can make a claim to that spear, of course. It's the product of your labour, you would get to own it, and you made it with freely available resources. One would call this "personal property". However, imagine this scenario. You and I get marooned on an unclaimed island. I claim the island before you get the opportunity. Because of my claim on this land, which now becomes my private property, I force you to give me that spear. This is exactly what happened in all of the globe. People laid claim to land, resources and capital that they did not build, and this is precisely the base of all private property beforethen. If I were to get any object I own, I could trace my ownership of that object to someone that, at some point, violently decided that some land is theirs, and based on the idea that the land is theirs seized the product of the labour of various people who had no choice but to work it or die. So, unless you agree that seizing land that was not yours violently is a reasonable way of generating ownership, you come to the conclusion that the ownership of essentially everything in our society is illegitimate, and can only be motivated for utilitarian reasons. If you do, then you agree that I have a right to your spear :)
  - totony 6y ago
    Is claiming property over things ethical? What inherent human right gives ownership of a resource to someone?
    - artificialLimbs 6y ago
      Traditionally it's been violence, but at some point(s) we decided that wasn't the best course of action. The same can't be said of the government, of course.
      - totony 6y ago
        Whatever the way in which something is obtained, it's possession does not seem to me to be an inherent right. My question was aimed at the OP stating as fact that >People protecting their property is an ethical action. Which does not seem true to me.
        tetrometal 6y ago
        If you and I get marooned on an unclaimed island and I construct a spear for hunting crabs, you have no right to my spear. I am within my natural rights to defend my property should you try to take it by force.
        totony 6y ago
        If you constructed that spear with the only stick on the island, would you still hold that it is ethical for you to keep it for yourself? Can you claim ownership of part (or the whole) of the island?
harimau777 6y ago
I don't see any practical difference between not being free to live life on your terms because of a government restriction or because of poverty. The whole purpose of society is that people work together for the common good. When resources are not distributed such that that happens then I don't see anything wrong with redistributing them.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  Government restriction is aggressive force or the threat thereof. It's unethical. That's the difference. I have no problem with people redistributing wealth. Just don't use aggressive force or the threat of it to do so.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    The fact that one has the wealth for it to redistributed to begin with is because of aggressive force or the threat thereof.
    - rtx 6y ago
      You mean to say all of us are thieves, only reason we don't steal is due to threat of violence.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Absolutely not. I am saying that property, as it is right now, is not ethical, as all property in its current state was originally, or derives from something that was originally, stolen. As a result, accepting the current order of property can only be justified by utilitarianism, which also dictates that there is no issue with redistribution if it is helpful. In essence, private property is theft, but there is no feasible alternative (for now), so let's still have private property in a limited sense.
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    > Just don't use aggressive force or the threat of it to do so. Is there any other way? I don't know of any. Is it truly moral to reject the only method for equality? It's not like billionaires are going to have someone pointing a gun in their face. They can afford to pay taxes. 50 people literally hold as much wealth as 165 million[1]. Just because poverty isn't aggressive does not mean it is morally superior to taxation. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-richest-people-in-the-us-are-worth-as-much-as-poorest-165-million https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-ri...
brynjolf 6y ago
> Do not force others to do it for you at the point of a gun. Quite ironic considering the armed Trump supporters threatening the democracy of the country right now.
benlivengood 6y ago
> Help your fellow man. Do not force others to do it for you at the point of a gun. An alternative is that we could stop enforcing property rights at the point of a gun. What is more important; property or people? A selfish person in a society that provides for all may feel slighted but they will live comfortably. A selfish person in a society with strict protection of property can cause another person to die without lifting a finger. Frankly, if it's ethical to allow some individuals to die from neglect (thus losing everything of value) then it's at least as ethical to allow redistribution of some personal property (losing less than everything).
thomastjeffery 6y ago
From my perspective, literally every word of your argument but one supports a progressive "left" policy. Wealth has been redistributed already. $50 trillion has gone from the poorest 90% to the wealthiest 1%[1]. The one word is "gun". The wealthy don't need firearms to compel the rest of us to work for them. In fact, we beg them for jobs every day. I want to help my fellow man, but I simply don't have the resources. They have all gone to the hands of 50 billionaires[2]. There is a way we can get them back. It doesn't require the point of a gun. It only requires better tax policy. [1] https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/ https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-ameri... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-richest-people-in-the-us-are-worth-as-much-as-poorest-165-million https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/top-50-ri...
macg333 6y ago
The comment you are replying to says nothing about redistributing wealth...only that people should have the material resources they need. To your point, however, when people are not being payed appropriately for their productivity and executives are making excessive amounts of money than what one could ever need in a lifetime that is the truly fraudulent redistribution of wealth.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

BurningCycles 6y ago

>I don't think someone is free if they don't have the material resources to make their own decisions. So who is the one who is to be forced to provide them with said material resources ? They don't just magically appear. The vast majority of people with material resources have worked very hard to aquire them, very often by working very hard at producing material resources. >That's to say nothing of minority rights What rights are being denied to minorities ? As someone who always saw myself on the left, being a proponent of universal healthcare and focused on class issues, I can no longer recognize myself on the left with them going all in on identity politics, dividing people not by economic class, but by immutable characteristics like race and gender.

tkzed49 6y ago
Your first point is a sentiment that I hear very frequently. I think the reaction that your hard-earned material wealth is rightfully yours is completely fair. However, it's worth pointing out that other people may also work hard and still live in poverty. Poverty can be systemic, in that things you're born into can limit your opportunity. Further, people are sometimes faced with unexpected situations such as health problems or pandemics that can make them unable to work. Many people have proposed plans that pay to distribute more wealth to these people by taxing corporate profits and the super wealthy. Some people will make a personal sacrifice to do this, but these people may actually have a better life experience if the majority of those around them are suffering less. > What rights are being denied to minorities ? Until recently, the right to get married or adopt children, among other things. I see your point though: people of all skin colors are theoretically equal in the law. If by "dividing people" by "race and gender" you mean movements for criminal justice reform or to end police brutality toward minorities, I disagree that these movements should be divisive. They become divisive when non-minorities take offense at them, which can happen due to poor messaging from particular individuals. It can happen due to a lack of clarity about the actual goals of the movement. Some more extreme leftists might simply have views that I would also disagree with. But ultimately, "the left" doesn't hate non-minorities. When a movement is focused on minorities, it is to reaffirm that they suffer discrimination which they should not under the law. These movements focus on minorities not to say that others don't struggle too, but to bring attention to societal issues that continue to affect some types of people just because of their "immutable characteristics".

dillondoyle 6y ago

Or you know protesting to stop counting votes!? Talk about freedom. I'm happy we won but my god I don't how we can move forward from here

pnw_hazor 6y ago

The left is abandoning enlightenment principles of individualism in favor of skin color. They define people based on external features rather than their actions or thoughts. That doesn't smell like freedom to me. Ala, I am racist because I am a white person who is not racist.

mhoad 6y ago
I don’t know you do I’m not going to pretend to understand your beliefs based on a couple of comments in this thread. Instead I wanted to try and reframe this in a way that is a lot more inline with how many people on the left talk about this issue which is in my mind fundamentally different from how I read your comments. I hope it offers a less inflammatory way to consider what often gets thrown under the umbrella of “identity politics”. When trying to understand the root causes of problems and outcomes in society it’s often helpful to cut the data in certain ways to identify where patterns might be emerging or have existed for a long time. This is basically the attempt to try and apply the scientific method to issues that simply can not be controlled in a lab environment. If you were to take an issue like poverty or incarceration rates for example and then attempted to break those issues down through the context of education for example you might start to notice some interesting correlations. However, there is nothing about this approach that does or should stop researchers from also looking at the data in the context of immutable traits either. A big part of the conversation that is happening around these topics is that certain groups keep appearing again and again in ways that very few other groups do. The follow up question to that is obviously why? This commonly gets reduced to comments such as the one you made like “I am racist because I am a white person who is not racist.” which is not at all what is being said. I too am in the straight white male group and I’m not unaware of how often it can feel like that label is thrown around to the point where it can feel like a dirty word but I would beg you to put aside that initial knee jerk reaction and maybe consider that we as a society (not necessarily you personally) do in fact have some pretty serious issues that are going to overlap with immutable traits like gender, sexuality and race.
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Critical race theory and its sister anti-racism reject liberalism by assigning blame, power, guilt, victimhood, privilege, etc., to individuals based on their race. DiAngelo’s thesis [White Fragility]: All white Americans are racist. All white Americans are a product of white supremacy and are actively or unwittingly complicit in maintaining this power structure. If you say you are not racist, that is only proof that you are racist. If you believe you are not racist, same thing. Black people exist in America only to be oppressed by whites. In DiAngelo’s worldview, any progress black Americans have made is because white Americans have allowed such growth as pacifiers. https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/peddling-the-idea-that-all-white-people-are-racist-for-profit/ https://nypost.com/2020/08/06/peddling-the-idea-that-all-whi...