7 ms·

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.

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.