5 ms·

Government restriction is aggressive force or the threat thereof. It's unethical. That's the difference. I have no problem with people redistributing wealth. J

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...
- tetrometal 6y ago
  Of course there are other ways. I don't understand this myopic perspective. Society has a problem: poor people exist. There are a UNIVERSE of possible solutions. Charitable organizations, churches, help from family - the list goes on and on and on. Yet here you are, saying "I can't think of anything we can possibly do except point guns at not-poor people, take their money, and give it to poor people." The crazy thing is that I believe you when you say it; I think you're saying it in good faith! I just can't fathom how you reached that conclusion. It's utterly nonsensical to me on its face.
  - thomastjeffery 6y ago
    > Charitable organizations, churches, help from family Those "solutions" are as old as the problem. They didn't work. > I can't think of anything we can possibly do except point guns at not-poor people, take their money, and give it to poor people. The gun pointing happens as a last resort, not first. What you are telling me is that we should just wait around for the greediest people in the world to charitably give enough back. That's just not going to happen. We all know it. So what you are telling me is that we should just continue the status quo, because doing something about it is technically immoral. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 50 Americans collect as much wealth as the poorest 165 million. Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty[1]. Is that not immoral? Approximately 14.3 million households had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources[1]. Is that not immoral? You are so obsessed with the threat to inconvenience people who have more wealth than you will ever see that you are willing to keep millions in poverty. Get off your high horse. Children are starving. [1] https://www.povertyusa.org/facts https://www.povertyusa.org/facts

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...

tetrometal 6y ago
Of course there are other ways. I don't understand this myopic perspective. Society has a problem: poor people exist. There are a UNIVERSE of possible solutions. Charitable organizations, churches, help from family - the list goes on and on and on. Yet here you are, saying "I can't think of anything we can possibly do except point guns at not-poor people, take their money, and give it to poor people." The crazy thing is that I believe you when you say it; I think you're saying it in good faith! I just can't fathom how you reached that conclusion. It's utterly nonsensical to me on its face.
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > Charitable organizations, churches, help from family Those "solutions" are as old as the problem. They didn't work. > I can't think of anything we can possibly do except point guns at not-poor people, take their money, and give it to poor people. The gun pointing happens as a last resort, not first. What you are telling me is that we should just wait around for the greediest people in the world to charitably give enough back. That's just not going to happen. We all know it. So what you are telling me is that we should just continue the status quo, because doing something about it is technically immoral. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 50 Americans collect as much wealth as the poorest 165 million. Tens of millions of Americans are in poverty[1]. Is that not immoral? Approximately 14.3 million households had difficulty providing enough food for all their members due to a lack of resources[1]. Is that not immoral? You are so obsessed with the threat to inconvenience people who have more wealth than you will ever see that you are willing to keep millions in poverty. Get off your high horse. Children are starving. [1] https://www.povertyusa.org/facts https://www.povertyusa.org/facts