4 ms·

Sure, and this is why the wealthy always use some of their wealth protecting themselves. In a society where physical violence is an immanent possibility they hi

Sure, and this is why the wealthy always use some of their wealth protecting themselves. In a society where physical violence is an immanent possibility they hire some kind of bodyguards; in a society like ours where the main threats are not physical in nature, they employ lawyers.

kqr 4y ago
...but then why wouldn't the bodyguards just expropriate even greater quantities of that wealth than the wealthy would bestow on them? Somehow, they have to first be convinced that the wealthy has some sort of moral right to their possessions. In other words, they have to play along in the game of wealth distribution.
- joejerryronnie 4y ago
  If the bodyguards had the ability to expropriate greater quantities of wealth, they wouldn’t be bodyguards.
  - kqr 4y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the situation you describe. If you hire 40 goons to guard your furs, those goons could physically overpower you and take your furs for themselves. ...unless you have convinced them of your moral right to those furs. That's literally the only way a large group of people can be "unable" to expropriate them.
    - joejerryronnie 4y ago
      I don’t believe the goons would be operating on the principle of your moral right to the furs, rather they would be taking the more practical approach of believing you can provide them with a better quality of life than the next guy (and that they don’t have the skills to acquire furs on their own)
      - kqr 4y ago
        That means they have to believe one person can single-handedly outperform the rest of society in caring for them. Sure, polymaths exist, but not to that extent.
        DarylZero 4y ago
        That's a pretty absurd thing to say. Each individual bodyguard has no reason to think they would have a higher rank after a coup replacing the "one person." They absolutely don't need to believe that the person at the top is irreplaceable. Sometimes they've lived through a replacement or two!
        kqr 4y ago
        I think we are talking about completely different situations since you bring up "higher rank". I'm talking about an egalitarian society where one person suddenly tries to convince a band of friends that it's in their interest to close themselves off from the rest of society and try to extract value from it without contributing back. There's no "rank" to be gained from refusing to join that band -- quite the opposite! You get to go back to a society that's free from rank.
        DarylZero 4y ago
        "If you hire 40 goons to guard your furs, those goons could physically overpower you and take your furs for themselves." ^ At best they get to split the furs up among 40 people instead of 41. (And if the 1 removed is actually doing any work, there's also more work to assign.) There's little reason for any individual goon to think they're going to get a better deal this way. Let alone enough to compensate for the risk. Removing the guy who takes "the lion's share" produces someone new to take the lion's share. Unless they think they can do away with that entire structure. But then they have to believe they can change everyone's behavior all at once from collectively enforcing inequality to collectively enforcing equality. The kind of social structure that makes this possible is the kind of social structure that the powerful person will make sure can't arise (by controlling information, removing potential leaders, etc.)
- DarylZero 4y ago
  > ...but then why wouldn't the bodyguards just expropriate even greater quantities of that wealth than the wealthy would bestow on them? They would need to organize themselves collectively somehow. > Somehow, they have to first be convinced that the wealthy has some sort of moral right to their possessions. No, they just need to be convinced that they don't have any collective organization. Slaves don't need to be convinced of the morality of their situation, just the hopelessness on it.

kqr 4y ago

...but then why wouldn't the bodyguards just expropriate even greater quantities of that wealth than the wealthy would bestow on them? Somehow, they have to first be convinced that the wealthy has some sort of moral right to their possessions. In other words, they have to play along in the game of wealth distribution.

joejerryronnie 4y ago
If the bodyguards had the ability to expropriate greater quantities of wealth, they wouldn’t be bodyguards.
- kqr 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand the situation you describe. If you hire 40 goons to guard your furs, those goons could physically overpower you and take your furs for themselves. ...unless you have convinced them of your moral right to those furs. That's literally the only way a large group of people can be "unable" to expropriate them.
  - joejerryronnie 4y ago
    I don’t believe the goons would be operating on the principle of your moral right to the furs, rather they would be taking the more practical approach of believing you can provide them with a better quality of life than the next guy (and that they don’t have the skills to acquire furs on their own)
    - kqr 4y ago
      That means they have to believe one person can single-handedly outperform the rest of society in caring for them. Sure, polymaths exist, but not to that extent.
      - DarylZero 4y ago
        That's a pretty absurd thing to say. Each individual bodyguard has no reason to think they would have a higher rank after a coup replacing the "one person." They absolutely don't need to believe that the person at the top is irreplaceable. Sometimes they've lived through a replacement or two!
        kqr 4y ago
        I think we are talking about completely different situations since you bring up "higher rank". I'm talking about an egalitarian society where one person suddenly tries to convince a band of friends that it's in their interest to close themselves off from the rest of society and try to extract value from it without contributing back. There's no "rank" to be gained from refusing to join that band -- quite the opposite! You get to go back to a society that's free from rank.
        DarylZero 4y ago
        "If you hire 40 goons to guard your furs, those goons could physically overpower you and take your furs for themselves." ^ At best they get to split the furs up among 40 people instead of 41. (And if the 1 removed is actually doing any work, there's also more work to assign.) There's little reason for any individual goon to think they're going to get a better deal this way. Let alone enough to compensate for the risk. Removing the guy who takes "the lion's share" produces someone new to take the lion's share. Unless they think they can do away with that entire structure. But then they have to believe they can change everyone's behavior all at once from collectively enforcing inequality to collectively enforcing equality. The kind of social structure that makes this possible is the kind of social structure that the powerful person will make sure can't arise (by controlling information, removing potential leaders, etc.)
DarylZero 4y ago
> ...but then why wouldn't the bodyguards just expropriate even greater quantities of that wealth than the wealthy would bestow on them? They would need to organize themselves collectively somehow. > Somehow, they have to first be convinced that the wealthy has some sort of moral right to their possessions. No, they just need to be convinced that they don't have any collective organization. Slaves don't need to be convinced of the morality of their situation, just the hopelessness on it.