4 ms·

> People get to own stuff Personal possessions, tools to work, a place to live, a pension - yes certainly. However as you get beyond that, the 'natural justic

> People get to own stuff Personal possessions, tools to work, a place to live, a pension - yes certainly. However as you get beyond that, the 'natural justice' breaks down and it becomes more about the system a society uses to decide how its resources are allocated. Under the capitalist system, wealth concentrations are allowed - though this is not a defining feature of the system (with the concept of shareholding, ownership can be split up into many small pieces). However wealth agglomerates very readily in this system, and I'd argue that nowadays wealth concentrations are becoming a serious problem. Under the social ownership model, society (through the state) uses a top down command and control system for allocating resources. We (even the US!) live in a mixed system, where capital or social ownership is used as has found to be most appropriate for each sector. It's roughly 50:50. Notions like 'theft' become meaningless once you are into societal level resource allocation.

_8j50 4y ago
If by law the property is owned by society you are right. But in a free society you get to own stuff. Not society or the government, you. And it is not about resource allocation. If you have wealth the someone generated or traded that wealth for/to you. You exchanged that wealth fairly for something. Taking that from you against your will and outside of explicit taxation authority of the government by the government is theft. You can tax rich people all you want you just can't take their money because you can. Society did not take the risk or make the investment they made and cannot be allowed to consider their wealth its property. > the 'natural justice' breaks down and it becomes more about the system a society uses to decide how its resources are allocated. In a free and just society, society has no say in this matter once weath has been obtained and taxed lawfully. The government is free to own companies and make investments to compete with rich people if it wants to do so. Only a society of criminals and thieves takes from others because ir can. And that is exactly what any country that has tried to take money from people just because it can ended up becoming. Corrupt and completely unjust.
- somewhereoutth 4y ago
  > But in a free society you get to own stuff. Not society or the government, you. Only if the society or government decides to enforce a particular notion of property rights. > If you have wealth the someone generated or traded that wealth for/to you. You exchanged that wealth fairly for something. "Hemedti owns, along with other family members, a gold mining company that operates in lands he seized in Darfur 2017. In 2018, Bashir gave Hemedti permission to mine and sell gold, and operations extended to other gold rich areas in outside Darfur in the south of the country. The gold was exported, according to a 2019 Reuters investigation, circumventing capital controls, and even sold to the Sudanese central bank for a preferential rate. The yield was allegedly used to enrich Hemedti and his family," https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/20/sudan-outsider-hemedti-mohamed-hamdan-dagalo-leader-militia-army-war-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/20/sudan-outsider... Most fortunes are made by theft, deceit, luck, and bloodshed, not by hard work. > once weath has been obtained and taxed lawfully. So let's tax all assets above 2MM at 100%.
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  This is a king you're talking about. There was no free exchange. There was conquest and centuries of theft by thugs in fancy hats.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > You can tax rich people all you want you just can’t take their money because you can. Revolutions against monarchies have disproven this repeatedly. You can just take the wealth of monarchs and their associated hereditary elites “because you can”. Arguably, getting to a negotiated surrender tends to produce better long-term results, but that’s not a “can’t”, in fact, the alternative is a necessary foundation for a negotiated outcome.

_8j50 4y ago

If by law the property is owned by society you are right. But in a free society you get to own stuff. Not society or the government, you. And it is not about resource allocation. If you have wealth the someone generated or traded that wealth for/to you. You exchanged that wealth fairly for something. Taking that from you against your will and outside of explicit taxation authority of the government by the government is theft. You can tax rich people all you want you just can't take their money because you can. Society did not take the risk or make the investment they made and cannot be allowed to consider their wealth its property. > the 'natural justice' breaks down and it becomes more about the system a society uses to decide how its resources are allocated. In a free and just society, society has no say in this matter once weath has been obtained and taxed lawfully. The government is free to own companies and make investments to compete with rich people if it wants to do so. Only a society of criminals and thieves takes from others because ir can. And that is exactly what any country that has tried to take money from people just because it can ended up becoming. Corrupt and completely unjust.

somewhereoutth 4y ago
> But in a free society you get to own stuff. Not society or the government, you. Only if the society or government decides to enforce a particular notion of property rights. > If you have wealth the someone generated or traded that wealth for/to you. You exchanged that wealth fairly for something. "Hemedti owns, along with other family members, a gold mining company that operates in lands he seized in Darfur 2017. In 2018, Bashir gave Hemedti permission to mine and sell gold, and operations extended to other gold rich areas in outside Darfur in the south of the country. The gold was exported, according to a 2019 Reuters investigation, circumventing capital controls, and even sold to the Sudanese central bank for a preferential rate. The yield was allegedly used to enrich Hemedti and his family," https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/20/sudan-outsider-hemedti-mohamed-hamdan-dagalo-leader-militia-army-war-conflict https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/20/sudan-outsider... Most fortunes are made by theft, deceit, luck, and bloodshed, not by hard work. > once weath has been obtained and taxed lawfully. So let's tax all assets above 2MM at 100%.
TheCoelacanth 4y ago
This is a king you're talking about. There was no free exchange. There was conquest and centuries of theft by thugs in fancy hats.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> You can tax rich people all you want you just can’t take their money because you can. Revolutions against monarchies have disproven this repeatedly. You can just take the wealth of monarchs and their associated hereditary elites “because you can”. Arguably, getting to a negotiated surrender tends to produce better long-term results, but that’s not a “can’t”, in fact, the alternative is a necessary foundation for a negotiated outcome.