5 ms·

I think you can question the efficiency and ethics of a system where wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private ent

I think you can question the efficiency and ethics of a system where wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities, instead of being managed in a more collective or systematic way that might address social issues more directly or equitably. Should wealthy individuals that have often accumulated wealth at the detriment of others be the power that decides which causes are worthy of support, based on their personal preferences? It seems it could be better to develop a system where resources might be distributed in a more equitable or communal manner from the outset, reducing the need for later redistribution through individualized philanthropy and ideologies like effective altruism.

waveBidder 3y ago
This is one of those yes and kind of points. Talking about The Revolution doesn't put food on people's plates.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
digital-cygnet 3y ago
I think this is exactly what the GP means when they discuss donating to political causes. If you can donate your $100 to buy a week's worth of food for a family in need, or donate it to a political campaign that credibly promises to end hunger in your country, it's not immediately obvious which is more effective (but the latter tends to be discounted by EA types, especially early in the history of the movement). Perhaps the most effective altruism of all is that which makes Effective Altruism (TM) redundant.
rootusrootus 3y ago
So, communism? Or something else along those same lines? This is not a new argument. > more equitable or communal manner Who, exactly, are we empowering to make that decision?
- didibus 3y ago
  > So, communism No, that would be another instance of a similar pattern of "pool all the money and put it in the hand of a select few that gets to decide if, where and how to redistribute it". I'm talking of a system that wouldn't first accumulate maximum wealth, and then have a select few decide where to distribute it. I'm not sure what system can best achieve this, but it does feel like it be better to have a system that's designed to make it so money is distributed more evenly from the outset, and where distribution decisions are done more communally.
cuu508 3y ago
Something like, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  I like to term my database setups as "to each according to his needs"-"from each according to his ability" replication.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities Private entities don't "control redistribution" - they spend money. "Redistribution" implies a parental "you all get the same pocket money" approach, instead of "I'll spend money on things I value, and receive it based on what others value". There is no "collective way" - even with a government, it's relatively few people (voted in, not having proven their effectiveness by selling something lots of people value) making the decisions. Charities, where people choose to help others, are a great option. There's no need to reduce the need for them. They also aren't "redistributing". Having said all that, the government takes almost half your cash before you get it, and taxes you when you spend it as well, and taxes imports you buy as well, and taxes the fuel needed to move goods around, and the businesses you buy from in multiple ways, and if you're paid a salary your business also pays taxes on you as you're an employee. This is a pretty "we'll take your stuff" system already. The answer may not be to give them more stuff.
- didibus 3y ago
  My point isn't to advocate for increased taxes, but to address how we initially distribute wealth to mitigate inequality from the start. This might include revising corporate practices, improving wages, and enhancing public services, leading to a society where wealth does not concentrate so heavily in the first place. Democratic systems do provide a communal approach to resource allocation, which tends to be more accountable than private philanthropy. It's worth pondering whether funneling donations to government budgets, which are subject to public scrutiny and democratic processes, might actually achieve greater societal benefit. However, the crux of my argument is to create conditions where neither heavy taxation nor philanthropy are as necessary. Consider environments with competitive markets, strong worker protections, and cultural stances against excessive wealth accumulation. These tend to foster a robust middle class, minimizing the need for later redistribution.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > The answer may not be to give them more stuff. Is the answer to let people like Musk and Gates get so much stuff that they can pretty much do whatever they want? No one elected them. If you are incredibly successful does that mean you get to make more money than you would ever need and use it to do whatever you want? At what point are collective needs more important than the freedom of the individual to keep making more money? These are all questions that are waved away by nature of 'they earned it'. But so what? They are particularly good at one specific thing (making money, or being lucky, or both) -- does that mean they deserve the power that one gets with having effectively infinite capital in a capitalist society? I honestly don't know, but I heavily lean towards 'no'.

waveBidder 3y ago

This is one of those yes and kind of points. Talking about The Revolution doesn't put food on people's plates.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

digital-cygnet 3y ago

I think this is exactly what the GP means when they discuss donating to political causes. If you can donate your $100 to buy a week's worth of food for a family in need, or donate it to a political campaign that credibly promises to end hunger in your country, it's not immediately obvious which is more effective (but the latter tends to be discounted by EA types, especially early in the history of the movement). Perhaps the most effective altruism of all is that which makes Effective Altruism (TM) redundant.

rootusrootus 3y ago

So, communism? Or something else along those same lines? This is not a new argument. > more equitable or communal manner Who, exactly, are we empowering to make that decision?

didibus 3y ago
> So, communism No, that would be another instance of a similar pattern of "pool all the money and put it in the hand of a select few that gets to decide if, where and how to redistribute it". I'm talking of a system that wouldn't first accumulate maximum wealth, and then have a select few decide where to distribute it. I'm not sure what system can best achieve this, but it does feel like it be better to have a system that's designed to make it so money is distributed more evenly from the outset, and where distribution decisions are done more communally.

cuu508 3y ago

Something like, from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

robertlagrant 3y ago
I like to term my database setups as "to each according to his needs"-"from each according to his ability" replication.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> wealth accumulation and redistribution are largely controlled by individuals or private entities Private entities don't "control redistribution" - they spend money. "Redistribution" implies a parental "you all get the same pocket money" approach, instead of "I'll spend money on things I value, and receive it based on what others value". There is no "collective way" - even with a government, it's relatively few people (voted in, not having proven their effectiveness by selling something lots of people value) making the decisions. Charities, where people choose to help others, are a great option. There's no need to reduce the need for them. They also aren't "redistributing". Having said all that, the government takes almost half your cash before you get it, and taxes you when you spend it as well, and taxes imports you buy as well, and taxes the fuel needed to move goods around, and the businesses you buy from in multiple ways, and if you're paid a salary your business also pays taxes on you as you're an employee. This is a pretty "we'll take your stuff" system already. The answer may not be to give them more stuff.

didibus 3y ago
My point isn't to advocate for increased taxes, but to address how we initially distribute wealth to mitigate inequality from the start. This might include revising corporate practices, improving wages, and enhancing public services, leading to a society where wealth does not concentrate so heavily in the first place. Democratic systems do provide a communal approach to resource allocation, which tends to be more accountable than private philanthropy. It's worth pondering whether funneling donations to government budgets, which are subject to public scrutiny and democratic processes, might actually achieve greater societal benefit. However, the crux of my argument is to create conditions where neither heavy taxation nor philanthropy are as necessary. Consider environments with competitive markets, strong worker protections, and cultural stances against excessive wealth accumulation. These tend to foster a robust middle class, minimizing the need for later redistribution.
Eisenstein 3y ago
> The answer may not be to give them more stuff. Is the answer to let people like Musk and Gates get so much stuff that they can pretty much do whatever they want? No one elected them. If you are incredibly successful does that mean you get to make more money than you would ever need and use it to do whatever you want? At what point are collective needs more important than the freedom of the individual to keep making more money? These are all questions that are waved away by nature of 'they earned it'. But so what? They are particularly good at one specific thing (making money, or being lucky, or both) -- does that mean they deserve the power that one gets with having effectively infinite capital in a capitalist society? I honestly don't know, but I heavily lean towards 'no'.