4 ms·

Let's say a large portion of people do think that it is unfair that they do not have the same amount of wealth as other, smaller group of people. Would you cons

• scarmig 13y ago
  False frame. Wealth--meaning a state-granted monopoly to some amount of capital, and a government promise to perform violence on anyone who disregards that monopoly--is a social contract. People are only talking about renegotiating the exact terms of that contract.
  • baddox 13y ago
    Wealth/property/capital can definitely exist without a government promise to perform violence on violators.
    • scarmig 13y ago
      It definitely can and should, but it looks very different from the way it looks with a government present to perform violence on violators. And even what counts as a violation is very different with a government than without. That's the point--and if it didn't, there'd be no reason to add in the extra administrative costs of government to get the same results. And to be clear: government enforcement of property through violence provides plenty of social value, but those reformulated property rights are socially defined and subject to change, and not natural in any sense.
• baddox 13y ago
  > Would you consider it to be acceptable for the larger group to appropriate smaller group's wealth using that premise? Personally, I don't like it, although I don't claim to be privy to any objective notion of morality.