Wealth Redistribution

[ThePainefulTruth]

Socialists use compassion (a religious concept) as the reason to forcibly redistribute wealth. But I think that's more politics than compassion. If we're going to be uniform in our compassion, that redistribution would have to take place world wide. Is there anyone in the US, other than the voluntarily poor (drop outs) who wouldn't be giving up a major portion of their incomes to others outside the US.

The average income in the US is $27K*, which does not include government aid in the form of: housing, furniture, appliances, utilities, transportation, healthcare and food stamps, which could easily bump that up to $30K.

The average global income, $3K, does NOT usually include any of the above US benefits. So the average American would be redistributing in cash and benefits $27K, raising the global average to what, guessing $3.5K...OK $4K.

So now what, put it to a vote? Keep in mind that the vote must necessarily be worldwide. Democracy would truly be compassionate then, don't you think?

Wouldn't it be better to promote economic freedom (capitalism with legal oversight) around the world, which rising tide would raise all boats.

* Av. income for US by race:
Whites $31K
Asians $30K
Blacks $18K
Hispanics $15K[/code]

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

Note.

This topic may want to take into account issues such as "black money" and "moral money" and the fact that some (few?) people simply fail to have anything to do with money and thus need people (psychiatric support?) to do basic things for them such as buying the food and paying basic bills. Such is this crazy/"non-square" World.

By the way, you can also check transactions "moral value" "from one point of view" by attaching OR-operated "cycled" gates to them, being a kind of quantum physics calculations of what these money transactions represent.

"Black money" may thus be a thing of the past quite fast given banks willingness to act in (Kantian/lawfully) ethical ways.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but morality is objective and not subject to opinion or a subjective point-of-view. The other behavioral constraint is virtue which is subjective. Morality, a very narrow field (violating individual rights, being those to life, liberty, property and self-defense), is the only thing that should be legislated. Virtue, on the other hand, covers a wide range of behavior, and should never be legislated, though it is still subject to social pressure.

The various religions expand morality/sin to an absurd level which includes both morality and virtue. An example from the apex of that absurdity is making gathering sticks on the Sabbath not only an immoral act but a capital crime.

[2ndRateMind]

I am not assuming anything so simplistic.

I think you are. By your own admission, you are assuming that the rich are those wise enough to invest, and the poor are those foolish enough not to. But I consider there is more to it than this. If I earn, by whatever legitimate means, $1 million a year, I can quite easily afford to invest 5% of that ($50,000 a year) in stocks and shares, and still live a luxurious lifestyle. On the other hand, if I earn $1000 a year, I might not even be able to invest 5% of that ($50 a year), for want of necessities, and even if I did, it would make precious little difference, anyway.

And incidentally, by 'accident of birth', I do not mean just whether one is lucky enough to be born into a family with significant wealth, but even more broadly than this, whether one is born into a continent and nation with a solid economic infrastructure. Things like roads, and banks, and good governance, and the rule of law, seem to be often taken for granted by right-of-centre leaning Americans who have never traveled outside the US to places without them, and this seems to underlie their unsympathetic attitude towards those worldwide who are seriously poor.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 41 by ThePainefulTruth]


ThePainefulTruth: �I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but morality is objective and not subject to opinion or a subjective point-of-view."

That is an assertion, an opinion. It is subjective, and others have different opinions. Wishing it were true does not make it true.

ThePainefulTruth: �Morality, a very narrow field (violating individual rights, being those to life, liberty, property and self-defense), is the only thing that should be legislated.�

You have “rights� to the extent that the social power structure allows those “rights�. Life, liberty and property are revocable at any time. You can try to defend yourself, but a cop, a soldier, or an executioner can legally cut you down. So can any criminal with a gun.

You are confusing that which you think ought to be with what really is. It is, just like religion, merely wishful thinking.

[bluethread]

I am not assuming anything so simplistic.

I think you are. By your own admission, you are assuming that the rich are those wise enough to invest, and the poor are those foolish enough not to. But I consider there is more to it than this. If I earn, by whatever legitimate means, $1 million a year, I can quite easily afford to invest 5% of that ($50,000 a year) in stocks and shares, and still live a luxurious lifestyle. On the other hand, if I earn $1000 a year, I might not even be able to invest 5% of that ($50 a year), for want of necessities, and even if I did, it would make precious little difference, anyway.

No, I said, "The rich are rich because, by hook or by crook they have obtained a large amount of resources." Whether they invest or not is another issue. I did not call the poor foolish for not investing. Those who invest resources, whether rich or poor, get richer, and those who do not get poorer. That is the principle.

And incidentally, by 'accident of birth', I do not mean just whether one is lucky enough to be born into a family with significant wealth, but even more broadly than this, whether one is born into a continent and nation with a solid economic infrastructure. Things like roads, and banks, and good governance, and the rule of law, seem to be often taken for granted by right-of-centre leaning Americans who have never traveled outside the US to places without them, and this seems to underlie their unsympathetic attitude towards those worldwide who are seriously poor.

How does one determine how much is due to 'accident of birth' and how much is rightfully earned, and who decides that?

Ummm. Not quite. There is a certain minimum level of wealth (income and net worth) required to sustain life at all, and, beyond that, a certain desirable level of wealth required to sustain anyone at a level of dignity appropriate to any human individual. The 'wealthy', are those with more than this; the 'poor' are those with less than this. One cannot blame the poor if all their income is taken up by consumer goods, such as food, clean water, health-care and so on. They are locked in a poverty trap; however much they might see the wisdom in investing in the economy, and however much they might want to do this, they just don't have the wherewithall, because just surviving takes priority, and so they are locked out of prosperity unless we decide to succour them in their predicament.

I have not blamed the poor for anything. You are presuming an arbitray standard of living as a right. How does one determine "the wealth required to sustain anyone at a level of dignity appropriate to any human individual" and who gets to decide that? What is it, apart from having a lot of resources, that makes those with a lot of resources inherently immoral and what is it , aprat from having few resources, that makes those with few resources inherently moral? By the way, generally income comes from investing one's resources, physical as well as material. So, as long as the poor are expending resources for something of value they are investing.

[2ndRateMind]

...You are presuming an arbitrary standard of living as a right. How does one determine "the wealth required to sustain anyone at a level of dignity appropriate to any human individual" and who gets to decide that?...

You do. I do. We all do. By voting with our hearts and wallets, or not, as the case may be.

...What is it, apart from having a lot of resources, that makes those with a lot of resources inherently immoral and what is it , apart from having few resources, that makes those with few resources inherently moral?

The thing is, I am not against people being rich. In fact, I am very much in favour of riches. So much so, I want everyone to be rich. But to be rich while others starve seems to me to be immoral, because it is selfish and implies a degree of ruthless avarice that does not sit well with Jesus' teachings as reported in the Gospels.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 41 by ThePainefulTruth]


ThePainefulTruth: �I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, but morality is objective and not subject to opinion or a subjective point-of-view."

That is an assertion, an opinion. It is subjective, and others have different opinions. Wishing it were true does not make it true.

The problem is not my assertion, it's the assertions of religions and political parties that classify subjective virtuous behavior as morality. Morality is derived directly from one assumption, the desire for good order by all sentient beings except anarchists and despots. Morality is defined as honoring the EQUAL rights of ALL to those aforementioned rights to be free from violation through force or fraud. An individual who violates those rights, forfeits his own. Morality is the only thing that should be legislated, virtue may be "enforced" only with social pressure.

ThePainefulTruth: �Morality, a very narrow field (violating individual rights, being those to life, liberty, property and self-defense), is the only thing that should be legislated.�

You have “rights� to the extent that the social power structure allows those “rights�. Life, liberty and property are revocable at any time.

No, they're not revocable, they are inalienable. But they can be violated at any time through the immoral use of force or fraud.

You can try to defend yourself, but a cop, a soldier, or an executioner can legally cut you down.

Only immorally so, if you're innocent.

So can any criminal with a gun.

Only immorally so. What's your point?




You are confusing that which you think ought to be with what really is. It is, just like religion, merely wishful thinking.

[TSGracchus]

Empathy, sympathy, compassion be damned. What history has show us to be fact is that if the wealthy don't share the wealth with the poor, the poor will share the misery with the wealthy. There is, after all, no end of misery, everyone can have an overflowing cup and more than they are willing to pay for with their wealth. Think: Paris in "The Terror". Think: the Romanov's in the cellar. Think: Communism. Think: Fascism. Think: Revolution. Think: Rot. Think: The fall of whole societies and civilizations.
If the wealth is not redistributed, the blood flows. If the power is not restrained, the cities burn. Nobody wins. But there is enough misery for everyone, enough for unnumbered generations. We share the wealth or share the misery. Like it or not, that is the fact.
The poor starve, the wealthy sneer, and then, surprise, surprise! Who would have thought there would be so much misery? Right, wrong, justice, vengeance, rights, liberties... all those lovely fantasies are drowned in blood and burned up in fire, all that wealth is ashes and dust. Nobody wins.
Humans are STUPID, greedy and stupid!

[ThePainefulTruth]

Empathy, sympathy, compassion be damned.

Well now you're talking.

What history has show us to be fact is that if the wealthy don't share the wealth with the poor, the poor will share the misery with the wealthy.

Because history didn't have a freedom providing Constitution which allowed capitalism to thrive with a government providing order till the US
No, there is no guaranteed outcome, that's not possible. Problem, over time, the poor become more corrupt than any capitalist, selling their souls for wealth redistribution, under government guns.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 48 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Because history didn't have a freedom providing Constitution which allowed capitalism to thrive with a government providing order till the US"

The Constitution doesn't provide freedoms. It is just words on paper. It wasn't the first piece of paper to "guarantee" rights and not the first or last to be ignored.

ThePainefulTruth: "No, there is no guaranteed outcome, that's not possible."

Some things are indeed inevitable. The poor hate in proportion to the difference in wealth between the 1% and the 90%. The rich feel ever more threatened by the rising discontent, and their repressive reaction feeds the hatred of those they are trying to control and exploit.

ThePainefulTruth: " Problem, over time, the poor become more corrupt than any capitalist, selling their souls for wealth redistribution, under government guns."

I never said that the poor were smarter or more "moral" than the rich. The "moral" folks get squashed. The worst rise to the top becoming ever more greedy and delusional as they do. Any redistribution is usually momentary, with the wealth and power, because of positive feedbacks, concentrating again, almost immediately. Humans, rich or poor, fool themselves. Rich or poor, they believe pleasant fantasies. Rich or poor, humans are greedy, envious, insecure and full of fear. It's not a class thing, it is a species thing. (See for instance: Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky.)
In a hunter-gatherer group on the savanna, the problems presented are manageable. In a global corporate economy back by weapons of mass destruction, extinction is threatened.

The point is: The way things are going now, nobody wins. Because humans are stupid and greedy, believing in pleasant delusions.

[bluethread]

...You are presuming an arbitrary standard of living as a right. How does one determine "the wealth required to sustain anyone at a level of dignity appropriate to any human individual" and who gets to decide that?...

You do. I do. We all do. By voting with our hearts and wallets, or not, as the case may be.

That is all well and good, but we are talking about forced redistribution by the government.

...What is it, apart from having a lot of resources, that makes those with a lot of resources inherently immoral and what is it , apart from having few resources, that makes those with few resources inherently moral?

The thing is, I am not against people being rich. In fact, I am very much in favour of riches. So much so, I want everyone to be rich. But to be rich while others starve seems to me to be immoral, because it is selfish and implies a degree of ruthless avarice that does not sit well with Jesus' teachings as reported in the Gospels.

Well, I do not think simply having a lot of resources is a good thing. It is having those resources invested in productive activity that is honorable. Hording resources can be immoral. However, simply taking resources from all who have such resources, removes productive assets from the economy and creates a greater number of poorer people. Most of what Yeshua speaks to is hording, not productive investment.