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]

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

Socialists may say compassion (a religious concept) as the reason to forcibly redistribute wealth, but they are poor at saying human rights (UDHR) with much force! See Nazi-Socialists (NSDAP) of Adolf Hitler, for example.

If the need for The 4 Factors, revolvers/pistols, pepper spray, lie detection array (5 methods +) and radio-based scanner portals ("against 500 conditions in human beings"), in order to make (Kantian) ethical and moral progress in the World as well as complete industrialization of the developing nations as in the developed World, this may easily equal that of naive wealth redistribution. Not only that but you prevent future attacks on all, from the children and up in ages. See sanity assassination and personality disorder/personality conversion "horror" crimes.

For this one time payout by naive wealth redistribution, there is absolutely no guarantee that these money may be used for much more than gambling or alcoholism, considering deeper problems in the World.

It's for this one should rather look to The 4 Factors implementation to the World (who wants to win over the others?) in order to respect these facts:
1. The unarmed Jews before Kristallnacht and Holocaust in Nazi-Germany.
2. The financial success (Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon etc), might of military forces (NATO for human rights, UDHR) and general character of person in USA by allowing the population their self-defence by pepper spray and guns and other.
3. The sadistic perverts, torturers of children, who can't handle guns (pistols, revolvers) and pepper spray get extra protection if the population is denied this self-defence.
Even these are supported by the suicides in despair to which there are no people there who can alleviate their situation, certainly not in Europe, the disappearances, by "crazy" crimes or by decent suicides here or there, the black and official numbers of severe abuse and torture.

In fact, I'd say there's no time to lose in making the World a better place for all, not just those inside of USA who may also feel the duties to advocate for universal 4 Factors.

Note: Japan used only 30 years in achieving top position, also technologically, in the World after its utter WW2 defeat for USA and the allied forces. Why can't Africa do the same with The 4 Factors for the same severe reasons as stated above?

[bluethread]

So what's your take on wealth redistribution? Is there a fair AND moral way to do it, keeping in mind that to be consistent (if fairness were possible), it must be done on a global scale.

Yes. According to my calculations, if all the wealth in the world were distributed equitably, everyone gets a net worth of approx $33,000. If all the production of the world were distributed equitably, everyone gets a net income of approx $16,000 per year. Multiply by 4 for the allowance of the conventional nuclear family. If these figures were to be achieved, then absolute, extreme poverty would be eradicated worldwide, and we would all have sufficient to live out a reasonably dignified, environmentally sustainable lifestyle.

But, I think, these figures a pretty tough ask. Particularly as I think they should be implemented voluntarily, each individual helping out each less fortunate individual as they see fit, and not compulsorily by taxation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Amazing how colored paper can make everyone content. To quote Douglas Adams, “This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.�

The problem with this "solution", voluntary or involuntary, is that ignores everything that gives value to those numbers. Even if we were to take all of the wealth and distribute it equally, it would not be long before the previously poor would again be poor and the previously wealthy would again be wealthy. Money is just a means of exchange. What give it value is the belief that it is a promise of economic activity. If I hold that currency, or anything for that matter, it does nothing and is only of value in that I am holding it. It is when I exchange it for goods and services that I then employ to create other goods and services that the economy expands and lives are improved. So, it is not the handing over of currency that elevates people out of poverty, but the employment of the poor in productive activity.

[2ndRateMind]

...The problem with this "solution", voluntary or involuntary, is that ignores everything that gives value to those numbers. Even if we were to take all of the wealth and distribute it equally, it would not be long before the previously poor would again be poor and the previously wealthy would again be wealthy...

Not really. But I am assuming that current economic activity would be unaffected by such a redistributive plan. That might not be the case, I admit. Two things occur to me immediately; the very rich would be unable to leverage their riches to screw ever more money out of the economy, and the very poor would have sufficient capital to start their own micro-businesses without going cap in hand to the bank. I honestly cannot see either of these effects as undesirable.

On the other hand, you would appear to be assuming that the rich are rich by their own virtue, and the poor are poor by their own vice. I do not think there is evidence for this, if one looks around the world and makes an impartial, dispassionate assessment. Mostly, it seems to me, the rich and poor are rich and poor by accident of birth.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Tcg]

Socialists use compassion (a religious concept)…

Compassion isn't a religious concept. Compassion is a human trait.

Religions may have stolen the idea and claim it as their own, but that is simply another of the endless lies religions promote.

[2ndRateMind]

Amazing how colored paper can make everyone content.... Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.�

Uh huh. However happy or sad $bills may be, the fact is that currency is the way the world currently chooses to ration finite resources amongst infinite desires. If you have a lot, you get a lot of resources. If you don't have any, you get no resources (food, housing, clean water, health care, etc) at all. So, small green pieces of paper are not irrelevant to the discussion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Socialists use compassion (a religious concept)…

Compassion isn't a religious concept. Compassion is a human trait.

Religions may have stolen the idea and claim it as their own, but that is simply another of the endless lies religions promote.

Pretty much a chicken and egg thing. But I'll grant it's reasonable to assume that individuals felt compassion before religions taught people too feel it--whatever motivated religions to do that.

But then the question is reduced down to what motivates individual compassion: risking one's self in service of another (the Mother Teresa syndrome), or is it simply enlightened self-interest (the Robin Hood exemplar).

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 26 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Pretty much a chicken and egg thing. But I'll grant it's reasonable to assume that individuals felt compassion before religions taught people too feel it--whatever motivated religions to do that."

Religion does so much harm, it has to take credit for as much good as possible. After all, we have to keep that collection plate filled.

ThePainefulTruth: "But then the question is reduced down to what motivates individual compassion: risking one's self in service of another (the Mother Teresa syndrome), or is it simply enlightened self-interest (the Robin Hood exemplar)."

Compassion, from the Latin "cum patiens", means to "suffer with" and it has to do with mirror neurons which activate memories of our own pain when we see the pain of others.

[2ndRateMind]

I am not so sure, either, that religion has a monopoly on compassion. Seems to me many atheists have compassion, and demonstrate it daily. But I do think that Christianity, at least, emphasises the emotion, encourages it universally from each to each, and urges us to act on it. And that is one way that makes for a quiet conscience, and a quiet conscience is a priceless prerequisite for happiness, deep contentment, and self-fulfillment. Or, so I have found, anyway.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 26 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Pretty much a chicken and egg thing. But I'll grant it's reasonable to assume that individuals felt compassion before religions taught people too feel it--whatever motivated religions to do that."

Religion does so much harm, it has to take credit for as much good as possible. After all, we have to keep that collection plate filled.

ThePainefulTruth: "But then the question is reduced down to what motivates individual compassion: risking one's self in service of another (the Mother Teresa syndrome), or is it simply enlightened self-interest (the Robin Hood exemplar)."

Compassion, from the Latin "cum patiens", means to "suffer with" and it has to do with mirror neurons which activate memories of our own pain when we see the pain of others.

Yes, the "suffer with" applies to the Mother Teresa Syndrome. Screw that. The Robin Hood Exemplar, however, is where one tries to relieve the suffering.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 29 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Yes, the 'suffer with' applies to the Mother Teresa Syndrome. Screw that. The Robin Hood Exemplar, however, is where one tries to relieve the suffering."

Mother Teresa was a self-righteous sadist. She maintained that the suffering (of others) was a good thing. She herself got the best medical attention.

Empathy, compassion, is a physiological effect, the activation of nodes of mirror neurons that cause pain in most humans when they see or contemplate the pain of others. It is "normal". Those without that sensibility are those we generally label as sociopaths.

Compassion is not a syndrome. It is "normal". If it does not effect you, it is not your fault of course, any more than color-blindness or tone-deafness would be your fault. It is simply a neurological lack that some would label a defect.