Morality of Wealth Redistribution

Since we have had many discussions regarding "wealth redistribution", I thought it to be a fitting idea to address from a moral perspective. When is it OK to steal? Is it OK to steal from someone who has a lot in order to give to someone who has a little to nothing? How do your morals play into the idea of the government re-distributing wealth?

Personally, I find it morally wrong to force re-distribution of wealth. I do not believe that circumstance provides an adequate justification of robbing the rich to feed the poor. This is not my only argument against re-distribution of wealth, but it seems like an important one. I consider forcing someone to give their money the same as stealing their money.

Your contention that it is morally wrong to redistribute wealth follows the thoughts of Robert Nozick, and is something I agree with in principle. The problem, however, is that people can't eat principles, and it is not human nature to starve to death.

Provided the gravitational mass of "those who have plenty" plus "those who have enough" far exceeds the mass of "those who don't have enough," the absence of redistribution can be dealt with through imprisonment. If the masses become similar in size, imprisonment is impractical, and redistribution becomes more democratic or negotiated in the best case, or genocidal in the worst case. However, if the mass of "those who don't have" far exceeds the mass of "those who have plenty" plus "those who have enough," redistribution becomes forced through revolution.

So, while the principle of redistribution may be immoral, it is also practical. Through redistribution, those on the cusp between "having enough" and "not having enough," hopefully, have enough. It would be unnecessary, though, if generosity were nature and not principle, and greed, gluttony, and vengeance were not human natures.

At the risk of seeming a bit self-indulgent, I wrote an article on Helium about Robert Nozick and redistribution.

[quote="Goldwing Tom"]So, while the principle of redistribution may be immoral, it is also practical. Through redistribution, those on the cusp between "having enough" and "not having enough," hopefully, have enough. It would be unnecessary, though, if generosity were nature and not principle, and greed, gluttony, and vengeance were not human natures.
quote]

I agree that it is practical to re-distribute wealth voluntarily. Social pressure, religious views, sympathy, etc., can all influence a person to give. I think by respecting property rights people would be better served. However, from a strictly moral standard, I think it is ultimately stealing to coerce someone into giving up their property. On the other hand, voluntary giving is a beautiful thing.

If your agreement that redistributing wealth voluntarily is practical infers that was my point, then you missed my point. My point is it is "necessarily practical" for governments to tax people for redistributative purposes, even though it violates the premise of capitalism and is immoral.

People tend to think gravity applies to physical objects. Gravity affects everything, including human thoughts. We can see this when it comes to political ideologies. Using just those who will vote for John McCain for President, the mass of people doing so will arrive at the same conclusion. That similar conclusion will consume the many different reasons the mass of people will do so. Some will vote for him because they like him; some because they dislike Obama more than him; some because they like Palin's view on abortion; some because they always vote Republican. The list goes on, but exhausting it is unnecessary for the example. The "common sense" among that mass is that is John McCain should become President, and they will consider themselves aligned because of the similar conclusion. Gravity will have consumed the reasoning to create a mass of similar conclusion despite that the individuals comprising the mass probably disagree about why they have arrived at the similar conclusion.

Putting that model into economics, if the mass of people who "don't have enough" grows sufficiently, redistribution will occur whether it is voluntary, or through democratic process or violent revolution. It would be voluntary in utopia, but utopia does not really exist. Therefore, though it is ideal for it to occur that way, it would require the natures of humans to cease living on a "conscious level" in favor of living on a "conscience level."

That leaves us with only the democratic process through the government or violent revolution. History clearly shows that any state that has not redistributed through some sort of dole has fallen to violent revolution unless it controls the common sense of the larger mass through severe intimidation or genocide.

Unfortunately, the government tends to not find balance points, or regard such redistributative policies as solely for the purpose of preventing the mass of those who "don't have enough" to grow sufficiently for revolution. Greed and gluttony are also natures of the people who "don't have enough." If they get a little, which may be sufficient, they will want more and believe themselves to be entitled to more.

It's a double-edged sword. No matter which way you swing it, people get cut.

Goldwing Tom wrote:If your agreement that redistributing wealth voluntarily is practical infers that was my point, then you missed my point. My point is it is "necessarily practical" for governments to tax people for redistributative purposes, even though it violates the premise of capitalism and is immoral.

Necessarily practical for who? Necessarily practical for those that benefit? Yes. Necessarily practical for the one being stolen from? No.

If you assume that something just has to be that way because it just has to be that way, the argument is circular. What I think you are trying to say is that there would be people that would be very poor if it weren't for redistribution of wealth. However, this is a bad assumption. Welfare, minimum wage (a limit on ownership of your own labor), labor laws, and the CRA do more harm to the lowest class than good. Thinking that these sort of government interventions are necessary, because life would be worse for all without them, is an assumption that fails to see the unintended consequences of government interference with markets. Plus, the whole idea of these programs is to coerce people into giving up their property or rights to that property.

I am glad that we agree that it is immoral to forcefully take from one to give to another. The difference in our thought is whether or not government assistance HAS to happen. Pre-1913 we didn't have an income tax or many of the gov't social programs that we have today. Does that prove that such an economy can exist?

Goldwing Tom wrote:People tend to think gravity applies to physical objects. Gravity affects everything, including human thoughts. We can see this when it comes to political ideologies. Using just those who will vote for John McCain for President, the mass of people doing so will arrive at the same conclusion. That similar conclusion will consume the many different reasons the mass of people will do so. Some will vote for him because they like him; some because they dislike Obama more than him; some because they like Palin's view on abortion; some because they always vote Republican. The list goes on, but exhausting it is unnecessary for the example. The "common sense" among that mass is that is John McCain should become President, and they will consider themselves aligned because of the similar conclusion. Gravity will have consumed the reasoning to create a mass of similar conclusion despite that the individuals comprising the mass probably disagree about why they have arrived at the similar conclusion.


Putting that model into economics, if the mass of people who "don't have enough" grows sufficiently, redistribution will occur whether it is voluntary, or through democratic process or violent revolution. It would be voluntary in utopia, but utopia does not really exist. Therefore, though it is ideal for it to occur that way, it would require the natures of humans to cease living on a "conscious level" in favor of living on a "conscience level.".

I thought you were saying that it wouldn't happen voluntarily? I am saying that it should only happen voluntarily. It is more effective (but since this is a thread on morality, I will not go there) and it is moral. I do not think that it would always have to be someone feeling morally obliged to help a poor person, to help a poor person. Just by engaging in voluntary exchange, progress is made. When a voluntary exchange occurs, each person has decided that they value what they receive more than what they give. Instead of relying on people being altruistic a sufficient amount of the time, we can rely on the principles of voluntary exchange and realize that by supporting property rights and the right to voluntary exchange, the government has done more for the poor than any welfare or minimum wage law has ever done.

Goldwing Tom wrote:That leaves us with only the democratic process through the government or violent revolution. History clearly shows that any state that has not redistributed through some sort of dole has fallen to violent revolution unless it controls the common sense of the larger mass through severe intimidation or genocide.

The uSA didn't fall to violent revolution pre 1913. Instead, we slipped into socialism while the government grabbed more and more control. The socialistic control that was grabbed has caused more harm than good, by far. We can look at the Federal Reserve is a great example of how government does with economic issues. We can also see who benefitted from the creation of the Federal Reserve and their inflationary monetary policy. This is an occurance that contradicts your assertion that there has never been a country that has not redistributed always has fallen to violent revolution unless it controls the masses through intimidation or genocide. We had a free country without income redistribution. Instead of the masses rising up against the establishment, the richest took advantage when opportune.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Unfortunately, the government tends to not find balance points, or regard such redistributative policies as solely for the purpose of preventing the mass of those who "don't have enough" to grow sufficiently for revolution. Greed and gluttony are also natures of the people who "don't have enough." If they get a little, which may be sufficient, they will want more and believe themselves to be entitled to more.

It's a double-edged sword. No matter which way you swing it, people get cut.

As you can see from my post, I do not believe that without forced redistribution of wealth there will be a revolution or genocide.

Enron wrote:
The uSA didn't fall to violent revolution pre 1913. Instead, we slipped into socialism while the government grabbed more and more control. The socialistic control that was grabbed has caused more harm than good, by far. We can look at the Federal Reserve is a great example of how government does with economic issues. We can also see who benefitted from the creation of the Federal Reserve and their inflationary monetary policy. This is an occurance that contradicts your assertion that there has never been a country that has not redistributed always has fallen to violent revolution unless it controls the masses through intimidation or genocide. We had a free country without income redistribution. Instead of the masses rising up against the establishment, the richest took advantage when opportune.

As you can see from my post, I do not believe that without forced redistribution of wealth there will be a revolution or genocide.

I believe Tom and Nozick both would argue that you are not looking at the situation in a big-enough time frame. See, for instance, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc. And since the establishment of the Federal Reserve did have some practical benefits to the "average Joe," it could be argued that the Fed acted as a method of redistributing (or redefining) the wealth in a way that ultimately was beneficial to many people, at least compared to what preceded the Federal Reserve. Strictly in terms of utility and not in terms of ideology, the Federal Reserve was more acceptable to the public at large at the time because it prevented the sort of large-scale bank failures that had prompted the creation of the Federal Reserve in the first place.

Which is in no way to say that the consequences of having a Federal Reserve are any "better" than not having a Federal Reserve; the consequences of having a Fed and not having a Fed must be contextualized withing something bigger than the both of them to decide what "better" would be in the first place. If by better you mean "better than it was for the majority of people" a good case could be made that the Fed was "better" than the previous scheme of unregulated banks regulary buckling under the pressure of crop-failures and runs. If you are, however, asking if the Fed is "better" in a more detached rational-moral way, then what you are really asking is whether the existence of the Fed conforms to the ideal vision of government. And, if your ideal vision of government is one in which everyone is free to do what they want without government restriction and that's why you disagree with the Fed, then you ought to assert such and then true to prove that such is the ideal form of government.

I don't think that this sort of government is necessarily the best. When I say "necessarily" what I mean is that there is no reason that liberal democracy -must- be the best form of government. Unless you tell me why, which is something that I'd be really interested to hear.

While democracy and wealth disparity exist, the tyranny of the majority will inevitably follow, especially as far as wealth is given an place of special preeminence in the society. Democracy is just mob rule where no one gets lynched, after all. You can't blame the majority for exercising the power they do have (their numbers) in the pursuit of their interests (wealth), if you believe that people are self-interested and also predisposed to efficiency. For any individual in a democracy who does not have wealth, it is both more in accord with his self-interest and more efficient that he gather with people of like means and like minds toward the end of gathering wealth to himself. That there are "honest" means available matters only to the holders of wealth who have something to lose in the exchange. The poor majority needn't adhere to "honest" means, because what may be honest is not always also efficient. And since human beings are self-interested and efficient, they will do what they feel is necessary to do.

From the point of view of the poor, after all, justice is not served by the wealthy being as wealthy as they are while the poor are as poor as they are. Though the wealthy think of justice in terms of avoiding things being taken from them, the poor look at the lack of justice as them having less than the rich and suffering as a result when enough is available for everyone not to have to suffer. Never mind the truthfulness of this construction; it is true as far as it will always be true when the poor look at the rich and realize the disparity that exists.

So really, I think the question isn't so much about redistribution of wealth as such, but rather how can a liberal democracy exist perpetually without slowly conforming the will of the majority and becoming a socialist state?

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:
The uSA didn't fall to violent revolution pre 1913. Instead, we slipped into socialism while the government grabbed more and more control. The socialistic control that was grabbed has caused more harm than good, by far. We can look at the Federal Reserve is a great example of how government does with economic issues. We can also see who benefitted from the creation of the Federal Reserve and their inflationary monetary policy. This is an occurance that contradicts your assertion that there has never been a country that has not redistributed always has fallen to violent revolution unless it controls the masses through intimidation or genocide. We had a free country without income redistribution. Instead of the masses rising up against the establishment, the richest took advantage when opportune.

As you can see from my post, I do not believe that without forced redistribution of wealth there will be a revolution or genocide.

I believe Tom and Nozick both would argue that you are not looking at the situation in a big-enough time frame. See, for instance, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc. And since the establishment of the Federal Reserve did have some practical benefits to the "average Joe," it could be argued that the Fed acted as a method of redistributing (or redefining) the wealth in a way that ultimately was beneficial to many people, at least compared to what preceded the Federal Reserve. Strictly in terms of utility and not in terms of ideology, the Federal Reserve was more acceptable to the public at large at the time because it prevented the sort of large-scale bank failures that had prompted the creation of the Federal Reserve in the first place.

Even if I am not looking at a long enough time frame, the argument that was put forward is circular in nature and doesn't have a forward looking point, but to say that free markets are inevitably messed with. I have no reason to need to continue on this very point.

The Fed was definitely portrayed as an entity that was going to solve the bank crisises from ever happening again. Unfortunately, they looked to the root of the problem and decided to increase the cause of the problem (government interference in banking). Before the Federal Reserve, the government had established a pattern of rescuing banks, messing with bank hierarchy, and allowed fractional reserve banking to be protected. They then said that we just needed better regulation by one central bank that was the lender of last resort. Ironically, shortly after the Fed was created, they began the inflation that led to the Great Depression.

B-Ran wrote: Which is in no way to say that the consequences of having a Federal Reserve are any "better" than not having a Federal Reserve; the consequences of having a Fed and not having a Fed must be contextualized withing something bigger than the both of them to decide what "better" would be in the first place. If by better you mean "better than it was for the majority of people" a good case could be made that the Fed was "better" than the previous scheme of unregulated banks regulary buckling under the pressure of crop-failures and runs. If you are, however, asking if the Fed is "better" in a more detached rational-moral way, then what you are really asking is whether the existence of the Fed conforms to the ideal vision of government. And, if your ideal vision of government is one in which everyone is free to do what they want without government restriction and that's why you disagree with the Fed, then you ought to assert such and then true to prove that such is the ideal form of government.

I don't think that this sort of government is necessarily the best. When I say "necessarily" what I mean is that there is no reason that liberal democracy -must- be the best form of government. Unless you tell me why, which is something that I'd be really interested to hear.

What I mean by life without a Federal Reserve would be better is that people would have more control over their own destiny and the average American would have a "higher standard of living". I know that isn't a bulletproof definition, but its all I have at the moment.

I think that a constitutional republic would be great for the citizens that have the government, as long as the government could be contained. This would require a very thorough and strict constitution and somehow, people would have to enter into that contract with the government and then hold the government to their word. I think we have a good constitution (definitely not perfect) that we should draw from and hold the government and others to.

One of the foundations of a society is to decide what property rights people have. I think that property rights are paramount to an economy and a society as a whole. Maybe we can start a thread just regarding property rights sometime soon.

I am glad that we agree that it is immoral to forcefully take from one to give to another. The difference in our thought is whether or not government assistance HAS to happen. Pre-1913 we didn't have an income tax or many of the gov't social programs that we have today. Does that prove that such an economy can exist?

I suppose you could look at it that way if you want to disregard the government taking land from Indians and redistributing it to people with rights. Otherwise, you can view that as a form of redistribution with the government stealing from some and giving to others. Had America been border-bound prior to its socialistic intervention, it would have been subject to the same economic dynamics Europe was faced with. As B-Ran pointed out, not addressing the basic needs of large masses of people did not work out so well for Marie Antoinette or the Tsar.

Again, though I agree with the premise that redistribution is stealing from some and giving to others, it is impractical to not do so lest "those who have plenty" lose their wealth and heads instead of merely some of their wealth on the front side.

One of the consequences of redistribution, though, is that whatever wealth is confiscated from the wealthy to redistribute to the needy ends up back in their hands anyway. They may have to sell poor people two-thousand dollar stereo systems to put into their seven hundred dollar cars, or record it as income in the form of interest and late fees for more prudent poor people, to get it back, but it eventually flows back to those from whom it is taken.

The necessary practicality of redistribution provides a mild benefit to those who receive the stipends. However, the real beneficiaries are the wealthy who do not have to worry so much about revolution, and whose enterprises grow by people who would not otherwise be able to buy buying.

When principles are pitted against natures, natures always win.

Goldwing Tom wrote:

I am glad that we agree that it is immoral to forcefully take from one to give to another. The difference in our thought is whether or not government assistance HAS to happen. Pre-1913 we didn't have an income tax or many of the gov't social programs that we have today. Does that prove that such an economy can exist?

I suppose you could look at it that way if you want to disregard the government taking land from Indians and redistributing it to people with rights. Otherwise, you can view that as a form of redistribution with the government stealing from some and giving to others. Had America been border-bound prior to its socialistic intervention, it would have been subject to the same economic dynamics Europe was faced with. As B-Ran pointed out, not addressing the basic needs of large masses of people did not work out so well for Marie Antoinette or the Tsar.

Again, though I agree with the premise that redistribution is stealing from some and giving to others, it is impractical to not do so lest "those who have plenty" lose their wealth and heads instead of merely some of their wealth on the front side.

One of the consequences of redistribution, though, is that whatever wealth is confiscated from the wealthy to redistribute to the needy ends up back in their hands anyway. They may have to sell poor people two-thousand dollar stereo systems to put into their seven hundred dollar cars, or record it as income in the form of interest and late fees for more prudent poor people, to get it back, but it eventually flows back to those from whom it is taken.

The necessary practicality of redistribution provides a mild benefit to those who receive the stipends. However, the real beneficiaries are the wealthy who do not have to worry so much about revolution, and whose enterprises grow by people who would not otherwise be able to buy buying.

When principles are pitted against natures, natures always win.

I can agree, that pre-1913, there were things that happened, that were not pretty. Still, the government was far more limited than it is today and people had more complete property rights. I agree with you that wealth redistribution often actually helps the big guys. That is all the more reason to expose it and fight against it.

I am not in the upper class, but I am not in the lower class either. I do not see that money creep back into my pocket that they take from income taxes.

I think Tom might argue that wealth distribution only helps the big guys in so far as the rabble doesn't rise up and take off their heads.

B-Ran wrote:I think Tom might argue that wealth distribution only helps the big guys in so far as the rabble doesn't rise up and take off their heads.

Yeah. I am definitely not saying that wealth redistribution only helps the big guys. However, in the long run it hurts more people than it helps. It also often times actually hurts the little guy.

I think in the argument of "hurt" and "help" it is certainly important to define both those terms. This is especially in keeping with the fact that modern liberal-individualist theory is a relatively recent invention; in fact, the same is true of what we consider the modern view on property rights in general. Sir William Blackstone, an English jurist, is said to have established the modern definition of property rights as "sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe," and he did so late in the Eighteenth century.

Of course, such a definition as Blackstone provides is all well and good if the government enforces property rights as stated. Without legal intervention, there are no "property rights" per se; it follows that one individual in the absence of anyone else owns both nothing and everything that he comes in contact with; it is only the introduction of other individuals that prompts us to delineate what belongs to whom. Many individuals understanding a cohesive standard of just use therefore must be the starting point for property rights, because property rights are only ever enforceable and only ever need enforcing when there is a society to both enforce property rights and in which some might make claims on property. Individual property rights and their development must then be seen as a development stemming from society; society definitely does not stem from property rights as such. Therefore property rights to the extent that they have any utility have utility only as far as property rights serve the society as a means to determine just use of available resources, which is to say that they are as a system a tool toward a greater end. Importantly, it must be understood of property rights that their purpose must be to determine what is just in order for them to have any authority as far as dictating action.

B-Ran wrote:I think in the argument of "hurt" and "help" it is certainly important to define both those terms. This is especially in keeping with the fact that modern liberal-individualist theory is a relatively recent invention; in fact, the same is true of what we consider the modern view on property rights in general. Sir William Blackstone, an English jurist, is said to have established the modern definition of property rights as "sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe," and he did so late in the Eighteenth century.

Of course, such a definition as Blackstone provides is all well and good if the government enforces property rights as stated. Without legal intervention, there are no "property rights" per se; it follows that one individual in the absence of anyone else owns both nothing and everything that he comes in contact with; it is only the introduction of other individuals that prompts us to delineate what belongs to whom. Many individuals understanding a cohesive standard of just use therefore must be the starting point for property rights, because property rights are only ever enforceable and only ever need enforcing when there is a society to both enforce property rights and in which some might make claims on property. Individual property rights and their development must then be seen as a development stemming from society; society definitely does not stem from property rights as such. Therefore property rights to the extent that they have any utility have utility only as far as property rights serve the society as a means to determine just use of available resources, which is to say that they are as a system a tool toward a greater end. Importantly, it must be understood of property rights that their purpose must be to determine what is just in order for them to have any authority as far as dictating action.

It would also make sense for some rights to be God given. A government can't give a right, it can grant a privilege. I believe in "natural rights".

I think when trying to describe what property rights should be recognized by law, a safe place to start from is "All men are created equal". I think that we should strive for a system that is just and fair and starts with an even recognition and care of individuals rights. I think it is important to realize that we are individuals. We are not part of one organism, but each person is a separate entity with a separate consciousness. A system that recognizes each individuals rights as important as the next person's rights would be consistent with this fact. With such a government, you could see people who would be welcome to exercise their rights as long as they are not violating another person's rights. Such a government would recognize an individuals right to his own body, his labor, his property. John Locke argued that natural rights of a human include "Life, liberty and estate (property)". This same idea is how the uSA was initially formed.

I would contend that the only rights conferred to human beings by God are those of existence and consciousness, if you want to call either of those rights and not just properties.

As I said before, property is only relevant in the context of society, the group. If someone is alone in the forest and picks up a pine cone and says "this is mine and you cannot have it," to whom is he speaking? To assert a right to property outside of the context of society is absurd.

We'll leave that one to simmer for a bit and move onto how we are all individuals. We as individuals are products of our society. Society gives us even at its most basic, language, and therewith the capacity to form complex thought within the context of that language. The thoughts available in English are not precisely the same thoughts as would be available in Cantonese. Along with that language, it gives us culture, the conception of our place within the group. We are children, parents, teachers, students, friends, classmates, etc., and the fact that we are those things has a huge bearing on who we are as people. Piled on top of that, we have a collective history that elucidates our place in time, informed by the past experiences of our predecessors. And so on and so forth. One can argue nature versus nurture, but one cannot argue that to a large extent the way we think about who we are is informed by the above actions of society upon us.

Locke's arguments hold onto the "state of nature" as he imagines it as being something that we are not already in. The fact is, a human being born alone into a state of nature would simply die. If there is another human being there to nurture that first human being, then there are all the necessary rudiments of society already in place and the hopes of finding a human being in the state of nature dashed. If you and your friend are in the forest, and there is a pine cone and you pick it up, and you say to your friend "this is mine and you cannot have it," you have no more right to that pine cone than does your friend except if he agrees that you have a right to it because he could have just as easily picked up that pine cone and you would be the one who couldn't have it.

B-Ran wrote:I would contend that the only rights conferred to human beings by God are those of existence and consciousness, if you want to call either of those rights and not just properties.

As I said before, property is only relevant in the context of society, the group. If someone is alone in the forest and picks up a pine cone and says "this is mine and you cannot have it," to whom is he speaking? To assert a right to property outside of the context of society is absurd.

We'll leave that one to simmer for a bit and move onto how we are all individuals. We as individuals are products of our society. Society gives us even at its most basic, language, and therewith the capacity to form complex thought within the context of that language. The thoughts available in English are not precisely the same thoughts as would be available in Cantonese. Along with that language, it gives us culture, the conception of our place within the group. We are children, parents, teachers, students, friends, classmates, etc., and the fact that we are those things has a huge bearing on who we are as people. Piled on top of that, we have a collective history that elucidates our place in time, informed by the past experiences of our predecessors. And so on and so forth. One can argue nature versus nurture, but one cannot argue that to a large extent the way we think about who we are is informed by the above actions of society upon us.

Locke's arguments hold onto the "state of nature" as he imagines it as being something that we are not already in. The fact is, a human being born alone into a state of nature would simply die. If there is another human being there to nurture that first human being, then there are all the necessary rudiments of society already in place and the hopes of finding a human being in the state of nature dashed. If you and your friend are in the forest, and there is a pine cone and you pick it up, and you say to your friend "this is mine and you cannot have it," you have no more right to that pine cone than does your friend except if he agrees that you have a right to it because he could have just as easily picked up that pine cone and you would be the one who couldn't have it.

I don't have time for a full response, but I understand what you are saying. To make something your property initially, you have to agree on a system to declare how you make something that is not yet owned, yours. This is a valid point, and I agree and goes to look at a furthering of the definition of property rights. In most cases that I know about, people lay claims to land that they discover, settle, etc. I agree that finding initial ownership can be very tricky and will involve people coming to an agreement on what constitutes claiming previously unclaimed property. However, the fact that someone can own land, a car, a house, food, etc. is more of what I am talking about. If we are going to decide how people get property rights, we imply that people are able to have those property rights. Without rights to own property, we are slaves except for in our own minds.

Well, we are slaves to extent that we believe exclusive ownership of property is synonymous with freedom. In fact, if we equate property ownership with freedom in that way, then one becomes progressively more free the more property one owns, which also means that those with the least property are correspondingly the least free. However, each and every remains equally free in his own mind.

A semi-rhetorical question: If I exclusively own the pine cone, then what does that mean to you about the pine cone (assuming you have no pine cone and you can't get a pine cone, and regardless of whether you want a pine cone)?

B-Ran wrote:Well, we are slaves to extent that we believe exclusive ownership of property is synonymous with freedom. In fact, if we equate property ownership with freedom in that way, then one becomes progressively more free the more property one owns, which also means that those with the least property are correspondingly the least free. However, each and every remains equally free in his own mind.

A semi-rhetorical question: If I exclusively own the pine cone, then what does that mean to you about the pine cone (assuming you have no pine cone and you can't get a pine cone, and regardless of whether you want a pine cone)?

I do not agree. Property ownership is not what is freedom, but part of freedom is to be allowed to own property or not.

I think we reached some sort of synthetic understanding of what we are talking about.

B-Ran wrote:I think we reached some sort of synthetic understanding of what we are talking about.

Agreed.

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:I think Tom might argue that wealth distribution only helps the big guys in so far as the rabble doesn't rise up and take off their heads.

Yeah. I am definitely not saying that wealth redistribution only helps the big guys. However, in the long run it hurts more people than it helps. It also often times actually hurts the little guy.

I apologize for bringing it back to this point, but work and entertaining my granddaughter took most of my time for the past two days.

I do believe that the rich benefit more from redistribution than the poor in that it prevents Marx's prediction from manifesting, but I believe it also helps the poor because Marx's "dream economy" is really a nightmare when it manifests. Once the "common people" seize the wealth, those in charge of managing it are no longer common people, and, once the common person is entitled to his or her share, the incentive to produce or excel is reduced or eliminated. Though he dreamt of equality and shared resources, the results were chasms between "those who have" and "those who don't have" as great or greater than in the overthrown systems.

If we bring redistribution through the American government under the scope, no one is really taxed for it anyway, except in abstract through a devalued dollar. Since the rich and poor pay the same price for milk, the increase in price due to the devalued dollar affects the poor more significantly. The only thing the rich can bitch about is that they didn't get a check representing money that did not exist prior to the checks being printed by the government. Their taxes didn't go up unless they increased their incomes by selling things to, or receiving income from, the poor people who got the checks.

I suggest we all take a second and go learn everything we can about Deng Xiaoping and the pragmatic movement in the Chinese Communist Party. The American affection for irony is well-satisfied by reading about such.

Since we are entering full-on Socialism... I though that revisiting this thread would be of relevance.

What is the moral difference between these two situations?

1. I show up at your house with a lot of friends and tell you that if you do not give us $1000 (so we can give it to poor people), we will take you and put you in a cage.

2. The government demanding money from you to give to the poor. If you don't comply, they throw you in jail.

What is the moral difference between these two situations?

1. I show up at your house with a lot of friends and tell you that if you do not give us $1000 (so we can give it to poor people), we will take you and put you in a cage.

2. The government demanding money from you to give to the poor. If you don't comply, they throw you in jail.

Presuming that you and your lot of friends are not the poor people to whom it will be given, one is likely a consequence of perceived injustice, while two is likely the fulfillment of campaign promises. One will result in redistribution to those who are needy so they can eat, while two will result in redistribution to those who fill out paperwork, meet qualifications, and agree to remain needy. One will result in the perceived need for police forces to capture you and your lot of friends, while two will result in an army to protect the thieves. One will result in $1,000 going to the needy, while two will result in an 87% take for handling and the need of oversight by another beauracracy at the cost of $2,000 to make sure the $1,000 is spent as intended. Killing those in one will likely result in no trial as investigators conclude it was self defense, while killing those in two will likely result in a capital trial for killing a class of citizenry that is protected by special laws.

Before we harp too much on "there is no difference," consider this question of social ethics:

What is the difference between:

1. shooting a burglar who is brandishing a gun at your family demanding your property, and
2. shooting cops who are raiding your home for drug manufacturing?

If you see a difference, then you are merely drawing a line in the sand as to what is moral and what is immoral. If not, then your free market principles are consistent when it comes to lack of government interference.

Or am I missing something?

Goldwing,

I think you are right. I do not see an essential moral difference. Of course circumstantially, shooting the burglar will likely have less consequences that government employed burglars. However, I see no moral difference between defending your rights against a recognized criminal or against the gov't. I am not saying that the right answer always has to be to shoot the person violating your property... maybe there is a better way to handle the situation to get a better result and not violate your own morals. However, I agree, the same standard should be applied to private citizens as is to government.