What is your opinion on Redistribution of Wealth?

[Geo Patric]

Your idea, on the surface, has mertits - it's just not redistribution.

arguable, since you have not defined your terms.

Redistribution refers to modifications of the holdings of particular persons, collective agents, or groups . . ., or changes in holdings by groups . . . Sometimes those from and to whom resources are redistributed are defined as individuals, other times as groups to which individuals are rigidly assigned (for example, Whites and Hispanics), and other times to groups that are defined by their holdings (for example, the top and bottom quintile). We can identify patterns in terms of rigidly identifiable persons (John and Sally) or groups (Whites and Hispanics) or, alternatively, ‘anonymously’ . .

- Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosopy

Imagep has used it perfectly well in terms of this.

conservatives and especially Libertarians imply that they are invoking the horror of MARX when they use the term and do so to extend an ideological bias. marxism has nothing to di with it. . Any economist and for that matter, any thinker whose thinking involves social justice will use the term without suggesting anything evil.

i posted in a similar thread a quote that sums up nicely the premise of "distributive justice" that I embrace and which would seem to underlie that of this country for the last 75 years of so:

The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands . . .the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property . . .it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed.

Thomas Jefferson - PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT

still sounds valid to me. of course, Jefferson lived in a time when not everything was owned by someone. The La. Purchase made available much such 'employment'. That is no longer possible. Some other form of redistribution is needed.

if you have taken more of the common wealth than is rightfully yours, those who are deprived of their rightful portion of the common good are entitled to demand that you return their portion.

it is as simple as that.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

the left wing solution to prevent those who earned money from concentrating too much of it in their hands is to concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of the federal government

great idea

NOT

better for most than the right wing idea that i can keep whatever i can take as long as i am more powerful than the ones i take it from... and the more i take, the more i can defend because i have more power... the more minds i can pervert into believing that i 'earned' it, even though i did little or none of the work. the more i can take, the more those who think i am a better man BECAUSE i take from them are willing to do the taking for me, and support my 'right' to go on taking.

yep, better by far.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

better for most than the right wing idea that i can keep whatever i can take as long as i am more powerful than the ones i take it from... and the more i take, the more i can defend because i have more power... the more minds i can pervert into believing that i 'earned' it, even though i did little or none of the work. the more i can take, the more those who think i am a better man BECAUSE i take from them are willing to do the taking for me, and support my 'right' to go on taking.

yep, better by far.

geo.

i sort of wish the left wing whiners would try to take wealth away from those of us who have it.

after a few months, the left would cease to exist as we know it

 

[Geo Patric]

i sort of wish the left wing whiners would try to take wealth away from those of us who have it.

after a few months, the left would cease to exist as we know it

gee... that sounds like a threat!

don't worry... no one is gonna come creeping in yer windas, my moneybags.

geo.

 

[TurtleDude]

gee... that sounds like a threat!

don't worry... no one is gonna come creeping in yer windas, my moneybags.

geo.

no threat with a condition precedent

 

[papertrader]

Classical liberals (Libertarians) like me work hard to end welfare. We want a system where the government has next to no power and cannot force individuals to surrender their hard earned money to pay for the government's pet projects, including its numerous military ejaculations and dictator/terrorist sponsorship policies (a legacy from the Raygun years). We want a system where oil companies must pay for their spill cleanups instead of forcing taxpayers to always pick up their tab.

But the GOP won't have it.

As Thomas Sowell wrote 30 years ago, government also redistributes wealth through policy in areas like land use, housing, and zoning.

This is an area where conservatives typically support upward redistribution, and even libertarians cannot be considered reliable supporters of liberty.

I once lived in a town for 30 years when a recently arrived homeowner organized a successful effort to make the zoning more restrictive. I was on the side of liberty while a libertarian friend was on the other side.

When he would not budge on issues of property rights and liberty, I asked him whether a newly arrived homeowner (in town for not quite six months) should carry more weight (on the zoning issue) than a renter who had lived in town for 30 years. He said absolutely, property owners rule, renters are irrelevant to the issue.

When libertarians have no problem with government-driven redistribution from renters to homeowners, there is a problem.

 

[Henrin]

When he would not budge on issues of property rights and liberty, I asked him whether a newly arrived homeowner (in town for not quite six months) should carry more weight (on the zoning issue) than a renter who had lived in town for 30 years. He said absolutely, property owners rule, renters are irrelevant to the issue.

Renters ARE irreverent to the issue. They don't own anything, they aren't in charge of anything. They are renting property owned by someone else that is a responsible for what happens to it. The renter is just using it and paying for the use. Owners do rule, renters are irrelevant.

I'm not exactly sure why you think its wrong to pay the owner to use their property, but I personally see nothing wrong with it.

 

[EarlzP]

Renters ARE irreverent to the issue. They don't own anything, they aren't in charge of anything. They are renting property owned by someone else that is a responsible for what happens to it. The renter is just using it and paying for the use. Owners do rule, renters are irrelevant.

I'm not exactly sure why you think its wrong to pay the owner to use their property, but I personally see nothing wrong with it.

Renters pay taxes and they vote and even if they didn't classifying anyone as irreverent " irrelevant" shows a mindset that I can't find the words to describe, I can't even imagine thinking of another human being as being irrelevant. It may take a while until the people you describe as irrelevant get tired of being treated as irrelevant and step up to the polling booth and show their relevance.

The stigma assigned to a social democracy will eventually be shown for what it is nothing more then a word used by the rich to hold down the irrelevant majority of the people

 

[Henrin]

Renters pay taxes and they vote

Voting has nothing to do with it. There is nothing that shows me from what I see they shouldn't be under the control of the people that own what they're using. There is no reason to believe that they should of equal footing as the owner that has to answer for anything that renter does and that paid for actual property.

and even if they didn't classifying anyone as irreverent " irrelevant" shows a mindset that I can't find the words to describe, I can't even imagine thinking of another human being as being irrelevant.

They are irrelevant because of the relationship they have with responsibility and the rights that come from ownership. Even the state holds them to no accord because of this if that is how you want to see it.

It may take a while until the people you describe as irrelevant get tired of being treated as irrelevant and step up to the polling booth and show their relevance.

Stop this nonsense. A renter has no business being equal to a renter. If you wish to argue that a man that owns the property shouldn't be able to tell people that are using their property what to do, be my guest but I highly doubt your argument will have bearing on reality.

The stigma assigned to a social democracy will eventually be shown for what it is nothing more then a word used by the rich to hold down the irrelevant majority of the people

Until you realize that government holds down the majority more than anyone else you will be lost in a haze.

 

[Geo Patric]

Renters pay taxes and they vote and even if they didn't classifying anyone as irreverent " irrelevant" shows a mindset that I can't find the words to describe, I can't even imagine thinking of another human being as being irrelevant. It may take a while until the people you describe as irrelevant get tired of being treated as irrelevant and step up to the polling booth and show their relevance.

The stigma assigned to a social democracy will eventually be shown for what it is nothing more then a word used by the rich to hold down the irrelevant majority of the people

my emphasis.

an interesting turn in the discussion. The Libertarian emphasis on material property is a violation of Liberty, especially in a world where everything is owned and to get obliges taking. this was not the premise when m. Locke was writing and he did not intend that the greater an individual's property, the greater his political power or the more 'liberty' he was entitled to.

geo.

 

[Henrin]

my emphasis.

an interesting turn in the discussion. The Libertarian emphasis on material property is a violation of Liberty, especially in a world where everything is owned and to get obliges taking. this was not the premise when m. Locke was writing and he did not intend that the greater an individual's property, the greater his political power or the more 'liberty' he was entitled to.

geo.

Try to make an argument that property owners shouldn't be in control of their property. Can you manage? Don't worry, I won't be waiting around for something that will never happen.

 

[Geo Patric]

Try to make an argument that property owners shouldn't be in control of their property.

i do not think i said any such thing.

I asked him whether a newly arrived homeowner (in town for not quite six months) should carry more weight (on the zoning issue) than a renter who had lived in town for 30 years. He said absolutely, property owners rule, renters are irrelevant to the issue.

THIS was the issue that spurred my comment... a property owner's greater political power. Libertarians like to equate property to liberty.

it is a false equation.

geo.

 

[EarlzP]

i sort of wish the left wing whiners would try to take wealth away from those of us who have it.

after a few months, the left would cease to exist as we know it

You know what they say " be careful what you wish for " Now try to picture what it would be like if tomorrow we all woke up with equal shares of all of the wealth, and an equal opportunity to earn a living. It would give the haves a chance to display their superiority over the have nots. I bet in less then a year the haves would have all of the money back under their control.

What goes up must go down, the spinning wheel goes around and round

 

[TurtleDude]

You know what they say " be careful what you wish for " Now try to picture what it would be like if tomorrow we all woke up with equal shares of all of the wealth, and an equal opportunity to earn a living. It would give the haves a chance to display their superiority over the have nots. I bet in less then a year the haves would have all of the money back under their control.

What goes up must go down, the spinning wheel goes around and round

wake up an imagine you have wheels where your feet were. You can now compete with trolley cars.

Ray Powell (died June 1980) was a top economics professor at yale. Not a conservative by any means. He noted that if all the property in the USA was gathered up and equally distributed he figured within 30 years the distribution would be almost the same as it was in 1980

 

[EarlzP]

Voting has nothing to do with it. There is nothing that shows me from what I see they shouldn't be under the control of the people that own what they're using. There is no reason to believe that they should of equal footing as the owner that has to answer for anything that renter does and that paid for actual property.

With out the renter the property owners property would soon become a liability, No income just out put. Your sense of superiority would soon be irrelevant

They are irrelevant because of the relationship they have with responsibility and the rights that come from ownership. Even the state holds them to no accord because of this if that is how you want to see it.

Apparently that is the way you want to see it

Stop this nonsense. A renter has no business being equal to a renter. If you wish to argue that a man that owns the property shouldn't be able to tell people that are using their property what to do, be my guest but I highly doubt your argument will have bearing on reality

.

The renter signs a lease that should indicate his/her rights till the lease runs out, from that point on both parties are bound by the terms of the lease and the law. As far as equality goes both parties are equal and as I said above the owner has a need to rent just as the renter has a need to rent, that is reality.

Until you realize that government holds down the majority more than anyone else you will be lost in a haze.

Your argument makes no sense WE are the government

 

[PzKfW IVe]

arguable, since you have not defined your terms.

- Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosopy
Imagep has used it perfectly well in terms of this.

Yes. But in the current and correct context - that is, the one of this topic, see below - the definition you've chosen isn't valid. Of course, you're changing that defintion so that you can make a point, which illustrates the fact that you cannot defend the points made with the term as it is taken in the context of this topic.

Thomas Jefferson - PROPERTY AND NATURAL RIGHT

This will be useful when we discuss property rights and property taxes, but as it has nothing to do with taking income frome someone who is accused of having 'too much' and giving it directly to someone else simply because that someone else has' less than enough', it means nothing here.

if you have taken more of the common wealth than is rightfully yours, those who are deprived of their rightful portion of the common good are entitled to demand that you return their portion.

Really. What have the wealthy, in terms of their income, stolen from anyone?

 

[EarlzP]

wake up an imagine you have wheels where your feet were. You can now compete with trolley cars.

Ray Powell (died June 1980) was a top economics professor at yale. Not a conservative by any means. He noted that if all the property in the USA was gathered up and equally distributed he figured within 30 years the distribution would be almost the same as it was in 1980

I guess I just have to be blunt, my personal experience with upper management types leads me to believe that most of them could not perform the tasks required to manufacture a product, without the worker they would not be able to survive, the worker is the most critical component of any business. If the workers walk off of the job, the owner will not be able to continue his/her business on the other side of the coin the workers can easily keep a business running. We don't need you Mr Conservative you limit our vision, our motivation and our growth. My thoughts on wealth distribution is that we need a lot more of it coming from the top down. President Reagan's trickle down never materialized it's pass time to make his vision a reality

 

[TurtleDude]

I guess I just have to be blunt, my personal experience with upper management types leads me to believe that most of them could not perform the tasks required to manufacture a product, without the worker they would not be able to survive, the worker is the most critical component of any business. If the workers walk off of the job, the owner will not be able to continue his/her business on the other side of the coin the workers can easily keep a business running. We don't need you Mr Conservative you limit our vision, our motivation and our growth. My thoughts on wealth distribution is that we need a lot more of it coming from the top down. President Reagan's trickle down never materialized it's pass time to make his vision a reality

ah Joe Hill Psychobabble.

go ahead and walk of the job. the way the economy is there are plenty of people who'd give their left hand for a job these days. YOu limit your own vision and growth-become your own boss start your own company and show those silly upper management types how smart you are.

 

[EarlzP]

ah Joe Hill Psychobabble.

go ahead and walk of the job. the way the economy is there are plenty of people who'd give their left hand for a job these days. YOu limit your own vision and growth-become your own boss start your own company and show those silly upper management types how smart you are.

Okay I am according to you "Joe Hill Psychobabble" and also according to you, you are TurtleDude. I am retired drawing two pensions, I never made it past 9th grade but had a number of college grads working with me or in actuality working for me, I was not good enough to be invited to their homes, that never bothered me. I enjoyed the company of hands on types the men/women who worked for a living.

The days of capitalism are limited, unlike the time when our ancestors left Europe seeking an opportunity in a new land, There is no new land, when most of the wealth in America has made its way into the hands of a few there will be a revolution armed by the vote if possible and if not by the people in the street. Change will come

Conservatives are their own worst enemy, their greed will destroy them. It's all in the numbers TurtleDude

 

[What if...?]

Renters ARE irreverent to the issue. They don't own anything, they aren't in charge of anything. They are renting property owned by someone else that is a responsible for what happens to it. The renter is just using it and paying for the use. Owners do rule, renters are irrelevant.

I'm not exactly sure why you think its wrong to pay the owner to use their property, but I personally see nothing wrong with it.

Its the being forced to pay rent to AN owner by law that he's talking about.

No alternative to paying an owner exists, basically establishing "minimum rents" for owners. (Roughly equal to a mortgage payment here in San Diego)

 

[NGNM85]

Really. What have the wealthy, in terms of their income, stolen from anyone?

For starters; private ownership of the means of production is theft, by it's very nature.

 

[What if...?]

Yes. But in the current and correct context - that is, the one of this topic, see below - the definition you've chosen isn't valid. Of course, you're changing that defintion so that you can make a point, which illustrates the fact that you cannot defend the points made with the term as it is taken in the context of this topic.


This will be useful when we discuss property rights and property taxes, but as it has nothing to do with taking income frome someone who is accused of having 'too much' and giving it directly to someone else simply because that someone else has' less than enough', it means nothing here.


Really. What have the wealthy, in terms of their income, stolen from anyone?

There is a fundamental difference between taking and stealing.

If you pick every berry off of every bush you claim them as your own and reserve the right to charge accordingly.

Although you have left none for anyone else and your activities are responsible for the very shortages you use to justify the exorbitant prices you are charging.

I think that's the Lockean concept of natural rights, right?

 

[Henrin]

With out the renter the property owners property would soon become a liability, No income just out put. Your sense of superiority would soon be irrelevant

You can't really say the owners property would be a liability as its situational occurrence. Without a place to live these people are homeless. This kind of argument gets you nowhere but a circle.

Apparently that is the way you want to see it.

That is the way it is, yes.

The renter signs a lease that should indicate his/her rights till the lease runs out, from that point on both parties are bound by the terms of the lease and the law.

The lease allows them to use the land, they don't have any rights to the land that trumps that of the owners by its existence.

As far as equality goes both parties are equal and as I said above the owner has a need to rent just as the renter has a need to rent, that is reality.

The renter has far more a need than the owner. You can try to pretend the need is the same on both sides, but its really not.

Your argument makes no sense WE are the government

We are not the government, the people that govern us are. This tried argument of we the people are the government is a falsity. Always has been and always will be.

 

[Henrin]

Its the being forced to pay rent to AN owner by law that he's talking about.

No alternative to paying an owner exists, basically establishing "minimum rents" for owners. (Roughly equal to a mortgage payment here in San Diego)

If he wishes to have lower rent he needs to move to a different area that has lower demand. San Diego I would imagine is a very bad place to rent or own if you want low prices.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth that has been honestly acquired. The only sort of redistribution of wealth I support is the compensation of a victim by the wrongdoer.