‘Redistribution’ (ie. theft) is an exercise in pointlessness.
Using coercive force to fund public goods is also ‘theft’, but still it can end up with near-unanimous support. So I don’t think that this is a good argument in and of itself.
As long as there is scarcity there will be haves and have nots, and wealth will accumulate as a natural function of time and successful strategies. You can reset the game board as often as you like but you can never ensure a permanent and even stalemate. Even assuming you could destroy the entire point of competing, well then you’ve destroyed everything you get from that too.
This post isn’t really about leveling the playing field. (Even in the stupid example with nobles, the nobles still end up 1000x richer than the peasants.)
There’s little in the way of ethics here, it’s just individuals making pragmatic decisions to make their own lives easier.
Ethics is individual level altruism in pursuit of group level pragmatism. If it was just individuals making self-centered decisions, they would reject taxation as libertatianism advises.
Altruism is to favour sacrifice to one’s group for benefit in return.
If one personally gets a return , then it’s not altruism. The return is to the group.
There is no benefit to me starving for people that aren’t in my group.
There’s no personal benefit to you doing most of the things you are ethically required to do.
When it’s just us then people will aid their own group just fine.
Maybe, but not out of self interest.
‘Redistribution’ (ie. theft) is an exercise in pointlessness. As long as there is scarcity there will be haves and have nots,
You are assuming that the only possible purpose of redistribution is to bring about an equilibrium of complete equality. That is not the case. There are multiple justifcations for redistribution.
We are already achieving record rates of getting people out of poverty, not with handouts, but with capitalism.
If your group benefits, you are likely to benefit too.
You have stepped back from the claim that ethical action always benefits the individual to the more obvious claim that they sometimes do.
The argument that choice doesn’t exist because someone is afraid of consequences is bunk.
Who was making it.?
If equality cannot be achieved, then what are we trying to do, and why?
Redistribution can be justified by social stability (bribing the poor not to overthrow the rich), political stability (bribing the poor not to embrace socialism) investment in human capital, etc.
If equality isn’t the variable or metric that matters here, then why are we focusing on it?
Who says we are?
The GINI coefficient has nothing to do with actual standards of living, and if you look at life in the West it’s pretty damn good. Yet people will always want more.
So? Do you have an actual argument?
If you have what you need then why do you always want more? Do you really think that following in the failed footsteps of every single violent revolution to ‘redistribute’ is going to address avarice?
Redistribution in peaceful societies just isn’t the same thing as revolution.
People that want to steal the fruits of the labour of others without any proof that would actually fix anything.
Theres plenty of proof that it fixes things. But maybe not things you care about.
-
Using coercive force to fund public goods is also ‘theft’, but still it can end up with near-unanimous support. So I don’t think that this is a good argument in and of itself.
This post isn’t really about leveling the playing field. (Even in the stupid example with nobles, the nobles still end up 1000x richer than the peasants.)
Ethics is individual level altruism in pursuit of group level pragmatism. If it was just individuals making self-centered decisions, they would reject taxation as libertatianism advises.
-
If one personally gets a return , then it’s not altruism. The return is to the group.
There’s no personal benefit to you doing most of the things you are ethically required to do.
Maybe, but not out of self interest.
You are assuming that the only possible purpose of redistribution is to bring about an equilibrium of complete equality. That is not the case. There are multiple justifcations for redistribution.
Whom are you arguing against?
You have stepped back from the claim that ethical action always benefits the individual to the more obvious claim that they sometimes do.
Who was making it.?
Redistribution can be justified by social stability (bribing the poor not to overthrow the rich), political stability (bribing the poor not to embrace socialism) investment in human capital, etc.
Who says we are?
So? Do you have an actual argument?
Redistribution in peaceful societies just isn’t the same thing as revolution.
Theres plenty of proof that it fixes things. But maybe not things you care about.
I am not changing the subject, I am disagreeing with the claim that redistribution is only justified by equality.
Non communist societies can have redistribution, so that is simply irrelevant.
“Revolution” is not defined as “any use of force whatsoever” , so, irrelevant again.
And what is, taken in tax is partly redistributed, so you are not talking about a fundamentally different thing.
You might object to more extreme forms of redistribution, but then it would have been helpful to say so explicitly.
[edits for spelling and clarity]