This is a response to the question asked here. http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/167715-morality-of-wealth-redistribution.html
Whenever I hear this question from conservatives and libertarians I wonder why they have to ask it for I don't see 'redistribution' anywhere? (While a bit off topic, it always reminds me of the Russian Serf and nobility, or the Slave owner and Slave situation of past centuries.) It is an attitude on the part of the questioner rather than question. A few comments on the use of the words and ideas around the topic.
Wealth is only created in a society, sometimes a good idea makes money but good ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Each citizen of America has a equal right as citizen to its wealth. So obviously its natural resources belong to all. That everyone cannot take advantage of them, forces the government to regulate their use. Since we all own the timber, coal, petroleum, and other materials, everyone should benefit from their sale and usage. Seems simple.
People are not moral in the sense in which the question is asked, a few don't steal etc, but most people do what is comfortable for them based on their worldview. Think Mother Theresa and Bernie Madoff. No one, especially those able to benefit most from their class position think about the moral implications of their wealth. We are a society based on the individual who think they are Crusoe. Some very wealthy people eventually create useful charitable organizations, but this aid is often about personal aggrandizement or directed outward. While that is a positive, it does not lessen the fact the monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society much.
Every citizens pays taxes at some time in their life or their family does, each citizen in some way supports the society they live in and thus deserve help when the society's economy fails to provide opportunity. Membership in a nation grants these rights.
Wealthy people do not work any harder than others. I hear this constantly and wonder who the heck they are talking about. Show me a wealthy person who works harder than a miner, a roofer, a short order cook or any other job that often pays minimum wage. This is total BS, wealthy people, like so called 'moral' people do what they want and while some have talents that others do not, they still live in a society that provides them additional wealth.
The idea that incentive is all that is needed is more BS. Consider that something like sixty thousand businesses fail each year in America and these people surely did not lack incentive. They may have thought a bad idea would work but they worked none the less. Success is often luck and timing, few seem to recognize that important part of wealth.
Another aspect of great wealth is the power it has in a society or nation. Money buys power and lawyers who argue for the wealthy and with our election funding it controls the very people elected to serve the people, all people, but who often only work for the wealthy.
Since the wealth of a nation belongs to all, redistribution in the pejorative sense in which conservatives and libertarians frame it is a non-starter and an invalid argument. Citizens have a right to a fair distribution of the wealth of the nation they too own. That is the moral thing to do.
Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust
How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
How did you get rich dadddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax
"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." Taming the Savage Market
Whenever I hear this question from conservatives and libertarians I wonder why they have to ask it for I don't see 'redistribution' anywhere? (While a bit off topic, it always reminds me of the Russian Serf and nobility, or the Slave owner and Slave situation of past centuries.) It is an attitude on the part of the questioner rather than question. A few comments on the use of the words and ideas around the topic.
Wealth is only created in a society, sometimes a good idea makes money but good ideas do not exist in a vacuum. Each citizen of America has a equal right as citizen to its wealth. So obviously its natural resources belong to all. That everyone cannot take advantage of them, forces the government to regulate their use. Since we all own the timber, coal, petroleum, and other materials, everyone should benefit from their sale and usage. Seems simple.
People are not moral in the sense in which the question is asked, a few don't steal etc, but most people do what is comfortable for them based on their worldview. Think Mother Theresa and Bernie Madoff. No one, especially those able to benefit most from their class position think about the moral implications of their wealth. We are a society based on the individual who think they are Crusoe. Some very wealthy people eventually create useful charitable organizations, but this aid is often about personal aggrandizement or directed outward. While that is a positive, it does not lessen the fact the monies were made in a particular society from its resources, and if morality plays a part they owe that society much.
Every citizens pays taxes at some time in their life or their family does, each citizen in some way supports the society they live in and thus deserve help when the society's economy fails to provide opportunity. Membership in a nation grants these rights.
Wealthy people do not work any harder than others. I hear this constantly and wonder who the heck they are talking about. Show me a wealthy person who works harder than a miner, a roofer, a short order cook or any other job that often pays minimum wage. This is total BS, wealthy people, like so called 'moral' people do what they want and while some have talents that others do not, they still live in a society that provides them additional wealth.
The idea that incentive is all that is needed is more BS. Consider that something like sixty thousand businesses fail each year in America and these people surely did not lack incentive. They may have thought a bad idea would work but they worked none the less. Success is often luck and timing, few seem to recognize that important part of wealth.
Another aspect of great wealth is the power it has in a society or nation. Money buys power and lawyers who argue for the wealthy and with our election funding it controls the very people elected to serve the people, all people, but who often only work for the wealthy.
Since the wealth of a nation belongs to all, redistribution in the pejorative sense in which conservatives and libertarians frame it is a non-starter and an invalid argument. Citizens have a right to a fair distribution of the wealth of the nation they too own. That is the moral thing to do.
Inequality in a society also leads to the problems noted below, if morality were truly a consideration of a society and its wealth, this would be less a issue. "Great inequality is the scourge of modern societies. We provide the evidence on each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage births, and child well-being. For all eleven of these health and social problems, outcomes are very substantially worse in more unequal societies." Richard Wilkinson/Kate Pickett The Evidence in Detail | The Equality Trust
How the rich benefit from what should be owned by all: The Conservative Nanny State and Why we can't ignore growing income inequality. (1) - By Timothy Noah - Slate Magazine
How did you get rich dadddy? The rich get rich because of their merit. and UBI and the Flat Tax
"Old-fashioned laissez-faire in its pure form has fewer proponents today, but it is still conventional, among experts as well as in common discourse, to speak of "the economy" as an entity as though it were quite separate from government and society. Instead of these familiar but, we think, misleading distinctions we shall use the older, more accurate term "political economy." This term implies that economic activity is part of a larger social whole; the economy can be completely isolated from politics only in a game." Taming the Savage Market
Last edited:
