Your thoughts on this passage?

[JBeukema]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

 

[Revere]

The unproductive are never satisfied with what is taken from the productive.

 

[Madeline]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

 

[Revere]

Government has no claim on your assets.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

 

[JBeukema]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

The very question Engels posed to the bourgeoisie who inherited daddy's factory and who took the majority of the proletarians wealth, which he had produced through his own labour.


Same coin.

 

[Madeline]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

A society that permits undue concentrations of wealth via inheritance will eventually cannabalize itself. I have a legitimate interest in preventing that from occurring.

 

[boedicca]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

 

[Revere]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

A society that permits undue concentrations of wealth via inheritance will eventually cannabalize itself. I have a legitimate interest in preventing that from occurring.

Perhaps you can name one who sets out to redistriubute it and makes everyone equal.

 

[rikules]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

" but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?"


or tiger woods?
or phil mickelson?
or randy moss?
or tom brady?
or derek jeter?
or peyton manning?

some kid is good at putting a ball through a hoop and next thing you know he's a multimillionaire...

meanwhile, people who do REAL WORK (secretaries, janitors, mechanics etc)
make barely enough to put food on the table for their kids....


our priorities are all twisted

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

A society that permits undue concentrations of wealth via inheritance will eventually cannabalize itself. I have a legitimate interest in preventing that from occurring.

NO what you mean is that you think the Government has the right to take anything you agree with that belongs to those better off then you to run programs that may benefit you. That is not Democracy, it is not a Republic, it is tyranny. Further the Constitution does not allow it.

 

[JBeukema]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Dregs?

Even with you people screaming about the tax rates, Bill Gates is hardly struggling to get by on the dregs of his income.

 

[Revere]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

" but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?"


or tiger woods?
or phil mickelson?
or randy moss?
or tom brady?
or derek jeter?
or peyton manning?

some kid is good at putting a ball through a hoop and next thing you know he's a multimillionaire...

meanwhile, people who do REAL WORK (secretaries, janitors, mechanics etc)
make barely enough to put food on the table for their kids....


our priorities are all twisted

They will never be satisfied with what is taken from those people.

 

[Bill Angel]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

I would not find fault with the assertions in principle, but I take it to be a very idealistic statement. For example, there are still people right now in Baltimore who are left to spend the night like dogs in alleyways. But the problem is more likely mental illness among the homeless than the indifference of society. Yet it still means that there are those who are elderly, or ill and infirm-who cannot provide or care for themselves- whose needs are not yet being tended to.

 

[Trajan]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

What right have you to take what is theirs simply because you think you should?

The very question Engels posed to the bourgeoisie who inherited daddy's factory and who took the majority of the proletarians wealth, which he had produced through his own labour.


Same coin.

I personally don't think its the same coin at all.

 

[Madeline]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

 

[boedicca]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Dregs?

Even with you people screaming about the tax rates, Bill Gates is hardly struggling to get by on the dregs of his income.

Using Bill Gates is an outlier. Somebody who could never spend his own fortune in several lifetimes is not at all representative of the vast majority who work for a living.

But then, sophistry is one of your common responses.

 

[boedicca]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.

And your post is undeserving of any response other than to say a government whose purpose is Forced Charity does so by enslaving the productive.

 

[Trajan]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

" but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?"


or tiger woods?
or phil mickelson?
or randy moss?
or tom brady?
or derek jeter?
or peyton manning?

some kid is good at putting a ball through a hoop and next thing you know he's a multimillionaire...

meanwhile, people who do REAL WORK (secretaries, janitors, mechanics etc)
make barely enough to put food on the table for their kids....


our priorities are all twisted

then I suggest you work on your putting, or jump shot ability etc.

If you are an ace mechanic, are honest and market yourself properly, you'll never lack for work.

 

[Revere]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Dregs?

Even with you people screaming about the tax rates, Bill Gates is hardly struggling to get by on the dregs of his income.

Using Bill Gates is an outlier. Somebody who could never spend his own fortune in several lifetimes is not at all representative of the vast majority who work for a living.

But then, sophistry is one of your common responses.

Thousands of industries and multi millions of people owe their fortunes to Bill Gates Fortune. If he wants to give away what he has, that's icing on the cake.