Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[thereisnospoon]

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

If your argument requires me to accept this as a given, then we can stop now and agree to disagree.

Ok....So let's say a foreign force invades the United States. But on the opposite coast from where you reside.
Our military destroys the enemy and the threat is extinguished. Is it your premise you received no benefit from the defense of your country and the people?

My premise is there is no logical basis whatsoever to support the notion that the benefits derived from military spending are shared equally. To imagine that it's even possible, let alone plausible, strikes me as decidedly imbecilic.

Ok.. Let me make this clear. The money we spend on our military is a Constitutionally mandated essential function of government. There is no intent to "share" some perceived benefit.
The military exists to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's all.

What is it you expect to receive as a result of military spending.
Ya know what.....Never mind. I am not interested in your twisted logic on this matter. Reason: See above after "let me make this clear".

 

[manifold]

Ok....So let's say a foreign force invades the United States. But on the opposite coast from where you reside.
Our military destroys the enemy and the threat is extinguished. Is it your premise you received no benefit from the defense of your country and the people?

My premise is there is no logical basis whatsoever to support the notion that the benefits derived from military spending are shared equally. To imagine that it's even possible, let alone plausible, strikes me as decidedly imbecilic.

Ok.. Let me make this clear. The money we spend on our military is a Constitutionally mandated essential function of government. There is no intent to "share" some perceived benefit.
The military exists to defend us against all enemies foreign and domestic. That's all.

What is it you expect to receive as a result of military spending.
Ya know what.....Never mind. I am not interested in your twisted logic on this matter. Reason: See above after "let me make this clear".

The 'constitutionality' of the various mechanisms for wealth redistribution is an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm talking about the morality of it, not the constitutionality.

 

[DiamondDave]

DD's logic

- The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of military spending of course are not shared equally.
- However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of having a strong national defense is shared equally.

DD's logic applied to welfare
- The quantifiable (tangible) benefits of welfare of course are not shared equally.
- However, the non-quantifiable (intangible) benefit of less hunger, poverty and crime is shared equally.


Ok, works for me.

No.. the product of the military is the defense of the nation.. not the jobs that can be derived from the necessary funding of the military for national defense...

The funding of the military for defense is not currently paid for by everyone because not everyone pays income tax on their yearly earnings, and there are differing rates paid by most every citizen that does pay

Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense

You are all over the place with your nitwittery and scatterbrained thinking

 

[manifold]

Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense.

In your opinion.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have income redistribution. Wealth redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking income from those who have more income.

There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.

 

[boedicca]

What's your opinion on the morality of taking money from those who earned it and giving it to people who haven't? Not talking about people who cannot earn their own money but rather those who choose not to. And can you recommend any books or writings on the subject?

Seems to me basic self worth is at least in part a reflection on your independence. Or at least contributing something, your own labor or time to your family or community. This country does not like freeloaders, and while there is a certain amount of leeway in tough times like we're in now, at some point opinions change.

So are we morally right to redistribute somebody else's wealth or deny people support in an effort to incentivize them to be more productive members of society?

I have a great book on the subject...it's called the Bible.

Love thy neighbor as thyself - Jesus.

We should redistribute weath because Jesus says so?

Where does it say in the Bible that the government should force one to "Love They Neighbor As Thyself" and transfer one's possessions to said neighbor?

 

[DiamondDave]

Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense.

In your opinion.

Simply state what group of the citizenry receives no protection from the national defense or a differing level of quality of national defense.... 2nd time this is asked of you.. I'm still waiting for your answer

 

[manifold]

Each person derives the same exact benefit of national defense.

In your opinion.

Simply state what group of the citizenry receives no protection from the national defense or a differing level of quality of national defense.... 2nd time this is asked of you.. I'm still waiting for your answer

I didn't say either of those things.

I said the benefits are not shared equally IMO.

Please explain why you think they are? 2nd time this is asked of you... I'm still waiting for your answer.

 

[DiamondDave]

In your opinion.

Simply state what group of the citizenry receives no protection from the national defense or a differing level of quality of national defense.... 2nd time this is asked of you.. I'm still waiting for your answer

I didn't say either of those things.

I said the benefits are not shared equally IMO.

Please explain why you think they are? 2nd time this is asked of you... I'm still waiting for your answer.

I did not say you said them.. I asked you to clarify.. since national defense is the benefit given by a government funded military

Please answer the question

You're certainly tap dancing

 

[Bern80]

You've argued a position built upon you getting to dictate what constitutes 'fair'.

I'm merely pointing out what I thought was obvious, that what constitutes fair is up to individual, subjective determination.

I'm not dictating anything. Words have meaning and definitions. I am simply abiding by them. You are not.

Fair, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sorry this simple truth destroys your entire argument, but I can't do anything about that, and neither can you.

Again, you simply saying so doesn't make it so. There is no simple truth that I am aware of that says people get to ascribe any definition they feel like to any word they feel like. Grab a dictionary a tell us all what definition of fair your notion that taking from those for no other reason than they have more, fits.

 

[Bern80]

We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have income redistribution. Wealth redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking income from those who have more income.

There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.

Semantics Poo. As soon as I receive it, my income IS my wealth.

 

[manifold]

We don't have wealth redistribution in the U.S., we have income redistribution. Wealth redistribution would imply we are taking already established wealth from those who have it to give it to those who have less. We aren't We're taking income from those who have more income.

There's a big difference. My great uncle was a high school band director and made little income, but he retired wealthy because he was as cheap as they get and saved most of his income. Other people might make 6 figures but have little accumulated wealth because they blow it all or because they have a kazillion children.

Semantics Poo. As soon as I receive it, my income IS my wealth.

Says the guy arguing what is 'fair' based on his own subjective judgement of fairness, while pretending his proclamations are fact on account of a dictionary definition.

The absudity never ends.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[manifold]

Simply state what group of the citizenry receives no protection from the national defense or a differing level of quality of national defense.... 2nd time this is asked of you.. I'm still waiting for your answer

I didn't say either of those things.

I said the benefits are not shared equally IMO.

Please explain why you think they are? 2nd time this is asked of you... I'm still waiting for your answer.

I did not say you said them.. I asked you to clarify.. since national defense is the benefit given by a government funded military

Please answer the question

You're certainly tap dancing

Are you asking me to give you a 'party A', 'party B' example of the benefits of a strong national defense not being shared equally? I can do that pretty easily.

 

[DiamondDave]

I didn't say either of those things.

I said the benefits are not shared equally IMO.

Please explain why you think they are? 2nd time this is asked of you... I'm still waiting for your answer.

I did not say you said them.. I asked you to clarify.. since national defense is the benefit given by a government funded military

Please answer the question

You're certainly tap dancing

Are you asking me to give you a 'party A', 'party B' example of the benefits of a strong national defense not being shared equally? I can do that pretty easily.

I am asking if you think anyone derives a different benefit from a government funded military when the product of the government funded military is national defense... for indeed that is the product...

Again.. what group of citizens have differing levels of protection from national defense or no protection from national defense??

 

[manifold]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

 

[DiamondDave]

Some people are far better equipped to defend themselves against all aggressors, both foriegn and domestic, than most of the population. Heck, plenty members of this very board boast about their own level of preparedness on a regular basis. Clearly these people derive less benefit from national defense than the average citizen. It could even be argued that it's actually a detriment to them.

Whether or not I have a personal AR-15 and the training to use it, while you do not, is irrelevant

Again.. what group of citizens have differing levels of protection from national defense or no protection from national defense??

 

[DiamondDave]

Nice avoidance.. and spewing of absolute bullshit... government does not equal wealth redistribution.. repeatedly stating it does not make it so

And you're still avoiding the question...

 

[Againsheila]

"When the top 400 individuals control more wealth than 150 million Americans combined, something is very, very wrong."

yea, we have a group of entitled, do nothing slugs at the bottom looking for their handout instead of making a living on their own.

So the people working at McDonalds are do nothings, and the hedge fund managers are "making a living on their own?"

are mcdonalds workers on welfare? why are they working at mcdonalds anyway? unless they are kids trying to make a few buck in school, or own the franchise. why didn't they take advantage of the same opportunities afforded them and most of the other people making a decent living?

You're joking right? Have you looked at the job opportunities lately? Have you forgotten about NAFTA, GATT, PNTR with China and all the free trade agreements that has led a mass exodus of jobs from this country?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Spoken like an ignorant moron. You think the Oil industry is the only industry that gets subsidies? Have you ever complained about Ducks Unlimited getting 40 plus million a year in subsidies? And what is it that they produce?

You ******* big oil haters piss me off. You ought to have you ass whooped and not be allowed to use ANY product derived from petroleum.

 

[Gadawg73]

Like how the government subsidizes the oil companies? They receive money they didn't earn. Let's give that money back to the people who earned it: the taxpayers.

Stop having donor states give the taxpayer's money to states that receive it. In my state we give some of our hard earned tax dollars to other states, who haven't earned it.

Anybody who doesn't support these two things, isn't really serious about being against the redistribution of wealth.

Spoken like an ignorant moron. You think the Oil industry is the only industry that gets subsidies? Have you ever complained about Ducks Unlimited getting 40 plus million a year in subsidies? And what is it that they produce?

You ******* big oil haters piss me off. You ought to have you ass whooped and not be allowed to use ANY product derived from petroleum.

**** the Ducks Unlimited People also.
No one should get any welfare, ever.
I do not hate big oil. I like them but they should get NO $$$ from the taxpayers.
They lobby for that $$$. Makes a mockery of the entire system.