CDZ redistribution of wealth

[irosie91]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

 

[Andylusion]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No, it's not. That's just a rationalization for tyranny.

 

[irosie91]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No, it's not. That's just a rationalization for tyranny.

ok----it is not the WHOLE PURPOSE----just the major purpose.
My statement was a bit over the top. Tyranny happens when the STRONG ----control and oppress the weak

 

[Andylusion]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No, it's not. That's just a rationalization for tyranny.

ok----it is not the WHOLE PURPOSE----just the major purpose.
My statement was a bit over the top. Tyranny happens when the STRONG ----control and oppress the weak

It's not part of the purpose either. The strong, is government. The weak is the public. The government uses the claim that it's protecting the weak, in a justification for abusing everyone with more and more power and control over our lives.

Same with 'distributing wealth'. The strong government, uses this rationalization, to take from those who have earned, to give to those who have not, in order to subjugate both.

What better way to control those who earn their wealth, by taking a bunch, and threatening to take the rest.

What better way to control those who have not, but by making them dependent on government for what they have.

Everything you said, is exactly how tyranny begins.

 

[Camp]

Doesn't much of this debate about wealth distribution hinge on the competing ideas about who owns the natural wealth of a country? Who gets what share of the forest, the rivers, the mining rights under the ground of government owned property, the fishing rights to the sea and oceans protected by the the government, etc. Add in the wealth of legislative actions such as taxing and charging fees for various activities. The government decides how that wealth is distributed. Who else would? What is the citizens share out of the tree cut down by private industry or the gold procured from government land?

 

[LOki]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

 

[irosie91]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

 

[Andylusion]

Doesn't much of this debate about wealth distribution hinge on the competing ideas about who owns the natural wealth of a country? Who gets what share of the forest, the rivers, the mining rights under the ground of government owned property, the fishing rights to the sea and oceans protected by the the government, etc. Add in the wealth of legislative actions such as taxing and charging fees for various activities. The government decides how that wealth is distributed. Who else would? What is the citizens share out of the tree cut down by private industry or the gold procured from government land?

Not really. Because the same principals of economics applies to countries that have very little natural resources.

Why do you think, for example, Singapore with almost zero natural resources, has a vibrant growing economy? It's not because the government has decided how to distribute wealth... because they largely don't.

The government should not be in the business of handing out favors, or owning land, or controlling anything.

Wealth is created by people being free to produce wealth. Wealth tends to flow based on those who produce more, instead of those who produce less.

Government should not be involved at all.

 

[Andylusion]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

 

[Camp]

Doesn't much of this debate about wealth distribution hinge on the competing ideas about who owns the natural wealth of a country? Who gets what share of the forest, the rivers, the mining rights under the ground of government owned property, the fishing rights to the sea and oceans protected by the the government, etc. Add in the wealth of legislative actions such as taxing and charging fees for various activities. The government decides how that wealth is distributed. Who else would? What is the citizens share out of the tree cut down by private industry or the gold procured from government land?

Not really. Because the same principals of economics applies to countries that have very little natural resources.

Why do you think, for example, Singapore with almost zero natural resources, has a vibrant growing economy? It's not because the government has decided how to distribute wealth... because they largely don't.

The government should not be in the business of handing out favors, or owning land, or controlling anything.

Wealth is created by people being free to produce wealth. Wealth tends to flow based on those who produce more, instead of those who produce less.

Government should not be involved at all.

The government has no choice about owning or controlling land and resources. Your example of Singapore goes into a whole different realm of discussion about how laws and policies of government are used to influence wealth. I was addressing the simple fact that in the USA, the public via the government actually own vast amounts of material wealth that have to be distributed one way or another. The public lands and wealth were acquired before anyone was willing to protect them or maintain them from abuse or destruction. It is easy to theorize that the government should not be involved, but the miners and lumber interest were, and are not interested in being responsible for our vast holdings on a permanent basis. They only want to dig up some specific wealth in the form of specific minerals or cut down trees to be sold for profit. In the earlier days they were dependent on US troops, the government and public, to protect them with blood and funding while they obtained their wealth from disputed territories. To this day the government and public must provide funding and sometimes blood to protect our holdings. Private enterprise is not able to protect the forest from destruction. The government is needed to do that.

 

[irosie91]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

providing food for the starving via government subsidy does not equate with letting the starving slit your throat-----you are delerious

 

[RKMBrown]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

providing food for the starving via government subsidy does not equate with letting the starving slit your throat-----you are delerious

Who's starving in the USA, link?

 

[Camp]

The whole purpose of government is the equitable distribution of wealth and the protection of the weak

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

providing food for the starving via government subsidy does not equate with letting the starving slit your throat-----you are delerious

Who's starving in the USA, link?

The vulnerable go hungry. Starving does not always come quickly. Sometimes it is a prolonged affair of suffering from the lack of necessary vitamins and nutritional needs. No one should suffer this way and it seems much is done to stop it from happening, but the very young and the old who a no longer are completely able to take care of themselves fall through the cracks. This is what makes school nutrition programs and food deliveries to the elderly so important. The kids can't help it if they have alcoholic or druggie parents and the elderly can't help it if they can no long go out and earn a few extra dollars to buy oranges or eggs.

 

[RKMBrown]

No.

The only valid purpose of government is to protect the rights of everyone... weak, strong, whatever

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

providing food for the starving via government subsidy does not equate with letting the starving slit your throat-----you are delerious

Who's starving in the USA, link?

The vulnerable go hungry. Starving does not always come quickly. Sometimes it is a prolonged affair of suffering from the lack of necessary vitamins and nutritional needs. No one should suffer this way and it seems much is done to stop it from happening, but the very young and the old who a no longer are completely able to take care of themselves fall through the cracks. This is what makes school nutrition programs and food deliveries to the elderly so important. The kids can't help it if they have alcoholic or druggie parents and the elderly can't help it if they can no long go out and earn a few extra dollars to buy oranges or eggs.

IOW you've got nothing but fear uncertainty and doubt to back up your claim.

 

[Andylusion]

Doesn't much of this debate about wealth distribution hinge on the competing ideas about who owns the natural wealth of a country? Who gets what share of the forest, the rivers, the mining rights under the ground of government owned property, the fishing rights to the sea and oceans protected by the the government, etc. Add in the wealth of legislative actions such as taxing and charging fees for various activities. The government decides how that wealth is distributed. Who else would? What is the citizens share out of the tree cut down by private industry or the gold procured from government land?

Not really. Because the same principals of economics applies to countries that have very little natural resources.

Why do you think, for example, Singapore with almost zero natural resources, has a vibrant growing economy? It's not because the government has decided how to distribute wealth... because they largely don't.

The government should not be in the business of handing out favors, or owning land, or controlling anything.

Wealth is created by people being free to produce wealth. Wealth tends to flow based on those who produce more, instead of those who produce less.

Government should not be involved at all.

The government has no choice about owning or controlling land and resources. Your example of Singapore goes into a whole different realm of discussion about how laws and policies of government are used to influence wealth. I was addressing the simple fact that in the USA, the public via the government actually own vast amounts of material wealth that have to be distributed one way or another. The public lands and wealth were acquired before anyone was willing to protect them or maintain them from abuse or destruction. It is easy to theorize that the government should not be involved, but the miners and lumber interest were, and are not interested in being responsible for our vast holdings on a permanent basis. They only want to dig up some specific wealth in the form of specific minerals or cut down trees to be sold for profit. In the earlier days they were dependent on US troops, the government and public, to protect them with blood and funding while they obtained their wealth from disputed territories. To this day the government and public must provide funding and sometimes blood to protect our holdings. Private enterprise is not able to protect the forest from destruction. The government is needed to do that.

Really. So before the government ever existed, no one protected their property? I would disagree.

 

[Camp]

ok ---that's a fair statement----but the weak NEED IT MORE----
thus the weak are the natural program for government. The
wealthy and strong -----historically and even now ARE THE
GOVERNMENT------to be more specific---some of the wealthy and strong--------some have nothing to do with protecting
anyone

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

providing food for the starving via government subsidy does not equate with letting the starving slit your throat-----you are delerious

Who's starving in the USA, link?

The vulnerable go hungry. Starving does not always come quickly. Sometimes it is a prolonged affair of suffering from the lack of necessary vitamins and nutritional needs. No one should suffer this way and it seems much is done to stop it from happening, but the very young and the old who a no longer are completely able to take care of themselves fall through the cracks. This is what makes school nutrition programs and food deliveries to the elderly so important. The kids can't help it if they have alcoholic or druggie parents and the elderly can't help it if they can no long go out and earn a few extra dollars to buy oranges or eggs.

IOW you've got nothing but fear uncertainty and doubt to back up your claim.

Maybe, but I do volunteer and help deliver hot meals to shut in elderly folks in my community. I see it first hand. I'll include some links in this post about hunger in America.

hungerinamericamovie.com

npr.org/series/5023829/hunger-in-america

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/16/hunger-crisis-recession/7559713/

 

[RKMBrown]

No, the weak do not 'need it more'. I don't buy that. If a guy breaks into my home and threatens me with a gun, why should I be protected from this, less, then a someone who is weaker? Like yourself for example. Why should I be protected less than you, simply because you might be weaker?

Or say Warren Buffet. Why should the government allow people to kill and brutalize Buffet, or Rape his daughter, simply because perhaps he's stronger?

I don't buy that at all. Equality under the law, means EQUALITY... means everyone is treated the same, weak or strong. It's not the governments job to pick winners and losers, based on some unjust subjective value of "weak" and "strong".

providing food for the starving via government subsidy does not equate with letting the starving slit your throat-----you are delerious

Who's starving in the USA, link?

The vulnerable go hungry. Starving does not always come quickly. Sometimes it is a prolonged affair of suffering from the lack of necessary vitamins and nutritional needs. No one should suffer this way and it seems much is done to stop it from happening, but the very young and the old who a no longer are completely able to take care of themselves fall through the cracks. This is what makes school nutrition programs and food deliveries to the elderly so important. The kids can't help it if they have alcoholic or druggie parents and the elderly can't help it if they can no long go out and earn a few extra dollars to buy oranges or eggs.

IOW you've got nothing but fear uncertainty and doubt to back up your claim.

Maybe, but I do volunteer and help deliver hot meals to shut in elderly folks in my community. I see it first hand. I'll include some links in this post about hunger in America.

hungerinamericamovie.com

npr.org/series/5023829/hunger-in-america

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/16/hunger-crisis-recession/7559713/

Ok.. on the first link, everyone that was supposedly going hungry was overweight. They are complaining that some people have to work two jobs to get what they want... Uhmm.. that's not starving that's called living. They had a story about kids coming to school without having eaten breakfast... uhm.. hello some people skip breakfast, it's part of that liberty thing. They are really just bitching that dumb people prefer to eat fried potato chips over baked potatoes. They are claiming that bad food is cheaper to purchase... uhm... no it's not. The only person that looked like they were going hungry was the anorexic teacher. One person said the truth though ... there is a vast excess of food in this country.

Again no one was actually hungry in the "hungerinamericamovie" everyone was well fed.

The npr link is saying sometimes people have a budget, and have to decide whether to pay the rent or buy groceries. That is correct we all have to live on a budget. If your rent exceeds your ability to buy food... you need to share your rent with someone else. Why should you consider me starving if I decide to buy a home that is over my budget? Again, it's nonsensical BS. It assumes that food and housing (and probably medical care) should be completely free for everyone that does not work hard enough to get the best food, housing, and medical care money can buy. It's just drama for drama sake.

As for the USA today link... with the people that are supposedly going hungry who are gorging themselves with food made on their "granite" counter top...

ROFL.. yeah my income is being used to subsidize these folks getting fat off my income while living in an upscale suburban home. Oh the horror they got laid off and decided to take a 6month vacation living with relatives and spending their 401k money. Sigh.. Why should I have to fund this family's 401k?

My children have all been able to get a job within 1 day of trying. The people that are not working are either too lazy or too proud.

 

[Josf]

How the end of slavery led to starvation and death for millions of black Americans US news The Guardian

For those who are color blind the above is not black versus white; it is "dependent" slave versus "independent" competition.

 

[Centinel]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

No. It's not okay to take what belongs to others.

 

[320 Years of History]

Is redistribution of wealth, aided by social institutions, from the top down wrong, but from up from the lower strata to the top OK?

I don't see, and thus won't frame, the matter of so-called "wealth redistribution" as one of right or wrong. Indeed, I don't honestly believe anyone on either side of the aisle has as a designated objective the redistribution of wealth. Wealth redistribution is a means to an end, not the end in and of itself.

If, OP, you are willing and able to identify the end for which you see wealth redistribution as a means used to achieve it, I'll gladly share what I think about the merit of the end and whether I think wealth distribution is an effective and just means for doing so.

My reply, assuming you meet the criteria for me to give one, will be based on how I view the applicability of the principles of utilitarianism, consequentialism, and/or other philosophical approaches to ethical decision making. It just depends on which system of decision making I determine best suits the sought outcome identify. I can tell you now that no matter what response I give, I am well aware that there will "winners and losers," so to speak, no matter the approach I prefer for achieving whatever end you identify. That would be the case for anyone's answers.