Why "x% of people have y% of the wealth" is irrelevant.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Societies are not capitalist exactly to the extent of states interfere in their markets. So complaining about 19th state aggression in a thread about the free market is of "marginal relevance."

[/ QUOTE ]

With one thing I agree with you AC'ists, there hasn't been much free capitalism in modern history, even today the US is far from free capitalism.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]


Yes you can do it without direct taxation and without interferring in business.

FUNDS DO NOT NEED TO BE REDISTRIBUTED. Funds and wealth are created. (can you not understand that the wealth of today is more than in 1700 AD?)

[/ QUOTE ]

We're better off today mainly because of the introduction of better government. There are other reasons, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
Where did that money come from?

[/ QUOTE ]

It came from the blood, sweat, and toil of millions of workers, often working for a fraction of the real worth of their labor, in order to enrich the bank accounts of the already rich - so that they can, in turn, become even richer.

[ QUOTE ]
Did someone have that wealth stashed away for noone to see? NO IT WAS CREATED!!!! Bill gates did not get rich by taking money from rich people...he provided a product and people bought it. If you do not want him to get richer...dont buy his products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gates is rich because he was able to introduce his product at a time and in a way that provided him with a near-monopoly on operating system software.

If he had not done it, somebody else would have.

And it's possible - even likely - that we'd all be better off today, if we were using some other software than Windows.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under capitalism, fortunes can only be build by continually innovating and pleasing large numbers of customers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then this "capitalism" is of marginal relevance. (I suppose the large number of beneficiaries of the violent 19th century European empires were pretty pleased with themselves, though they weren't the "customers" really.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Societies are not capitalist exactly to the extent of states interfere in their markets. So complaining about 19th state aggression in a thread about the free market is of "marginal relevance."

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's complaining? I'm simply pointing out that your capitalist model is not a sufficient basis for extrapolating the virtuousness of all fortunes. Your OP did not make it clear that its conclusions are applicable only to a specific ideal society.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

But you aren't going to manage to convince everybody to think like you, so the conflict isn't going away. So even though you may be right, you are still a contributor to keeping the conflict alive (as am I).

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
I always admire an honest statist; someone who proudly proclaims that he isn't going to change his mind and is willing to use force to make you comply.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I will keep that in mind when I decide where to aim when I fire the gun [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]


We're better off today mainly because of the introduction of better government. There are other reasons, of course.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the less, the better.


[ QUOTE ]

It came from the blood, sweat, and toil of millions of workers, often working for a fraction of the real worth of their labor, in order to enrich the bank accounts of the already rich - so that they can, in turn, become even richer.


[/ QUOTE ]

Karl Marx, you have an apprentice. That and the fact that people had ideas to hire them and use them in productive ways.




[ QUOTE ]

Gates is rich because he was able to introduce his product at a time and in a way that provided him with a near-monopoly on operating system software.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds like a smart guy to me

[ QUOTE ]

If he had not done it, somebody else would have.

And it's possible - even likely - that we'd all be better off today, if we were using some other software than Windows.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doh. Thought we had something that made sense. Someone else maybe would have, perhaps 30 years later. Who knows.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PS. Why isn't the boy next door entitled to *your* money, and why don't you just hand it over instead of using force to take someone else's? My opinion is that the "compassion" that underlies this flavor of socialism is a hollow, empty compassion. The socialist doesn't actually care enough about the poor and the downtrodden to get off his duff or reach into his own pocket; he would rather stay on his duff and have a man with a gun reach into someone else's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is a prejudice towards socialists, you find a lot of socialists that are involved in charity etc.. The same prejudice you also often find towards rich people. I think most people have compassion and want good for people around, regardless of their political belief. If enough charity was in place to achieve the goals, I wouldn't ask you for a single dollar of tax, but unfortunately it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because much of it is outlawed. It's a great trick. Make it illegal to provide charity, and then claim there is a market failure in charitable giving. For example, the state makes one jump through an incredible amount of extremely costly hoops to set up any charity of significant scale. Why? Because those in government don't want the competition. For example, where I come from, it is a crime to cook food for the homeless.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
But you aren't going to manage to convince everybody to think like you, so the conflict isn't going away. So even though you may be right, you are still a contributor to keeping the conflict alive (as am I).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are conflating intellectual disagreement with property disputes.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
That's because much of it is outlawed. It's a great trick. Make it illegal to provide charity, and then claim there is a market failure in charitable giving. For example, the state makes one jump through an incredible amount of extremely costly hoops to set up any charity of significant scale. Why? Because those in government don't want the competition. For example, where I come from, it is a crime to cook food for the homeless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, this sounds like a local phenomena. I think most charity is legal in Europe.

[[censored]]

Borodog,


pretty much agree with your post but I do think it matters greatly that the poor and middle class have the perception that the system is fair to them and that they have the possibility through hard work, good living and intelligence to accumulate more wealth and a better life. I think if it gets to the point where too large of a percentage lose that belief and stop "buying into" the system problems start to arise like the desire for socialism, or other unrest.

so in summary I think its some times necessary to take minor steps to slow the perception of uneven income distribution in order to insure the system as a whole.