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

[Skidoo]

Post deleted by [censored]

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ 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.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe).

[/ QUOTE ]

And those socialist economies in Europe are doing so well....inflation.... zero to very little economic growth....sign me up!

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that, if accepted, everyone is then "entitled" to everything. All property claims become subjective verbal claims about who can put what to "the best" use. It's a recipe for never ending conflict. It destroys the very purpose of property, which is to reduce and resolve conflicts over scarce resources, not foment them.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are in this situation already, there isn't any universal worldwide principles in place, there is a lot of conflicting principles and conflicting laws. I could claim that your point of view is a source of conflict as well as you can claim that mine is, I am not going to change my point of view to avoid conflict.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think will stop this trend, so that it does not continue to the absurd conclusion of one small group owning all the wealth?

[/ QUOTE ]

When 1% owns 99% of all the stuff, the other 99% will rise up and take it - by force, if necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the diminishing marginal utility of wealth, it would be generally preferable from a utilitarian perspective to spread wealth around as much as possible, if that spreading doesn't decrease the total amount of wealth created.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a utilitarian perspective, transfers are preferable even if they result in a net reduction of total wealth.

For example, if your annual income is ten million, ten thousand more or less is insignificant. It makes - literally - no difference. If you're making $10,000 a year, on the other hand, that amount of money is significant.

Even if transferring 10k from the owner to the worker somehow cost money - some of the money disappeared - the net result would be better than if you hadn't transferred the money at all.

[Borodog]

[ 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 that states interfere in their markets. So complaining about 19th state aggression in a thread about the free market is of "marginal relevance."

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you socialists really want the gap between rich and poor to be smaller...

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably a socialist based on American nomenclature (I wouldn't be called in Europe).

[/ QUOTE ]

And those socialist economies in Europe are doing so well....inflation.... zero to very little economic growth....sign me up!

[/ QUOTE ]

Jees, there are successful socialist economies too. However the GDP all other equal will be lower in a socialist economy, I don't question that.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]


When 1% owns 99% of all the stuff, the other 99% will rise up and take it - by force, if necessary.


[/ QUOTE ]
If 1% owns 99% of the stuff, it should be pretty easy to buy enough guns to shoot anyone who even tries. In fact, that's pretty much a guarantee.

[Zygote]

check this out (click on income trends):

http://www.gapminder.org/downloads/p...ends-2005.html

take note of the level of inequality and the concentration of wealth over time relative to the success of a given time period.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that, if accepted, everyone is then "entitled" to everything. All property claims become subjective verbal claims about who can put what to "the best" use. It's a recipe for never ending conflict. It destroys the very purpose of property, which is to reduce and resolve conflicts over scarce resources, not foment them.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are in this situation already, there isn't any universal worldwide principles in place, there is a lot of conflicting principles and conflicting laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And I make the normative claim that conflict is bad and the objective claim that conflicts are costlier than the absence of conflicts, and that ceteris paribus a society based around an objective property system that minimizes and resolves conflicts will be wealthier than a society based around neverending conflicting subjective property claims that foment conflicts, as well as the a priori deduction that capitalist societies based on the division of labor and voluntary transactions produce the maximum benefit for the most people. Since I care more about the many than the few, this is the system I will advocate.

[ QUOTE ]
I could claim that your point of view is a source of conflict as well as you can claim that mine is,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not going to change my point of view to avoid conflict.

[/ 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.