Jackboots and Stormtroopers.....

[Pliny]

The redistribution of wealth is a form of aggression, that; I think you can agree with, do you not? What level of aggression do you think is ok?

No I don't

What would you call a person demanding part of your paycheck? If you do not think that is ok why would you think it is ok for someone from the government to determine how much and for what purpose he should demand form your paycheck. Jail is the option for evasion. Without the freedom of choosing how much and, more importantly, where part of my paycheck goes, isn't that a form of aggression.

You don't like all the cash being spent on the Olympics? Do you feel there are other priorities?

[Oleg Bach]

The redistribution of wealth is a form of aggression, that; I think you can agree with, do you not? What level of aggression do you think is ok?

What would you call a person demanding part of your paycheck? If you do not think that is ok why would you think it is ok for someone from the government to determine how much and for what purpose he should demand form your paycheck. Jail is the option for evasion. Without the freedom of choosing how much and, more importantly, where part of my paycheck goes, isn't that a form of aggression.

You don't like all the cash being spent on the Olympics? Do you feel there are other priorities?

Yech! Jail is the option for not handing over taxes that will be used to bail out foolish and poorly skilled rich people....I must be a horrible person...as for your Olympics...I lost respect for the whole idea after it was awarded to China who as they compete on the track, someone is having their brains bashed out in the basement...it's a waste of money and time..as for athletes..who cares.

[Pliny]

Ultimately, to the extent that democracy actually functions, the people decide what is in the best interest of society.

Are you part of the people? You get a vote, is that it? Is that how we, the people decide? Or is it more the people in government decide and we just vo9te for whatever privilege we can get and suffer the rest of what government decides?

Generalizing with terms like "people" merely serves to obfuscate who is making the decisions, an individual does in all cases.

I don't think that our democracy functions as well as it should but that's another discussion. I take your point that determining what is in the best interest of society is a subjective exercise. Still, I'd rather have that discussion than, as you seem to wish, minimize government or eliminate it altogether.

Well then, it is subjective so should I decide for you and you for me or should we find someone else to decide for both of us?

I understand your fear of not having big brother by your side and having to just co-operate with people who are just mean and rotten and nasty and greedy and won't co-operate with you unless they are forced to by the mighty hammer of the State.

It is legitimate for the government to decide that the Olympics are in our best interests. It's also legitimate for people to disagree with that decision and for those people to be able to express their disagreement. It's not legitimate for the government to run roughshod over the rights of the people who disagree by passing laws which contravene the constitution. Certainly, you must be able to tell the difference.

It is very easy to understand that the government is being heavy handed in this instance by considering enacting Bill 13. It steps on the basic right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a legitimate "right". It is not a "privilege" or "favour" because the government is not giving you anything. Food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education if provided by government are privilege or favour because it is taken from one person and given to another. So certainly Bill 13 is different than the Government's "legitimate" reason to decide for us the Olympics are in our best interests.

Well, they certainly are in somebodies interest? Now because it is paid for out of the pocket of taxpayers and benefits someone other than all the taxpayers who contribute, it is "privilege" and "favour". I really don't care how noble the intent of government is in doing so, good intentions have paved the road to hell. In using force to ensure the payment of taxes without choice it violates a "right" that they are charged with protecting and that is the right of the sanctity of person and property. Canyou see the difference between a right and a privilege?

[Pliny]

Yech! Jail is the option for not handing over taxes that will be used to bail out foolish and poorly skilled rich people....I must be a horrible person...as for your Olympics...I lost respect for the whole idea after it was awarded to China who as they compete on the track, someone is having their brains bashed out in the basement...it's a waste of money and time..as for athletes..who cares.

That was the Olympics in China, not here, at least not yet. But you further my point regarding privilege and favour and stepping on rights.

[dre]

If you want to quote Rand it's really not fair to cherry pick only those partial ideas that support your argument and ignore the rest!

She never wrote that all individuals should do everything themselves. That's ridiculous to the extreme. Your model would be more correct if there were a number of individuals on that island who each produced different products or services and FREELY TRADED the fruits of their labours with each other! If necessary the group would form a government, to insure that nobody ripped off another individual by force or coercion.

We owe our wealth to the product of all individuals, not to any collective governing body. The problem when you say "Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated." is that "society" is a vague and nebulous term. Most governments claim to act for the will and the good of society and appear to do a very poor job of it. The problem is always the same - how do you accurately reflect that good and that will? Somehow it always seems that small groups manage to bleed from the producers in the name of "society", since no one can prove them wrong.

Rand once said this about your idea: "Society is everyone in general and nobody in particular, but it's never, ever YOU!"

I prefer a more succinct quote by P. T. Barnum - "Makers, takers and fakers. There are NO other kinds!"

We owe our wealth to the product of all individuals, not to any collective governing body. The problem when you say "Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated." is that "society" is a vague and nebulous term.

The efforts of individuals, and the commercial framework provided by a stable modern society are BOTH huge factors in wealth. You probably live in the west and make hundreds of dollars per day --- a person with the same work ethic, and IQ as you would make about $10 per day in most of the world. So you accumulate much much more wealth for your efforts+ideas because you live in a highly developed society thats stable, and has rules.

Judging by a quick look at wages around the world, the society you live in has an even larger effect on your own wealth than youre own efforts and ideas.

[Pliny]

Again with the Ayn Rand. Your statement is premised on the idea that all economic wealth flows from individuals and that the government is acting illegitimately when it pursues policies of wealth redistribution. This is a cornerstone of economic libertarianism. Why don't we test this theory? You move out to a deserted island and have no contact with anyone for 20 years. Build your own house, grow your own food, cut your own hair, be your own doctor. If your standard of living goes up, I'll admit that there is some merit to what you say. I'm guessing that it will go down, maybe all the way to zero (ie you don't survive).

I wasn't the one that brought up Ayn Rand and I wouldn't invoke her name. My opinion of her wouldn't be flattering. Having escaped the totalitarian tyranny of Stalin I will give her credit for knowing how socialism works when it has evolved to it's natural end - the total State.

All wealth does indeed flow from individuals. Economic wealth is a different story. It is the individual who assigns value to all things, material and immaterial, and that makes him the sole determiner of wealth. Redistributing wealth, creating a welfare state by taxing Paul to give to Peter, is not redistributing wealth. It is sanctimoniously moving money around.

Who is to determine what value any individual places on anything. It is rather presumptuous to think that I can give a person money and consider I have helped him, Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. It isn't really money people want. It is what it can buy. Some, like politicians, equate it with power and treat it like some God as though it is the source of existence. It is no wonder they feel the need to redistribute to all equally.

In fact, we owe our wealth to a whole bunch of factors including the abundance of raw materials on earth, thousands of years worth of knowledge acquired by our ancestors, a stable society in which to grow and work, a cooperative economy that allows each of us to focus on the things we do best/enjoy most and the efforts of individuals. So, individual effort is only one factor in the production of wealth. Since society as a whole is essential to our level of wealth, it is legitimate that society as a whole have some say in how that wealth is allocated.

Raw materials are worthless until someone finds a use for them and places a value on them.

Why not say individual effort is only one factor in the production of material wealth instead of just wealth?

A government that demands fifty percent of your production is not about co-operation nor a stable society. It is a precursor to decay and destruction.

I think the wealthiest are those who have a purpose in their life and are fulfilling it. It has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth. A mother for instance is fulfilled by nurturing and loving her children and seeing them find their own purpose to fulfill. Some women can't understand that as being important and that's fine. They only need to ask themselves if they are fulfilling a purpose important to them. Motherhood for today's woman is often not fulfilling but I daresay they may be following someone else's dream. It is for them to find out.

I suppose you could say that many people don't have the money to follow a purpose and fulfill their dreams and if only they had some. But there's that socialist obsession of putting emphasis on money again.

Nonsense. If I tell you that you can borrow my car anytime you like, does that mean you can move into my house? There are limits to what laws governments can pass. This is why we have constitutions and why it's very difficult to change them.

There are limits usually based, not upon constitutions which are never read by the people and called outdated by progressive politicians, but upon the interests of the public good.

they were changed in Russia they were changed in Germany they were changed in China they were changed in Rome they were changed in North America. I don't believe you are viewing your current life beyond what you are experiencing. What of the next generation? Socialism has been creeping into North America for over a century. You may not even witness it's end. It may be 2030 before the United States has a government option in it's health care and a lack of vigilance by it's citizens, is all that is necessary for it to be a fact. Next, like in Canada today, they will be telling you what lifestyle is appropriate. What to eat how much exercise you must have, an all nice cookie cutter existence. History tells us what happens to governments and the societies they rule.

I am not an anarchist by any stretch but government should be limited and never attempt to engineer society. It is a bit narcissistic to think you cna run the lives of the people of a nation better than they canrun their own lives.

You know, it's funny that often the same people who demand minimal government intervention economically also support a huge military and security apparatus. Government is inherently neither good nor bad, it's what the government does that makes it so.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not just those who hold the power but those who lust after it. Fire is neither good or bad either but the bigger it gets the more threatening it is. It's best kept small and under control ensuring it remains the servant and never becomes the master.

If we did away with government altogether, we'd have wealthy individuals with private armies. Would that be better? I don't think so. The solution is a healthy democracy where people get involved and educated about what's going on.

In a way, what we have now is wealthy individuals with private armies.

Democracies have a tendency to become social democracies, centralizing power over time and becoming welfare/warfare states until the economy collapses and then who ever picks up the pieces is the next King.

Sorry, the Government of Canada won't even stand behind it's own tax advice - how is the average citizen supposed to find out what's going on.

Again. We elect a government to take actions. Those actions are supposed to be restricted by the constitution. Even those actions that are not restricted are subject to criticism. That's called representative democracy.

Restricted by the constitution? Now you are talking like a Conservative.

Cry if you need to - it can be a healthy release.

It is.

[Pliny]

I remain highly skeptical of the premise that taking signs out of the windows of private residences has anything to do with making people feel "safe". It seems like a ridiculous premise.

Agreed. It's an abomination.

And what has that got to do with the topic at hand?

I saw anti-globalization riots turn ugly in person when I lived in Ottawa. The police dealt with the situation and did not need a bylaw allowing them to take signs out of windows of private residences to do so. They did just fine without. I think

In fact, I don't see how this law has anything to do with preventing that sort of large-scale protest from turning into dangerous riots... unless this large-scale protest were entirely contained within someone's living-room.

Come on, you're just being silly here.

-k

No. I am upset that people can't tell the difference between rights and privileges. The person with the sign in her window has a "right", what's being violated by Bill 13 is her right to the sanctity of person and property. I don't see much difference between that and the government demanding 25% of my paycheck to spend as it chooses on things I wouldn't choose to support.

This is my form of protest.

[Pliny]

The efforts of individuals, and the commercial framework provided by a stable modern society are BOTH huge factors in wealth. You probably live in the west and make hundreds of dollars per day --- a person with the same work ethic, and IQ as you would make about $10 per day in most of the world. So you accumulate much much more wealth for your efforts+ideas because you live in a highly developed society thats stable, and has rules.

Judging by a quick look at wages around the world, the society you live in has an even larger effect on your own wealth than youre own efforts and ideas.

Thank you for proving my point, Wealth to socialists is just money then or maybe more of an obsession about other people's money.

The division of labour does indeed make us all wealthier. We could spend our entire time just meeting our basic needs for ourselves but the division of labour, the baker, the tailor, the farmer, carpenter, the electrician, the doctor, all mutually benefit from the division of labour and the exchange of their products and skills. This is co-operation and not coercion.

What's a highly developed society? One with lots of rules?

Stability, is indeed important if retaining one's wealth is uncertain due to criminality, or threat of government "nationalizing" industry, or excessive taxation, then wealth is not created. There is no purpose to create it. You cannot use it. The criminals just come and take it away - whether they are the government or not. Now you don't have co-operation you have coercion. The idea is to create wealth by encouraging co-operation and not just stealing someone's production so he is unable to contribute to society let alone meet his needs.

[kimmy]

This is my form of protest.

You mean, trying to turn every thread into a rant about socialism?

It reminds me of the native activists on this board who are sure that whatever you're discussing, you're actually discussing native rights. It's quite tedious.

-k

[Pliny]

You mean, trying to turn every thread into a rant about socialism?

It reminds me of the native activists on this board who are sure that whatever you're discussing, you're actually discussing native rights. It's quite tedious.

-k

Really tedious!

It is a political forum after all, and I do try and stay on threads pertaining to political ideology but the basis to any understanding of politics is a good grounding in economics and how the policies and platforms of political parties affect us all and how the more government intervenes in the market the more it creates winners and losers.

We cannot just superficially be do-gooders all or we all wind up with our own hands out.

I think I have a bit of an understanding of organizational structure and why the pyramidal socialistic structure is so successful. It is successful because power is concentrated at the top and delegated from the top down. Government too needs to be organized in that fashion and it is that, plus it's monopoly on the use of force, that makes it so dangerous. It behooves all of us to perceive government from a cautious and vigilant perspective and not as saviours of society or juggernauts catering to whatever special interests exist in a society for government's own aggrandizement and maintenance of holding the reins of power.

Are you asleep yet?

Edited October 22, 2009 by Pliny

[dre]

Thank you for proving my point, Wealth to socialists is just money then or maybe more of an obsession about other people's money.

The division of labour does indeed make us all wealthier. We could spend our entire time just meeting our basic needs for ourselves but the division of labour, the baker, the tailor, the farmer, carpenter, the electrician, the doctor, all mutually benefit from the division of labour and the exchange of their products and skills. This is co-operation and not coercion.

What's a highly developed society? One with lots of rules?

Stability, is indeed important if retaining one's wealth is uncertain due to criminality, or threat of government "nationalizing" industry, or excessive taxation, then wealth is not created. There is no purpose to create it. You cannot use it. The criminals just come and take it away - whether they are the government or not. Now you don't have co-operation you have coercion. The idea is to create wealth by encouraging co-operation and not just stealing someone's production so he is unable to contribute to society let alone meet his needs.

What's a highly developed society? One with lots of rules?

Yes they have lots of rules... laws that govern how we interact with each other, and a framework for settling disputes between people, and for punishing those that break the law. They also have transportation infrastructure... seaports, airports, bridges, highways, and shipping infrastructure and postal service. Communications infrastructure as well... phone, internet, etc. Not to mention an education system that results in a large pool of literate people to draw employees from.

All these things promote commerce and result in billions of more transactions than would be possible without them.

Your labor is your own, but your wealth is proportionate to what kind of society you live in.

The idea is to create wealth by encouraging co-operation and not just stealing someone's production so he is unable to contribute to society let alone meet his needs.

The best way to encourage co-operation is too establish and enforce a set of rules that result in stability, and to provide a framework that encourages and facilitates transactions.

Not sure what youre getting at with the "stealing someones production" thing. Hopefully its not yet another fallacious garden variety "taxation is theft" claim.

[ToadBrother]

The redistribution of wealth is a form of aggression, that; I think you can agree with, do you not? What level of aggression do you think is ok?

This has always bothered me. If redistribution is aggressive, then acquisition must be considered so too.

But if you look at things the other way around, that for most people, the acquisition of wealth can only meaningfully occur where there is a sufficiently ordered society to assure that wealth can be accrued in a reasonably safe manner, then that society requiring some portion of the wealth in return is hardly unreasonable.

Other than through the blessing and protection of the wider society, acquisition and maintenance of wealth is a fundamentally violent affair. In the absence of an ordered society, about the only way to reliably gain and protect your wealth is essentially to create your own army. This is the nature of warlord and proto-feudal societies, where the basic axiom is "might is right". If I have more wealth than you, I can take your wealth by force.

There is a reality that even the capitalist thinkers have come to realize since the French Revolution. If you don't find some way of taking care of the lower classes, or as we call them in the delightful parlance of post-WWII nomenclature; those lower on the socio-economic ladder, they will inevitably become the fodder for revolutionaries of one sort or another. That's why the UK created the Poor Laws that, while by our standards still pretty cold, at least recognized that a modern industrialized urbanized society needs to assure some basic level of support. The only way to do that is to tax.

The solution that the more liberal governments came up with, particularly after poor ol' Louis lost his head, was to give the democratic institutions the power of taxation, but to give the taxed the power to choose the taxers. The liberal Western countries decided never to put Marx to the test, but rather began the process of wealth redistribution. As much as you might hate paying taxes and see some portion of it go to the poor, I wonder how you would feel having a starved and disaffected rabble simply taking your wealth from you, and maybe letting you live, or maybe not.

History is a harsh mistress. If you don't like the way our system works, ponder the fate of French Aristocracy (at least the ones dumb enough not to get on the Revolutionary bandwagon).

[dre]

This has always bothered me. If redistribution is aggressive, then acquisition must be considered so too.

But if you look at things the other way around, that for most people, the acquisition of wealth can only meaningfully occur where there is a sufficiently ordered society to assure that wealth can be accrued in a reasonably safe manner, then that society requiring some portion of the wealth in return is hardly unreasonable.

Other than through the blessing and protection of the wider society, acquisition and maintenance of wealth is a fundamentally violent affair. In the absence of an ordered society, about the only way to reliably gain and protect your wealth is essentially to create your own army. This is the nature of warlord and proto-feudal societies, where the basic axiom is "might is right". If I have more wealth than you, I can take your wealth by force.

There is a reality that even the capitalist thinkers have come to realize since the French Revolution. If you don't find some way of taking care of the lower classes, or as we call them in the delightful parlance of post-WWII nomenclature; those lower on the socio-economic ladder, they will inevitably become the fodder for revolutionaries of one sort or another. That's why the UK created the Poor Laws that, while by our standards still pretty cold, at least recognized that a modern industrialized urbanized society needs to assure some basic level of support. The only way to do that is to tax.

The solution that the more liberal governments came up with, particularly after poor ol' Louis lost his head, was to give the democratic institutions the power of taxation, but to give the taxed the power to choose the taxers. The liberal Western countries decided never to put Marx to the test, but rather began the process of wealth redistribution. As much as you might hate paying taxes and see some portion of it go to the poor, I wonder how you would feel having a starved and disaffected rabble simply taking your wealth from you, and maybe letting you live, or maybe not.

History is a harsh mistress. If you don't like the way our system works, ponder the fate of French Aristocracy (at least the ones dumb enough not to get on the Revolutionary bandwagon).

Thats essentially right. Programs like welfare actually serve the rich... not the poor. The poor are kept just comfortable enough to stay apathetic. Theyre historically disinterested in politics and vote in very low numbers, leaving the "haves" charge.

Limited socialism like we see in western democracies is actually a firewall to prevent more pure forms of socialism. If you allow the underclass to grow large and desperate they will start voting! Like the massive tent cities full of people in abject poverty that voted Chavez into power in Venezuela.

Limited socialism isnt about the poor... it was designed BY the rich FOR the rich.

[Pliny]

Yes they have lots of rules... laws that govern how we interact with each other, and a framework for settling disputes between people, and for punishing those that break the law. They also have transportation infrastructure... seaports, airports, bridges, highways, and shipping infrastructure and postal service. Communications infrastructure as well... phone, internet, etc. Not to mention an education system that results in a large pool of literate people to draw employees from.

All these things promote commerce and result in billions of more transactions than would be possible without them.

And they exist only because government taxes us appropriately, is that right?

Your labor is your own, but your wealth is proportionate to what kind of society you live in.

Wealth is possessions? Money? Happiness? All of the above? If it is happiness you make your own wealth.

The best way to encourage co-operation is too establish and enforce a set of rules that result in stability, and to provide a framework that encourages and facilitates transactions.

I can't disagree. The rules must create the stability that will result in a willingness to produce and

participate in the division of labour and co-operation for the mutual benefit of the community and society.

Not sure what youre getting at with the "stealing someones production" thing. Hopefully its not yet another fallacious garden variety "taxation is theft" claim.

Sorry, it is another garden variety taxation is theft claim. I will leave out the opinion that it is fallacious.

[Pliny]

This has always bothered me. If redistribution is aggressive, then acquisition must be considered so too.

Acquisition is a general term and non-descriptive of how one acquires and it's legality.

But if you look at things the other way around, that for most people, the acquisition of wealth can only meaningfully occur where there is a sufficiently ordered society to assure that wealth can be accrued in a reasonably safe manner, then that society requiring some portion of the wealth in return is hardly unreasonable.

Who is the society that requires some return? If all are contributing to society through co-operative effort and mutually benefitting I fail to see exactly who in society should receive a return beyond what they already contribute in it's creation. Would it be those that are not contributing?

Other than through the blessing and protection of the wider society, acquisition and maintenance of wealth is a fundamentally violent affair.

Here again I think your definition of wealth is entirely material as though it brings happiness when happiness is probably all the wealth one needs. It is true that maintaining material wealth is difficult. The envy and jealousy it creates and it's threat to power makes it a constant target. Especially, when people think it is entirely justifies to usurp it for the common good and it can be legally taken form one's possession for the benefit of another, determined by the State to be deserving of a portion of it.

In the absence of an ordered society, about the only way to reliably gain and protect your wealth is essentially to create your own army. This is the nature of warlord and proto-feudal societies, where the basic axiom is "might is right". If I have more wealth than you, I can take your wealth by force.

In an orderly and moral society the sanctity of person and property is respected - force is never initiated by the honest individual. Taking someone's wealth by force because one has more wealth occurs daily in our society. Fifty per cent of my daily production is taken from me.

Toadbrother, the use of force is the property government alone and delegated by government, any initiation of force by citizens against another is deemed criminal and will be looked upon as criminal by the general populace. If government has a role it is to deliver justice against such criminality not take on the traits of the criminal.

There is a reality that even the capitalist thinkers have come to realize since the French Revolution. If you don't find some way of taking care of the lower classes, or as we call them in the delightful parlance of post-WWII nomenclature; those lower on the socio-economic ladder, they will inevitably become the fodder for revolutionaries of one sort or another. That's why the UK created the Poor Laws that, while by our standards still pretty cold, at least recognized that a modern industrialized urbanized society needs to assure some basic level of support. The only way to do that is to tax.

Capitalism does create classes usually dividing those who will co-operate and contribute to society and those who live off their avails. People, in general will do what they can to contribute to society for no man is an island unto himself and the greater purpose is not to self but to others. You will never find a majority of people attempting to live off the avails of others so you will not find enough to form a revolution in a Capitalist society. Only where criminality is not checked or people are not allowed to contribute to society or are forced by law to contribute will you find revolution.

The solution that the more liberal governments came up with, particularly after poor ol' Louis lost his head, was to give the democratic institutions the power of taxation, but to give the taxed the power to choose the taxers. The liberal Western countries decided never to put Marx to the test, but rather began the process of wealth redistribution. As much as you might hate paying taxes and see some portion of it go to the poor, I wonder how you would feel having a starved and disaffected rabble simply taking your wealth from you, and maybe letting you live, or maybe not.

You are talking about an oppressive regime that steals from it's citizens and actively oppresses their efforts to improve themselves or contribute to the makeup of society by their mutual co-operation. You are not talking about someone who has earned his wealth. If he hadn't earned it that would mean he may have acquired it criminally and that would be a failure of government.

History is a harsh mistress. If you don't like the way our system works, ponder the fate of French Aristocracy (at least the ones dumb enough not to get on the Revolutionary bandwagon).

Is a failure of the French Aristocracy not a failure of government in the form of a Monarchy?

Those dumb enough not to get on the revolutionary bandwagon were friends of the King.

[Pliny]

Thats essentially right. Programs like welfare actually serve the rich... not the poor. The poor are kept just comfortable enough to stay apathetic. Theyre historically disinterested in politics and vote in very low numbers, leaving the "haves" charge.

Yes. That's interesting.

Limited socialism like we see in western democracies is actually a firewall to prevent more pure forms of socialism. If you allow the underclass to grow large and desperate they will start voting! Like the massive tent cities full of people in abject poverty that voted Chavez into power in Venezuela.

Limited socialism isnt about the poor... it was designed BY the rich FOR the rich.

So, essentially we need more socialism.

I like Milton Freidman's syllogism on socialism:

1.Socialism has never worked wherever it has been applied

2. Everyone knows it

3. Therefore we need more socialism.