What Is The Justification For Redistribution Of Income?

[the shaping machine]

What happened in all of these countries wasn't that the rule of law broke down and people suddenly went on a murderous binge. The chaos broke loose after people in positions of power / influence deliberately stirred up fear, hatred and greed.

When people in positions of power do that it is the breakdown of law and order. The law applies to them as well.

Since those influences have been removed, people have reverted to working together, often showing a stunning ability to forgive / willingness to cooperate.

Good, so restoration of law and order = end of violence. I think you've proved Game_Over's point admirably.

[the shaping machine]

what was or was not done to manufacture the fens is actually completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Some people argue that land is "special" because no more of it is being made. This is not true, the Fens were made.

The land and wealth of this nation have been effectively divided up by a bunch of bullies and thugs who got themselves into positions of power over the last few hundred years, the current establishment are just riding that gravy train and calling it civilised and democratic.

Fortunately for them the vast majority of the population are too busy watching east enders to care.

Just try and take someone's house away on the basis that land was not fairly divided 1000 years ago. I think they would care a great deal.

[boynamedsue]

When people in positions of power do that it is the breakdown of law and order. The law applies to them as well.

Good, so restoration of law and order = end of violence. I think you've proved Game_Over's point admirably.

Except that the violence in those cases sprang from law and order to start with. People on this thread have mentioned Pol Pot and the French Terror, these atrocities came from excesses of law and order not its break down.

It's a bit of an angels on pinheads argumetn, though. It is obvious that humans cooperate naturally, and it usually works. When societies get bigger, this sometimes breaks down in times of stress. This can usually be avoided by sensible and responsible application of laws, and because people only tend to go mental in extremis. However, sometimes the law makers go mental too, and decide it might be a good idea if everybody started killing each other.

It's not a difficult thing to see, and it's not really a philiosophical debate, it's just what happens.

[Injin]

What if the value I obtain from the land relies on my ability to control access (e.g. farming, shooting, nudist camp, whatever) surely you are not trying to deny me compensation for the loss of that?

You have no right to control access, as it requires you initiate force on other human beings.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Injin

[Game_Over]

You have no right to control access, as it requires you initiate force on other human beings.

'rights' do not exist

they are merely an abstract intellectual concept

And if you argue that this means they do exist

Then so does God.

I await your response with genuine interest.

[Injin]

'rights' do not exist

they are merely an abstract intellectual concept

And if you argue that this means they do exist

Then so does God.

I await your response with genuine interest.

Rights exist, they are derived from observation of what happens in the real world.

[Game_Over]

Rights exist, they are derived from observation of what happens in the real world.

Sorry, but that's a fail IMO.

Rights only exist in nature in so far as they exist as abstract intellectual constructs in the minds of human beings

As such, if rights 'exist' then so does God.

You really can't have it both ways.

[Traktion]

Here's my sum-up -

Property is what someone has produced, or exchanged money with the producer for.

No-one produced land or natural resources, so no-one can claim to own them.

If someone wants use of them, they'll need to agree with others who have an equal claim.

There are a number of methods of doing this and none need to involve violence - violence is only invoked when someone claims what is not theirs. The state does not need to be involved either.

Agreement should not be a problem as it happens every minute of every day, as opposed to violent disagreement which happens so seldom in comparison that the entire human history of conflict can be recorded in some books.

Populations do not start wars with each other - leaders do.

There are a higher proportion of sociopaths in the ruling elites than elsewhere, which explains their lust for power, influence and use of violence and conflict without care or empathy, as displayed by all world leaders who start conflicts.

'Normal' people when left alone do not behave like this, but are influenced by many factors including fear, the need to conform and external factors such as conscription, press gangs, experiments, violence against them and hence defence, propaganda. The fact that these things are needed for violence show that peacefulness is the default.

None of this has anything to do with 'left' or 'right', as they are simply labels that can have no bearing on right or wrong.

Evidently I'll have to agree to disagree with others on the above, but I'll have to leave it there. I have to say that I've enjoyed the debate and it has strengthened my opinions.

Good summary.

[tallguy]

'rights' do not exist

they are merely an abstract intellectual concept

And if you argue that this means they do exist

Then so does God.

I await your response with genuine interest.

We are a social species

We are a species that can plan

We are a species that can coperate

We are a species that can betray

Above all, in respect of the above, we are species that can remember the cooperation and betrayal of others.

All of the above human traits lead to an inherent understanding of responsibility for actions. An inherent understanding of responsibility for actions is directly linked to an inherent understanding of rights of actions. The one is the inevitable and necessary flip side of the other.

You really don't understand the Darwinian evolution of human psychology. Or rather, your "understanding" is infantile and muddled.

Edited May 10, 2011 by tallguy

[Game_Over]

We are a social species

We are a species that can plan

We are a species that can coperate

We are a species that can betray

Above all, in respect of the above, we are species that can remember the cooperation and betrayal of others.

All of the above human traits lead to an inherent understanding of "responsibility" for actions. An inherent understanding of responsibility for actions is directly linked to an inherent understanding of "rights" of actions. The one is the inevitable and necessary flip side of the other.

You really don't understand the Darwinian evolution of human psychology. Or rather, your "understanding" is infantile.

Thanks for that, I really appreciate your assessment of my intellectual capabilites.

As usual when the 'left' lose the argument they resort to ad hominem attacks.

I am alive, but the idea I have any 'right' to life is an absurdity.

If I have a right to life then so does the pig that supplied the ham for my sandwiches this lunchtime.

I ate him and if I jumped into the lion enclosure at the Zoo I myself would expect to be eaten.

Rights and morality are abstract human constructs - they do not exist in nature

they only exist as intellectual constructs in the minds of humans.

[tallguy]

Thanks for that, I really appreciate your assessment of my intellectual capabilites.

As usual when the 'left' lose the argument they resort to ad hominem attacks.

I am alive, but the idea I have any 'right' to life is an absurdity.

If I have a right to life then so does the pig that supplied the ham for my sandwiches this lunchtime.

I ate him and if I jumped into the lion enclosure at the Zoo I myself would expect to be eaten.

Rights and morality are abstract human constructs - they do not exist in nature

they only exist as intellectual constructs in the minds of humans.

Of course they only exist in the minds of humans. If you had read my post properly, you would have already known that was precisely my point. Where you have failed, however, to understand human psychology, is that they exist as hard-wiring in those brains. This hard-wiring is a direct function of humans being inherently social and having preposterously large brains.

An inherent understanding of the concepts of responsibilities and rights is one of the defining features of what being human is.

We are the moral species.

If you really don't think so, then why the hell do you think you are driven, like all other humans are, to come to public places such as this to try and promote your own narrative of why humans behave the way they do? I'll give you a clue; you can't help it. You are, after all, only human.

Edit to add:

Oh and by the way, you really do need to raise your game above the insistence of viewing other humans and their viewpoionts through the simplistic prism of left/right .

What make you think I am a "lefty" anyway?

Edited May 10, 2011 by tallguy

[(Blizzard)]

The irony of using this as justification for unfairly re-acquiring it is lost on most people it seems.

As is the fact that having re-acquired it unfairly, the new owners have no more right to the land than the previous owners.

The fact that the Jews re-acquired their own land from the Palestinians after 2000 years doesn't seem to hold much water with Socialists does it?

Yes, and this is also why slavery is still legal. Once people had bought slaves in a free and fair trade, it wasn't right to deprive them of their property. Two wrongs and all that.

In fact, all attempts to create a more peaceful, better society are doomed to failure. That's why democracy - cooperative power sharing - has never in all of history replaced feudalism and dictatorship.

Never.

This is because humans are inherently violent. The human capacity for violence, ensures that most people who do not die from heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS, tuberculosis, diarrhoea, malnutrition or malaria will probably die from violence.

Or maybe a road traffic accident.

Without fear of a greater force human beings are completely unable to cooperate.

People who suggest that food, clothes, medicine or romantic comedies come from the free exchange of goods and services, a system that is sometimes called 'capitalism', are communists.

Food, for example, comes from the ministry of food rather than a chain of people, who have never even met, agreeing to exchange goods and services because it benefits all of them.

Romantic comedies are produced entirely by a single terrified individual working alone in a fortified compound, which he built himself, never going out because of the certainty he will be murdered.

[Game_Over]

Of course they only exist in the minds of humans. If you had read my post properly, you would have already known that was precisely my point. Where you have failed, however, to understand human psychology, is that they exist as hard-wiring in those brains. This hard-wiring is a direct function of humans being inherently social and having preposterously large brains.

An inherent understanding of the concepts of responsibilities and rights is one of the defining features of what being human is.

We are the moral species.

If you really don't think so, then why the hell do you think you are driven, like all other humans are, to come to public places such as this to try and promote your own narrative of why humans behave the way they do? I'll give you a clue; you can't help it. You are, after all, only human.

Edit to add:

Oh and by the way, you really do need to raise your game above the insistence of viewing other humans and their viewpoionts through the simplistic prism of left/right .

What make you think I am a "lefty" anyway?

If 'rights' exist in nature because they are 'hard-wired' into the human mind (says you)

Then God also exists because a belief in God is also 'hard-wired' into the human mind (says a few billion human beings)

All you are basically saying is that rights exist because YOU believe they exist - the fact that I am also a human being and don't believe they exist does not appear to shake your belief in your 'religion'.

At the end of the day I might be spending time here because I have nothing better to do at the moment and am bored.

Or I might be spending time here because I believe in God and am trying to save your sorry Godless souls.

Either way, you have no more proved that rights 'exist' than anyone has ever managed to prove that God exists.

[Game_Over]

Yes, and this is also why slavery is still legal. Once people had bought slaves in a free and fair trade, it wasn't right to deprive them of their property. Two wrongs and all that.

In fact, all attempts to create a more peaceful, better society are doomed to failure. That's why democracy - cooperative power sharing - has never in all of history replaced feudalism and dictatorship.

Never.

This is because humans are inherently violent. The human capacity for violence, ensures that most people who do not die from heart disease, cancer, stroke, AIDS, tuberculosis, diarrhoea, malnutrition or malaria will probably die from violence.

Or maybe a road traffic accident.

Without fear of a greater force human beings are completely unable to cooperate.

People who suggest that food, clothes, medicine or romantic comedies come from the free exchange of goods and services, a system that is sometimes called 'capitalism', are communists.

Food, for example, comes from the ministry of food rather than a chain of people, who have never even met, agreeing to exchange goods and services because it benefits all of them.

Romantic comedies are produced entirely by a single terrified individual working alone in a fortified compound, which he built himself, never going out because of the certainty he will be murdered.

I am not even going to dignify this post with a response.

[Injin]

Sorry, but that's a fail IMO.

Rights only exist in nature in so far as they exist as abstract intellectual constructs in the minds of human beings

As such, if rights 'exist' then so does God.

You really can't have it both ways.

No, rights are observations about what happens if you perform certain actions.

That is, they are concepts which are worked backwards from actual events.

God is just some madcap fantasy that's got waaay out of hand.

[nixy]

No, rights are observations about what happens if you perform certain actions.

That is, they are concepts which are worked backwards from actual events.

God is just some madcap fantasy that's got waaay out of hand.

An example?

[Injin]

An example?

Goal - "I want to be richer"

Action - "I take that guys stuff."

Result - "I've got poorer (over time.)"

[PopGun]

Cheapest rhetorical trick in the book - set up a straw man with holes in it, and knock it down. The original post is just so much redundant verbiage.

Redistributionism reflects a a deep human knowledge that life isn't fair - that those who start with more, on balance (with a small number of exceptions that prove the rule) will end up with considerably more than those who started with less, regardless of hard work or inate talent. It's a human impulse to fairness.

Formal policy responses take this impulse into account, and balance it with the other deep knowledge that the risk taking, entrepreneurial spirit that generates growth generally (again, with a small number of exceptions) comes from those who can afford to take some risks, have capital and connections and who received the knowledge and privileges that go with a better education.

The balance of these urges underlies all politics - where and how the line is drawn is the key policy dividing marker. It's as simple as that.

Great post.

[nixy]

Goal - "I want to be richer"

Action - "I take that guys stuff."

Result - "I've got poorer (over time.)"

Yes, but where's the 'right' tho?

[Injin]

Yes, but where's the 'right' tho?

The right comes from the "right" action.

[nixy]

The right comes from the "right" action.

OK, where truth = 'right'...?

[nixy]

'rights' do not exist

they are merely an abstract intellectual concept

And if you argue that this means they do exist

Then so does God.

I await your response with genuine interest.

Does truth exist?

[Injin]

OK, where truth = 'right'...?

The truth is of the aim.

A thief wants to get richer and on the face of it he does so. But he forfeits all the good stuff he'd get from not being a thief and working instead - not just his own production but the lost production of others.

It's better in terms of wealth to be a beggar in the modern world than the mightiest despot of old.

[Riedquat]

The truth is of the aim.

A thief wants to get richer and on the face of it he does so. But he forfeits all the good stuff he'd get from not being a thief and working instead - not just his own production but the lost production of others.

You have to steal an awful lot for it to affect others enough for you to notice it. That's way beyond the capabilities of any thief smaller than a bank or government,

[PopGun]

Shortly before the welfare state.

That is to say after industrialisation and the migration to cities, but before the welfare state.

Something happened then and the welfare state was the attempt at a fix.

Yes, one of those temporary fixes that ends up lasting for decades/centuries.

I think we need to realise why the 'fix' was required in the first place.