Why not wealth redistribution?

There were no classes before the state.

 

What makes you think that moving from the general to the specific holds validity when one is talking about a political bromide created just for the fun of it and to tweak some leftwing noses?

 

The problem is not accumulating wealth for as long as you make it on your own, issues are created when you are exploiting others to generate your income either if this is through subsidies , leverages or waged slavery. Nobody in his right mind will ask you to share your hard earned cash with persons that jerk off all day .

With the government eliminated local administrative units will be able to finance themselves through direct democratic procedures ; you need to upgrade your sewers or maintain a community school ? it passes through a vote and everyone pays a flat "tax" , now if you are a successful club owner you may want to pay more so the rest can have spare cash for drinks and you can do your PR .


*there is no such thing as a communist state.

 

Thats total BS.

First, everyone has the ability to help people. You act as if only the super rich have the time and resources to help others. The data does not support that view.

Second, you write as if the state has its own source of wealth. It does not, it gets its wealth by taking from the people, and as others in this thread have observed, the state is not objective or fair in its taking of wealth. Once the govt has the power to take your property, it will abuse that power.

Third, you seem to think that people are selfish and without the govt to force "charity", then there will be no charity. Nothing supports that view, just the opposite.

 

A CEO does not get to decide how much he is paid in a large corporation, that is what a board is for. Just an fyi

 

Yeah, the government has been providing assistance in order to create equality since LBJ... How's that working out? Do you like the 100% success rate at FAILURE?

Oh and "equality" is a dream in fairytale land. EVERY single person is different. That means of the 6 billion people on this earth no two are alike. What moron decided that everyone can be "equal"? It's a joke. There is always someone with more and someone with less of something/everything. It's a fact of life, what you make of your life is in your control. NOT some liberal politicians who tell you that your life is unfair because of the people who hit life's lottery and aren't paying enough, ect. Do you enjoy being insulted and told that you're not capable of providing and sculpting your own future? Because I believe you're capable of success on your own with help from your fellow man if/when you need it. The liberals think that everyone is a failure that the government needs to "help" It's pathetic.

**Not meant at you personally, just a rant in general on the topic.

 

I see that you didn't learn anything from our last discussion. You've clearly made your choice. You'd rather live in a world where you are right and miserable than wrong and happy. Sad indeed. Enjoy your lifetime at the bottom of the food chain. And mark my words. Your circumstances will never change. You will spend your entire life exactly where you are today. And when you look back on your life at 80 years old, it will eat you up inside to admit that I was right.

 

If we're limiting this discussion to economic classes, then there haven't been many societies without a state to begin with.

The few societies without states were usually small tribal groups in a time long before modern industry.

The more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more it necessitates a state and the more it results in the development of classes.

Capital accumulation is a natural process of capitalism that does not require the presence of a state to occur, but even without an official state present, de facto authority structures tend to develop.

 

Communism as practiced by Stalin and Mao was definitely different from what Marx intended. I realize Marx was aiming for the abolition of the state.

However, you'll notice that most attempts at communism usually result in the formation of an authoritarian state rather than the abolition of the state.

Anarcho-syndicalists are closer to what Marx intended, but not surprisingly, they haven't managed to retain much influence globally.

I like many aspects of libertarian socialism and democratic socialism, but reality generally forces society to maintain more of a rigid structure to stay stable.

Direct democracy has rational limits. California has shown what happens when you depend on referendums for all major budget items. It's not a pretty sight. While politicians aren't the best at budgeting, the public seems to be worse at it.

For the sake of smaller projects and governance of small areas, like cities or metro areas, more of a voluntarist approach is feasible, but once you reach the state level, you generally need more of a structured republic/parliamentary approach.

 

I had the vague feeling you wouldn't like this thread. Anyway let's suppose you already fulfilled your life's expectations, would you dedicate some of your time or money to help people in difficult situations? You don't seem quite the egoistic type, since you care so much to explain where people fail and how to improve....

 

I try to do that even now with what little I have. The difference is my approach. I'm only interested in helping people grow and learn to do things for themselves. Because in the end, that's the only thing that truly helps them. Think of it as the difference between giving free crack to a crack addict vs. helping them to get off of crack. Wealth redistribution does the former. I do the latter.

 

I appreciate your genuine attention for people, you prolly are better than most others, but remember there are also liars and egoistic people who make the exact opposite of your reasonement: let's obstruct other people so we can get more for us. That's lobbies and monopolies for you, capitalism brought plenty.

 

Actually, the government has be providing assistance in order to create inequality … pretty much since its inception. The way that government creates inequality is by issuing privileges, such as land titles, patent and copyrights laws, bank charters, occupational licensing, taxi medallions, corporate charters, restrictive regulation, etc. The rich use these privileges to stop free market competition … to monopolize opportunities. When competition is allowed to go unhindered, then that competition keeps wages high and profits low … that is what the free market is suppose to achieve, and would achieve if we abolished privileges.

The purpose of government issued and enforced privileges is to create rent-seeking opportunities, and you can learn about how that rent-seeking is causing inequality by reading a few paragraphs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

 

I think the key word in your post is "lucky". Since you see the rich as just the lucky ones, it's understandable you'd view it as you do, but that's just bull. The rich aren't the lucky ones. The stereotypes you express of wealth, that it's just inherited, that none of the rich guys are charitable etc. Are just as far from the truth as they could be.

 

The bigger question should be, why do people like you love the rich so much and do all that you can to defend them? Capitalism is about exploitation. I don't get wealthy by doing things; I get wealthy by having others do things for me and getting others to pay more for it than it is worth.

 

Yes of course. Government for the people by the People was quite a radical concept in its time. Governments and laws have traditionally been created by the rich and powerful to maintain their possessions and privileges. Rights of the lower classes have always had to be negotiated within that framework, and have been granted over time out of fear of revoltbfrom the masses.
Such revolts have become less likely to affect the rich recently, leading to something akin to complacency setting in amongst the privileged.

 

It seems Warren Buffett is a phlantrop and said he will donate 99% of his money to philantropic causes ( if that's true, then praise to him ). Ok, that's one but what about the rest?... See my point? If you wait for philatrops to help people... you could wait forever, since there are so few of them. That's why the state needs to regulate these things, and it's a philantropic state of course that i speak of: the objective is pacific evolution of mankind, absence of war and greed. Isn't that good? And that's not utopy, it's an applicable thing.

 

Ha, you are so brainwashed. if the economic and government models are broken, then maintaining them fixes nothing. Redistribution is a faulty concept because it requires an elite group of politicians to hand out the crumbs instead of corporations, but you are still getting crumbs and only if you bow down to the authority of your benevolent star chamber. One has to either replace capitalism or force people into the capital markets, not raid the capital markets, to create an economic model that is sustainable and even close to egalitarian. Anything else is communism in a really good Halloween costume. While communism may work well in small settings, it largely is proven a massive failure in large nations.

 

Agreed, the problems isnt voluntarily trading your skills, labor, time (capitalism) - its govt. Yet some people want govt to regulate more, give the elites more power to remove your property from you.

 

Fidel Castro would love you. And friend, I'm NOT a pop star and I could care less what the Corporation chiefs make. Did you ever hear of being self sufficient? Doing what needs to be done to make a living??? I have heard people that were laying on their couch or someone else's couch say, "I wouldn't deliver pizzas""""!!! Well I would and did in my younger days to make ends meet for my family. If ANY job is beneath you then you don't want a job. I worked 2 and 3 jobs at a time to get what was needed. And I will say this, I do NOT want any Socialist or Communist TRYING to redistribute what I have work 50 years to get. Theft is theft, whether taking it from a poor man or a rich one, it's theft either way. And, friend, this government was NEVER set up or intended to do such a thing.

 

Capitalism is about being free to trade your labor and time voluntarily for whatever you like. Why would anyone want someone else being judge of whats best for them, are we children?

So why is it people want to increase wages on the worker rather than the business if its the business that exploits the worker? Why not increase wages on business and remove it from the worker? Say a 10% good and services tax will allow voluntary taxes to be raised from workers.

All these wealth redistribution people claiming to be for the worker only attack they worker......why?

 

Whether true of not makes little to no difference he still owes the Federal treasury over 1 billion dollars and is fighting it all the way.

 

The point is, though, that much of that becomes irrelevant when you are making your best effort to focus on building yourself up. This is why I say ignore other people. Forget what they have. Don't compare yourself. Just focus on your own life and moving forward one step at a time. That's the key to getting where you want to be. Don't get distracted by all the external bull(*)(*)(*)(*) around you. Some of the best advice I ever got was, "Fixing yourself is a full-time job." And it's helped me tremendously.

 

You are the one that is brainwashed. When talking wealth redistribution it is not that the government is going to take money from one group and give it to another. That is right wing trash radio nonsense. Rather it taxes more those who can most afford it and less for those who can less afford it. It takes money to run the government; roads, the military, schools, and everything else need to be funded.

When the US was still a British colony the laws were such that when a man died all of his estate went to a single heir, usually his oldest son. What this did was to create very large estates with a few very wealthy individuals while everyone else struggled to survive. Many of those who settled the US were the younger sons who got nothing from their father’s estate.

When the US began, with the central idea that we be an equitable society, laws were created that allowed the equal distribution of an estate when a man died among his children. In the same spirit came anti-monopoly laws.

It is the concentration of wealth that is most detrimental to our freedoms and the democratic operation of our government. Wealth redistribution is how the concentration of wealth is prevented or at least moderated. It comes in the form of progressive taxes. Flat taxes always benefit the wealthiest at the expense of the poorest.

 

Well at least you are honest that it is a tax and spend bait and switch game that will do nothing to address the inequality of wealth, particularly since the poorest half already pay no federal income tax and several of them already get money paid back to them they never even paid in to begin with via the EITC, which accounts for the biggest chunk of fraudulent claims filed.