What do you mean by "income redistribution"?

[Little-Acorn]

What do you mean by "income redistribution"?

Sounds to me like you're implying that the income was somehow "distributed" by someone in the first place, and is now being "REdistributed", I guess in a different way.

But it was never "distributed" in the first place. A guy who wanted something you had, more than he wanted the money in his pocket, offered you a trade, and you agreed. You wound up with the money and he wound up with the thing (goods or your labor or whatever), and both of you are happy. And you made similar deals with other people, too.

But the money you got, wasn't "distributed" to you by somebody in charge of distributing, somebody who planned it all out. Many different people made transactions with you, and they were probably making other transactions with other people too at the same time, just as you were. And it all worked out, without having to be overseen by some all-knowing "distributor".

When somebody says he wants to "redistribute" it (or "spread the wealth around" as someone recently put it), it means he thinks all those transactions somehow "weren't good"... and that he thinks he can do better.

And that notion is completely ridiculous. There's no way he can make a fairer "distribution" of your money (and all those other peoples') than you and they already have. What could be fairer that the "distribution" you and all the others have already happily agreed to?

When someone talks about "redistributing wealth", they are saying they think the money is theirs to take, and give to whom they want.

It's silly on several different planes. And arrogant wishful thinking, too.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

name a nation on earth, in last 500 years that did not have income redistribution...the only question ever...is how

 

[Little-Acorn]

name a nation on earth, in last 500 years that did not have income redistribution...the only question ever...is how

Yep, thieves exist everywhere, and have since time immemorial.

More lately, liars who try to cover up their thefts with language like "income redistribution" have gained vogue.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Yep, thieves exist everywhere, and have since time immemorial.

More lately, liars who try to cover up their thefts with language like "income redistribution" have gained vogue.

when you personally pay for your own streets, energy company to be built, schools, cops....out of your pocket...let me know...Somehow I am willing to bet, your taxes you pay each year...is a small small amount of the tax money you use in services....So give it back, then complain....

 

[Little-Acorn]

You're accidentally forgetting the "income redistribution" usually refers to govt taking tax money and giving it to other people simply to supplement their income.

Nice try.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You're accidentally forgetting the "income redistribution" usually refers to govt taking tax money and giving it to other people simply to supplement their income.

Nice try.

I take it as ..the redistribution of income..and can go to other people, or uses.

And even under your idea of what it means...Lets take all money away from old people with no income or little savings left,...all people with health care issues they can't pay for, or insurance to pay for it, and people just down on there luck as jobs left , downsized,laid off , or have disabilities making it hard to earn a living...Lets just say F them all, also low income areas...screw them, no help, for them...you just trust they will just at random find jobs...and not just come take your stuff. Given the choice of starving or living on the street...I think robbing some rich people will appeal to many...But I guess you can just pay for more cops to protect you...the rich can have little gated comunities anyway...Lets go olds school latin america, Africa ext....some amounts of rich with lots of money...and huge amounts of very poor slums...

But you can be happy as you look at the slums...and say, well at least we did not redistribute wealth

 

[Little-Acorn]

I think robbing some rich people will appeal to many...

It always does.

1.) Thieves agree it is a great thing to do.
2.) People who might get the proceeds, often feel the same way.

And this stops it from being theft.... how?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It always does.

1.) Thieves agree it is a great thing to do.
2.) People who might get the proceeds, often feel the same way.

And this stops it from being theft.... how?

I am going to guess you did not catch on there, and are again talking about taxes...as theft...but what makes it right? well that democracy thing helps...and the lack of any option that works that does not do it, and end in Chaos? Whats your plan? evryone for themself anrachy system of capitalism...survival of the fittest ( lucky, willing to cheat...steal) and death the rest who can't make it with no pitty?

 

[GenSeneca]

I am going to guess you did not catch on there, and are again talking about taxes...as theft...but what makes it right? well that democracy thing helps...and the lack of any option that works that does not do it, and end in Chaos? Whats your plan? evryone for themself anrachy system of capitalism...survival of the fittest ( lucky, willing to cheat...steal) and death the rest who can't make it with no pitty?

Acorn is specifically talking about taking money from one individual for the expressed purpose of giving that money to another individual.

Conflate the issue all you like by citing taxes as a general term but you're only showing cowardice and an inability to justify government actions that you support.

Government is force. You justify the use of force against an unarmed individual as being being "the will of the people" by citing "democracy" but that does not justify the action as being moral, just, or ethical.

The government redistribution of wealth is done by force, when wealth is redistributed by volition, it's called charity. I often hear that charity alone is not enough to solve the problems but that reality does not justify the use of force.

Beyond your inability to justify the forced redistribution of wealth as being moral, ethical, or just, you cannot even justify such government programs as being constitutional. Every time you are asked to do so you will cite the "welfare clause" but conspicuously avoid citing the specific power contained in the enumeration of powers that exist to limit what Congress is allowed to do in the name of the "general welfare" of the United States.

It is only through fear, guilt, and ignorance that government can hope to perpetuate such an affront to morality, ethics, justice, individual rights, and the Constitution.

 

[Revere]

I am going to guess you did not catch on there, and are again talking about taxes...as theft...but what makes it right? well that democracy thing helps...and the lack of any option that works that does not do it, and end in Chaos? Whats your plan? evryone for themself anrachy system of capitalism...survival of the fittest ( lucky, willing to cheat...steal) and death the rest who can't make it with no pitty?

How is capitalism "anarchy?"

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How is capitalism "anarchy?"

Its what pure no government , do what ever you can for a buck capitalism ends in...The idea of some completely free capitalist nation, where everything is good, and there is no government in anything....Is a pipe dream that only works in someones head..like Communism that will always fail, in large scale such as the national level. The rich and poor divide will only go so far...before one is taken down...and with no government...it will be with violence...

 

[GenSeneca]

How is capitalism "anarchy?"

Pocket knows that anarchy is no government and Capitalism is limited government (limited to protecting individual rights) but he has to use the strawman that "capitalism is anarchy" because he can't argue against capitalism without resorting to lies and fallacies.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Pocket knows that anarchy is no government and Capitalism is limited government (limited to protecting individual rights) but he has to use the strawman that "capitalism is anarchy" because he can't argue against capitalism without resorting to lies and fallacies.

I am talking about anarchy, as Chaos...not the government form ( lack of)

 

[GenSeneca]

I am talking about anarchy, as Chaos...not the government form ( lack of)

So a government limited to protecting individual rights is "Chaos"?

Capitalism calls for a strong government to protect individual rights, Anarchy calls for no government. You continually equate Capitalism to Anarchy despite having been told about this difference on several occasions. So anytime you say Capitalism is Anarchy, you are lying. Anytime you try to equate Capitalism with Anarchy, you are using a strawman.

Your lies and fallacies do not cover up the fact that you cannot justify the forced redistribution of wealth as moral, ethical, or just.

What is it about government being limited to protecting individual rights that you oppose?

 

[Gipper]

So a government limited to protecting individual rights is "Chaos"?

Capitalism calls for a strong government to protect individual rights, Anarchy calls for no government. You continually equate Capitalism to Anarchy despite having been told about this difference on several occasions. So anytime you say Capitalism is Anarchy, you are lying. Anytime you try to equate Capitalism with Anarchy, you are using a strawman.

Your lies and fallacies do not cover up the fact that you cannot justify the forced redistribution of wealth as moral, ethical, or just.

What is it about government being limited to protecting individual rights that you oppose?

Many libs must demonize capitalism to justify their unjust philosophy. They tell themselves socialism is better than capitalism because socialism is more fair...of course they are wrong and no amount of proof will change their minds.

I believe there is a psychological condition for this kind of thinking...