Redistribution of Wealth and the Principle of Human Worth

[Michael Noire]

WE talk about the haves and the have nots but we do not address the cold reality of human labor and the worth of any action. We do not approach with conviction the disproportionate distribution of resources for effort on the part of those who are industrious.

If a man burns 2500 calories baking loaves of bread, why is his 2500 calories considered 1 million times less valuable than the 2500 calories burned by an office worker? Why is the grade of effort of any man being of the same conditions, some how worth so very less that he is born into bondage and ensnared by the trappings of empty promises and led like a lamb into servitude?

Why is it that a young man and woman attending an ivy league university on their parents bank accounts are unable to comprehend why a poor laid off worker from a factory town would go ballistic in a shopping mall store full of goods that cost more than the month's salary he once earned and are buying these items like salad toppings at an all you can eat buffet?

I know we have lost sight of human worth. I do not believe it.

The poor envy politicians who earn 10 and 30 times their wages, yet the politicians beg after billionaires who dwarf their lifetime wages in mere weeks and months. These billionaires are but Jacks and Jokers to the net worth of old families sitting on the accumulated wealth of generations, overseeing boards of directors and international councils and using carefully worded contracts of lawyers to pretend to be "mere billionaires" - not even in the top 20, slithering under the radar of the mainstream while their masquerade always ends in another escapade of legitimized slavery and aggrandizement of debauchery.

Chattel is what the common man is to those who have trespassed the potential of human industry through clever and insidious means. How can you with a straight face talk about the student debt of some minimum wage worker and their need to pay back society for their "loans", much less the starving of Bangladesh and yet keep in mind the legitimacy of claims by persons such as Judith Rodin talking about unlocking $100,000,000,000,000.00 (100 trillion) worth of possibilities? Even the common man should be able to look to the simple billionaire and say "how is that man's labor worth 1000 times my own?"

The answer is sadly obvious and simple.

it isn't. No man's worth is so vast that it geometrically surpasses the value of another.

[Avgvsto]

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

We've had this discussion before. It's called the law of supply and demand.

[Heimdalr]

As long as people have equal opportunity, this distribution is said to be morally defensible. However, this is very far from being the case. At the very basic level, all the land is appropriated since before you were born. So you move on to manufacturing, but manufacturing isn't really profitable anymore and you get laid off more often than not. Then you would move on to the service industry and try your luck, but the service sector is low paid, with few benefits, and more than likely dead end. So you go to college, provided your parents didn't crack your piggy bank to pay for their failing lifestyle during the recession. Now, you think, you will have a shot at the really great jobs. Then you see how the median bachelor's degree salary plummets at the same time as tuition skyrockets.

The ones who talk about equal opportunity and supply/demand in this rat race could just as well be beating y'all with sticks as you pass.

[Omnileech]

So then elephants are as valuable as people because they burn calories? Why bring up energy consumption at all? Your ramblings don't make sense.

[Michael Noire]

Heimdalr

As long as people have equal opportunity, this distribution is said to be morally defensible. However, this is very far from being the case. At the very basic level, all the land is appropriated since before you were born. So you move on to manufacturing, but manufacturing isn't really profitable anymore and you get laid off more often than not. Then you would move on to the service industry and try your luck, but the service sector is low paid, with few benefits, and more than likely dead end. So you go to college, provided your parents didn't crack your piggy bank to pay for their failing lifestyle during the recession. Now, you think, you will have a shot at the really great jobs. Then you see how the median bachelor's degree salary plummets at the same time as tuition skyrockets.

The ones who talk about equal opportunity and supply/demand in this rat race could just as well be beating y'all with sticks as you pass.

it is more than this but the idea is encapsulated. It is not a matter of a bunch of people being dropped into a fertile alien world and each doing what they can to get ahead. The game has already been played. For those born today, the game is rigged. No man works so hard or so smart that he can earn the resources that tyrants use to crush and control those around themselves. We are born into serfdom and slavery and told to excel from one side of the cage to the next. We are little more than prisoners arguing over cigarettes and gruel.

A man merely need look at the vast unoccupied homes, the endless acres of private and government property unused, and the levels of stress in ratio to understand that there is a disproportionate aggregation to the mental and physical labor at hand.

The purpose of vast accumulation is epic industry, not imperial squandering.

The purpose of ten thousand and more laborers is to build monuments to their own goals, dreams, and achievements, and to build up their own race and the destiny of their descendants,

not to bend over in obsequious servitude to the twisted whims of perennial overlords.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Old Blue Collar Joe

We've had this discussion before. It's called the law of supply and demand.

No it isn't.

[Michael Noire]

supply and demand do not govern the wealth aggregated over the last 5 centuries, specifically, those laws do not govern those who govern supply and demand. The history of cotton paper, civil war, gold, and the Rothschild investments demonstrate the original operational transition from supply and demand to pure usury and manipulation. By the time you get to the Bolshevik revolution, you have moved from kings and taxes to business empires and slavery of the corporate contract. The same dynasties that ruled the Opium trade set destabilization and revolutions into play, so that they might be able to create order out of chaos - a chaos they had also intentionally created. This principle of economics is much closer to Bernays than Adam Smith, or even Keynes - himself associated with these new dynasties.

[azulmagia]

Here's someone pointing out a fact about redistribution that's not so obvious.

[Dysia]

Any meritocracy worth half a pint of blood will not permit generations to accumulate wealth in the form of aristocratic fortresses of folly. Earning your riches is fine. Giving your charity away is fine. What isn't ok is some fop somewhere sitting at a 2800 euro dinner complaining about greedy peasants.

Hard work should not be a delusional path to prosperity and a thousand infants should not starve to death simply because farmland that could have fed them was paved into a parking lot to pay for a diamond tiara for the little princess who can't even drool her own name.

[Project 429]

azulmagia

Here's someone pointing out a fact about redistribution that's not so obvious.

Quote:

Faced with such technical change, even a libertarian state would have to choose how to allocate new rights - for example, the right to shared files versus the right to protect one's intellectual property. However it chooses, there's redistribution.

In a libertarian society, rights are allocated by private courts and not the state. What a s**t blog.

[Wendigo]

The courts are sill in the position of deciding between two contradictory interests. Somebody's got to lose (property, freedom, rights, whatevs) every time there's an adversarial proceeding, this is the nature of the beast.

[Michael Noire]

Wendigo

The courts are sill in the position of deciding between two contradictory interests. Somebody's got to lose (property, freedom, rights, whatevs) every time there's an adversarial proceeding, this is the nature of the beast.

The best place to begin is by holding freedom at the highest end of the spectrum, followed by rights. The judicial process itself is principle 0: Justice. The concept of property is based on the interaction of a person with that property and to a lesser extent, their awareness of its existence.

On the one hand, I would gladly beat or even kill a thief who stole my livelihood. On the other hand, I have almost no reservations about cat burglars who steal exotic trophies from museums. No one really owns the goods in a museum unless they own the museum. Additionally, if it is in a museum, it's utilitarian purpose has been extinguished. Many museum pieces are literally modified by a process to render them useless. There are also those massive vaults you see full of things like contracts, diamonds, etc. In most cases, I would rather applaud the skill of the cat thief than call for their bloodshed.

Now the next issue of ownership is awareness of the product you own. If you forgot you owned something, and never use it again, and it is collecting dust somewhere, for all intensive purposes, you don't own it anymore. for example, if it was stolen, and no one told you it was missing, how would you know? You don't even recall it existing. This often extends to the principle of garage sales, and the problem of hoarding. With more charity efforts, theft of unknown goods can be turned into a positive where theft implies an ethical dilemma.

Property is one of the foundation principles of an legal issue. Usury, however, comes with it the discussion of non real assets, and problems related to those artificial assets are numerous.

All conflict begins with a distortion in the ability of two parties to perceive the same reality. Loss stems from the principles of necessity and attachment. What is not necessity is attachment. Stealing a necessity from a senile person is wrong even if they do not remember the product, but stealing an attachment from someone who does not use, or even recall the existence of the thing (and this extends to unused lands and foreclosed properties) is significantly less wrong, and where necessity exists on one end, and acquisition of the property as an attachment is through illegitimate or immoral means on the other - then the theft itself is justice.

I think that last sentence summarizes the principle of redistribution.

[Project 429]

Michael Noire

Wendigo

The courts are sill in the position of deciding between two contradictory interests. Somebody's got to lose (property, freedom, rights, whatevs) every time there's an adversarial proceeding, this is the nature of the beast.

The best place to begin is by holding freedom at the highest end of the spectrum, followed by rights. The judicial process itself is principle 0: Justice. The concept of property is based on the interaction of a person with that property and to a lesser extent, their awareness of its existence.

On the one hand, I would gladly beat or even kill a thief who stole my livelihood. On the other hand, I have almost no reservations about cat burglars who steal exotic trophies from museums. No one really owns the goods in a museum unless they own the museum. Additionally, if it is in a museum, it's utilitarian purpose has been extinguished. Many museum pieces are literally modified by a process to render them useless. There are also those massive vaults you see full of things like contracts, diamonds, etc. In most cases, I would rather applaud the skill of the cat thief than call for their bloodshed.

Now the next issue of ownership is awareness of the product you own. If you forgot you owned something, and never use it again, and it is collecting dust somewhere, for all intensive purposes, you don't own it anymore. for example, if it was stolen, and no one told you it was missing, how would you know? You don't even recall it existing. This often extends to the principle of garage sales, and the problem of hoarding. With more charity efforts, theft of unknown goods can be turned into a positive where theft implies an ethical dilemma.

Property is one of the foundation principles of an legal issue. Usury, however, comes with it the discussion of non real assets, and problems related to those artificial assets are numerous.

All conflict begins with a distortion in the ability of two parties to perceive the same reality. Loss stems from the principles of necessity and attachment. What is not necessity is attachment. Stealing a necessity from a senile person is wrong even if they do not remember the product, but stealing an attachment from someone who does not use, or even recall the existence of the thing (and this extends to unused lands and foreclosed properties) is significantly less wrong, and where necessity exists on one end, and acquisition of the property as an attachment is through illegitimate or immoral means on the other - then the theft itself is justice.

I think that last sentence summarizes the principle of redistribution.

That's disjointed. A use-ownership theory of property precludes "justifiable theft" altogether.

[roost again red]

Old Blue Collar Joe

We've had this discussion before. It's called the law of supply and demand.

How much people will pay for things that are rare and that aren't has nothing to do with right and wrong.