1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThis is untrue.
But I get the impression that you're really not interested in any idea I may put forward.
You don't believe claims without evidence. Could you tell me what evidence you base this on? I have replied to your posts with thoughtful posts of my own that indicate that I have read, understood, and evaluated yours, even if I don't agree with them. To me, the evidence suggests that I am interested in this dicussion; I'll concede that I don't have an interest, however, in simply accepting the ideas you forth until you persuade me to.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI said to send the richest man to the guillotine as a singular act, not as a general principle (actually my initial post specified the top 100). It does not follow that we would continue lopping off heads all the way down the line. That is an interpretation of your own making.
As I said before, you first have to name the principle upon which you base your justification for putting Bill to the guillotine. You explicitly stated that he should be because he was the richest man. It obviously follows that if the richest man is always put to the guillotine - which of course is a metaphor for having his surplus assests divided ...[text shortened]... o achieve some compromise, the arbitrary rule that you base it on introduces injustice.
Dr. S
Of course I agree with you that we could have an absolute egalitarian system or a quasi-egalitarian system. My initial tack in this thread was merely to leave it at a quasi-egalitarian system with admittedly arbitrary measurements drawn as to what constituted "acceptable" wealth. This may introduce an injustice, to be sure, but is a far lesser injustice than had previously existed. It was an attempt to make the system "better" and not "perfect".
Of course upon closer scrutiny I have disavowed the guillotine as nothing more than a rhetorical flourish on my part (being predisposed as I am toward revolutionary sloganeering). Such a system could be implemented progressively without the lopping of heads (not as exciting though), and once implemented would not require anyone to "give up" anything, but would instead place limits on what they could get in the first place.
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957This is a key observation. Who among us is entitled to any dollar that Gates has earned? After all, we have all voluntarily exchanged our money for his goods and services. And now you say we should get our money back?
Rob, it is Gates' money and not mine. He earned it and it belongs to him. I may not like that he has more money than me, but it is his money.
Suppose I bought into RWillis's idea that no man should have several billion dollars. So, then I agree to take it away from him. But who, if anybody, should be entitled to that money, and why?
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your notion of a better system was based on an underlying just principle, not an arbitrary feeling that Gates specifically and nobody else should have to give up their wealth. If it doesn't follow that we would continue lopping heads, then I pointed out early in this thread that that is an arbitary system biased in your favor and wholly unjust against Gates. But if that indeed is the system that you propose, I can't really offer any counter-agrument, other than saying that I couldn't live with myself having implemented such an arbitrary and biased rule that singles out one man, for it's nothing more than self-righteous theft.
I said to send the richest man to the guillotine as a singular act, not as a general principle (actually my initial post specified the top 100). It does not follow that we would continue lopping off heads all the way down the line. That is an interpretation of your own making.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy principle (in this thread) is that while discrepancies in wealth may be accepted, a smaller discrepancy in wealth is preferable to a larger one. That which moves society toward greater egalitarianism is to be preferred over something which moves society away from it. My use of Bill Gates is merely symbolic. So instead of divesting Mr. Gates (and other multi-billionaires) of either their heads or their entire fortunes, a heavily progressive tax may be employed to bring their fortunes down to more discrete levels. Would you find that be something you could live with, Dr. Scribbles?
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that your notion of a better system was based on an underlying just principle, not an arbitrary feeling that Gates specifically and nobody else should have to give up their wealth. If it doesn't follow that we would continue lopping heads, then I pointed out early in this thread that th ...[text shortened]... rary and biased rule that singles out one man, for it's nothing more than self-righteous theft.
Originally posted by rwingettI could nt live with that because you are wanting to take away wealth that helps create jobs in the market place, thus raising the wealth and standards of the lower classes. You are not taking into factor the "trickle down factor" though I know that must be an obscene term for you.
My principle (in this thread) is that while discrepancies in wealth may be accepted, a smaller discrepancy in wealth is preferable to a larger one. That which moves society toward greater egalitarianism is to be preferred over something which moves society away from it. My use of Bill Gates is merely symbolic. So instead of divesting Mr. Gates (and other mu ...[text shortened]... n to more discrete levels. Would you find that be something you could live with, Dr. Scribbles?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy is Bill Gates entitled to $48 billion? What has he done to justify that level of wealth?
This is a key observation. Who among us is entitled to any dollar that Gates has earned? After all, we have all voluntarily exchanged our money for his goods and services. And now you say we should get our money back?
Suppose I bought into RWillis's idea that no man should have several billion dollars. So, then I agree to take it away from him. But who, if anybody, should be entitled to that money, and why?
Originally posted by kirksey957Of course. Only one thing trickles down in such a system, and it ain't money.
I could nt live with that because you are wanting to take away wealth that helps create jobs in the market place, thus raising the wealth and standards of the lower classes. You are not taking into factor the "trickle down factor" though I know that must be an obscene term for you.