[Ham]
It's neither bad nor "unfair". Everything in nature is distributed in a
"lopsided" fashion because existence is not a balanced symmetry. This is
how the energy that moves the world is created. In Nature, we call this
dynamic process "evolution". In society it's cultural development. If
energy and matter were perfectly balanced and equally distributed we would
have what the physicists call entropy--a static state where all energy has
been dissipated.
[Krimel]
I was mimicking Craig's use of the term unfair. But it is simply not true
that nature distributes things in a "lopsided" fashion unless some input of
energy into the system produces the lopsided distribution. When 10% of the
people own 85% of the wealth and 1% own less than half; it is a bit like
having all of the gas molecules in a container spontaneously collected in
the upper right hand corner.
[Ham]
Just as individuals who are "better off" have earned that status,
[Krimel]
This too is false. Most people are "better off" by virtue of accidents of
birth or through dumb luck. The same can be said of the less fortunate. As
one who at times sounds like a Christian you should know that none of us
earn or are deserving of Grace.
[Ham]
This is because the wealth of a democratic nation is owned by the people,
not the government.
[Krimel]
In a democracy the government IS the people.
[Ham]
In the United States, government is constitutionally mandated to preserve
and protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens; and -- lest we
forget it -- wealth is private property.
[Krimel]
The only mention of individual property in the Constitution is the Fifth
Amendment guarantee that it can not be taken without due process.
But more importantly it is not true that "wealth is private property". Blue
skies and fresh air are not private property nor are knowledge, highways,
waterways, airways or airwaves. This notion that all wealth is private is a
pernicious lie.
[Ham]
(Strictly speaking, government has no right to tax wealthy citizens at
higher rates than the poor, but that's a topic for another discussion.)
[Krimel]
Again this is simply false. The government does have the right to levy taxes
as specified in the Constitution of this and every other constitutional
democracy in the world. We even passed a constitutional amendment to allow
the taxation of private income. I like to think of it as the "Fuck the Rich
Amendment" and tend to think they are not being fucked nearly hard enough.
{Ham]
My point is that the "rule" of a democratic republic is that government
policy represents the consent of its people, whether it's going to war,
constructing or policing intra-state highways, compensating the
disadvantaged, or granting citizenship to immigrants.
[Krimel]
To this I would add taxing the rich and promoting the general welfare
through public investment and the creation and maintenance of shared public
wealth.
[Ham]
Incidentally, I don't know what Craig means by "Force opposes free action."
Action must overcome resistance by force, whether it's "free" or
"involuntary". It's the mechanical principle of overcoming inertia.
Perhaps he means "antagonistic force", as in Socialistic Collectivism versus
Free Market Capitalism. (?)
[Krimel]
Me either. When I was trying to decipher it I took it to be more Randian,
Raygunesque rubbish but I figured you would get it.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
