Back to basics: economic justice (political)

[epiphany65]

The fruits of one's labor belong to those who labor for it. Anything else is injustice. That means that taking from the rich to give to the poor is robbery, period, not matter how many majorities approve it. It's coerced distribution and quite unnatural.

But I'm a Libertarian. So I'd also oppose those who push through corporate welfare, too.

The government has little or no creative role in the economy. What role it assumes for itself is largely destructive.

This reminds me of the stance that Ed & Elaine Brown took. Unfortunately it never went so well for them, but at least there was no bloodshed.

 

[CTYankee]

the bottom line: justice in the area of the economy is furthered when the well off recognize and carry out their duties.

And if they don't "recognize their duty" of their own free will?

In fact, let's not wait to find out. Let's just have the government preemptively TAKE whatever it figures that the NEEDY among us require.

The real standard of economic justice isn't ability, effort, perseverance, hard work, etc. Rather, it's now NEEDY you are.

Tax something and you'll get less of it. Reward something and you'll get more of it. Simple enough.

 

[trysail]

On my 16th birthday (quite literally), when it first became legal for me to be employed, I became a ditch digger at the magnificent emolument of $1.60 per hour. For a forty-hour week, my gross paycheck was $64.00 which translated to $55.14 after the government finished nicking it. I worked like a dog in gratitude to my employer for providing the opportunity.

In all the summers that followed, I worked as a gandy dancer laying rail and driving spikes on the docks and waterfront of Baltimore, as a warehouseman and as a laborer. It didn't take long before I figured out that: (A) this wasn't what I wanted to spend the rest of my life doing and (B) I didn't want to be out there in the middle of winter. My earnings as a laborer helped pay the cost of my college education.

Following college, while many of my contemporaries were living high on the hog, I lived at home madly saving money so that I would be able to pay for graduate school, which I eventually attended (footing the entire bill myself).

This was followed by twenty-six years of seventy-hour work weeks— scrimping and scrounging the whole way and, eventually, the anxiety of helping to start a business. Along the way, I met and worked with the good and the bad— there were people of high ideals and standards and there were the deceitful, the corrupt, the meddling and the whining entitled malingerers.

Economic justice is an undefined term; an abstraction that is undefined and defies quantification is, at bottom, subject to interpretation. Therefore, I submit the following definition of economic justice:

YOUR hand in MY wallet.​

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Missing from all the Happy Talk is an appreciation for reality and desired outcomes.

If economic justice were possible I'd get 100% compensation for my labor, every effort would benefit the market 100%, and everyone in society would gain. But that isnt how the world is.

 

[Pure]

note to jbj and rox

nice posting, jbj

Missing from all the Happy Talk is an appreciation for reality and desired outcomes.

If economic justice were possible I'd get 100% compensation for my labor, every effort would benefit the market 100%, and everyone in society would gain. But that isnt how the world is.
Today 11:05 AM

economic justice IS an abstraction. any reality would be an approximation,a 'best under the circumstances.' the phrase "100% compensation for my labor" underscores the problem. WHAT IS, that 100%? it's very hard to define: marx would say, if a thousand workers, doing similar things, produce X many cars, selling for a total of Y dollars, using Z dollars worth of materials, then the basic, inherent value of the individual's labor is (Y-Z)/1000, given a few auxiliary assumptions (that the workers are goofing off, etc.).

yet someone invested capital in the machines the workers used. hence orthodox capitalists say, from the total, Y-Z, you must deduct all monies paid out in profits [say P], as determined by the directors. thus the true value is of the individual's labor (Y-Z-P)/1000. further, it's claimed that the director's BY RIGHT, can distribute ALL of the excess of income over expenses to profits, *if they please.*

Originally Posted by Pure
//the islamic religion, mormonism, judaism, and calvinism all recognize DUTIES on the part of the well off, to contribute to the welfare of the very badly off. having the gov't do this is NOT that different in prinicple //

rox Wrong, it's very different. Religious strictures are about morality, which necessarily means choice, not coercion. Welfare state (or theocratic) wealth redistribtion is about coercion and no choice. You can't be moral if you can't choose to be.

rox is so eager to trot out randist boilerplate that she MISrepresents me entirely: in fact i said this:

//but let me put different words to this concept, so that that the anti-communists don't freak so much. the islamic religion, mormonism, judaism, and calvinism all recognize DUTIES on the part of the well off, to contribute to the welfare of the very badly off.

having the gov't do this is NOT that different in prinicple from the old Massachusetts way: everyone goes to church [added: by law]; everyone contributes, preferably 10 percent of earnings, to the church; the church, that is, its leaders and people spend the money, for example, feeding the poor.//

---
her claim
rox Wrong, it's very different. Religious strictures are about morality, which necessarily means choice, not coercion.

rox gives no reasons for this claim. morality has generally an element of 'imposition' from time immemorial. 'free choice' is a kind of xian myth that rand and rox find useful [ie. people *choose* poverty]

another example besides early Mass is the present day Islamic states. the rake off the mosque gets is from taxes. this is distributed by the Islamic authorities to the poor. again i say, 'no difference in principle'

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

When confronted by the inherent contradictions in the rationalizations they use to justify what is really nothing more than a desire for power and control over other men and women's lives, the far left tends to fall into certain regular behavior patterns. First, you'll notice that the word counts expand greatly. At the same time the arguments become positively baroque in their ornate obtuseness. Things like, "all morality really involves taking away choice" - that is, coercion. That doesn't really go over so well though, so the next step is to deny the reality of choice - free will - altogether. Which brings us back to "d'oh": "You have no free will/choice anyway, so 'we' might as well make your choices for you."

 

[dr_mabeuse]

We are a tribe; we are a family. We have a duty to at least be human to each other (the alternative is, we become enemies). Some of us will fulfill that duty through charity, but by far, the majority of us will not. If it were otherwise, we wouldn't be bitching so much about taxes. (I don't buy the argument that if the government weren't taking it, we'd gladly give it on our own. I don't buy that at all.)

In my book, we should all be able to live free of the specters of homelessness, starvation, unnecessary sickness and want. I think as a nation, we're wealthy enough to provide that much to everyone in America. No one should have to fight for their very survival in this day and age. Not when we can afford to spend 350 million dollars a day on a war that accomplishes absolutely nothing in Iraq.

I don't hear anyone talking about the 'redistribution' of wealth in Iraq, about the wealth that's just going up in smoke, just being pissed away for no good reason whatsoever. If we can afford that, why can't we afford a decent minimal life for every American citizen? What's so fucking shameful about that?

 

[Pure]

rox can start a thread on free choice, if she chooses.

but the point here is that IF the well-to-do have obligations to the really badly off, the blend of 'enforcement' techniques is NOT so crucial as the principle. the principle is recognized by socialist, liberals, conservatives (e.g Burke) and even royalists. Rand Hayek and Roxy are ideologues of the 'pure individual' pursuing 'rational self interest'. homo oeconomicus. "duties" to fellow humans don't fit into the picture.
they make an 'end run' around the issue of 'the good of society,' by simply declaring, without proof or evidence "all will benefit maximally if the entrepreneurs are rationally selfish, and traders pay taxes only for army and police."

moral and social obligations are enforced by a number of means; persuasion, for example. social pressure, for another. social sanctions. "silent treatment', shunning, 'you don't exist.' banishment.

in early Mass, the wealthy meeting their social and moral obligations enjoyed the esteem of their fellow citizens; they were looked up to, and put into high office. in a recent interview i saw, with caroline kennedy, she told of how 'the boys' were raised with the idea that, being well off, they were expected to get into public service (i.e. by dad).

 

[trysail]

in a recent interview i saw, with caroline kennedy, she told of how 'the boys' were raised with the idea that, being well off, they were expected to get into public service (i.e. by dad).

The hypocritical bootlegger, liar, swindler, con artist, thief and philandering crook, Joseph P. Kennedy never did a thing in his life that wasn't motivated by self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment.

ETA: Adding "swindler and con artist" to my description of Joseph P. Kennedy.

 

[Pure]

[...] deleted dupe

 

[Pure]

try, try,

you forget that 'self enrichment' is for you the ultimate in "good motive," and that its pursuit, as mentioned by rox, is the motor that drives the social good. "enrich oneself [without getting into too much trouble]" = pursue rational self interest.

keep your mantra straight. joe k is a successful 'free enterpriser' and pillar of society.

 

[trysail]

......

 

[trysail]

try, try,

you forget that 'self enrichment' is for you the ultimate of "good motive" and that its pursuit, as mentioned by rox, is the motor that drives the social good. "enrich oneself [without getting into too much trouble]" = pursue rational self interest.

Aye, that be so. However, crooked and dishonest do not meet with my approval and they don't come any more crooked or dishonest than Joe Kennedy (with the possible exception of Lyndon Baines Johnson).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DOC

Taxes.

In the paper today is an article about the cost for our local judicial system. Twenty years ago (1987) the average murder trial in this county lasted 100 days, start to finish. In 2007 the average muder trial takes 500 days. The district attorney and the public defender each confirm that their respective lawyers are less than diligent about moving things along, and the judges dont seem to care how long a trial takes. None of them get paid per case.

But the sheriff has to house the defendants @ $100 per day, which the county pays for with room/board, plus more jails/staff.

The city just bought a new cement mixer truck for 250K. The last one cost 140K. No bids were taken. No one looked around for a better deal. The public works people simply bought a new truck.

THE PROBLEM IS: Politicians arent competent stewards of tax money.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

moral and social obligations are enforced by a number of means; persuasion, for example. social pressure, for another. social sanctions. "silent treatment', shunning, 'you don't exist.' banishment.

Yep - all are legit because at the end of the day they leave the choice in the hands of the individual.

Legal obligations are enforced by only one means - men with guns - and they take use coercion to not only to take property but also take choice away from individuals.

 

[gauchecritic]

Yep - all are legit because at the end of the day they leave the choice in the hands of the individual.

Legal obligations are enforced by only one means - men with guns - and they take use coercion to not only to take property but also take choice away from individuals.

Usually because those individuals believe themselves outside of society. If you want to be in a society then you have choices to make anyway, at gunpoint or otherwise. and as you well know; property is theft.

 

[Varian P]

For those who believe that taxes constitute theft at gunpoint:

Do you believe society should place any limits on the aggregation of wealth and power, and its use to perpetuate further accumulation of wealth and power via economic coercion of those with less?

 

[rgraham666]

Why not? Society pursues and punishes people who do it with weapons. Theft is theft whether you do it with a weapon or a contract.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

For those who believe that taxes constitute theft at gunpoint:

Do you believe society should place any limits on the aggregation of wealth and power, and its use to perpetuate further accumulation of wealth and power via economic coercion of those with less?

That's a good question V, and not just for the group you direct it at. (BTW - I am not a member of that group, because I believe in limited government, not anarchy, and that necessarily means taxes.)

Let me begin an answer with this: You infer that "society" should place limits, but we're not talking about the abstraction "society" but about the concrete "government." And who is government? Men (and women in our era). What is government? Force, coercion; imposed by some upon others. In the case of wealth redistribution, the arbitrary power of other men.

So what you're talking about is giving tremendous power to a particular group of men and women.

Now a related question: Are those large economic interests you fear likely to have an outsized role in the operation of government? Of course they are. So how is this tremendous power of coercion likely to really be used? Once you've given this power to government who are likely to be its actual targets (victims.)

A salient answer is seen in the 16th amendment - the income tax. When it was adopted it was sold as a measure to do what your question implies, and most believed it would never affect anyone except the extremely wealthy. I'll let Dr. Phil ask the next question: How's that workin' for you?

I have one final observation: Your phrasing "(no) limits on the aggregation of wealth and power" suggests that this is a really big problem in our society, and carries images of robber barons running roughshod over the groaning yeomanry. Yet fortunes both come and go in modern capitalist economies, and the handful of "dynasties" that manage to hang on to substantial wealth here don't seem to do much yeoman-stomping. In a capitalist system capital that grows doesn' take anything away from any other person; it instead contributes to building a bigger and stronger economy that benefits everyone. Populist and Marxist screeching to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Liar]

Your other post is about a different subject altogether, which is core functions of limited government.

True. I'm a pragma-extremist when it comes to that. I don't care if taxes are theft. Then so be it. However, if taxes are unnessecary, then to all hell with them.

This thread is about wealth redistribution.

I disagree. This is a thread where Varian P asked "What, for you, is economic justice? And how can the government best ensure it?"

And some people answered: "Wealth redistribution." (And implied "taxation" as the answer to the second question.)

You are free to answer something else.

So yes, you did, in effect, yell "commie", instead of answering the question.

 

[Liar]

The city just bought a new cement mixer truck for 250K. The last one cost 140K. No bids were taken. No one looked around for a better deal. The public works people simply bought a new truck.

Huh. That's actually illegal in many countries.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

True. I'm a pragma-extremist when it comes to that. I don't care if taxes are theft. Then so be it. However, if taxes are unnessecary, then to all hell with them.
I disagree. This is a thread where Varian P asked "What, for you, is economic justice? And how can the government best ensure it?"

And some people answered: "Wealth redistribution." (And implied "taxation" as the answer to the second question.)

You are free to answer something else.

So yes, you did, in effect, yell "commie", instead of answering the question.

Nuh-uh. I just put the correct label on what the thread is really about. You're not really suggesting that it's about voluntary charity, is it? It's one or the other - that or wealth redistribution through coercion.

BTW, I haven't pronounced any verdict on that in this thread either.

You can accuse me of brutal honesty in this thread, but not commie-baiting.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LIAR

I imagine its illegal here, too. But so what? Its a done deal and only the newspaper is upset.

Illegal only matters if it bugs the wrong people.

Al Capone said government is a racket like bootlegging.

 

[Liar]

Nuh-uh. I just put the correct label on what the thread is really about. You're not really suggesting that it's about voluntary charity, is it? It's one or the other - that or wealth redistribution through coercion.

Uh... no. You are too many assumptions of malice away from the actual question.

Do I have to repeat it? Ok, here goes: "What, for you, is economic justice? And how can the government best ensure it?"

A perfectly viable answer to this would be: Wealth redistibution. To take money that person has rightfully owned A and give to person B.

Another perfectly viable answer would be: To ensure that money that person A has rightfully earned is not taken from person A and given to person B without person A's consent.

...repending on what philosophy you subscribe to, I suppose.

But lambasting the question as being about wealth distribution and nothing but, is presumptuous and defensive.



ETA: I was actually interrested in hearing basic economic position defined from various viewpoints, with that pretty neutral question as a starting point. Color me dissapointed. But not very surprised..

 

[Liar]

The fruits of one's labor belong to those who labor for it. Anything else is injustice.

See, that's what I'm talkin 'bout.

Whether I agree or not, is irrelevant, there's a clear cut answer.