Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
FC,... yes, in my opinion
From each what they can, to each what they need.
This is what I define as a fair means of distribution in a civilised society. We do not live in a meritocracy, we know that wealth is often based on privaledge of birth or social class, but the ideal of a perfect meritocracy is something I reject completely, for resources to be distributed on the basis of the contribution each person makes is completely unfair... in such a system the more capable get more than they need, the less capable less than they need - this is unfair. A fair system is one in which each person works as hard as they can, and is rewarded with the resources they genuinely need to enjoy a good standard of living. The motivation to work hard becomes pride, and decency, and free creative spirit, not naked greed. All people deserve a good standard of life, all people should be required to work.
|
They tried that. It was called communism. If I recall, it didn't turn out so well.
That being said, I actually do agree with some redistribution. Simply because the higher income groups often get there by taking advantage of the lower income groups. What I don't believe in is flat-out welfare. Assisting people who are actually trying and have something to contribute is one thing, but if someone's just lazy they should be left to fend for their own.