Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Wealth Redistribution and a Moral Imperative

Slims · 11-10-2008, 05:50 PM

Grolsh:

First, I am not an Arnarchist.

When I mentioned Malthus, I did so in the sense that populations will expand until they are absolutely maxing out their means. If you then provide relief, the population will simply expand more until you are in the same situation you started with, but with more people. Not in the sense that we should pluck those who are unable to contribute out of society or that we should judge people.

To answer your question: The things you mention are absolutely and uncontestably the product of pooled resources. I am a minimalist, and I am deeply worried by the direction I believe our country to be going; However, I also realize that Anarchy is not even close to ideal or even sustainable. I believe in the construction of roads, a strong government (but not a big one!), public services, etc. I recognize the "libertarian utopia" as some on this board have put it is not practical, and certainly isn't possible to achieve. However, I do think we could take several big steps in that direction and benefit from doing so.

I also agree that being a part of a group requires compromise. Often a great deal of compromise. However, compromise is both give and take. Typically these large groups are formed so each entity, through pooling of resources, can benefit from an economy of scale and can 'get' more than they 'give' into the system. I feel this is less and less the case in todays society. More and more frequently people who give nothing into the pool are drawing the most out; I disagree with that practice. I willingly pay my taxes, and will continue to do so. I am not upset that I have to pay taxes; I am upset at how my taxes are being used.

I am not suggesting that we leave people out to starve, or that we abandon social programs like welfare altogether. Rather, I am suggesting a no-free-lunch approach that has, to a degree, already been implemented. I feel that if you seek government assitance and are able (as most are), you should be put to work in some form or fashion until you find a better job. I feel the government should negotiate with landlords and bill collectors directly to defer (not to pay) any bills, rent, etc. while providing work and food, but little to no money.

If my comments are in any way incendiary, I apologize as it is not my intention to troll, but rather to submit my opinions for review and discussion, and to rebut some I disagree with.

11-10-2008, 05:50 PM	#207 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Grolsh: First, I am not an Arnarchist. When I mentioned Malthus, I did so in the sense that populations will expand until they are absolutely maxing out their means. If you then provide relief, the population will simply expand more until you are in the same situation you started with, but with more people. Not in the sense that we should pluck those who are unable to contribute out of society or that we should judge people. To answer your question: The things you mention are absolutely and uncontestably the product of pooled resources. I am a minimalist, and I am deeply worried by the direction I believe our country to be going; However, I also realize that Anarchy is not even close to ideal or even sustainable. I believe in the construction of roads, a strong government (but not a big one!), public services, etc. I recognize the "libertarian utopia" as some on this board have put it is not practical, and certainly isn't possible to achieve. However, I do think we could take several big steps in that direction and benefit from doing so. I also agree that being a part of a group requires compromise. Often a great deal of compromise. However, compromise is both give and take. Typically these large groups are formed so each entity, through pooling of resources, can benefit from an economy of scale and can 'get' more than they 'give' into the system. I feel this is less and less the case in todays society. More and more frequently people who give nothing into the pool are drawing the most out; I disagree with that practice. I willingly pay my taxes, and will continue to do so. I am not upset that I have to pay taxes; I am upset at how my taxes are being used. I am not suggesting that we leave people out to starve, or that we abandon social programs like welfare altogether. Rather, I am suggesting a no-free-lunch approach that has, to a degree, already been implemented. I feel that if you seek government assitance and are able (as most are), you should be put to work in some form or fashion until you find a better job. I feel the government should negotiate with landlords and bill collectors directly to defer (not to pay) any bills, rent, etc. while providing work and food, but little to no money. If my comments are in any way incendiary, I apologize as it is not my intention to troll, but rather to submit my opinions for review and discussion, and to rebut some I disagree with. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 11-10-2008 at 06:04 PM..