User talk:Clutch/Eleutherphilic Creed

You lost me at, "redistribution of wealth is bad"-while certainly creation of new wealth (ie-new technology/resources) is great-I cannot see how this apple can be compared to the orange of redistribution of said resources" Plz explain. Lir 08:37 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

I didn't say redistribution of wealth was bad. I said systems that made redistribution easier than creation were bad. If it's easier to go out and create your own wealth, are you going to be so likely to spend your days figuring out how to screw other people out of THEIR wealth instead of working for it? It assumes naturally that everyone has equal access to the land and other necessities for supporting life; and unless someone uses force and violence to deny these things to another, everyone WOULD have such equal access. --Clutch

You are also assuming that redistribution is bad, as in figuring out how to screw other people out of THEIR wealth. I think any viable society must consider sharing to be a good thing and the poor that need help should not be considered as little better than leeches. Certainly, if we wish to create a better society-it will be done first and foremost through redistribution. Is not wikipedia a form of redistribution? Britannica is creating wealth. but I would hardly say they are helping society, rather they are holding all of society's knowledge for ransom. Of course, it does make a tidy profit...Lir 05:21 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

No. Inasmuch as Britannica makes a profit off it's work, it is redistributing wealth. Wikipedia is truly creating wealth; it does not extract a profit. Sharing is not the same as redistribution. Sharing is voluntary; redistribution is involuntary. Given that property is theft, future redistribution should act to correct a wrong, not to concentrate wealth further.

People are entitled to the product of their labor. Other people have a right to use the product of your labor too, as long as they are not denying you personally it's use. So, MY wealth is consists of the product of my individual labor and an equal share in the resources of the world. If you deny me the use of my wealth, then yes, you have SCREWED me out of it. If you benefit from my wealth, without denying me use of it, I don't see any problem. --Clutch

Now in part I agree with you. If I farm a field of magic mushrooms-goddamn it i want some mushrooms-and if nobody gives me a damn thing-i might give some people some shrooms but im not gonna give them all away! Yet, if I grow a field of potato-and some lazy fool is starving for who knows what reason-my society better drop by and say, "Dude. He is starving. You gotta give him a potato." cuz otherwise he might starve!

So at the very least, some forced redistribution must be good. On the other hand, we certainly don't want to work all day in a factory producing IBMs and never see the fruits of our labor.

Now I ask you, even if your wealth is a product of your labor, what makes you so sure that their wealth is a product of their labor? Is it not entirely possible that their wealth is a product of our labor? And that in order to achieve a reasonable society we must redistribute our wealth. Perhaps, none of your wealth belongs to them, but I know many a person for whom nearly all their wealth belongs to the capitalist aristocracy.

You say that wikipedia is creating wealth, but I assure you that is not true. I am not creating here on wikipedia, I am taking information from Source A and depositing it in Source B. I am redistributing information from a source that charges for profit and giving it to a source that neither pays me wages nor charges the user. I am most certainly redistributing and giving all the product of my labor away. I am giving an entire field of mushrooms away because I am confident that it will help society.

You said, "Given that property is theft, future redistribution should act to correct a wrong, not to concentrate wealth further." Do you agree that property is theft? I do! How then can redistibution and thus communal sharing not be the answer? You seem to argue that redistribution will concentrate wealth-this is where you once again lose me. Huh? The wealth is already concentrated, but that wasn't a result of redistribution, it was a result of creating wealth! Lir 06:11 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

You first scenario, the lazy fool. I disagree. If the fool had the means to procure his own food and didn't, then I have no obligation to feed him with the product of my own labor. Now, human nature being what it is, I find it highly unlikely anyone would let him starve; personally, I don't think I would let him starve; people would probably offer an exchange of some of his labor for food. If he refused even that, it is because he wants to die. Do we have a right to coerce someone into eating if they want to commit suicide?

A better scenario is, what about disabled people? I think the persons family, and surrounding community, have an obligation to support them, in the same way they support children and the senile. How that would be organized, I DONT KNOW. I even suspect it would vary from community to community. As long as a society doesn't monopolize the means of production and force people to be members of it, then it can behave much as it wants.

Again, on the Wikipedia. I disagree with you. The process of moving information from A to B DOES have value, or there wouldn't be a whole community that has sprung up to do just that. And value is another name for wealth. Why should people hunt around for information when it is compiled, summarized, and otherwise nicely formatted for quick and easy reference? The Wikipedia is definately creating wealth, and what is more, it is true social wealth, unlike the locked-up proprietary wealth doled out by the Britannica group.

Finally, regarding my argument against redistribution of wealth; please see my latest edits to the subject article; I hope it makes my intentions and meaning clearer. --Clutch