id like to note that i modified my wealth cap to make it invincible. the govt wont confiscate that money, they will simply tell you to spend it on anything besides stupid crap to fill your 20 mansions with. you can give it your wife or friends, or invest it in your business or anywhere. the way it would be enforced is by the IRS audit guy looking around at your bank account and stuff you own.
it would be violated all the time, but the fact that there is any law against it means that the rich people who are hell bent on hoarding as much as they possibly can will at least hoard slightly less. even if they dont completely go down to the legal limit, they will hoard less than they would otherwise, for sure. surely nothing bad will happen if we do this, and i dont even see how its a violation of rights any differently than banning murder is a violation of rights.
that’s because you don’t see that when I labour for something and it is given to somebody else, I’m a slave…
In any case, are you saying that the government would just “remind” you to giveit away, but actually wouldn’t do anything? I dunno, that seems like a waste of government time and money to me, but if all the govt. is gonna do is politely ask you to give away money without actually doing anything about it, I’m ok with that
I have to reply to future mans comment s on the weaalth cap and what you should do with it after a certain point
What gives you the right to tell me what to do with my money???
I could hoard it or spend it as I please If I want 20 mansions so beit YOU DONT HAVE ANY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO! You proclaim FREEDOM but you restirct what I can do. You are a hypocrite in Its purest form. I mean, thats what this country is about, freedom to do what you want as long as it doesnt effect anothers rights. I have the freedom to say what I want but I cant falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, because it disruptes the viewers rights to an undisturbed viewing of a movie and in some cases their right to life if some one get trampled trying to escape. But hoarding my money does nothing of the sorts.
I would add that we have a combination of both systems, American and British. Although our political system does lean more towards the UK, you must note that we are a mixture of both entrenched Constitutions along with the loose polital laws that are subject to societal norms, making our system both flexible and rigid. So I would have to disagree that “almost exactly alike” doesn’t really suit the reality of our laws, but that depends on how you view the political system.
I then have to ask you if you pay your taxes. Isn’t that just the government taking away your money and doing what they want with it? If you truly believe that you have complete control over your finances without anyone dipping into it, I’m sure the IRS (or whatever government you obey) would have some questions for you.
No offense man, but even if someone did have something ethical against paying taxes, that wouldn’t mean they should automatically not pay taxes… Some people like, you know, NOT being in jail and NOT having their assets frozen… I mean, I may not agree with a mugger taking my money, but if a dude comes up to me with a gun and demands my cash, I’m gonig to give it to him…
I think the wealth cap idea is very interesting, never thought about that before. But just for the sake of argument, you can look at how capitalism not only affects our economic lives, but how it affects all aspects of life. Mainly, you can put a wealth cap on the owners, but that still doesn’t change the fact that a small group of people own the society.
Is charity unethical?
No
Basically, anything voluntary is fine. If I volunteer to give my time to an organization which funds cancer research the products of my labour are given to someone else. This is not unethical. I sshould have been more precise. To rephrase what I said more precisely:
“That’s because you don’t see that when I labour for something and it is given to somebody else [without asking or obtaining my voluntary and unconstrained permission first], I’m a slave”
Now, who decides who the surplus value belongs to? Should the value be accrued to the owner who has risked money and time, or to the worker who works harder than needed? Here’s a thought, why not let them decide? If they can agree voluntarily on who gets what, why not stick to that? Both obviously must believe it is the best deal they can get, otherwise they wouldn’t choose it.
Which brings me to my next question, Are you a libertarian?
Well, you said that “when I labour for something and it is given to somebody else, I’m a slave,” thus, if a worker labors for something, the surplus value belongs to him, if you want to be consistent with your denounciation of slavery.
By “risked money and time,” you mean to say that he is not particularly talented, or intelligent, or has any merits whatsoever other than being “able” when it comes to manipulating monopoly capital with skill.
What about the children of rich parents? What “risks” have they taken, and what “talents” do they have, other than being the sperm that was fast enough to hit the egg in its future mother’s cooch? Some “skill,” correct? And they are automatically entitled to the wealth as a birthright, and thus the ability to manipulate the socio-political forces around them. If I were to use one word to describe such an institution, I would say “oligarchy.”
When a corporation goes bankrupt, the CEO is not out on the streets. When a blue-collar worker loses his job, the prospects of such a thing are not too unlikely. Look at my aforementioned example of Williamsburg…there was a decent economy there decades ago, but, for some extra profit, the factories that employed the residents closed down and moved some place where they could get away with paying less. Now, the community is going through a process of gentrification, while the Hispanic side permanently looks like a disgusting, filthy neighborhood. The residents there are unemployed.
Of course, the comeback to this is always, “no one said they have the right to a job.” Weak, isn’t it? The lack of ethics are being admitted to.
Well, if that’s the case, no said you have a “right” (I hate that word) to your property – which is what I’m saying – and, for your “theft,” I can employ any means necessary to end your international tyranny.
What? The worker in such a situation will not have much “say”…if he doesn’t agree to the terms of his employer, he is fired and, depending on where he lives (Harlem, NYC maybe?) he is out on the streets. Thus, one’s self-interest is sacrificed in that scenario. They do not “obviously” believe that it’s the “best” deal, unless, of course, “best” does not mean the “ideal,” but, rather, the “most colorful” chains they can receive.
A “colorful” chain versus an ugly, dull gray is still a chain nonetheless…under capitalism, it is natural for the worker to receive as little compensation for his labor as possible since the point of any business is to maximize profit, regardless of the ethical costs.
The terms are mutually exclusive. Slavery is to be forced to do something. It is unfree. Voluntary actions are to choose to do something freely. There is no such thing as voluntary slavery. One cannot sell oneself into slavery any more than one can sell their children into slavery. Both are unethical matter of theft. There is however one acceptable form of “slavery”. That is the slavery of the prisoner-criminal. Only those who forfeit their rights can be rightfully enslaved to pay for their crimes.
Nope, if I were to label mysel,f I’d probably label myself a classical liberal.
I apologized for that imprecision already. I can do no more. Please address my more precise statement instead of picking at a statement which I have already admitted does not show my true and whole beleifs.
I think Bill Gates is quite skilled actually.
Rich children basically are the product of charity. We all give charity, do we not? If I walk down the street and see a bum, I sometimes give him money. Nothing wrong with this I suppose? Children of rich parents are getting pretty much the same thing. Although parents can deny them their inheritance if they so wish by forming out a will. Frankly, the rpesent system is simple and practical. And let’s say we change it, so that if you don’t make out a will, the govenrment gets your money. Well then the rich will make outa will, and the ones to lose out will be the poor and middle class. Inheritance laws are made for them, when it comes down to it, not the rich. The rich will find a way to pass ont heir riches no matter what.
Oh, and this is a nifty oligarchy, isn’t it?
I havea right to my life do I not? I have a right to do with my life as I will do I not? So we have already accepted that their are rights to choice and life, put them together and you have an action, a product of the two. Now is your body yours? Yes, of course. You have a right to your body. This is because you are first occupant of your body. Just as with land the first person to settle and use it owns it. If you have no right ot property, you have no right to your body. In which case, you should perform no actions. And all rights are destroyed. The right to property is a fundamental right upon which all others stand.
bah humbug indeed. He chose to take the job in the first place, did he not? The choice to be homeless is jsut one more option. Some people even choose homelessness for life. Others choose it rather than work at a demeaning or unfulfilling job. So be it. I’ve chosen to leave jobs before, with no other job in the wings. i’ve had to sacrifice for those decisions, but I chose willfully to do so.
Why should the worker have power over the employer? I mean, does a prospective tenant have the right to demand that a landlord allow them a room? No, of course not. Neither do I have the right to demand sex from a woman. What you are advocating, good sir, is the rape of propertied men and women. I’m sorry if it seems ludicrous to you that I oppose rape, but I guess that’s just how I was brought up.
Why do you bring up “ethics”? If I “volunteer” to be a slave – according to your idea of mutual contracts and such – why can’t I do this? You say slavery is not always “voluntary”…well, look at the definition:
Slavery
The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
The practice of owning slaves.
A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.
Nothing “involuntary” is mentioned…although I’m sure that it’s usually involuntary, and other dictionaries might as well add the word “involuntary” to make the definition more precise.
Thus, if under your doctrine I’m allowed to engage in free association and free contracts as long as they are mutual, why can’t I sell myself as well as my children into slavery? What if my children “want” to become slaves? What if I am so poor that it is difficult for me to feed my family, and, to eat, they “want” to be slaves, and, so I can at least put some scraps on the table, I “want” to be a slave as well, since it would be much preferable to my present situation? I can create plenty of other hypothetical situations. What if my daughter has organ problems, and to pay for the surgery (there is no “public health care” under “classical liberalism,” mind you) I am willing to sell myself into slavery for her sake? When I am a slave, there is thus a contract; I am to obey my master – period. I agree to those terms…and if I violate them, it is considered “breach of contract” – and I can go to prison, or be held accountable in other ways, such as fines.
You can bring up “ethics” all you want, but, to remain logically consistent with your idea of personal choice, free association, voluntary contracts, etc. selling myself and my children into slavery “should be” allowed.
We have an argument very similar from conservatives today…children in Sierra Leone, for example, are “better off” with their current employment in diamond mines than with being unemployed and starving. They have a “choice”…they are in a “voluntary contract,” after all, and they could leave it whenever they want. They aren’t being “coerced.”
As if the threat of starvation isn’t “coercion”!
Actually, the idea that the threat of harm, starvation, poverty, etc. is not “coercion” is a vulgarization of the word.
Classical liberalism is usually associated with laissez-faire economics. What is the difference between that and the libertarian perspective?
What doesn’t hold true to your “whole beliefs”? The only mistake you have corrected was your idea that you are a slave if you work for something and, against your will, do not receive the necessary compensation. The objection I have raised was the idea that the worker’s surplus value is taken by the owner of the means of production. Your correction is not much different from your original statement, and my objection is, thus, still the same.
Compared to whom, and why is he entitled to control others on account of his talent? There are plenty of “skilled” individuals far more intelligent than Bill Gates yet they will never has his social status. I guess he is so “special” because he had a lucky spin in the capitalist casino.
And for every lucky spin, there are millions of losers.
Now, I think what you may be trying to say is that he is playing a “valuable role” that no one else can…that his “talents” are worth the billions he has made. Is that what you are trying to say?
At my expense. You are, thus, infringing on multiple freedoms, and I’m no longer talking about the bourgeois freedoms of “controlling” others via manipulation of capital.
And thus this is why the expropriation of their money becomes necessary.
Correct.
Not if it’s at MY expense.
I’m not sure I see the connection. Why the leap from the “right” to my body to the “right” to property at the expense of everyone else?
And, when you talk about a “right” to property, why is it always the expense of someone else?
And, if I have a “right” to my body, can’t I sell myself into slavery and allow my master to do whatever he wants with me, as I am “allowing” him to do it by signing a mutual agreement? This contradicts your previous statement.
Are you shitting me? Someone will always have to maintain that particular job! (Thus, someone will always have to be fucked over in terms of poverty and such.) The “who” depends on the person who is a loser in the capitalist casino. He “chose” that job because the alternative is homelessness; you imply freedom from coercion, yet the threat of starvation is not coercion??? Again, that is a vulgarization of the word.
Because there is no other alternative!
And, although your claim that there are a few that “choose” to be homeless, most of the beggars and such that I encounter on the Brooklyn subways definitely do not like their sorry existence. I’m sure if they were given the opportunity for a second chance, they would take it. I’ve had long discussions about politics, the hip-hop industry, life, etc. with homeless folks before…many of them are quite intelligent, and far from pathetic or anything like that. Yet, due to a number of factors, they ended up homeless…many, of course, were actively seeking employment, but could not find shit, even in large boroughs such as Brooklyn. You know what they did when they couldn’t find employment? Got themselves a gun, stood outside in Brownsville, and sold some drugs.
Because they “did not want any other options” ?
I think you’re after an abstract ideal…this abstract ideal, however, is intentionally divorced from the real world. Have you considered the practical ramifications of your theories if they were to be practiced in reality? I imagine some kind of Hobbesian nightmare.
Correction – why does the employer have to exist?
And why should the employer, if he does exist, have to have power over the worker, considering that it’s the worker that creates the goods?
YES.
See above.
Yes, you’re right…you know us commies, getting screwing over the working class, getting drunk, and then raping the offspring of bourgeoisie piglets.
Yes, it’s prettier because it’s simply non-existent.
But, please reply to my comment that, “under capitalism, it is natural for the worker to receive as little compensation for his labor as possible since the point of any business is to maximize profit, regardless of the ethical costs.”
I’m sorry, I don’t bother with discussions with people who are just antagonistic and close-minded… You’ll have to find another prisoner to oyur passions… good day
