To me it's about egalitarian distribution of wealth, there are many ways to distribute it, perhaps there are systems that distribute wealth in a more egalitarian manner than capitalism and it would be great to hear some of those ideas. It's well known to most economists that there are definite cases where the free market system does not work well.
I didn't even mention free market / communism, let alone construct a straw man. If you think I have please point it out and add to the conversation.
If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. (Seriously, the idea is 300 years old, surely in that time we've found something better)
I agree with most people that those unfortunate enough to not be able to provide for themselves due to sickness or disability should be taken care of but I think that's a relatively small amount of money and everyone would agree that that sort of thing should be done.
If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution -- I never said that. Wealth should indeed be distributed according to contribution, but contribution is not that easily measurable.
There are a lot of things that affect your contribution to society that are not measured by how much money you can take from others.
I just don't agree that some people contribute more than 1000 times as much as others. Everyone is human. We all simply play our part. So in my eyes, distributing according to contribution will not result in a that large inequality.
> If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why.
an individuals contribution is largely a matter of their innate dispositions coinciding with their innate aptitudes coinciding with the particular labor demands at the time in which one is alive.
society perpetuates bring people into this world without any guarantee that they will be able to contribute at a certain level. yet you expect that only the individual should carry the burden of that throw of the dice?
i put A LOT of effort into training myself as a software developer and now make a reasonable living from that, but i also simply found myself at a young age with a passion for understanding computers and a reasonable aptitude for the kind of thinking involved.
other kids found themselves with a disposition for sports, or painting, or french literature, etc., but maybe their aptitude doesn't make the cut in those winner-take-all fields.
tragically, other kids simply never find any disposition or aptitude.
they don't deserve to be in that position any more than i deserve to be in mine.
so yes, there ought to be systems for redistributing wealth from those who are lucky enough to find themselves with financially remunerable dispositions and aptitudes. there ought to be guarantees for certain standards of living, and those standards ought to be damn high given that no one asks to be born, no one asks to be afflicted with attachment to being alive.
I didn't even mention free market / communism, let alone construct a straw man. If you think I have please point it out and add to the conversation.
If you don't agree with the idea that wealth should be distributed according to contribution then please let us know why. (Seriously, the idea is 300 years old, surely in that time we've found something better)
I agree with most people that those unfortunate enough to not be able to provide for themselves due to sickness or disability should be taken care of but I think that's a relatively small amount of money and everyone would agree that that sort of thing should be done.