Comment by pbhjpbhj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbhjpbhj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

All those that believe democracy is an overall good supposedly believe in the benefit of the majority, all those that are socialist believe that benefit to society is important - those two categories probably account for a majority of the population of the world.

It is often remarked that capitalism is a beneficial regime because of the "trickle down effect" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics).

>So if society is comprised of 10 people, and you devour one of them and redistribute to the other 9, thats OK simply because the 9 recipients benefit? //

That doesn't benefit all of society now does it?

>If you can gang up and rob your own rich, why not arm up and attack a neighboring country and enslave its population? //

Attacking a neighbouring country won't benefit society it will be a substantial detriment as would enslaving members of society.

The thing about "rob[bing] your own rich" is that the many of the richest members of our societies [in the UK] are rich because of chance, because of rent seeking, because despite the world belonging to mankind they by violence [usually of their ancestors] have acquired a larger share of it's resources. Why is it unjust to redistribute such wealth?

Let's flip your first question - if society is composed of 10 people and one of them has enough food to feed 10, should we just let 9 starve so that the 1 can keep "his" portion? Or to look at it a different way: how about we look at an island that's got resources to feed them all, they each are provided a random share and one has the most fertile and productive part - they all work equally hard and he always has excess and grows fat and rich in resources whilst the others suffer to varying degrees. Why should the benefit born of random chance overrule our humanity?

"We find that increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth—that is, when the rich get richer, benefits do not trickle down." (Dabla-Norris et al., http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42986.0)

[FWIW I don't agree that GDP is the best measure of improvements in society but it at least appears to indicate the efficiency - within humanitarian bounds - of a capitalist system. I'd prefer to follow happiness quotients.]

> That doesn't benefit all of society now does it?

How does then involuntary wealth transfer from the rich to the poor benefit _all_ of society, including the rich?

> Attacking a neighbouring country won't benefit society

Wat? If attacking and robbing a neighbouring society wont benefit the attacking society, how does attacking and robbing the rich neighbour benefit the poor attacking neighbourhood? Its the same concept, just another scale.

Conquest and enslavement have been successful empire-building strategies for millenia.

> are rich ... because of rent seeking

Whats wrong with that? I work and build a house, you need a stay and pay a monthly rent, whats wrong with that except your envy?

> the world belonging to mankind they by violence [usually of their ancestors] have acquired a larger share of it's resources.

We're not talking about wealth-by-robbing, as you see above. Youre explicitely throwing chance (aka inheritance) and rent-seeking into the mix, even though they are completely moral ways to accumulate. If my ancestors were hard-working accumulators, and your ancestors wasteful rakes, it is difficult to construct an argument why half of my inheritance should be awarded to your ancestors progeny instead of my ancestors progeny. Why should the ant be forced to take from his children and give to the grasshoppers children?

> should we just let 9 starve so that the 1 can keep "his" portion?

If the society is composed of 10 people, 1 is rich and 9 are starving, who is "we"? "We" is either the rich guy or the 9 starving ones. There is no single entity called "we" that can impartially and benevolently move around wealth. So if he robbed you, it is not "his" portion in the first place, then its ok for its rightful owners to take it back, including by force. But if he didnt rob you, and just accumulated it by hard-working and saving, then it indeed _is_ his portion, and youre shit out of luck. If you can construct an argument why its ok for you to attack him because you brought yourself in a situation where you literally cant survive anymore without attacking a hard-working innocent accumulator, then he has every right to also premptively attack you in order to prevent your planned envy-motivated attack. Youre essentially advocating for an vicious, eat-or-be-eaten climate of constant conflict.

The thing about "rob[bing] your own rich" is that the many of the richest members of our societies [in the UK] are rich because of chance, because of rent seeking, because despite the world belonging to mankind they by violence [usually of their ancestors] have acquired a larger share of it's resources. Why is it unjust to redistribute such wealth?

Can you categorically say all of the richest in your country are rich because of chance and rent seeking?

Even if yes, can you categorically say all of the richest in your country are rich because of their exploitation of British people? Or did some of them rich because of their ancestors exploitation of India or through the Chinese opium trade?

I get what you're saying with not letting the 9 people starve, but justifying it by saying "they deserve their stuff taken because they're exploiting us" is the emotional logic that led to holocaust, or the cultural revolution, events where millions are displaced and killed.

Cows & Pigs don't deserve to be murdered for their meat, but we do it, to live.

You got to do it, not because they deserve it, but because it's what you got to do. If you are going to do it, own it.

> Cows & Pigs don't deserve to be murdered for their meat, but we do it, to live.

We dont _need_ to eat meat. We _want_ to eat meat. We want it so much that we'll kill them to get it.

But for some psycho-social reason unknown to me, we're not willing to flat out admit that, and spend aeons constructing convoluted arguments why we are so so sorry but cant avoid killing them.

> If you are going to do it, own it.

As you can observe, exactly that last bit absolutely doesnt work. For some reason theyll fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting "I'll kill you now because you taste soo delicious".

Inequality in a society leads to instability in that society, and tears it apart. That's why we tax the rich to give to the poor, to reduce the rate inequality arises and attempt keep chaos at bay. When a society breaks down, everyone suffers greatly, but eventually as a new society arise, equality is reset, and people can improve their livelihood over time again. That's how it was with the Roman Empire, with each of the successive Chinese dynasties, with the Islamic Caliphate, and many other empires that have arose and fallen in the past[1]. So it will be with the 'West' we live in.

[1] The Fate of Empire - Sir John Grubb http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com