Comment by slowmovintarget | Hacker News Reader

Comment by slowmovintarget | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

slowmovintarget

> Because inequality drives those local conditions...

That is not in evidence. You may be thinking of inflationary pressures causing the poverty income level to be adjusted upward. This is not a result of income inequality. It is a result of supply and demand.

> "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

That is an aphorism, not a universal truth, and holds zero moral weight. You may be judged as corrupt by what you do, not by what you have.

> ...inordinate power and wealth ensures that abuses will occur.

No. This is envy as evidence. It doesn't work that way. Your use of the word "inordinate" is also meaningless from an economic or policy stance. Who decides what is inordinate? What qualifies a level as inordinate?

There is only one equilibrium state with full equality: vacuum. In an economic sense this is where zero exchange of value occurs. It is system-death.

In a just world, you keep what you earn. You reap what you sow. When someone powerful steps out of line you punish them. If they do not, there is no reason to punish them. Pre-punishment because "they probably will" is propaganda from the dictator. We don't want that.

What if some people are just bad at doing things for themselves? We have a society, communities, families... ...because humans are truly pitiful on their own. (Said with a sad smile.)

Consider that you just haven't found something useful for me to do.

If it's too much for you, I guess you could stop. If wouldn't be your fault if I couldn't keep things together.

>This is not a result of income inequality. It is a result of supply and demand.

Incorrect. Inequality increases the pool of wealth with which "haves" may bid up the prices of commodities, real property, and services. And they do, effectively increasing demand. Transitively, inequality drives inflation, i.e., local conditions.

>That is an aphorism, not a universal truth

You might want to revisit the definition of "aphorism". (It generally includes the word "truth".)

>You may be judged as corrupt by what you do, not by what you have.

And have another: "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Implicit is that you will hammer nails. Property is intrinsically tied with action. Held power is to be wielded, even when it's not warranted; the only way not to is to give it up.

>This is envy as evidence.

I would love to understand this obsession with envy among the elite. If I take your gun and immediately throw it into the ocean, was that envy?

It's funny to me that you deride a "system-zero" world and then immediately champion a "just world". They're the same thing. And though you may believe in it, I never said I did.

The practical solution to a world with increasing (wealth) inequality is to decrease it. It will never reach zero. That's not the point. It's to affect the balance of power so that when someone powerful steps out of line, it is possible to punish them; so that things earned can be kept (and so that he definition of "earn" may be reasonable itself); so that we're not forced to consider the farce of referring to a reaction to someone's previously-accumulated wealth as "pre-punishment."

>What qualifies a level as inordinate?

One could say that it's relative.

> Inequality increases the pool of wealth with which "haves" may bid up the prices of commodities, real property, and services. And they do, effectively increasing demand. Transitively, inequality drives inflation, i.e., local conditions.

Impossible if there's competition between producers and it's at world scale.

> What if some people are just bad at doing things for themselves?

Tyrannies begin with those kind of ideas.

And inflation is a General increase in prices, not the increase of a specific good.

>Impossible if there's competition between producers and it's at world scale.

That's a goalpost move if I've ever seen it. Maybe a No True Scotsman fallacy, too.

Geography confers varying conditions at world scale. Hence, "local" is the window. And producers create cartels unless regulated; wealth accrues to itself, capital returns more than labor. Piketty.

>Tyrannies begin with those kind of ideas.

You can't see me but I'm rolling my eyes.

Then regulate cartelization. That's a government function, if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments.

Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

You regulate cartelization in part by reducing their access to capital and redistributing it to non-cartel rivals, i.e., reducing wealth inequality.

>if it doesn't work don't blame capitalism, blame governments

Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

>Pretending to know better than other people what that other people should choose our want - and imposing it - is tyrannical.

No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

> Corporate capture is why government can't function in this regard.

Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

> No one has to pretend, they can just prove it. That's not tyranny, it's reason.

Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

There's no reasonable way to prove how people must live.

>Do you believe that the same government people that is influenced by lobbying is going to vote to close the ways in which corporations give them money to control their decisions? How could that happen?

I just told you.

>Tyrants believe that they know what's reasonable for the people to do with their lives, and as is often there case a lot of people don't agree with them, so then they use force to coerce people to do what they will.

All of that is true. And it has no bearing here, because we're not talking about tyranny. A society that redistributes wealth because the redistribution of wealth has been proven to promote a healthier society (along objective metrics) is not suffering from tyranny, no matter how much you, personally, feel like you've been wronged. That sense may very well be disordered. A million people shouldn't have to suffer because one person is aggrieved that his advantages were stripped. In this case, your aviation is a confession, and you're the one promoting tyranny.

I'm not against redistributing wealth. I'm sure that it is going to be obligatory with the jump off productivity that IA would allow, and I believe that some redistribution strategies are very good and that others aren't.

What I also believe is that reducing poverty is a much better goal than redistributing wealth. Redistributing wealth can be a valid strategy for reducing poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com