And when did social security start?

That graph doesn't say what you claimed.

1 & 2 are about right, yes.

I'm sure the oligarchy is happy about all the divisions in this country... perhaps even behind them to a large extent... rich vs. poor, right vs. left, racial, gender, et al.

Instead of hating and fighting with each other, we should be working towards practical solutions. However, I don't think asking the government to force people to do what they won't do voluntarily (whether as "individuals" or as a group of individuals) it a positive, real solution.

Well, your first rhetorical question implies, to me at least, that you feel it is never better for everybody for a centralized authority to make decisions.

But your response, where you answered "no" to breaking up one such centralized authority, implies, to me at least, that you feel it is at least sometimes better for everyone for a centralized authority to make decisions.

So which is it? Is is never/sometimes/always better for a centralized authority to be making decisions ???/?

Libertarianism is terrible for the same reason that communism is: human nature.

Allowing that this could be achieved, I still disagree with such structuring of wealth on principle, as it would require the government to forcibly take the property of the people.

I can see how it might be appealing in practice if properly implemented, but in reality the wealthy elite are not going to be the ones giving up their wealth to the poor, it will be the working classes.

If Walmart makes a decision, it's for its employees to decide whether they want to continue working for Walmart and it's for its customers to decide whether they want to purchase an item and/or continue to shop at Walmart. In such a case, the actions of the employees and customers are voluntary, and there are other options for work/shopping.

The government is a virtual monopoly. It's not like you can pack up and go to whichever country you choose and instantly be a citizen. In fact, it's often very difficult and expensive to do so, if it's even possible at all. The element of choice in government was meant to be at the state or local level, which is why federal government was given very limited powers in the constitution. It's a lot easier for a U.S. citizen to move from one state to another, due to differences in opinion about legislation, taxation, etc., than to move to another country entirely.

I dunno, Steve Job? Nikola Tesla? Any number of people have done more for society than they received from govt./society. Just because a person may have received govt. benefits (incl. driving on roads or going to school or w/e), does not mean they should be permanently indebted and subservient to the government, nor that the government should be able to increase its scope and size at its whim.

So, and correct me if I am wrong...

You are saying sometimes it's better for everyone if a centralized authority is in charge of making decisions -and- sometimes it is not.

Nothing demonstrates the basic fairness of unbridled capitalism like the life and times of Nikola Tesla.

Lolol

Allin, I'm missing 'private charity' on my BINGO card so if you could run through aiding the poor that's be aces

It's a matter of opinion as to whether the decision made by a centralized authority is better for everyone... or anyone for that matter.

I'm saying that a centralized authority is certainly allowable when the circumstances are voluntary. However, one has to be very careful about allowing a centralized authority when its decision are forced upon everyone, as there is no choice but to obey the decision of the authority.

There's a big difference between someone working for Walmart and obeying their supervisor, or someone shopping at Walmart and paying the price as listed for each item, or someone enlisting in the army and obeying a superior... versus someone having their property forcibly taken from them and given to others as a matter of "public policy."

Tesla was the original ACist if you think about it.

What if it didn't involve 'forcibly taking property' (I assume you mean taxing income). The same result can be achieved by reducing the income gap rather than having a bigger gap and taxing the higher incomes much more.

I think this is an important difference because richer people are far more protective of 'their' wealth being taxed than if they simply earned relatively less. i.e the boss earning 100x the average employee wage will be just as happy/motivated earning 10x the average wage if their status and position in the hierarchy remained the same.

Perhaps if Tesla had better protected and controlled his intellectual property, he could have helped more people, by either giving away the direct benefits of some of his inventions or giving away some of the financial rewards of his inventions. I don't really fault him for his idealism or naivete, nor do I fault capitalism for such.

Intellectual property (enforced by the government) was his bread and butter

I’m with you

How are you defining unnecessary? Lol vagueaments

Do you want to see people dying on the side of the road? Because that’s how you get people dying on the side of the road.

Ok, back with you here.


Let me ask you this: is this ideal society you want to design one that is the most fair for the most people? Or are you designing a society that you feel is most fair for yourself? Personally, I imagine the ideal society as the one I would design that would be the best if I didn’t know who I was going to be before designing it. Do you agree with that goal?

You may think that, but I don't see Bezos demanding that his workers be paid more. There's a reason for the term "limousine liberal."

Rockefeller would be a better example than Jobs, but even Rockefeller had outside help before cornering the market.

Honduras is the closest thing to libertarian. Those people are the caravans fleeing to the US.

Hope that helps.

(in before those issues aren't b/c of libertarian which is BS of course)

Libertarian pretty much leads to Feudalism. Don't know why a single person argues for that.

I’m not saying did more than they received, that’s not what you are saying. If you think you are “subservient” to the government I can’t help you, any form of society is going to have leaders you are subservient to one way or the other. None of the alternative organizing theories have been better than what we have now.

allin,

Your definition of "voluntary" is completely arbitrary. It's a totally subjective opinion to draw the line between voluntary and involuntary where you do. One could just as easily argue that a person voluntarily chooses to stay in a country and be taxed and that someone who will starve/become homeless without their walmart job is being forced to work there. You could just as easily define both as voluntary or both as forced. It's a non-distinction.

So, I'm confused... if the answer to your rhetorical question is "it depends", what possible point are you trying to make relevant to "centralized authority".

(note: I'm not asking relevant to "voluntary"... which you didn't even mention at first, and is hardly the same thing as "centralized authority". I'm only asking about the part you originally said regarding "centralized authority".)

It's like you said "Look the sky is blue"; I said "have you considered the earth's rotation?"; you asked "what does the earth's rotation have to do with it"; and I answered "well it depends, maybe nothing".

You can voluntarily choose to starve and die without hectoring anyone for loose change on the side of the road

#nonaggressionprinciple

Few want to give away what they think is theirs - we've sort of covered that. But look at it the other way around. Suppose Bezos was still top of the hill but had existed in a world with a much flatter income/wealth distribution? Would he be objecting?