Re: Distribution & Redistribution

From: The Trucker (mikcob_at_verizon.net)
Date: 12/08/04

  • Next message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Johnsons surprised by off-the-record pre-trial" 
    Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:00:44 -0800

    jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:

    > The Trucker <mikcob@verizon.net> writes:
    >
    >> jmhall@apex.home.net wrote:
    >>
    >> > chriscoll@panola.com (William C Colley) writes:
    >> >
    >> >> > You did nothing to get it besides be born into the right family.
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Not my argument about land inheritance, but inheritance of wealth is
    >> >> dependent upon the circumstances of ones' birth, of course. Surely no
    >> >> one is insane enough to suggest that the state or government should
    >> >> have any say in how a parent can provide for their children?
    >>
    >> The child had privilege all his life while the parent was alive. The
    >> parent can give the child all the education, training, and personal
    >> awareness that time and money can buy. There is simply no justification
    >> for the offspring to also inherit the parent's land claim.
    >>
    >> > You do realise that for most people the home is
    >> > the largest repository of wealth. If it's just
    >> > fine for the local government to decide how
    >> > much and how often to tax land (which these
    >> > days includes to improvements in the taxable
    >> > value) they are doing just that.
    >>
    >> The subject is land taxation.
    >
    > Actually the subject is "Distribution and Redistribution"
    > which covers a whole lot more than just land taxes--as did
    > William Colley's statement about "the state or goverment
    > should have any say in how a parent can provide for their
    > children." If more people amass their wealth in the family
    > home then the redistribtution of that property (land and
    > improvements) would fall inot interfering with how parents
    > are providing for their children in today's world.
    >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Why should you be rich while I am poor, which gives you power over
    >> >> > me?
    >> >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> Because life is inherently unfair and kills everyone who ever gets
    >> >> born into it. Why should some hypothetical person be lucky enough to
    >> >> be born at all, much less born to a specific set of parents?
    >> >
    >> > I think the better answer is that inheritance
    >> > really doesn't give on power over another.
    >>
    >> Total horse crap. Do you think our lawmakers are bought by the
    >> poor? Get a grip.
    >
    > That's not some inherent atribute of wealth inherirance
    > but rather a flaw in our political system. Why try to
    > fix the problem in one by introducing problems in
    > the other?

    Wealth confers power regardless of how that wealth is obtained.
    In some cases the wealth is earned and in others it is not.
    If assets are taxed (e.g. land) instead of taxing income then
    the inheritance of wealth (i.e. unearned) is much less of a
    problem. Those who do not employ wealth in a productive way
    would soon become poor. Those who inherit land and fail to
    use it would soon lose control of the land.

    >> http://GreaterVoice.org/econ/glossary/wealth.php
    >
    > Do you keep posting these links as an advertisment?
    > It's not like that site is some ultimate authority.

    That site defines "wealth" in a proper way. You are certainly
    free to define it in some other way or to debate what the
    link says. Wealth is power. Wealth is the capacity to forgo
    or to command labor.

    >> > It
    >> > provides one with more alternatives to pursue
    >> > but that is not power over another--that's
    >> > a differential power over their own life.
    >> > Seems the claim is more politics of envy than
    >> > anything else.
    >>
    >> With the typical rightard it is not a question of whether but a
    >> question of when the "envy" pony will appear. Any discussion of
    >> justice will be greeted with this sham.
    >
    > If you want to resolve the problem of justice
    > in our political system them attack that problem
    > head-on, don't pretend to solve it by using the
    > system to take from other in guise of correcting
    > some ficticious power over others due to wealth
    > differentials.
    >
    > jmh

    Wealth differential _IS_ power. If you wish to debate the
    issue then do so. So far all I see is some prancing pig ***
    about how being wealthy simply allows a wealthy person to
    get his bathroom cleaned by magic. 

    -- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy
is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson.  http://GreaterVoice.org
  • Next message: John Turmel: "TURMEL: Johnsons surprised by off-the-record pre-trial"