GhostWriter16
Deity
Its only a might makes right argument if you don't accept the market system, or only accept it to a certain point. To which I ask, where is the redistribution line drawn? As I asked Camikaze in another thread, he, along with most of liberal CFC, would be perfectly fine with taxing "The rich" in excess of half their income, most of which would be to make the poor better off. I noted that if we were in their position, we might well be fine with it (I wouldn't, I'd rather give my money to anything, whether directly to the poor, a church, almost anything else, above the state) but I pointed out that on a worldwide scale, we already are. I obviously don't know your personal economic status, but even lower middle class America/Western society is probably in the top 1% worldwide. Why, then, should government not take half of YOUR income to give to the poor in Africa? After all, they are poorer than you, and you having money affects their ability to obtain wealth (Although not necessarily, businesses can create wealth as well, although I understand taxation does not automatically stop this, it depends on the rate, how speicfically it applies to capital gains, and other considerations. I am skeptical, however, that you can tax anywhere near half the income level of the wealthy without affecting wealth creation. Yes, the state itself will get more wealth but I'm not convinced society as a whole will make more wealth) so why not? Yet, you would likely vote against a "Money for Africa Party" that proposed exactly that. And I imagine this wouldn't just be because you're a selfish jerk. I imagine you think you are entitled to the money that you have worked to earn. But why does this arbitrarily stop at a certain income threshold? It makes no sense to me.
Of course, most of America's Wealthy are massive hypocrites for supporting higher taxes while not donating that money to the government on their own. Or at least, I think that's hypocritical. But that's just me.
If I really wanted to go farther than this, I'd point out Walter Block's criticism that lefties are massive hypocrites for walking around with two eyes or arms while some people have none
But I'll let you slide on that for now if you answer the other questions
I don't think you realize the implications of this. I'm sure there's a debate to be had on Good Samaritan Laws (For the sake of this post, the ones that compel assistance, the ones that protect people who voluntarily provide assistance are entirely irrelevant to this discussion). Of course, as a Libertarian I generally oppose such laws, but even if you think its a good idea, is it really equivalent to committing the crime yourself? Is failing to act to protect someone equivalent to causing the crime yourself? What if you fear harm coming to yourself? What if you were in a hurry to get to work and didn't realize how bad the accident was? Are you a murderer because of every single starving African child you could have donated to but didn't?
I gave varying levels of absurdity here, but the last one proves the point more than all of the others combined, either we are all mass murderers, which makes ethical discussions pointless, as if Hitler and Stalin sat down to discuss ethics, or we must otherwise admit that negligence is not the same thing as evil action. One is clearly worse than the other.
I don't know if you would agree with the proposition "Theft is wrong" or not, considering the growing defense of the practice on CFC, but if you believe theft is wrong, I don't see how you can possibily, consistently, advocate progressivism. You could perhaps argue for laissez-faire, anarchy of multiple flavors, Geoism, even a rejection of property rights in socialism or communism (Although I would argue "Property is theft" is a stupid claim because if there's no such thing as property than "Theft" isn't really ethically wrong in the first place) but I don't see how you can advocate for property rights "Except sometimes because it makes society better off." Utilitarianism isn't really a very good ethical system, at least IMO.
I'm not convinced a truly free market is as likely to fail as those ideals, considering how government almost always tries to manipulate the market for special interests, and its really just a matter of what interests.
"Living with dignity and well-being" is a subjective term. Its something that is constantly changing. Today's poor are better off than the poor of our ancestors. If we could go forward 200 years in the future, we would likely laugh at the fact that the society we see, in which almost everyone today would have been poor in, still claims to have a 10% poverty rate. Technology kills poverty, its just the fact that poverty is relative and so we create the problem.
I'm not saying "True poverty" doesn't exist. Not yet. Just that "Poor" is really a subjective term, always changing. IIRC Adam Smith said this, that society's definition of "Poor" is always changing and so poverty will always exist.
You are right that the "Market" does not care whether you live or die, exc. The market isn't really sentient. Its merely a mechanism through which distribution of property is determined, generally first through homesteading of land (And assumed ownership of anything you create) and then voluntary trade allowing for the voluntary redistribution of property. If people have compassion, and people obviously (To various degrees) do, they can "Trade" some sum of money, food, exc. for absolutely nothing in return. Its called "Charity." The problem is that people are all too willing to tax, which is essentially (When it actually goes to the poor, the reality is much closer to it going to war, at least in the United States) forced charity, but they are unwilling to take that same amount from themselves that they would just as soon take from someone else.
Unions do all sorts of different things obviously. What I had in mind was specifically collective bargaining, when a group of workers organize together and voluntarily "Collectively bargain" with a businessowner. I see nothing about this that is inconsistent with a free market economy. I also see nothing about a voluntary "Closed shop" that is incompatible with a free market either. A business could, of course, refuse to hire union employees, and if it does so it may well end up with no workers, which is part of how the market works, supply and demand.
My economic teachers argument was that unions exert market power, which is true, but so do businesses, the question is, is that a problem?
BTW my economics teacher is a Reagan conservative, and didn't really say whether he was against the existance of unions, merely that they manipulate the market and that they make it no longer free. But to say that manipulation of the market makes it no longer free is, I think, to misunderstand what a free market is (Or merely what I mean when I say "Free market.") What I mean by "Free" is that all transactions are voluntary and that government does not specifically interfere with the voluntary process. Unless I'm missing something, unions made up of purely voluntary associations (ie, nobody is forced to join) are completely compatible with a free market.
And this man gives good advice. Most of the time It is hard to learn that one's intellectual boundaries are tighter than one assumed. For the same reason, that every crack in ones self-identity tends to be unpleasant. But as in this case, it is often also a wonderful opportunity to grow.
