How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide

Exactly as wealthy as the poorest. They would both own their homes and control enough land to cultivate food for their family and community, have their own source of energy, transport and communication devices, share in recreational facilities and health services, contribute to those services and practice a useful trade the product of which is distributed in the community - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept.

Wealthiest: maybe £10 million, a worthwhile target for greedy wankers to have something to aim at. Keep them busy. But then have a mechanism that redistributes most of that on their death to prevent private dynasties. More charitably, some rich people are just passionate about something and happen to make a load of money on the way.

Poorest: the price of a small flat or house. £100,000 or something. Security of accommodation, and ownership of home.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept. — Vera Mont

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Nurture people and flora and fauna and justice and purpose and meaning, not personal wealth, status and power. Every human being alive should be able to take all their basic needs for granted, from cradle to grave. That has to be a prime directive, imo.

So long as they are just in their transfers there is no reason to prevent someone from becoming wealthy. To do so would be to engage in the unjust transfer of wealth, for instance through theft, exploitation, and forced labor like taxation.

Wealth being an "evil" concept is merely a reflection of your own hate and resentment towards those who hold it. — Vaskane

No; it's not about them: some of them are benevolent, some malevolent, some are unintentionally destructive others do it on purpose; some wield the power invested in them by the control of wealth less harmfully than others.
It's about the very notion of dividing the resources of a community or society unevenly, giving some people - more or less at random - the ability to control the lives of many other people. That's simply wrong. There no "noble" qualities that can be identified at birth, to determine which few babies ought to receive high quality nurturing and training and which millions should be forced to fight over their leavings.

It is like a sword, a firearm, an instrument, something that can be utilized for an effect which people see as good or as bad. — Vaskane

Show me the "good" uses of an instrument designed explicitly to inflict pain, damage and death.

This question always reminds me of hearing about a limitation on how much CEO's can make in relation to the lowest paid employee in the company in some European country, possibly Germany. I could be wrong but I remember hearing a ratio of 20-1. Now, imagine if we expanded that limitation more broadly to an entire nation. What would be the downsides of doing that? What would the advantages be? Would ambitious and talented individuals leave the country? Would the standard of living go up or go down? Would it affect our ability to be competitive with other countries? I suppose there are many facets of this that need to be examined. Do we need the hyperwealthy? Do we need the potential to become hyperwealthy to continue, or to go away, for the best of society? I have more questions than answers on this topic. One thing I don't want to do is a "shoot from the hip" assertion that wealth acquisition is an inherently bad thing, or bad for society. I don't know that. Gross disparities of wealth do seem to correlate with many injustices, but it is often difficult to draw a straight line between them. If I'm wealthy and you are poor, that isn't exactly the same as saying I'm oppressing you, even though I may use my wealth to actively oppress you. I definitely don't like the overly simplistic idea that weatlhy = wicked and poverty = virtuous -- which, by the way, is more Biblically based than most people want to admit. I don't see anything particular virtuous about poverty. To me that always seemed like equating being helpless with being virtuous, and I don't think that is correct.

from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept. — Vera Mont

From where does a man strive toward then? Rather, to? What purpose does he have to excel, to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? None. None whatsoever. And this constraint, is the father of all squalor and mediocrity.

Exactly as wealthy as the poorest. They would both own their homes and control enough land to cultivate food for their family and community, have their own source of energy, transport and communication devices, share in recreational facilities and health services, contribute to those services and practice a useful trade the product of which is distributed in the community - from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.
Wealth is an evil concept. — Vera Mont

This sounds nice, but never works in practice.

Sounds good.

From where does a man strive toward then? — Outlander

From birth to dotage, for self-esteem, the love of a happy family, the respect of his fellow citizens, the satisfaction of contribution to the common weal.

What purpose does he have to excel, — Outlander

self-fulfillment, the attainment of skill in his craft and the privilege of passing on hard-earned wisdom to the next generation.

to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? — Outlander

Why defeat? Why not simply improve upon, day by day?

This sounds nice, but never works in practice. — RogueAI

The question was:

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society? — Captain Homicide

Not "What would work in our terminally ill civilization?"

From where does a man strive toward then? — Outlander

From birth to dotage, for self-esteem, the love of a happy family, the respect of his fellow citizens, the satisfaction of contribution to the common weal. — Vera Mont

Meh. Opinions and perspective, be they internal or external, are cheap, as ever changing as the winds. and often out of one's control anyhow. Lest you give turmoil and tempestuousness power, they matter not. Contribution is important. However, one can contribute a Trojan Horse unknowingly that provides great benefit, until it is revealed it in fact has not.

What purpose does he have to excel, — Outlander

self-fulfillment, the attainment of skill in his craft and the privilege of passing on hard-earned wisdom to the next generation. — Vera Mont

Wisdom... how fantastic. Utilization of knowledge. How many times has such utilization damned entire empires? It is not what is taught it is how to use it.

to defeat that lesser man in the mirror he woke up to? — Outlander

Why defeat? Why not simply improve upon, day by day? — Vera Mont

If one is without fault, one is without care.

Opinions and perspective, be they internal or external, are cheap, — Outlander

As we here all attest.

As we here all attest. — Vera Mont

Surely just because one is limited to the certain cheapness that comes with the human existence does not mean bargains are not to be found? :)

My claim is simply that without some unnecessary, perhaps even gross and offensive to the enlightened mind, idea, concept, or "dream" even, the majority would not be as eager as they should be knowing the full value of their efforts, despite being unable at the present. Is that not fair?

My claim is simply that without some unnecessary, perhaps even gross and offensive to the enlightened mind, idea, concept, or "dream" even, the majority would not be as eager as they should be knowing the full value of their efforts, despite being unable at the present. — Outlander

Sure. They can all vie for the title of Who Acquired More Stuff for Their Heirs to Sue Over.
Within the admittedly poor limits of my knowledge, the majority is neither eager to contend nor able to attain anything like the full value of their efforts. Is that fair? I don't think so. But, as you say, opinions are cheap.

People, do you understand that these oligarchs, billionaires, monarchs are the same as American operatives engaged in special access programs?
Intelligence agency driven. Just more scams.

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?

Where would their wealth come from? — Captain Homicide

In my IDEAL society, there would not be "the wealthiest person" because one person's wealth requires someone else's loss. Even in an ideal society, the underlying reality is that there is only so much to go around. Wealth requires an uneven distribution.

They would both own their homes and control enough land to cultivate food for their family and community, have their own source of energy, transport and communication devices — Vera Mont

Everyone having to own a home, own enough land, generate their own energy, transport, and communication, and so on sounds like pioneer life on the Great Plains. I don't want to build my own hut, farm 40 acres with a mule, operate my own windmill and solar panels, and everything else. Whatever happened to cooperative, collective systems?

I want a society where we work together to provide what we need -- from each as they are able, to each as they require.

Home ownership, under capitalism, has been something of a scam. #1) Mortgages have been an effective way to tame the working class. If you want to keep your home, you'd better keep that job at all costs. #2) Home ownership involves buying and selling a given house over time, repeatedly. A 100 year old house may well have been saddled with a succession of mortgages for 100 years. Great for the banks! #3) Renters are held in low esteem because they are not saddled with the mortgage, and they can move more freely. Renters support the parasitical rentier class, true, but multi-family housing need not be privately owned.

Starvation would be much more common if we all had to raise our own food. The most competent farmers can not guarantee a harvest. We have a sort of collectivized agriculture (under private ownership), and because it is under private ownership for the purpose of maximizing return on investment, bad things are happening to the land.

I don't want to build my own hut, farm 40 acres with a mule, operate my own windmill and solar panels, and everything else. Whatever happened to cooperative, collective systems? — BC

Your controlling a part of that co-op doesn't prevent anyone else from having the same degree of control; you can all agree to pool land and resources, so long as every adult has an equal say. Owning the solar panels on your roof doesn't impede anyone's access to the electric mill; autonomous use of your share without interference doesn't preclude helping to build the communal infrastructure. And you shouldn't need a mule when a very efficient solar tractor is available to anyone in the community.

I want a society where we work together to provide what we need -- from each as they are able, to each as they require. — BC

Isn't that what I said?

Home ownership, under capitalism, has been something of a scam. — BC

Let's paraphrase that more succinctly: capitalism, has been a scam

Starvation would be much more common if we all had to raise our own food. — BC

Not if we did intelligently.
https://www.aftaweb.org/about/what-is-agroforestry/forest-farming.html
https://www.permaculturenews.org/what-is-permaculture/
https://www.greenhousecanada.com/cold-growth-in-northern-climates-32606/
https://www.freightfarms.com/urban-farming
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-rise-of-vertical-farms/

With the current numbers, nothing will survive for very long.
With current mind-set, neither will we.

Let's paraphrase that more succinctly: capitalism, has been a scam — Vera Mont

Which country do you think has a superior system?

Which country do you think has a superior system? — RogueAI

I haven't been keeping track. According to this site, Luxembourg must, since it's rated highest for quality of life. But we're all caught in the web of global capitalism; no individual country is free to or able to enact a radically different system of governance or economy.

I don't mind if folks accumulate the identical wealth that they do now WITH an enforced income tax rate from say 1945-1963 plus a regressive estate tax.

Sure. They can all vie for the title of Who Acquired More Stuff for Their Heirs to Sue Over. — Vera Mont

No, that's fair. Though bear in mind people fight and kill over far less. If they raised their heirs properly and morally, or at least with an innate desire for peace as well as the knowledge of the value of avoiding avoidable discord, conflict can be minimized if not removed from the dynamic altogether.

That's but one way of looking at it, is what I mean. Family strife is undesirable but it is unlikely to be disappearing altogether any time soon. How I look at it is, people vote with their resources, in this case, their money. So if many people buy my product or service, it clearly benefits them and thus society, which encourages innovation and progress, thus not only rewarding me for my efforts but encouraging the next innovator who may bring something even better to the proverbial social table. Now I'll be the first person to say, innovation can sometimes go too far for one's own good. That said, the old adage comes to mind, "if you don't do it, somebody else will anyway". Along with "give them enough rope, they will hang themselves". But that's beyond the point so I digress.

Within the admittedly poor limits of my knowledge, the majority is neither eager to contend nor able to attain anything like the full value of their efforts. Is that fair? I don't think so. But, as you say, opinions are cheap. — Vera Mont

I disagree somewhat. Though not entirely. What is the "full value" of one's efforts? Sure that modest tailor who hems clothes and fabrics could be making more money if he happened to have been educated in technological innovation and managed to have come up with the steam engine. I completely get the sentiment, at least my understanding of it, of "not wanting to contend" as in not wanting to pit myself against my fellow man where if I succeed he falters, especially in the context of superfluous resources or wealth and unneeded quality of living. I get that completely. That said, when one looks beyond the short term and gazes into the long term of society as a whole, one might find it is not quite the zero-sum game. I think so at least.

Perhaps I misspoke regarding my remark of "opinions are cheap". They are dynamic, if not shifting, and often ill-formed, therefore placing prominent and pertinent value on something that is as ever-changing or resolute as the tides can be an unwise principle to adhere to in life. What I mean is, just because someone doesn't like you or something about you, doesn't automatically give the concept merit.

Regardless, I enjoy reading and becoming aware of the opinions of those I respect, such as yourself. Even online. For I believe, if not know, they are definitively grounded in many of the same truths and values I call my own. Thanks for the reply. :)

There are no just transfers, only legal ones.

Though bear in mind people fight and kill over far less. — Outlander

Yes, as I said, over the crumbs off the rich man's table.

If they raised their heirs properly and morally, — Outlander

IF. But they don't raise their heirs at all, do they? Nannies, tutors, private schools and academies raise them as the special class of privileged little lords and ladies their family fortune makes them.
Family strife is the least damaging of the possible outcomes. I don't want to point any fingers, but is family unity so desirable ?

That said, when one looks beyond the short term and gazes into the long term of society as a whole, one might find it is not quite the zero-sum game. I think so at least. — Outlander

That's a happy perspective. I wonder what percent of the world's population shares it? Not these people, probably. Or these... How about them? Are they getting full value? Closer to home, are these guys? They get $19-23,000 a year; the guy up in the big corner office takes home $1.2 000,000,000. Gee, Donnie must work really, really hard and never go to the bathroom at all!

What I mean is, just because someone doesn't like you or something about you, doesn't automatically give the concept merit. — Outlander

No. But if they dislike you for giving children cancer or killing all the fish, you might deserve some of the blame.

So dictates the law. Reason dictates otherwise.

So long as they are just in their transfers there is no reason to prevent someone from becoming wealthy. To do so would be to engage in the unjust transfer of wealth, for instance through theft, exploitation, and forced labor like taxation. — NOS4A2

If Rawls' theory of justice is correct in concluding that "economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged" then this maximin principle may entail that taxation is just.

Although I suspect you agree more with Nozick.

I don’t think anyone needs or deserves more than that and even if I did I still think anything beyond that would be detrimental to society as a whole. — Captain Homicide

But what about “freedom” and greed self interest and, most important, “incentive”? Who will want to innovate and be an entrepreneur if they don’t have the possibility to hoard more wealth than half the world population combined?

Unacceptable. Because liberty. Freedom. Socialism. Big government. So forth.

If Rawls' theory of justice is correct in concluding that "economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged" then this maximin principle may entail that taxation is just.

Although I suspect you agree more with Nozick.

Yes, the acquisitions and transfers need to be just in order for the distribution to be just. Taxation is not a just acquisition or transfer.

I'd like to see you set out a consistent and closed system of private ownership based on moral rules only.

The problem is that "contracts" aren't aimed at reaching morally just outcomes; they are generally not included at all. So the idea people have an extra-legal moral right to pre-tax income is fundamentally flawed.

I don't believe there should be a limit at all. The concern for me is the floor for everyone else. Can the society at large afford state of the art technology 5-10 years after its release? Can everyone reasonably buy a home? Is money's influence in political decisions minimized and capped? That's much more important than one individual's success.

I'd like to see you set out a consistent and closed system of private ownership based on moral rules only.

That sounds like a lot of work. Rather, the conviction that I ought not to take another's things is enough to refrain me from doing so. The law, on the other hand, is inconsistent. It forbids stealing for some but allows it for itself.