There's no distinction between revolution and refinement. — Hanover

Semantics.

I also question anyone who says that human ingenuity has largely run its course. When I was a kid, we had a complex network of cans and kite strings to communicate — Hanover

Nobody said anything about human ingenuity having run it's course. What I said was there have been revolutions in human activities that can't be repeated, simply because they were done and were successful. There is no point in extending electricity to 99.9% of households in the USA because they have been hooked up to the electric grid for 50 to 100 years, already. There is nothing unhappy about the successful technical revolutions like we have seen in communications, sanitation, and transportation, etc. Those revolutions are over, and that's great.

Even someone with a rotary phone can understand that. At least, people with rotary phones used to be able to understand. Apparently there is something about the old rotary phone that is unhealthy -- sort of like lead poisoning.

What do you know about fields of innovations that are needed that would be revolutionary and haven't already seen a great deal of progress?

So I endured a day long meeting at work that I thought useless, but now am excited because it contained information I can now use, if only here. They explained this concept of disruption, where a product will be sold on the market and all competitors will slowly evolve toward the industry leader. Think of the minor differences in cell phones, cars and the like. Then, all of a sudden, a new player will show up and BAM the whole industry is changed. One day everyone has flip phones and the next androids.

This is where the meeting turned into bullshit, where they tried to encourage us to innovate the next best thing. I figured if I was that smart, why would I be sitting in this meeting?

At any rate, I think we're see innovations every day. I don't know which to call revolutions though.

We should not worry about other people's motivations (within the context of morality). What are they actually doing? Are they being generous for tax purposes? What do you care--the food shelf is able to buy all the food they need. — Bitter Crank

But motivations motivate action, and bad motivations can lead to bad actions, and are more likely to do so. That was basically my point in the discussion with Hanover. If you're being generous soley as a means for self-advancement, and you're unscrupulous, then the means only matters in terms of efficiency; and therefore, if you were to find a more efficient means, then it would be reasonable for you to replace the means of being generous with this newly found alternative - even if it's morally reprehensible.

Why do I care? That is why. And you should too. Actions are important, morally speaking; perhaps more so than other considerations. But they are not the be-all and end-all of morality. Motivation, intention, principles and character are also important. It would often be too little too late if we only cared about actions. What about guidance? Don't wait until the immoral act has already been committed. Try to prevent it. Look for the warning signs.

My position therefore isn't that charity or taxation or redistribution is a bad thing per se, but it is to say that there are all sorts of forms, with me favoring a more voluntary system imposed by social norms and a distribution to those truly in need. — Hanover

Right, because that has worked so well thus far. A big part of the problem is that your appeal to voluntary action falls on deaf ears for so many people, and, importantly, for a number of those who are exceptionally rich; yet just a single one of them could quite easily make a massive difference.

I take a more cynical view, and advocate a more practical solution.

My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money... — Hanover

It boils down to what amount of their money has been earnt. Ownership of the means of production doesn't mean that you've earnt a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth created by the workers.

(2) private supplementation can better address many of the problems related to poverty. — Hanover

But this is already the case, and yet we seem to agree that what's being done isn't enough. So, how do you propose increasing private supplementation to the required level on a voluntary basis? Are you going to go door-to-door asking "What are you doing to correct this problem?"?

But motivations motivate action, and bad motivations can lead to bad actions, and are more likely to do so. — Sapientia

You are right. Good motivation tends to lead to good action and bad motivations tends to lead to bad action.

That was basically my point in the discussion with Hanover. If you're being generous soley as a means for self-advancement, and you're unscrupulous, then the means only matters in terms of efficiency; and therefore, if you were to find a more efficient means, then it would be reasonable for you to replace the means of being generous with this newly found alternative - even if it's morally reprehensible. — Sapientia

Yes. My construction was sloppy. What I should have said was, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." The food shelf that is the recipient of a large gift need not concern itself with motivation to a great degree. They could, of course, dither over the giver's motivation but they don't need to. "Beggars can't be choosers."

A political campaign treasurer, however, does need to look gift horses in the mouth, and are not so beggarly that they can't choose what to accept. A contribution from a hostile party might be a poisoned gift. A college might reject money from a known criminal, for the same reason. Not only the motivation is suspect, but the money itself is suspect.

Why do I care? That is why. And you should too. Actions are important, morally speaking; perhaps more so than other considerations. But they are not the be-all and end-all of morality. Motivation, intention, principles and character are also important. It would often be too little too late if we only cared about actions. What about guidance? Don't wait until the immoral act has already been committed. Try to prevent it. Look for the warning signs. — Sapientia

You are right again, and I do care.

Strict behaviorists (like B. F. Skinner) were uninterested in motivation because, they said, the brain is a black box. We don't know that much about what goes on between sensory input and behavioral output. The output is what we are interested in. One could imagine a good society by following this view, which Skinner did in his utopian novel, Walden Two. It is a nice, orderly, well-behaved society, but monochromatic and morally flat.

I never liked behaviorism, but it has it's virtues. Sometimes motivation is less important than setting up a reward schedule so that people behave well despite themselves.

Most of the time, though, we ought to think in terms of motivations and consequent behaviors. One could say that Donald Trump emits absurd statements because he has been rewarded with excellent polling results. That behavioral model doesn't explain why the other candidates are emitting equally absurd statements and not getting good polling results. Something more complicated is going on.

The motivations of all politicians, all ambitious bureaucrats and churchmen, all aggressive business people, all social climbers, to pick on a large and annoying group, can be examined. One's motivation in doing so is, of course, above reproach (cynical jokey statement). John Henry Cardinal Newman (recently beatified) experienced a rather meteoric rise from evangelical Anglican cleric to Roman Catholic prince. He was, evidently, a very capable fellow and quite ambitious, one supposes. (An American evangelical choir director friend divined that there is a seed of megalomania in the heart of every priest, pastor, and minister of the church. Seems to be true from my experience.)

Motivations matter, certainly, but sorting out motivations and behavior is sometimes a bit like sorting out entrails in a slaughter house. It's a messy smelly business.

Right, because that has worked so well thus far. A big part of the problem is that your appeal to voluntary action falls on deaf ears for so many people, and, importantly, for a number of those who are exceptionally rich; yet just a single one of them could quite easily make a massive difference.

I take a more cynical view, and advocate a more practical solution. — Sapientia

Well, I do think the rich already make a massive difference, not only from the fact that they already contribute disproportionately to the tax base, but because they also contribute disproportionately to charity. Take a look at the donors to the next charitable event you attend. A single Platinum sponsor (usually a corporation, a trust fund, or a single very rich person) likely contributes more than all the regular donors like you and me combined.

It's for this reason that I just don't follow the argument that the rich suck, which seems to be the pervasive argument. If the problem is poverty, the solution is wealth, making those who have figured out this whole wealth collection thing a bit important.

It boils down to what amount of their money has been earnt. Ownership of the means of production doesn't mean that you've earnt a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth created by the workers. — Sapientia

The value of the service you provide isn't set by committee. It's set by the market. If you have the ability to organize labor and produce a product and that results in great wealth to you, then that's how much you have earned. Every grunt in the field is important, but not as important as the person coordinating their efforts.

But this is already the case, and yet we seem to agree that what's being done isn't enough. So, how do you propose increasing private supplementation to the required level on a voluntary basis? Are you going to go door-to-door asking "What are you doing to correct this problem?"? — Sapientia

Having recognized your abilities, I'm trying desperately to elicit action on your part. I think if I can motivate you to serve your fellow man, then we'll have come a long way to resolving the problem of poverty and hunger.

Well, I do think the rich already make a massive difference, not only from the fact that they already contribute disproportionately to the tax base, but because they also contribute disproportionately to charity. Take a look at the donors to the next charitable event you attend. A single Platinum sponsor (usually a corporation, a trust fund, or a single very rich person) likely contributes more than all the regular donors like you and me combined. — Hanover

They make a difference, as they ought to, but not big enough. You seem to be judging proportionality based soley on the amount contributed, rather than on the amount contributed in relation to wealth. If the donor is still stinking rich after donating, then it is disproportionate in that they aren't donating enough.

It's for this reason that I just don't follow the argument that the rich suck, which seems to be the pervasive argument. If the problem is poverty, the solution is wealth, making those who have figured out this whole wealth collection thing a bit important. — Hanover

The argument is that they can do so much more, but choose not to for unjust reasons, and that they are allowed to get away with it, and that this situation should be rectified.

The value of the service you provide isn't set by committee. It's set by the market. If you have the ability to organize labor and produce a product and that results in great wealth to you, then that's how much you have earned. Every grunt in the field is important, but not as important as the person coordinating their efforts. — Hanover

It results in great personal wealth because the system allows it to. Differences in wealth and merit are not at the heart of the issue. It's about proportionality. If the system allows the accumulation of grossly disproportionate wealth, then the system is corrupt, and such a system should be reformed or replaced with a better alternative. Wealth should be limited, so that you can't legally amass more than you've truly earnt.

Having recognized your abilities, I'm trying desperately to elicit action on your part. I think if I can motivate you to serve your fellow man, then we'll have come a long way to resolving the problem of poverty and hunger. — Hanover

A long way? That is incredibly naïve. I am only one person, and I work part-time on minimum wage. The problem of poverty and hunger is a vast global problem, and it would require far, far, more than what I could achieve - even if I dedicated my life to it - to have come a long way to resolving it. If I were a million people, or if I had a million pounds, then I could do a lot more. I am no Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., nor am I a president or magnate. I don't have the power to bring about change on the scale required in order to rightly proclaim that we've come a long way.

They make a difference, as they ought to, but not big enough. You seem to be judging proportionality based soley on the amount contributed, rather than on the amount contributed in relation to wealth. If the donor is still stinking rich after donating, then it is disproportionate in that they aren't donating enough. — Sapientia

Why does rich "stink," considering it is that wealth that you incentivized them to obtain that you now need. If you create a system where people will know their efforts will not be rewarded, why would they try to get wealthy?

The argument is that they can do so much more, but choose not to for unjust reasons, and that they are allowed to get away with it, and that this situation should be rectified. — Sapientia

They choose not to give away their money for the same reasons they chose to earn their money. If we remove their right to choose how to spend their money, don't you think they will choose not to earn the money? Who is going to create the wealth once you've eliminated the wealth producers?

Differences in wealth and merit are not at the heart of the issue. It's about proportionality. — Sapientia

This is exactly where I said this argument would end up in my first post, with me submitting that merit was the object worth promoting and you submitting that equality was the object worth promoting. That is the fundamental point of disagreement always in these debates.

A long way? That is incredibly naïve. — Sapientia

I was being sarcastic. A little levity.

I am only one person, and I work part-time on minimum wage. — Sapientia

A couple of things about this: I understand that you can do only so much, but I also think that if you and everyone like you worked together, you could get something meaningful done. And the truth is that it will take an organizer to do such things, and organizers are not a dime a dozen, but they have special talents far exceeding the ordinary folks. Those you mentioned (MLK and Gandhi) are those who fought for civil rights and they certainly have their place. There are others with extraordinary talents who have an incredible ability to organize people and create wealth. The wealth they create is much needed for all sorts of things, like providing you a job to paying to help the poor and homeless. Those organizers are not a dime a dozen either and they rightfully get paid for their services.

You can be annoyed that you work very hard for little money when the owner of your company perhaps makes far more working what seems to you to be far less hard, which means you should go get your boss' job and open your own company as should all your co-workers. Obviously that isn't going to happen, largely because you wouldn't know where to begin and you'd likely fail, yet there are people who do know where to begin and who don't fail, and those people are therefore due their reward.

And sure, there are those who inherited their wealth and did not start from scratch, but there are many who did. It can be done, so either do it yourself, or respect the fact that there are those whose extraordinary talents deserve far greater compensation. Instead of vilifying the rich, respect the fact that they are an integral part of society and need to be encouraged to continue to create wealth.

You are trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because you think it's unfair that you aren't that goose.

Why does rich "stink," considering it is that wealth that you incentivized them to obtain that you now need. If you create a system where people will know their efforts will not be rewarded, why would they try to get wealthy? — Hanover

In less inflammatory terms, I was speaking of excess wealth. They will be rewarded with proportional wealth. They aren't entitled to more than that in a just society.

They choose not to give away their money for the same reasons they chose to earn their money. If we remove their right to choose how to spend their money, don't you think they will choose not to earn the money? Who is going to create the wealth once you've eliminated the wealth producers? — Hanover

They don't earn their money. Not all of it. Money gained through corruption and exploitation has not truly been earnt. It isn't rightfully theirs to spend. And do you seriously think that those at the top are irreplaceable? The wealth producers would not be eliminated; only the uncooperative ones, and of their own accord.

This is exactly where I said this argument would end up in my first post, with me submitting that merit was the object worth promoting and you submitting that equality was the object worth promoting. That is the fundamental point of disagreement always in these debates. — Hanover

Except that I advocate merit-based proportionality, as do you, I think. This cannot be equated with equality. I just reject your assessment of merit. You think that some people merit what I consider to be excessive and disproportionate wealth.

A couple of things about this: I understand that you can do only so much, but I also think that if you and everyone like you worked together, you could get something meaningful done. And the truth is that it will take an organizer to do such things, and organizers are not a dime a dozen, but they have special talents far exceeding the ordinary folks. Those you mentioned (MLK and Gandhi) are those who fought for civil rights and they certainly have their place. There are others with extraordinary talents who have an incredible ability to organize people and create wealth. The wealth they create is much needed for all sorts of things, like providing you a job to paying to help the poor and homeless. Those organizers are not a dime a dozen either and they rightfully get paid for their services.

You can be annoyed that you work very hard for little money when the owner of your company perhaps makes far more working what seems to you to be far less hard, which means you should go get your boss' job and open your own company as should all your co-workers. Obviously that isn't going to happen, largely because you wouldn't know where to begin and you'd likely fail, yet there are people who do know where to begin and who don't fail, and those people are therefore due their reward.

And sure, there are those who inherited their wealth and did not start from scratch, but there are many who did. It can be done, so either do it yourself, or respect the fact that there are those whose extraordinary talents deserve far greater compensation. Instead of vilifying the rich, respect the fact that they are an integral part of society and need to be encouraged to continue to create wealth.

You are trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because you think it's unfair that you aren't that goose — Hanover

I'm not trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg at all, nor am I suggesting that jobs should be taken over by unqualified people. I am saying that things can be done differently, in a more just and fair manner. Will it be an easy task and without loss? Probably not, but it's certainly worth looking into. You, on the other hand, seem to want to conserve this injust and unfair status quo, rather than aim for progress and reform. I don't have all the answers, but I at least have the right approach. Your approach won't even get us off the ground.

In less inflammatory terms, I was speaking of excess wealth. They will be rewarded with proportional wealth. They aren't entitled to more than that in a just society. — Sapientia

You have to explain how this works then. I go out and organize people and secure the capital to build a building. I build it and then start renting out space and I secure all the personnel I need to market, collect rent, do upkeep, etc. I then begin noticing profit after everyone else has been paid. Who decides how much of this profit I am to keep? If my investment fails and I begin to take losses, do the workers have to contribute to eliminate the losses and provide me some salary for all my hard work? Will the fairness committee indemnify me against unfair losses since it's penalizing me for unfair gains?

Can I be on the fairness committee? That seems like the best job.

Money gained through corruption and exploitation has not truly been earnt. — Sapientia

Right, and money stolen by the clerk from the drawer hasn't been earned. I stand opposed to theft regardless of who's stealing.

And do you seriously think that those at the top are irreplaceable? The wealth producers would not be eliminated; only the uncooperative ones, and of their own accord. — Sapientia

They are replaceable, but nearly as much as the common worker, which explains why they get paid so much. It's like anything else. A top football player gets paid millions, not because there aren't thousands of others who would love to have his job, but because he is better than the thousands of others. If an entrepreneur sucks, he doesn't get paid. If he knows what he's doing, he gets paid what he earns.

Except that I advocate merit-based proportionality, as do you, I think. This cannot be equated with equality. I just reject your assessment of merit. You think that some people merit what I consider to be excessive and disproportionate wealth. — Sapientia

The distinction between our positions is that you believe that merit is an artificial measure calculated by people who have such concerns as fairness and equality. It's some sort of philosophical committee that makes these determinations. My position is that the market forces determine what you earn. If I sell a banana for $2 and it cost me $1 to grow, I get $1 per banana. I figured out how to profitably sell bananas, and I get to reap that reward for my ingenuity. No one gets to come behind me and tell me that $0.50 would be a more fair profit and then take that excess from me.

You, on the other hand, seem to want to conserve this injust and unfair status quo, rather than aim for progress and reform. — Sapientia

I just don't think it's unfair and unjust, so I don't see the need to change.

You have to explain how this works then. I go out and organize people and secure the capital to build a building. I build it and then start renting out space and I secure all the personnel I need to market, collect rent, do upkeep, etc. I then begin noticing profit after everyone else has been paid. Who decides how much of this profit I am to keep? If my investment fails and I begin to take losses, do the workers have to contribute to eliminate the losses and provide me some salary for all my hard work? Will the fairness committee indemnify me against unfair losses since it's penalizing me for unfair gains? — Hanover

How can you be penalised for something that you were not entitled to in the first place? The profit that you can gain will be in proportion to the work that you've put in. That is your entitlement. It will not be a limitless sum, but will be capped in order to prevent excess. Where exactly the line is drawn is more complex and is debatable. But there are clear cases of excessive wealth: the top 1%, for example. That'd be a good place to start.

They are replaceable, but nearly as much as the common worker, which explains why they get paid so much. It's like anything else. A top football player gets paid millions, not because there aren't thousands of others who would love to have his job, but because he is better than the thousands of others. If an entrepreneur sucks, he doesn't get paid. If he knows what he's doing, he gets paid what he earns. — Hanover

There should be a hierarchy of pay based on merit, skills, the importance of the job, how difficult it is, how essential it is, and so on, and so forth, but within reason. The ins and outs are up for debate, but I don't think that it's right to pay footballers millions. Especially given the amount that, say, nurses get paid. Is the job of a top football player worth more than that of building a hospital or staffing it with nurses. Was the $1,700,000 that Christiano Ronaldo spent on a Bugatti Veyron the best way to spend that money? Did he really do enough to earn that amount of money to spend as he wished? Wouldn't it have been better spent on pressing societal needs? If this is a reflection of the values of modern society, then a reevaluation is needed.

The distinction between our positions is that you believe that merit is an artificial measure calculated by people who have such concerns as fairness and equality. It's some sort of philosophical committee that makes these determinations. My position is that the market forces determine what you earn. If I sell a banana for $2 and it cost me $1 to grow, I get $1 per banana. I figured out how to profitably sell bananas, and I get to reap that reward for my ingenuity. No one gets to come behind me and tell me that $0.50 would be a more fair profit and then take that excess from me. — Hanover

I am in favour of regulation, yes. Even if it's just a cap on the more obvious cases of excessive wealth. There shouldn't even be multi-billionaires. No one can do enough to earn that sort of money. If you come up with a cure for cancer, perhaps then you can come closer to earning such a sum.

I just don't think it's unfair and unjust, so I don't see the need to change. — Hanover

And that's the problem. People like you just don't see it, or choose not to - and there are so many of you it's depressing.

The profit that you can gain will be in proportion to the work that you've put in. — Sapientia

Those things in high demand and low supply fetch the highest price. That applies to gold, sports cars, and doctors. We need floor sweepers too, but unfortunately they are in very, very high supply and so they fetch a low price. Since the service you provide is a commodity just like the products you might produce, it's going to be to your advantage to find a position in low supply and high demand. That's how the market set prices.

There should be a hierarchy of pay based on merit, skills, the importance of the job, how difficult it is, how essential it is, and so on, and so forth, but within reason. — Sapientia

And so a committee will decide how much my haircut should be, regardless of what the market demands?

Is the job of a top football player worth more than that of building a hospital or staffing it with nurses. — Sapientia

Yes, very much so. If not, then don't pay him that much and he'll go to another team and bring in more money for that team.

Wouldn't it have been better spent on pressing societal needs? — Sapientia

I don't feel like looking it up, but my guess is that Renaldo has contributed far more to charitable causes than all of us will in our lifetimes combined.

And that's the problem. People like you just don't see it, or choose not to - and there are so many of you it's depressing. — Sapientia

Oh, I do see it very well. What I see is that poverty reduction, hunger reduction, freedom, and every positive societal development has arisen from the free market. Giving people the freedom to buy and sell with minimal government interference has led to great wealth for everyone.

And so a committee will decide how much my haircut should be, regardless of what the market demands? — Hanover

Decisions need not be made irrespective of what the market demands. That can be taken into consideration. But they don't get the final say. There could still be freedom to set prices within a certain range. Regulation doesn't mean no freedom; it just means freedom within a set of regulations. We already have regulations, so it shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend. I think that we need more regulations, and regulations that are more effective.

Yes, very much so. — Hanover

If that's what you think, then I think you need to get your priorities straight.

If not, then don't pay him that much and he'll go to another team and bring in more money for that team. — Hanover

I wouldn't pay any of them that much. Problem solved.

I don't feel like looking it up, but my guess is that Renaldo has contributed far more to charitable causes than all of us will in our lifetimes combined. — Hanover

Which seems entirely laudable if considered in isolation. Yet that would be very misleading. Given that he has obtained such a vast amount of money - an amount which I don't think he could have possibly done enough to have earnt - it is only right that he donate such large sums. But that he has done so doesn't mean that he deserved to receive such a vast amount of money in the first place, nor does it mean that he is therefore justified in keeping all of what's left - a whopping $300 million as of 2015, according to one source! Like I said earlier, the greater the wealth, the greater the burden - and the greater the proportion due for redistribution.

If he had not have received such a vast amount of money, then an even larger portion of it could have gone to charity.

You have to look at the bigger picture in order to gain a more balanced view.

Oh, I do see it very well. What I see is that poverty reduction, hunger reduction, freedom, and every positive societal development has arisen from the free market. Giving people the freedom to buy and sell with minimal government interference has led to great wealth for everyone. — Hanover

I suspect that that's a bit of a myth. If everyone already has great wealth, then what are we arguing about? I could have sworn you mentioned something about the problem of poverty and hunger. The UK is the fifth richest country in the world, yet a record number of people recieved aid from UK food banks last year: three days worth of food was given out over a million times in the 2014 - 2015 financial year - an increase of 19% compared to the previous 12 months.

Oh, I do see it very well. What I see is that poverty reduction, hunger reduction, freedom, and every positive societal development has arisen from the free market. Giving people the freedom to buy and sell with minimal government interference has led to great wealth for everyone. — Hanover

A Marxist analysis of history would agree with you. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth, not all of which has been hoarded up in boxes of gold. Workers create all wealth to start with***, and many of the "capital" improvements in society--which working people built and payed for, add to the collective wealth.

Collective wealth includes roads, parks, canals, dams, factories, skyscrapers, airplanes, railroads, ships, books, plays, films, music, and so on. Through capitalism a tremendous amount of productive capacity has been created and expressed. One upshot among several is that some people have hoarded up a lot of gold. We'll distribute all that at some convenient time.

The important question is "where do we go from here?" Do the rich just keep accumulating more and more wealth while the workers gradually become poorer and finally reach destitution? OR do we reorganize society and eliminate the rich?

We can do without the rich. The rich provide no useful services. Coordination of production? Coordination of production is now done by technically trained workers -- aka "managers". Trump didn't sit down and figure out how many tons of steel a new hotel needed; what kind of concrete should be poured for the footings, pylons, or floors; where to order large window glass from, what kind of sheets to put on what size of bed, etc. All that was done by workers. Did Trump design his hotels? Most likely (99%) he didn't. What did he do? He met with bankers (other rich men) and they decided to hire workers to build the hotel (from mining and farming activities all the way up to staffing the front desk and providing bell hops. Speaking of which, there's a job I think Trump would be good at -- a bellhop in a hotel which once belonged to him and the banks before their wealth was liquidated.

*** When you read "Workers, or labor, creates all wealth" you probably dismiss that as marxist cant.

But... where does wealth come from?

Wealth comes from the ground. It either grows in the ground or it is mined. There isn't any other source of wealth. Plant matter and minerals are the only stuff we have to work with. (OK, there's the fish in the sea and kelp.) Who extracts minerals and grows crops? The rich? No. Laboring people do all that. Do wealthy people make it possible to grow crops and dig up jewels from the dirt? Not really. Workers have, can, and will grow it and mine it without the interference of expropriating rich owners.

The only contribution rich people make to the creation of wealth is to establish a system by which they expropriate the wealth of labor. In a nut shell, the Marxist idea is to expropriate the expropriators. Strip them of their ill-gained wealth and join them to the rest of laboring people.

They can work as menials, like bellhops, if they have few useful skills. "Hey Trump, carry the man's bags!." "Marco Rubio: Clean up in Aisle 5." "Hillary, make 15 copies of this, and staple them together--neatly, this time." "Cruz: Get back in your cell."

"Dear Mr. Hanover: The People's Press has decided to publish your book of clever philosophy comments. You will be allotted a small bonus of credits, but your basic support payment will stay the same regardless of how many people read your digital book (sorry, no paper copies) since your needs are not greater now than they were 30 years ago. Should you require space to hold court with the fans who probably won't be showing up to shower you with praise, please contact your local commissar of meeting spaces. The People's Press will graciously provide two 2.75" Satisfactory Cookies (any flavor) per fan and 10 ounces of Quite Good Fair Labor Coffee (grown by formerly wealthy former land owners) per fan for your quota of two post-publishing celebratory events that you may wish to schedule."

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it. — Hanover

Right, exactly what I thought you thought. You are arguing for equality, but I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. To the extent you simply point out that there is unequal distribution of wealth, I'd be concerned if there were not. I don't observe equal contributions, so I'd be alarmed if there were equal rewards. — Hanover

This is exactly where I said this argument would end up in my first post, with me submitting that merit was the object worth promoting and you submitting that equality was the object worth promoting. That is the fundamental point of disagreement always in these debates. — Hanover

Terry Eagleton on Marx regarding equality:

Neither is it possible to have a social order in which everyone is equal. The complaint that “socialism would make us all the same” is baseless. Marx had no such intention. He was a sworn enemy of uniformity. In fact, he regarded equality as a bourgeois value. He saw it as a reflection in the political sphere of what he called exchange-value, in which one commodity is levelled in value with another. The commodity, he once commented, is "realised equality". He speaks at one point of a communism which involves a general levelling, and denounces it in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts as " an abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation".

...

In the Critique of the Gotha Program, he also rejected the idea of an equality of income, since people have uniquely different needs: some do more dirty or dangerous work than others, some have more children to feed, and so on.

...

Equality for socialism does not mean that everyone is just the same - an absurd proposition if ever there was one. Nor does it mean that everyone will be granted exactly the same amount of wealth or resources. — Why Marx Was Right

The POTUS is a progressive activist.

The current US Senate is led by conservative strict constructionists.

Until the Senate changes hands and/or the office of POTUS changes hands, I cannot imagine a new SCOTUS justice being ratified.

None of that can happen before November 2016 anyway. And it may not even happen after that until the elections of 2020. I would not be surprised if the SCOTUS runs short of headcount for the next 4 years even.

I was fully expecting Ginsberg to be the next one to croak however she keeps on ticking while still taking a licking. She is probably the worst justice ever appointed to the Court.

Shorthand:

POTUS = President Of The USA
SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The USA