Political Crossfire Forums

[Roy L]

Fido wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Fido wrote: The death tax should be absolute in its sway, and reduce all fortunes to the level of a gift of a seed, which one might eat or plant. That would give to every democracy only one gate to guard instead of the many now leading to power above the mean, so that- no matter how much a man might lay aside in one life, wealth shall never become an hereditary disease in the life of society.
We shall protect freedom by doing away with it.

Some freedom are not freedoms at all but a license to exploit others. I do not expect such exploitation to ever end, but if it exist, should not receive the protection of government, but rather be hounded as a vice by a tax collector. We are not the first society, nor are we the first civilization. There have been many examples of societies that have self destructed as we are self destructing. Getting fat, lazy, stupid, and unfree is a practiced art form in this world, and those who find the excuse to become so out of ignorance are swept away and become the cultured slaves of the next society.
Let us not destroy our selves. Let us look at how societies became conquerors, and model our freedoms on theirs rather on those who let their inequalities destroy and weaken them before the barbarians on their border. We can only be virtuous to the extent that we are free. We will never be brave without the blessings of freedom to defend. To believe we can be dispossessed of freedom and property, bankrupted by debt, enslaved by interest, demoralized by injustice and still offer a credible defense of a freedoms only enjoyed by the rich is bunk, and dangerous bunk at that.

Very well said. But FreeThinkr is right: inheritance is not the problem, and abolishing it would be a Band-Aid solution at best (i.e., even if it worked as you assume it would, which it would not).

The real problem is privilege to collect economic rents -- i.e., to control others' access to opportunities that would otherwise be accessible. Even without inheritance, privilege must eventually destroy society. See the USSR for proof. But without privilege, inheritance is stripped of its power to oppress others and aggrandize itself. It becomes a mere bedbug bite of injustice that stings but quickly heals, not a cancer of injustice that inevitably and fatally spreads.

[Roy L]

The Grandmaster wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Which is more important, to be free, or to be fair?

Equality in opportunity, or equality in result?
To be free is the only way to be fair.

Equality is not fair.

I’m not sure I agree with this. It seems to me obvious that equality is necessarily, and by definition fair. Are we to believe that which is fair is that which is not equal?
If Tiger Woods takes fewer strokes to tour the course than his rivals, that is not equal. But it certainly seems fair.

[Roy L]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Which is more important, to be free, or to be fair?

False dichotomy. Freedom IS fair, as long as it is not freedom to deprive others of their freedom.
Quote:
Equality in opportunity, or equality in result?
Now that is quite a different question, as equality in result is not fair to those who have earned a better result than others.

[Roy L]

Fido wrote: Free Thinkr wrote:
Did you read Progress and Poverty yet? ;)

..........Please do not nag me. I have five books going at this time. Caesar and Jesus, one of Will Durants history of civilization, Free labor, free Soil, and free men, by I can't say about the formation of the republican party around these issues, and the other forces at work in the lead up to the Civil War, and very informative; two motorcycle manuals, One for a shovel head Harley, and one for a Yama Virago, and an examination of the Gospel of Mathew. Plus others from time to time, like the Idea of Poverty, about the beginnings of free enterprise and the industrial revolution. In the time I have been on this forum I have put a new roof on my poll barn, and poured six steps to my front porch with concrete. So I have not been slacking.
Forget Durant; "Progress and Poverty" will illuminate what Durant merely recounts. And as to "Caesar and Jesus"... with all thy getting, get understanding.

Fido, I respect your opinions and the clearly substantial amount of thought that has gone into them. But you are missing the crucial piece of the puzzle, and until you get that piece into place, none of the other pieces are going to fit into a coherent whole.

Quote:
-------A right, or freedom cannot be destructive of the society that promotes it, nor destructive of other rights or people. Private property rights has done this to the Greeks and Romans, and tore them apart and made the poor the slaves of the rich. Property rights are incompatible with human rights.
No, no, no!! Property rights in the products of one's labor are indispensable to human rights. It is property that consists of a privilege of violating others' rights that is incompatible with human rights. Until you understand that distinction, Fido, you will just be chasing your tail; I've seen it many times, and I assure you your case is not going to be different.
Quote: Great wealth divides us and weakens us, and even if every person should have the free use of what he or she produces that right should always be kept under strict control lest it should cause damage. Gifts are reasonable if reasonable, but there is no hereditary rights to private productive property. To take without earning from the society that sustains all is simple theft, destructive of democracy, and equality, and a contradiction destructive of the whole society.
Correct. But what you are talking about here is not property but privilege.
Quote: Private property above the mean is not a right... ??? :rofl: I think if you reconsider that claim a bit, you may see how absurd it is.