OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now here is my argument: such a society (with all wealth in 1% of the hands) would FAIL...
"Perhaps it would - perhaps it would not. That is an argument that simply does not interest me at the moment. The fact is, there is absolutely nothing, not one single thing, that is morally wrong with my owning everything and you owning nothing if I acquire my wealth without myself taking your rights."
>>> Your sense of 'morality' appears rather constricted.....
[a system wherein 1% of the population controls everything] must have many internal contradictions and inherent weaknesses to have never even developed even ONCE in all of history).
"Well, it has developed and many people have died within such systems."
>>> Really? Can you name one now?
"Many starve today as a result of having nothing. Their having nothing has no bearing at all on the wealth of their more favored neighbors if those neighbors acquired their wealth without removing the rights of those who starve."
>>> Wink, wink... nudge, nudge.
And it would most likely FAIL VIOLENTLY... either from external conquest, or internal revolution.
"If those who rise in violence harm those who ethically own everything, they err."
>>> SOME revolutions are morally justified... just ask Thomas Jefferson.
If failure and disaster is an inherent feature of such an economic model and distribution of wealth... than I would argue that that particular model represented an 'immoral choice' for human societies
"Your "failure" and "disaster" here are both religious hogwash."
>>> WRONG AGAIN! I am merely measuring by death, destruction, and opportunity cost --- that which is foregone by less than adequate societies. Objective, factual, criteria --- no 'religion' necessary for the judgement.... just math.
"Here is objective failure, the direct slaughter of countless innocent children, all of whom had an innate right to have the lives you directly took from them. That is a disaster against human character. Acquiring 100% of the wealth is no objective disaster. That others may die of natural causes such as starvation is a fact of nature - a fact that is not our obligation to remedy at all."
>>> Yeah, right, <G>. We ARE a part of nature. We build the world around us... so we are responsible for whatever we can control, for the choices we make.
Obviously you don't care, but I reject your 'leftist' characterization as demonstrably false and illinformed.
You are most correct: I do not care.
>>> Fine.... Then you will not object if I call you some name that is demonstrably also not true.....
"But of course my calling you a leftist is no great issue. It is just an opinion that you've already rejected. I think it is quite accurate however."
>>> Feel free to attempt to prove your characterization....
Part 2 |
