Why should anyone have more money than anyone else?

[MacCruiskeen]

Exactly why? (Please specify.)

[freemason9]

Exactly why? (Please specify.)

Some things have more value and require more skill/talent/effort/sacrifice to do than others.

For example, I believe a heart surgeon should be paid more than a waiter. Because the surgeon worked harder to acquire the skills needed in his/her profession than did the waiter. In general.

I don't think that many people dispute the idea that some jobs will pay more than others; the question, rather, is one of "how much."

The range in America is criminal and belongs to the Dark Ages.

[MacCruiskeen]

fm9, I changed "earn" to ""have", for reasons I hope are obvious. (Not all money that is had is earned , to say the least.)

[MacCruiskeen]

Everyone wants more.

[freemason9]

fm9, I changed "earn" to ""have", for reasons I hope are obvious. (Not all money that is had is earned , to say the least.)

Well it seems we are getting closer to agreement, Mac. I am for massive taxation of capital gains, dividend, and inheritance "income." I'm an old-fashioned fool that fervently believes that income should be earned, and wealth should accumulate from effort.

I used to call myself a conservative socialist, but that isn't right . . . I think I might be a libertarian socialist. Does such a thing exist? Isn't it time that some bright sociologist/economist construct a new ideology? Capitalism and socialism just don't do it anymore.

[Simulist]

Exactly why? (Please specify.)

That's a hell of a good question.

Since second grade, I have thought that everyone who contributes should be rewarded equally. My parents, on the other hand, were horrified at their young "communist."

The future belongs to the child.

[Jeff]

Of course if we do away with money, maybe we're getting somewhere.

[Laodicean]

Why should anyone HAVE more [fill in the blank] than anyone else?

[Saurian Tail]

I think I might be a libertarian socialist. Does such a thing exist? Isn't it time that some bright sociologist/economist construct a new ideology? Capitalism and socialism just don't do it anymore.

This is the prevailing view here as far as I can tell. We value individual liberty _and_ mutual aid. This is the bottom left quadrant of The Political Compass.



We have firm categories for the authoritarian left (communism, socialism), the authoritarian right (fascism, capitalism), and the libertarian right (Libertarianism) ... but there is no generally recognized term for the libertarian left ... we might just call that the human freedom, dignity, and mutual aid quadrant. My theory is that we don't have a term because the path to human freedom has been occulted.

Money is the great distorter that forces us to withhold love in order to survive.

[Nordic]

Last night, just for the hell of it, I watched a movie called "The Last Station", which is about Leo Tolstoy.

I had absolutely NO idea about Leo Tolstoy, other than his obvious fame as a writer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Tolstoy

Tolstoy is equally known for his complicated and paradoxical persona and for his extreme moralistic and ascetic views, which he adopted after a moral crisis and spiritual awakening in the 1870s, after which he also became noted as a moral thinker and social reformer.

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi[4] and Martin Luther King, Jr.[5]

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit I knew nothing of this until I saw the movie.

Brings up a lot of interesting points about what's involved in giving away your wealth.

I'm pretty damn sure that if I had a big surplus of money I'd give most of it away. You know BECAUSE I DIDN'T NEED IT.

We make fun of people who hoard string and rubber bands, why do we idolize people who hoard money for NO REASON?

I'm sickened by the current phenomonon of teenage girls (and many of their moms) being so fascinated by the Kardashians, and the whore of Babylon known as Kim Kardashian. A 30 million dollar wedding? Really? REALLY?

[82_28]

Nobody should have any more money than anybody else. There is no reason a man that lives a few miles from me has billions while I have hundreds. I think he is an idiot and I would feel right stupid if I woke up in the morning and my bank alerted me that I now have a billion dollars. A million? I'd just fuck around, work, but not worry. I always love it when I have an extra few hundred sitting there in the middle of the month. Means we get to go out to eat, maybe get a pair of needed shoes etc. You know, the three paydays in one month trick and still get to pay rent.

I hate money and would so gladly live without it if I could. Many people say the same thing. They're sick of money, they hate money, fuck money. When you have it, you share it, just as you would the tomatoes on a tomato plant or the apples off a tree.

There is no reason for a mortal human to have exponentially more than anyone else in the self same lifetimes.

The empire never ended.

[82_28]

I think I might be a libertarian socialist. Does such a thing exist? Isn't it time that some bright sociologist/economist construct a new ideology? Capitalism and socialism just don't do it anymore.

This is the prevailing view here as far as I can tell. We value individual liberty _and_ mutual aid. This is the bottom left quadrant of The Political Compass.



We have firm categories for the authoritarian left (communism, socialism), the authoritarian right (fascism, capitalism), and the libertarian right (Libertarianism) ... but there is no generally recognized term for the libertarian left ... we might just call that the human freedom, dignity, and mutual aid quadrant. My theory is that we don't have a term because the path to human freedom has been occulted.

Money is the great distorter that forces us to withhold love in order to survive.

I have taken that test a few times. I guess I could take it again just to see. But I fall literally in the bottom most left square.

[slimmouse]

At the end of the the marvellous book "The ragged trousered philanphropist", the author Robert Tressel proposes a system of coupons based upon labour which must be redeemed within a certain timeframe before they become defunct.

Its a long time since I read the book, but Im sure he also proposed how value might be attributed to labour .

Even as a young capitalist (back then), the scheme resonated with me

[AhabsOtherLeg]

His literal interpretation of the ethical teachings of Jesus, centering on the Sermon on the Mount, caused him in later life to become a fervent Christian anarchist and anarcho-pacifist. His ideas on nonviolent resistance, expressed in such works as The Kingdom of God Is Within You, were to have a profound impact on such pivotal twentieth-century figures as Mohandas Gandhi[4] and Martin Luther King, Jr.[5]

I'm kind of embarrassed to admit I knew nothing of this until I saw the movie.

Brings up a lot of interesting points about what's involved in giving away your wealth.

On a related note:

How Much Land Does a Man Require? is an 1886 short story by Leo Tolstoy about a man who, in his lust for land, forfeits everything...

The protagonist of the story is a peasant named Pahóm, who at the beginning can be heard complaining that he does not own enough land to satisfy him. He states that "if I had plenty of land, I shouldn't fear the Devil himself!". Unbeknownst to him, Satan is present sitting behind the stove and listening. A short amount of time later, a landlady in the village decides to sell her estate, and the peasants of the village buy as much of that land as they can. Pahóm himself purchases some land, and by working off the extra land is able to repay his debts and live a more comfortable life.

However, Pahóm then becomes very possessive of his land, and this causes arguments with his neighbours. "Threats to burn his building began to be uttered." Later, he moves to a larger area of land at another Commune. Here, he can grow even more crops and amass a small fortune, but he has to grow the crops on rented land, which irritates him.

Pahom, the peasant with just a tiny bit more land than the other peasants in the Commune, clearly feels he is Taxed Enough Already.

Finally, he is introduced to the Bashkirs, and is told that they are simple-minded people who own a huge amount of land. Pahóm goes to them to take as much of their land for as low a price as he can negotiate. Their offer is very unusual: for a sum of one thousand rubles, Pahóm can walk around as large an area as he wants, starting at daybreak, marking his route with a spade along the way. If he reaches his starting point by sunset that day, the entire area of land his route encloses will be his, but if he does not reach his starting point he will lose his money and receive no land. He is delighted as he believes that he can cover a great distance and has chanced upon the bargain of a lifetime. That night, Pahóm experiences a surreal dream in which he sees himself lying dead by the feet of the Devil, who is laughing.

He stays out as late as possible, marking out land until just before the sun sets. Toward the end, he realizes he is far from the starting point and runs back as fast as he can to the waiting Bashkirs. He finally arrives at the starting point just as the sun sets. The Bashkirs cheer his good fortune, but exhausted from the run, Pahóm drops dead. His servant buries him in an ordinary grave only six feet long, thus ironically answering the question posed in the title of the story.

Late in life, James Joyce wrote to his daughter that it is "the greatest story that the literature of the world knows"; Ludwig Wittgenstein was another well-known admirer.

We can substitute land with money here (though land reform is a serious requirement in itself) and ask: "How much money does a man require?" Enough to live is all, and to support whatever family he might have, and die a decent death. Same with land. Same with anything.

Requirements and desires are different things, though. See, I like hoarding stuff and keeping it all to myself even though I know it is an infantile practice, most likely the product of a mild mental disorder, and comically repulsive and pathetic in and of itself. I don't mean money, got none of that to speak of, but stuff... I like having stuff, which is mine, and nobody else's, unless I so choose.

Is it wrong to WANT to have a lot of stuff - I'm including money in the definition of stuff? And to want it for it's own sake, not necessarily to the detriment of others, though that seems unavoidable in a finite world? 'Cos I like stuff.

[undead]

If there was some kind of idealized monetary system that was fair and equitable, and everyone had a fair shot at doing whatever kind of work they wanted, some people might just want to work more or less than others. So that is one reason - if a person wants to work more than what is considered their fair share, it seems fair that they would be compensated appropriately. As long as they are not taking away from others by doing the extra work, why not?

Example:

Farmer A decides to plant an extra field, while farmer B decides to pursue a musical hobby in his spare time. Farmer A reaps a larger harvest, and sells it to the community at a fair price. Farmer B performs on weekends and makes a little extra, but not as much as farmer A makes for his extra time spent in the fields. Is there anything wrong with this situation?