• Rampsquatch
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    I’m going to need you to clarify your first comment, because I have no idea what you are talking about or what your point might be. I thought I understood, but this follow up is baffling.

    • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yea, I don’t get it. Is his point that it’s impossible? Because saying it doesn’t work when it’s never happened leaves you asking “how do you know then?”

      • Vakbrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 month ago
        • History shows that NOT oppressing you doesn’t work

        • But you never stopped oppressing me!

        • exactly

        • wtf?!

        This is pretty much his argument… WTF indeed

    • Ogmios
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The point is that no matter what sort of social structure you invent, you’re going to need some sort of authority to determine who gets what if you want to redistribute people’s things. That authority position will be greatly coveted by those who desire to use it to monopolize whatever wealth your society possesses.

      • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Right - but a well educated, fully engaged population in a democratic state can keep those types of people in check.

        This is a difficult and ongoing battle with those that want to seize that power and wealth and it takes sacrifice and time to do.

        • Ogmios
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          well educated, fully engaged population

          …is something you aren’t going to have when exceeding the average is “rewarded” by have any gains you may have made redistributed to underachievers.

          • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            “Underachievers”

            I hate this myth of the lazy person, that there are significant portions of people that are lazy enough to throw the entire system off.

            In almost every single UBI study done on this planet, that has not been the affect.

            Turns out the vast majority of people like to achieve things, rewards are not just monetary and the way people feel about money varies.

            The odds of you motivating me to do something specifically for money is so low, there has to be another incentive. Why because my base needs are already met, so I have the ability and time to focus on my other needs.

            That’s what inherited wealth does for people. There is not a massive portion of underachievers and this seems more reflective of the way you view people.

            • Ogmios
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              If you’re trying to redistribute society’s wealth, then you’re going to have to take from those who produce more than average, and give it to those who produce less than average.

              Your point about being motivated by things other than money is something I’ll readily agree upon, but is also irrelevant to a discussion on the redistribution of wealth, where we’re specifically addressing those parts of society which generate wealth.

              • Kalothar@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                I think our ideas of how to redistribute them are different, I see your point nonetheless.

                However we don’t live in a society where your ability to produce is directly connected to what you receive from what you produce.

                That’s the main problem with our society, no ceo is 250 times more productive than a line worker.

                I mean you are kind of describing the difference between socialism and communism with that point about productivity.

                Under socialism workers get back a percentage of what THEY put in. Under communism the workers get back a portion of what ALL the workers produce or the revenue of that.

          • GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            I think your definition of redistribution and mine are not the same.

            If I’m reading this right you are saying that any “reward” someone gets for over achieving will be punished and that person has to transfer a certain percentage of their bonus to an underachiever. That is to say that the redistribution is a direct hand out of your reward in the form of cash to some underachiever?

            My definition of redistribution is that if you live in a society that values the education of its citizens, then the redistribution (ie taxes) is pooled and then spent in a way can help people out of difficult situations so that they can pursue an education and a career that will improve their lives and in a bigger sense improve the economic life of the country.

            I see taxes as patriotic that if you truly believe in your country (that is the people that make up the country) you are willing to make a small sacrifice to help others become better citizens.