So my brother says... (redistribution of wealth)

[jack555]

We were talking about redistribution of wealth.

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause. My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government. I then explained the view that the government can not have more rights than the people and gave adequate examples.

I said - bottom line redistribution of wealth is stealing from an innocent man. He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime. He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is ok.

I agree with Locke that we have a right to life, liberty and property.
Anyone have a defense against my brother (purely for my knowledges sake). I guess if someone thinks selfishness is a punishable crime who am I to say he's wrong? He obviously does not believe you have a natural right to property. I need some help here.

[Mesogen]

"No one can earn a million dollars honestly."
William Jennings Bryan


Well, that was back then. Maybe up it to $100 million.


And what if you bought land from someone. They got it from someone who bought it from the government in the 1800s. The government got it by driving off the natives that didn't want to sell. Chances are, you own stolen land. It's too late to do anything about it now though.

[Paulitical Correctness]

How did you make this 100,000 dollars? Are we to assume you did it legally and through hard work (or luck, even - luck is by no means a sin is it?)

Avarice is a deadly sin. That's a crime punishable perhaps by God, not the government.

To put it simply, if he was the one somehow acquiring the 100,000 dollars, or a million, or any amount (doesn't matter), he'd object to anyone taking it "forcefully".

[dannno]

Making $100,000 isn't selfish, it is supposed to represent greater productivity. The person making $100,000 is also producing more goods that consumers demand at lower prices.

The Federal Reserve and the Income Tax are bigger burdens on the poor and middle class due to the hidden inflation tax. Your brother probably doesn't think there is much inflation out there over the last decade because McDonalds costs relatively the same and electronics are cheaper. Inflation sometimes affect certain sectors more than others, so in our case energy and housing costs have been going through the roof. Your brother probably uses those services but may not pay for them.

The only reason we started redistributing wealth to the poor was several decades after the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax were implemented in 1913. This is what causes the large boom and bust cycles which have scared society into accepting the idea of socialism.

[Mesogen]

I made $100,000 at the blackjack table and some of it by playing the state lottery.

:) not

[ItsTime]

how old is he? 10, 11?

[jack555]

How did you make this 100,000 dollars? Are we to assume you did it legally and through hard work (or luck, even - luck is by no means a sin is it?)

Avarice is a deadly sin. That's a crime punishable perhaps by God, not the government.

To put it simply, if he was the one somehow acquiring the 100,000 dollars, or a million, or any amount (doesn't matter), he'd object to anyone taking it "forcefully".


I should have been more clear. I want to be a pharmacist. My example was I made $100,000 working in a pharmacy for a year (so I worked honestly and recieved fruits of my labor).

[newbitech]

We were talking about redistribution of wealth.

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause. My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government. I then explained the view that the government can not have more rights than the people and gave adequate examples.

I said - bottom line redistribution of wealth is stealing from an innocent man. He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime. He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is ok.

I agree with Locke that we have a right to life, liberty and property.
Anyone have a defense against my brother (purely for my knowledges sake). I guess if someone thinks selfishness is a punishable crime who am I to say he's wrong? He obviously does not believe you have a natural right to property. I need some help here.

check out this link discussing Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness"

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

Selfishness is not a crime. Your brother is on the fence with his altruistic view of money. He actually has a self defeating argument. The money is not being taken as punishment, rather objective people are enhancing their own chances of survival by ensuring that your brother will not have 100% share of his earnings. This means that your brother is working to ensure the survival of someone who's sole purpose of existence is to ensure their own survival. By accepting this self-less approach to money, your brother is only ensuring his own financial extinction.

[jack555]

how old is he? 10, 11?

I am 20. He is 24.



edit- I guess what I am trying to do is disprove socialism from a moral standpoint that to be for socialism you have to agree to steal money from an innocent man.

[Paulitical Correctness]

I should have been more clear. I want to be a pharmacist. My example was I made $100,000 working in a pharmacy for a year (so I worked honestly and recieved fruits of my labor).

And you're guilty of "selfishness" for tackling the arduous task of earning an education and setting goals for your self?

Sounds like he's jealous of your ambition and would gladly take half your income.

[jack555]

check out this link discussing Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness"

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

Selfishness is not a crime. Your brother is on the fence with his altruistic view of money. He actually has a self defeating argument. The money is not being taken as punishment, rather objective people are enhancing their own chances of survival by ensuring that your brother will not have 100% share of his earnings. This means that your brother is working to ensure the survival of someone who's sole purpose of existence is to ensure their own survival. By accepting this self-less approach to money, your brother is only ensuring his own financial extinction.



From a moral standpoint I think he is fine with ensuring his own financial extinction (or at least losing a lot of his money) in order to help the poor.

[Paulitical Correctness]

From a moral standpoint I think he is fine with ensuring his own financial extinction (or at least losing a lot of his money) in order to help the poor.

Then he can willfully donate it to charitable organizations (or just hand it out to homeless people in your city). Others aren't so gracious and it's not their responsibility to be.

[1000-points-of-fright]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.

[newbitech]

From a moral standpoint I think he is fine with ensuring his own financial extinction (or at least losing a lot of his money) in order to help the poor.

this is why his is a self defeating argument.

introduce him to the principle of, "in order to take care of others, you must first take care of yourself."

[jack555]

start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.




:D

[emazur]

And who is to determine what is the degree of "selfishness"? He lives in America (I presume) - which probably has the highest standard of living in the world. Does he have a car? It can be argued the he is being selfish - many people in third world countries do not have cars. He could have used that car money to improve their standard of living but instead "selfishly" decided to use it on himself, and is a contributor to air pollution. Does he live in an apartment or house? Many people in 3rd world countries have to get by living in a shack with no climate control. Perhaps he is being too selfish and should move into a tent or commune, and use the rent/mortgage money to improve the standard of living of those in 3rd world countries. Does he have an Xbox? TV? Laptop? IPod? Selfish. Selfish. Selfish. Selfish.

Until he decides to become the next Mother Teresa, he is in no position to be calling anyone "selfish" (even then, you could argue the points of how capitalist production accomplishes more good the selfless devotion)

I haven't read it yet but Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness is probably worth looking into:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

[Uriel999]

The next time yall talk about this, take his wallet and help yourself to whatever is in there. Tell him he is being selfish if he complains.

[emazur]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.

:D

[Paulitical Correctness]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.

/thread

:D

[LibForestPaul]

I am 20. He is 24.
edit- I guess what I am trying to do is disprove socialism from a moral standpoint that to be for socialism you have to agree to steal money from an innocent man.

Why is it wrongfor the government to issue those who work hard have the means to meet their needs? Or are you saying people are able to survive on $1.50 hour (yes I know what the min wage is, we are discussing a system without government interference, no?)

[Xenophage]

We were talking about redistribution of wealth.

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause. My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government. I then explained the view that the government can not have more rights than the people and gave adequate examples.

I said - bottom line redistribution of wealth is stealing from an innocent man. He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime. He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is ok.

I agree with Locke that we have a right to life, liberty and property.
Anyone have a defense against my brother (purely for my knowledges sake). I guess if someone thinks selfishness is a punishable crime who am I to say he's wrong? He obviously does not believe you have a natural right to property. I need some help here.

I would argue that selfishness is a virtue.

[jack555]

And who is to determine what is the degree of "selfishness"? He lives in America (I presume) - which probably has the highest standard of living in the world. Does he have a car? It can be argued the he is being selfish - many people in third world countries do not have cars. He could have used that car money to improve their standard of living but instead "selfishly" decided to use it on himself, and is a contributor to air pollution. Does he live in an apartment or house? Many people in 3rd world countries have to get by living in a shack with no climate control. Perhaps he is being too selfish and should move into a tent or commune, and use the rent/mortgage money to improve the standard of living of those in 3rd world countries. Does he have an Xbox? TV? Laptop? IPod? Selfish. Selfish. Selfish. Selfish.

Until he decides to become the next Mother Teresa, he is in no position to be calling anyone "selfish" (even then, you could argue the points of how capitalist production accomplishes more good the selfless devotion)

I haven't read it yet but Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness is probably worth looking into:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx


I guess thats what it comes down too, who decides what is selfish. I think his answer would be a majority of the population. So what would the defense against how that is morally wrong or unjust be (I'll give it some thought as well)?

Thanks for all your help everyone, this has more to do with me trying to have a near unbreakable argument against how socialism is unethical/unjust than it has to do with my brother. I may even give a speech on this in my public speaking class.

[pcosmar]

I need some help here.

No, you seem to understand.
Your brother needs help.:(

[surf]

people give to charity voluntarily. is this selfish because the donator feels good about himself? charities, for the most part, are much more efficient than gov't. while this will probably not help make your point, it may be worthwhile to point out that many people give to charities as they can, and that you are not alone (assuming you have given to charity) in this practice.

[newbitech]

snip

I haven't read it yet but Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness is probably worth looking into:
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

/snip


from the review and pretty much spot on. my emphasis in red:


Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.

Rand certainly recognizes that there are people who fit this description, and she certainly does not believe that their behavior is in any sense virtuous. But she opposes labeling them "selfish." Rand believes that this application of the word blurs important philosophical distinctions and foreordains false philosophical doctrines. First, this understanding of selfishness construes both whim-fulfillment and the disregard of others' interests as genuinely self-interested behaviors, which they are not. Second, this understanding of selfishness suggests an altruist framework for thinking about ethics.


Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.

I don't know how to make a poor person rich (Altruism), but I will try.
I don't know how to make myself rich (Objectivism), but I can guarantee I won't be poor.

[LibForestPaul]

I will even go further a bit. How are the most destitute of a nation to survive, or will we just let them die?

Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower than average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate developmental disabilities. A small number have severe to profound mental disability.

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.

[driller80545]

Why penalize someone for being successful?

[newbitech]

I will even go further a bit. How are the most destitute of a nation to survive, or will we just let them die?

Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower than average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate developmental disabilities. A small number have severe to profound mental disability.

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.

Socialism is not the answer.

[jack555]

Why is it wrongfor the government to issue those who work hard have the means to meet their needs? Or are you saying people are able to survive on $1.50 hour (yes I know what the min wage is, we are discussing a system without government interference, no?)


Is issue the word you meant to say there? I'm having a hard time understanding your question. My position is the individualist one that the ends DO NOT justify the means. It is not my problem (or not enough to have the government steal from innocent people) if a small child starves. Just because he will starve does not make it morally justifiable for me to steal from my neighbor to feed him. Now I may give him some of my own money but thats my own business.

[M House]

WTF, they can take meds and well I don't really think scizophrenia is that potentially untreatable either if we were alittle bit more creative in the approach. Fucking Freud still won't get his shit outta psychology so we can connect the brain to the body finally and understand how it's regulated.

[newbitech]

WTF, they can take meds and well I don't really think scizophrenia is that potentially untreatable either if we were alittle bit more creative in the approach. Fucking Freud still won't get his shit outta psychology so we can connect the brain to the body finally and understand how it's regulated.

totally agree, in fact i know someone who has stabilized a mental disorder by regulating his diet.

[jack555]

I will even go further a bit. How are the most destitute of a nation to survive, or will we just let them die?

Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower than average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate developmental disabilities. A small number have severe to profound mental disability.

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.


Now redistribution of wealth for those who are not able bodied and can not help themselves is a tricky one for me.

The declaration of independence guarantees that the government will protect someones life. Could this not be used to justify help for the truely handicapped. Could it not also be used to support social healthcare : (



Overall I still can't see how it is morally just for me to steal money from my neighbor to help a handicapped person.

[newbitech]

Now redistribution of wealth for those who are not able bodied and can not help themselves is a tricky one for me.

The declaration of independence guarantees that the government will protect someones life. Could this not be used to justify help for the truely handicapped. Could it not also be used to support social healthcare : (



Overall I still can't see how it is morally just for me to steal money from my neighbor to help a handicapped person.

Not really, but it does recognize that governments are formed by people to secure the individual's right to protect his individual life.

[Xenophage]

I will even go further a bit. How are the most destitute of a nation to survive, or will we just let them die?

Individuals with Down syndrome tend to have a lower than average cognitive ability, often ranging from mild to moderate developmental disabilities. A small number have severe to profound mental disability.

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.

If you feel it is of value to you as a person to help someone in need, then do so. Pursuit of one's self-interest can, and usually does, mean helping other people. If I value the ability to live in a society of caring individuals that help each other out, I'll try my best to foster that society. If I find the suffering of others emotionally painful to witness, I'll do my best to prevent other people from suffering.

Ultimately, my charity is motivated by self-interest. Now let's consider the alternative:

I have no self-interest in preventing the suffering of people around me. This means I feel neutral to their suffering at best, or at worst I get a kick out of it. Does this even work? Is it possible to be literally selfless in your charity? It really doesn't make any sense, although you could be charitable for appearances sake only - e.g., you don't actually give a shit about poor people, but you want everyone else to think you do. Better yet, use other people's money, and convince them they have to sacrifice for the common good. Use this moralizing as a weapon against their conscience to gain power over them.

One of my favorite Randian contrasts is the difference between selfish and selfless love.

In the case of selfish love, if you are being entirely truthful, you might say to your partner: "I love you because I value your virtues and your beauty, and you bring me a great deal of happiness in life."

If you are engaged in some sort of selfless love, what would that mean? "I love you because you need me to love you. I don't really have any personal interest in it."

Which is more romantic?

[M House]

I think I'm gonna have to google what Randian contrasts are.

[Xenophage]

I think I'm gonna have to google what Randian contrasts are.

Randian contrast = Ayn Rand contrasting two disparate views. Its not a common nomenclature. I made it up.

[M House]

Randian is a ethics set. So it's like one of the Kantian things I learned in bioethics. Man, we wasted alot of time on right to die.... Anyway what are the major ones right now name wise?

[Xenophage]

Ethical systems? There's like, assloads dude. Pick a philosopher's last name and put "ian" on it.

[mediahasyou]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.

ahaha.

[M House]

Yeah just looked up offa wikipedia list is massive.

[Bman]

I'd first ask him where the money the government took from me was going.

If he says to the poor. Then explain you were going to use that money to hire a plumber to redo the pipes in your house. But now you cannot afford to do so and the guy is now unemployed. So now the guy gets your money for nothing, when the man could have gotten the money for being productive.

Governments are silly when they think they have to take someone elses money to help another person. That's not to say that there aren't real issues in the world, but charity should not be forced upon a person. That which is important to you means nothing to me and vice versa.

Personally I would/do donate extra money I have to animal shelters and such. Why must I let the government decide that the money is better spent on an illegal immigrant who tried to put out as many babies as she could. In my opinion the anilmals life is more innocent and deserving of my protection well before the immigrant.

If at this point your brother disagrees well then he should also understand how it feels to be punched in the face for thinking his point of view was more important than mine.

[akihabro]

Break into his bank account and take 10% of all his deposits, give them to a friend and say your investing for his retirement. If he doesn't get mad worry about his future to stand up for himself. So is it that its ok to him for the government to steal or that if he puts up a fight he might go to jail? To me selfishness ensures survival. Does he think the berlin wall was modern art and to keep the people from rushing into the socialist utopia?

[JoshLowry]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.


The next time yall talk about this, take his wallet and help yourself to whatever is in there. Tell him he is being selfish if he complains.

QFT

That will help him understand the difference between being selfish and being robbed (theft).

[emazur]

I guess thats what it comes down too, who decides what is selfish. I think his answer would be a majority of the population. So what would the defense against how that is morally wrong or unjust be (I'll give it some thought as well)?


Well then the question needs to be asked - even if the majority makes such a decision, is the majority capable of deciding how to use their collected loot effectively for purely selfless means? This article kicks ass:
Africans to Bono: 'For God's sake please stop!'
http://american.com/archive/2007/july-0707/africans-to-bono-for-gods-sake-please-stop


Aid can alleviate immediate misery and that is why we love it. Charity is a profoundly human response to all those images that pull on our heartstrings. But all evidence points to the maddening conclusion that, in the long run, aid not only has no positive effect on economic growth, it may even undermine it.

I remember seeing a video of this but after searching I couldn't find it, but found this instead and it makes the same point

[ForrestLayne]

We were talking about redistribution of wealth.

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause. My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government. I then explained the view that the government can not have more rights than the people and gave adequate examples.

I said - bottom line redistribution of wealth is stealing from an innocent man. He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime. He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is ok.

I agree with Locke that we have a right to life, liberty and property.
Anyone have a defense against my brother (purely for my knowledges sake). I guess if someone thinks selfishness is a punishable crime who am I to say he's wrong? He obviously does not believe you have a natural right to property. I need some help here.

Can you afford 2 cars? Ok then - you give one to the family down the street who has none. You make the payments, pay insurance, and gas for them. When the people down the street sell the car - they get to keep the money because it is their car?

Or if they are in college --- You got a 3.6 gpa - Suzy over there has a 1.8 - we are taking .9 from yours and giving it to her so she doesn't fail. Your GPA is now 2.7 and hers is 2.7 - everything is fair and equal just like the money - satisfied now?

[LibForestPaul]

Is issue the word you meant to say there? I'm having a hard time understanding your question. My position is the individualist one that the ends DO NOT justify the means. It is not my problem (or not enough to have the government steal from innocent people) if a small child starves. Just because he will starve does not make it morally justifiable for me to steal from my neighbor to feed him. Now I may give him some of my own money but thats my own business.

You call it theft. Why is it theft to pay for services such as feeding people who do not earn enough wealth for their labors, or caring for those in need? Does the government steal your money when they tax you to pay for judges, officers, clerks, etc? Why are these services not considered theft (or do you see this as theft as well)? Police can be replaced with Pinkertons? Many communities have volunteer fireman, why not all?
Which services is the government allowed to spend money on, money that is has garnered by taxes on you, which you do not consider theft.? Most if not all services provided by the government could be handled privately, no?

[dr. hfn]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.

seriously, do it...and then remind him that the gov't does this on a massive scale.
Also explain to him that if his kind o thought is carried through to its fullest horrible things happen, for example: utopian visions like communism and USSR/Mao's China etc...

[Andrew-Austin]

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause.

My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government.

LOL, the government is magical unlike the mafia! I guess try and define what government is. Make it clear that government representatives, agents, and bureaucrats cannot justifiably be on a different moral or legal standard than anyone else in society. If they were on a different standard, it would only invite corruption / abuse of power (as it clearly has to a frightening degree).. Government is a monopoly of force in a given land region, defining it as such can help a person understand why Jefferson said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Government is inherently coercive since at the day of its foundation, it cannot possibly get 100% of the people within its land region to agree on the terms of its establishment. Nor can it get unanimous consent to all future increases in power the state later assumes for itself through "representatives"; government agents having a special interest in expanding state power that citizens do not have. The only legitimate reason for government to use force is to protect our rights. Going beyond this opens up the flood of special interest groups using government as a means of receiving handouts from unconsenting tax payers (everybody starts robing everybody).

You have probably already explained some of this stuff and know it, sometimes I just like to rant but I gotta stop.


He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime.

You have to temporarily accept his "rationals" and guide them to contradiction, if you want to show him how clueless he really is. Give his position the benefit of the doubt just long enough to see where it leads.

A)
In this case say, "okay selfishness is a crime."
Then ask him if he thinks selfishness should be a crime because it is immoral. He will undoubtedly say yes, in which case he is presuming that government should micromanage all issues of morality. Should the government punish liars, blasphemers, people who do not help others as much as they should, people who are too lazy, drug smokers/peddlers, etc etc?

B) You could set him up by asking him this: "So you think the government needs to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth because people are selfish?" Seems like a silly question, and he will quickly say yes since he already explained his opinion that selfishness is a crime. The key part in the question is the "because people are selfish" part, in which you can get him to explain all the ways in which he feels people are immoral/selfish/greedy/uncaring/etc. Then turn his description of human nature on him by saying, "so if people are so horribly greedy you would trust politicians with vast amounts of power, while loosening the moral and legal standards the government is subjected to?" He'll get pissed, since when he was describing human nature he was not thinking about the 'saints' that make up our government at all, showing how naive he is.

C) Ask how the government can objectively decide the fine line between selflessness and selfishness. If being relatively well off and not donating to the poor is selfish, what else is selfish? Is using one's free time on leisure activities such as playing golf or watching TV, while others are suffering and need care selfish? In which case those rich in free time should be forced by the government to help the less fortunate?



He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is okay.[/B]

And here, for a second pretend to assume he knows what the fuck he is saying.

Ask him to differentiate force from violence. He might say:

"Force is just compelling one to obey, and violence is physically harming someone to extract the money."

Explain that that definition of force seems to be assuming the "criminal" (selfish person) has no free will and would be determined to cough up money upon being asked. What would happen if the person declined? Suppose a mugger points a gun at you and demands you hand over your wallet. Would it not be violence just because you are not stupid enough to risk refusing the mugger, and therefor the mugger did not need to use the weapon? Obviously not.

What he said was clearly stupid at a glance, you just have to use the Socrates approach and spell out why. Pretend he is wise, and raise questions that logically follow his assumptions/pretenses. After deflating his viewpoint, explain yours.

Sorry if I've annoyed you by insulting your brother, I also have family members like him.

[Gosmokesome]

Is don't think you can convince your brother. Stop worrying about him. He supports people stealing your stuff. He's a bad person for believing so. I suppose he also believes resisting the people he supports stealing from you is also wrong and punishable. And resisting the punishment is also punishable by an even greater punishment and so on untill eventually death. Perhaps you could point out to your brother that he supports your death. If he stills doesn't change his mind I suggest you stop debating with your brother because debating with people who want you dead and don't listen to reason are not worth debating with and generally demeans the noble thing that is debating, rational people who want to know the truth.

[Andrew-Austin]

Email him John Stossel's documentaries "greed" and "politically incorrect guide to politics", available on youtube.

[Danke]

LOL, the government is magical unlike the mafia! I guess try and define what government is. Make it clear that government representatives, agents, and bureaucrats cannot justifiably be on a different moral or legal standard than anyone else in society. If they were on a different standard, it would only invite corruption / abuse of power (as it clearly has to a frightening degree).. Government is a monopoly of force in a given land region, defining it as such can help a person understand why Jefferson said "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Government is inherently coercive since at the day of its foundation, it cannot possibly get 100% of the people within its land region to agree on the terms of its establishment. Nor can it get unanimous consent to all future increases in power the state later assumes for itself through "representatives"; government agents having a special interest in expanding state power that citizens do not have. The only legitimate reason for government to use force is to protect our rights. Going beyond this opens up the flood of special interest groups using government as a means of receiving handouts from unconsenting tax payers (everybody starts robing everybody).

You have probably already explained some of this stuff and know it, sometimes I just like to rant but I gotta stop.



You have to temporarily accept his "rationals" and guide them to contradiction, if you want to show him how clueless he really is. Give his position the benefit of the doubt just long enough to see where it leads.

A)
In this case say, "okay selfishness is a crime."
Then ask him if he thinks selfishness should be a crime because it is immoral. He will undoubtedly say yes, in which case he is presuming that government should micromanage all issues of morality. Should the government punish liars, blasphemers, people who do not help others as much as they should, people who are too lazy, drug smokers/peddlers, etc etc?

B) You could set him up by asking him this: "So you think the government needs to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth because people are selfish?" Seems like a silly question, and he will quickly say yes since he already explained his opinion that selfishness is a crime. The key part in the question is the "because people are selfish" part, in which you can get him to explain all the ways in which he feels people are immoral/selfish/greedy/uncaring/etc. Then turn his description of human nature on him by saying, "so if people are so horribly greedy you would trust politicians with vast amounts of power, while loosening the moral and legal standards the government is subjected to?" He'll get pissed, since when he was describing human nature he was not thinking about the 'saints' that make up our government at all, showing how naive he is.

C) Ask how the government can objectively decide the fine line between selflessness and selfishness. If being relatively well off and not donating to the poor is selfish, what else is selfish? Is using one's free time on leisure activities such as playing golf or watching TV, while others are suffering and need care selfish? In which case those rich in free time should be forced by the government to help the less fortunate?



And here, for a second pretend to assume he knows what the fuck he is saying.

Ask him to differentiate force from violence. He might say:

"Force is just compelling one to obey, and violence is physically harming someone to extract the money."

Explain that that definition of force seems to be assuming the "criminal" (selfish person) has no free will and would be determined to cough up money upon being asked. What would happen if the person declined? Suppose a mugger points a gun at you and demands you hand over your wallet. Would it not be violence just because you are not stupid enough to risk refusing the mugger, and therefor the mugger did not need to use the weapon? Obviously not.

What he said was clearly stupid at a glance, you just have to use the Socrates approach and spell out why. Pretend he is wise, and raise questions that logically follow his assumptions/pretenses. After deflating his viewpoint, explain yours.

Sorry if I've annoyed you by insulting your brother, I also have family members like him.

Excellent post! Thanks for taking the time to type this up.

[The_Orlonater]

Why is it wrongfor the government to issue those who work hard have the means to meet their needs? Or are you saying people are able to survive on $1.50 hour (yes I know what the min wage is, we are discussing a system without government interference, no?)

This argument can be gotten rid of by one equation Profits=Wage.

[jack555]

You call it theft. Why is it theft to pay for services such as feeding people who do not earn enough wealth for their labors, or caring for those in need? Does the government steal your money when they tax you to pay for judges, officers, clerks, etc? Why are these services not considered theft (or do you see this as theft as well)? Police can be replaced with Pinkertons? Many communities have volunteer fireman, why not all?
Which services is the government allowed to spend money on, money that is has garnered by taxes on you, which you do not consider theft.? Most if not all services provided by the government could be handled privately, no?

From Webster-



Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: \ˈtheft\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thīefth; akin to Old English thēof thief
Date: before 12th century
1 a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property


When the government takes my money against my will, are they taking my personal property with intent to deprive me of it?

Thats why I call it theft ;) because its the definition of theft!

And yes, if they take money from me for police use against my will it is still theft.

And your question is what leads libertarians to become anarcho-capatalists.

[winston_blade]

We were talking about redistribution of wealth.

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause. My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government. I then explained the view that the government can not have more rights than the people and gave adequate examples.

I said - bottom line redistribution of wealth is stealing from an innocent man. He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime. He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is ok.

I agree with Locke that we have a right to life, liberty and property.
Anyone have a defense against my brother (purely for my knowledges sake). I guess if someone thinks selfishness is a punishable crime who am I to say he's wrong? He obviously does not believe you have a natural right to property. I need some help here.

So when is he dropping off his possessions at my house, or is he going to be selfish?

[Bruno]

Start taking his stuff and donate it to charity. If he complains, tell him he's just being criminally selfish. If he tries to stop you, use "force" but not violence.

:cool:


check out this link discussing Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness"

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--406-FAQ_Virtue_Selfishness.aspx

Selfishness is not a crime. Your brother is on the fence with his altruistic view of money. He actually has a self defeating argument. The money is not being taken as punishment, rather objective people are enhancing their own chances of survival by ensuring that your brother will not have 100% share of his earnings. This means that your brother is working to ensure the survival of someone who's sole purpose of existence is to ensure their own survival. By accepting this self-less approach to money, your brother is only ensuring his own financial extinction.

Thanks for this, I plan on reading it as well. I was going to recommend reading Atlas Shrugged, but that's a little on the long side.

[satchelmcqueen]

We were talking about redistribution of wealth.

I explained that it is stealing (by definition). I gave him an example of a mob robbing one man and giving the money to a "good" cause. My brother said it is not stealing because the government is doing it and the mob in my example isn't the government. I then explained the view that the government can not have more rights than the people and gave adequate examples.

I said - bottom line redistribution of wealth is stealing from an innocent man. He said we would disgree on the definition of innocent. I said, ok I make 100,000 and keep it. Am I innocent. He said yes your innocent. He then changed his mind and said no, you are not innocent you are guilty. I said what am I guilty of? He said you are guilty of selfishness. I said thats an odd view in my opinion, selfishness is a crime? he said yes. I said ok what is the just punishment for this crime. He said having money taken away from you (without use of violence but "force" is ok.

I agree with Locke that we have a right to life, liberty and property.
Anyone have a defense against my brother (purely for my knowledges sake). I guess if someone thinks selfishness is a punishable crime who am I to say he's wrong? He obviously does not believe you have a natural right to property. I need some help here.


punch him in the face and take 30% of whats in his wallet.:D

[bander87]

If it's wrong that one keeps his or her money, and the government punishes that person because of it, then the government has forced morals onto that individual. The government has declared what is right and what is wrong, and the government has no businesses doing that.