Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Why is wealth inequality consider "immoral"?

  1. #1

    Why is wealth inequality consider "immoral"?

    Why is wealth inequality considered to be a bad thing? As long as no one is having their stuff stolen and interactions are voluntary, what does it matter that some people have more stuff than others? I would argue that the important thing is the standard of living of the poor and that the standard of living at the high end is completely irrelevant. Suppose you rank standards of living from 1 to 10 where 1 is the worst. Then suppose country A's poor=5 and their rich=10. Country B's poor =1 and their rich=5. The inequality gap is more for country A but isn't country A a much better place to live since the poorest are 5 times better off than country B?

    The problem of course is that the voting majority in country A vote to steal from the rich until the standard of living for the poor in country A becomes a 1.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I wonder if "effort inequality" will ever be considered immoral???
    Last edited by CaptUSA; 10-26-2018 at 12:11 PM.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  4. #3
    Because those who consider it immoral assume that the inequality arose from immoral practices and there are enough cases where that is true that they can concentrate on them and ignore all of the people who earned their wealth morally.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    I wonder is "effort inequality" will ever be considered immoral???
    Effort can not be measured. It is both too hard to measure and too easy to fake. Outcome is all we can measure so that's why we are doing it. Plus we have nothing else to harp upon.

  6. #5
    Because of that stupid Christmas Carol movie?


    I think there are problems with wealth inequality. It just seems practical to have a stable lower / middle class instead of paying them on stagnate wages so they rely on credit to hold onto their standard of living. Presumably, big companies want to make products and services and sell them to someone, but do they not want a reliable consumer class with disposable income to purchase things?

  7. #6
    It is based on instinct.

    For one thing, people have historically gotten rich throughout the world by rent seeking and birth. Getting wealthy through serving others in the market is fairly new. Capitalism just doesn't gel with natural instincts. Secondly most people care about relative well being. I think the overwhelming majority of people (not me) would rather make 40k if everyone around them made 30k than make 60k if everyone made 150k.

    Besides crony distortions and things like QE which helped push up asset prices, I'll even admit I am kind of fence with people getting super rich through intellectual property. I think you need patents but I would like to see IP weakened in general.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    For one thing, people have historically gotten rich throughout the world by rent seeking and birth. Getting wealthy through serving others in the market is fairly new. Capitalism just doesn't gel with natural instincts.
    Very few people in history ever lived in a system where you could make it on your own. Combine this with the fact according to any metric half the people are below average and you can clearly see why such a system would be short lived.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because those who consider it immoral assume that the inequality arose from immoral practices and there are enough cases where that is true that they can concentrate on them and ignore all of the people who earned their wealth morally.
    That’s what I was going to say. It’s the suspicion that theft, fraud and abuse of power (including government cronyism) that resulted in the inequality. So it’s more a case of the means being possibly immoral, and not the “wealth inequality” itself.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    That’s what I was going to say. It’s the suspicion that theft, fraud and abuse of power (including government cronyism) that resulted in the inequality. So it’s more a case of the means being possibly immoral, and not the “wealth inequality” itself.

  12. #10
    WRT OP question-because economic illiterates think value is objective. This false understanding leads them to make a host of confused non sequitur claims about the economic world around them. #badpremisesarebad
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  13. #11
    The people who consider wealth inequality to be in and of itself immoral betray a lack of understanding that a basic quality of wealth is that to create it inherently creates inequality.

    That's also why trying to make everyone economically equal always results in a reduction of wealth for everyone. The only way to have equal wealth is for everyone to have nothing at all.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    The people who consider wealth inequality to be in and of itself immoral betray a lack of understanding that a basic quality of wealth is that to create it inherently creates inequality.

    That's also why trying to make everyone economically equal always results in a reduction of wealth for everyone. The only way to have equal wealth is for everyone to have nothing at all.
    I agree. Walter Williams says something similar. He says people think there's a big static pile of money and therefore those that got rich got there first and stole it before anyone else could get to it. In a free, capitalist society the rich got that way by voluntary exchange that benefits everyone.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Besides crony distortions and things like QE which helped push up asset prices, I'll even admit I am kind of fence with people getting super rich through intellectual property. I think you need patents but I would like to see IP weakened in general.
    Maybe a little but if you go too far all your country's productive inventors are going to leave.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Maybe a little but if you go too far all your country's productive inventors are going to leave.
    Copyrights are much more in need of reform than patents but patents do have some problems.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    It is based on instinct.

    For one thing, people have historically gotten rich throughout the world by rent seeking and birth. Getting wealthy through serving others in the market is fairly new. Capitalism just doesn't gel with natural instincts. Secondly most people care about relative well being. I think the overwhelming majority of people (not me) would rather make 40k if everyone around them made 30k than make 60k if everyone made 150k.

    Besides crony distortions and things like QE which helped push up asset prices, I'll even admit I am kind of fence with people getting super rich through intellectual property. I think you need patents but I would like to see IP weakened in general.
    +rep
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Ron Paul know some weird people...



    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  18. #16
    Also people don't follow panel data over population bracket data.

    One study showed over 25 years that 30% of people living in the lowest quintile of income in the US moved to the top. Only 1% of people started int eh bottom quintile and stayed there.

    If the only way to make a profit is to steal it from workers then all wealth accumulation is immoral. If you can make a profit any other legitimate way then the entire worldview falls apart.
    In New Zealand:
    The Coastguard is a Charity
    Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
    The DMV is a private non-profit
    Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
    The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
    5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
    A tax return has 4 fields
    Business licenses aren't even a thing nor are capital gains taxes
    Constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    It's not, and overall inequality has been plummeting for some time now. That said, relative inequality can be a destabilizing force in society and lead to low-trust communities. What should be done about this is almost completely unknown.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Why is wealth inequality considered to be a bad thing?
    It's not. At least, not by anyone with an intact intellect and no unpublished, malevolent agenda.

    Those who do are either peddling poison or are ignorant of some very fundamental ideas about life.

    These notions are born of evil. It is nothing fancier or more subtle than that and people peddling this nonsense should be ignored so long as they don't act, and beaten verily when they do, preferably with iron bars.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian;6698831...[I
    relative [/I]inequality can be a destabilizing force in society and lead to low-trust communities.
    It only will be when the minds of the populations in question have been successfully poisoned with the fallacious arguments employed to foment bitter envy and the hatred that results therefrom. Sound intellects attached to men of good character will not go there. It's the lazy, corrupted man who falls for this because deep down it is what he wants to hear, as that provides him with the pretext for acting on his envy and avarice, or giving his approval to those who would act in his name.

    What should be done about this is almost completely unknown.
    Not sure I can agree with this. The solutions are very simple, but also very difficult because it requires a fundamental alteration in attitude of a great number of men - an elevation of character and of knowledge and understanding. These are apparently too much to ask of the average man. Therefore, if the minority of men who wish not to live in hell on earth, it would appear that either they need to infiltrate key positions in governmob, or must act with far diminished subtlety in the application of force against their fellows in defense of their natural, sovereign rights. That very directly implies the use of threats of materially non-equivocating force at the very least. The fact is this: we are not on the brink of civil war; we are in the MIDST of one. At the moment it is a cold war, but those who would corral us are showing no hint of letting up. We are faced with the choice I have cited so many times before: fight or lay down. We will choose regardless whether we act. Therefore, we need to decide what is more important, the tranquility of servitude, or the animating contest of freedom (thank you Samuel Adams).

    When one distills the truth, stripping away the noise of all the "buts" that tend to be inserted into the signal stream, the situation is really quite simple. Our choices are not at all pleasant for the immediate moments and short-term future, no matter how we choose. Therefore, we should be focusing on the longer term result, the one retaining the possibility of better life for free men, the other promising nothing short of hell on earth.
    Last edited by osan; 10-27-2018 at 10:47 AM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    I wonder if "effort inequality" will ever be considered immoral???

    It already is considered immoral by those who count. The rest can die for all I care. No, I'm not joking. Parasites are of no value or interest to free men, save perhaps that the former be removed from their society of the latter to whatever degree and in whatever manner that the leeches are rendered incapable of imposing their vampirism upon the worthy.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.


  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    It only will be when the minds of the populations in question have been successfully poisoned with the fallacious arguments employed to foment bitter envy and the hatred that results therefrom. Sound intellects attached to men of good character will not go there. It's the lazy, corrupted man who falls for this because deep down it is what he wants to hear, as that provides him with the pretext for acting on his envy and avarice, or giving his approval to those who would act in his name.



    Not sure I can agree with this. The solutions are very simple, but also very difficult because it requires a fundamental alteration in attitude of a great number of men - an elevation of character and of knowledge and understanding. These are apparently too much to ask of the average man. Therefore, if the minority of men who wish not to live in hell on earth, it would appear that either they need to infiltrate key positions in governmob, or must act with far diminished subtlety in the application of force against their fellows in defense of their natural, sovereign rights. That very directly implies the use of threats of materially non-equivocating force at the very least. The fact is this: we are not on the brink of civil war; we are in the MIDST of one. At the moment it is a cold war, but those who would corral us are showing no hint of letting up. We are faced with the choice I have cited so many times before: fight or lay down. We will choose regardless whether we act. Therefore, we need to decide what is more important, the tranquility or servitude, or the animating contest of freedom (thank you Samuel Adams).

    When one distills the truth, stripping away the noise of all the "buts" that tend to be inserted into the signal stream, the situation is really quite simple. Our choices are not at all pleasant for the immediate moments and short-term future, no matter how we choose. Therefore, we should be focusing on the longer term result, the one retaining the possibility of better life for free men, the other promising nothing short of hell on earth.
    I think a possible solution is some sort of restriction on voting. You should not be allowed to vote if you are receiving stolen goods. Another thing that would help is a constitution that emphasizes equal treatment under the law. For example progressive taxation would be unconstitutional, you can't tax one guys oncome at 0% and another at 40%. And if one guy is allowed to receive welfare, everyone should be able to receive it. And if laws applied to everyone, no one would be receiving welfare and everyone would get to vote, so those two things kinda go together now that I think about it.

  25. #22
    The essential problem is envy, not a lack of knowledge of economics.

    If everyone understood economics perfectly well, most would still adhere to unsound, egalitarian theories in order to rationalize their envy.

    The influence of an idea has much more to do with its utility than its truth.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I think a possible solution is some sort of restriction on voting.
    This might work. Barring reset, we will not be seeing anything of autodiathistic anarchism in our lifetimes.

    That said, those with even minimal clue-in know that voting is not an inherent human right, but rather one of a contractual nature. Therefore, placing requirements and restrictions on one's ability to vote. I'd recommend denying the vote to stupid people, but we all know how that would likely devolve.

    You should not be allowed to vote if you are receiving stolen goods.
    One would need to be far clearer than that.

    Another thing that would help is a constitution that emphasizes equal treatment under the law.
    We already have that. Note the net result.

    Corrupt people cannot be saved by a constitution. Moral people don't need one.

    For example progressive taxation would be unconstitutional,
    Learn how to spell "any".

    you can't tax one guys oncome at 0% and another at 40%.
    Sure you can. The bastards do it every day.

    Tyranny starts with the individual and it ends with him. We have always been the authors of our own doom, misery, poverty, and so forth. We really have nothing about which to complain, save ourselves.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    "Itís just interesting to note how constant government oppression can kill peopleís fighting spirit." - Withur We




    Pray for reset.




Similar Threads

  1. Scholars propose "Safety Officer" to fight "gender inequality"
    By NorthCarolinaLiberty in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2017, 08:36 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-22-2015, 02:32 PM
  3. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 08:21 PM
  4. Global Wealth Inequality - What You Never Knew (vid)
    By DamianTV in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-16-2013, 08:47 PM
  5. Wealth Inequality :/
    By Blue_Merle in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-12-2012, 12:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •