[MD] The End of Faith - Spirituality

[Ham Priday]

Arlo, Craig, Krimel --

[Craig]:
> However, In general whenever anything is redistributed,
> the recipient is better off & the provider less so.
> Obviously, this doesn't make it right.

[Arlo]:
> I also think in very narrow terms, yes, the provider is "less so".
> But let me take an extreme to prove a middle. Let's say the
> government requires everyone to contribute $1 a year of their
> earnings to fund public libraries. In the narrowest sense, yes, the
> "provider" is one dollar less well off than before. But in a much
> larger sense, having an educated citizenry creates an environment
> and community where everyone benefits, in terms of labor and
> citizenship.
> The educated person is less likely to require assistance, more
> likely to be self-sufficient, and so in the long run that one dollar
> net "loss" is vastly overshadowed by everyone being "better off".

[Krimel]:
> Arlo addresses some of the intangible aspects involved but let me
> add that Craig's statement makes certain assumptions that just
> ain't so. It is simply not true that redistribution is necessarily one
> sided. In any economic transaction redistribution occurs.
> Value was redistributed when Jack traded his mom's cow for a
> bag of beans.
>
> The issue is not whether redistribution will occur but what rules
> should govern it. ...It would seem that currently wealth is being
> redistributed in a fairly lopsided direction.
> Obviously that's not right.

It's neither bad nor "unfair".  Everything in nature is distributed in a 
"lopsided" fashion because  existence is not a balanced symmetry.  This is 
how the energy that moves the world is created.  In Nature, we call this 
dynamic process "evolution".  In society it's cultural development.  If 
energy and matter were perfectly balanced and equally distributed we would 
have what the physicists call entropy--a static state where all energy has 
been dissipated.

Human history is a chronicle of shifting power and wealth in the competitive 
transactions between different cultures and states.  Just as individuals who 
are "better off" have earned that status, generally the more "intellectually 
advanced" nations hold the upper hand in the power they control.  Usually, 
but not always, this power is exercised on behalf of freedom.  As a young 
nation develops economically, it may outlaw monopolies or institute tariffs 
on imports to protect its production resources.  If there are major 
inequities in society, such as those created by an economic depression or a 
natural disaster, the government passes relief measures that may include 
public works projects or monetary aid.  Normally, however, artificial 
dedistribution of wealth works against the free market principle of 
developed nations.

Krimel rightly points out the need for "rules" governing wealth 
redistribution.  In a democracy, it is the public who hold the right to 
approve, or disapprove, any such proposal.  This is because the wealth of a 
democratic nation is owned by the people, not the government.  In the United 
States, government is constitutionally mandated to preserve and protect the 
life, liberty, and property of its citizens; and -- lest we forget it --  
wealth is private property.  (Strictly speaking, government has no right to 
tax wealthy citizens at higher rates than the poor, but that's a topic for 
another discussion.)  My point is that the "rule" of a democratic republic 
is that government policy represents the consent of its people, whether it's 
going to war, constructing or policing intra-state highways, compensating 
the disadvantaged, or granting citizenship to immigrants.

Incidentally, I don't know what Craig means by "Force opposes free action." 
Action must overcome resistance by force, whether it's "free" or 
"involuntary".  It's the mechanical principle of overcoming inertia. 
Perhaps he means "antagonistic force", as in Socialistic Collectivism versus 
Free Market Capitalism. (?)

Regards,
Ham