Wealth distribution in the US

[Admiral Yi]

Your proposed difference only holds up if courts and police, necessary to enforce even the most basic negative rights, are free.  Which is to say that the difference is illusory.

No, my proposed difference holds up even if courts and police cost a billion zillion dollars.  Negative rights are still upheld when others do nothing.

[The Brain]

People have a problem with positive and negative rights? It's not that difficult.

[Razgovory]

If we remove the freedom to be a slave why shouldn't we remove the freedom to starve?

Because one is a negative right and the other is a positive right.  In this country there's a broad consensus on negative rights, much less so on positive rights.

Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

[Razgovory]

Got a problem?

It would appear your brain fell out of your head while you were crafting a response to my post, that's probably what has BB worried.

Lot of folks fought and died for what they thought was a fundamental freedom to own slaves.

[Admiral Yi]

Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

I am not of the opinion that property is a positive right.  I don't know what you mean by the second one.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Lot of folks fought and died for what they thought was a fundamental freedom to own slaves.

I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

[Razgovory]

Are you of the opinion that to own property is a positive right?  Or to be in a state that you are born into is a positive right?

I am not of the opinion that property is a positive right.  I don't know what you mean by the second one.

Ah okay.  I'm looking at slavery as having two "rights".  The right to own a slave (a property right), and a right to be a slave.  A right that come from a state of being like having the right to be born poor, the right to starve, the right to fail.  Both of these rights seem to be negative rights.

You seemed to indicate there was a positive right here I was disagreeing.

[Admiral Yi]

You're slightly confused on the what a negative right is.  I negative right is a right not to have others do bad things to you.  The right not to have your speech stifled, the right not to have your property taken without recompense.

I agree that first ulmont, then you, make a valid linguistic point that rights that we all generally agree are indespensible functions of government, such as safety from crime, the right to adjudication of wrongdoings, protection against foreign threats, do in fact require resources to provide.

But frankly this is a debating point.  If your objective is to convince others that positive rights, such as the rights to shelter or food, are in fact truly rights and therefore entail a corresponding obligation on the part of the persons providing that shelter and food, then I don't think this line of argument will do the trick.

[Razgovory]

Actually my point was more toward what Otto was going on about, how fundamental freedoms are lost for the sake of equality.  The abolishing of slavery curtailed property rights and made society more equal.  If you think about it, emancipation was the largest transfer of wealth in our history.  The US goverment took the property of certain individuals (slave owners), and gave it to other individuals (the former slaves who now theoretically had control over their own persons).

[Admiral Yi]

Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

[crazy canuck]

Slavery was and is abhorrent because it's people doing bad things to other people.  We generally agree that people shouldn't do bad things to other people.  What we don't generally agree on is that people are obligated to do good things for other people.

My previous post was written in a state of intoxication and should be disregarded.

No, slavery is abhorrent because people should not be property no matter how well their "master" might treat them.  Under your definition slavery would be fine so long as all master's were kind.

[Admiral Yi]

No, slavery is abhorrent because people should not be property no matter how well their "master" might treat them.  Under your definition slavery would be fine so long as all master's were kind.

No it wouldn't.  The kindest slave master still restricts the movements and actions of his slave, and coerces labor from them.

[crazy canuck]

@ Berkut - I think the answer lies in the taxation system.  Not just in the rate of taxation but the system itself.  Wealth can be accumulated at a much greater rate by the 1% than by the middle class because the tax system is skewed heavily in their favour.  Taxation on employment income is the highest - so most people who are able take their income in other forms - dividends, shares, income trusts, etc etc etc etc....  The list is only limited by the imagination of one's accountants and tax lawyers.


Which is another way of saying that tax reform is a big issue on both our countries.

Another issue, perhaps the main issue, is how to tax estates.  One simple way to ensure that everyone is rewarded according to their ability and hard work is to limit the ability of wealth to be transmitted through the generations.   

[Sheilbh]

But that sort of tax reform isn't necessarily helpful now we're in a global tax market. I think a lot of Americans (and Brits) would happily shift to the Isle of Man or an Caribbean haven if there was too much tax reform.

But in the other way, I was speaking to a British tax lawyer recently who said he had a lot of Russian clients who didn't care how much tax they had to pay. Their priority was to get their assets and funds safely under English law and the far-higher tax rate was worth paying.

Edit: And obviously the sort of money that you're talking about can be moved. You can't very easily move income tax.

As an aside that's another reason I support raising the minimum wage. In this country the minimum wage jobs left are service sector and difficult to move: it's cleaners and janitors and shop assistants and cafe staff. Unlike manufacturing they can't be outsourced so I think a minimum wage rise wouldn't have such a negative impact on employment (historically it never has in the UK, though we've only had it for 15 years or so) and it would have an impact on workers.

[crazy canuck]

But that sort of tax reform isn't necessarily helpful now we're in a global tax market. I think a lot of Americans (and Brits) would happily shift to the Isle of Man or an Caribbean haven if there was too much tax reform.

That is part of the tax reform that is required.  The main reason those places are attractive is not because people are legally avoiding paying tax...