Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Your philosophy is illogical, since you must use threat of force or force to steal from some to give to others.
If you allow people freedom, they will be able to provide for themselves. If human beings could not provide for themselves without central control, we would be extinct, because we would have never survived prior to the creation of government. We do not need central controllers telling everyone what to do in regard to peaceful, honest, voluntary activities.
|
When you say that my statement is illogical you make it seem a fact that any wealth taken away by force is inherrently wrong. If wealth is distributed to allow other peopel to become self sufficent and helpful members of a society than I consider the redistribution logical.
Why are you so against seizures of wealth, in the general sense, not related to any real government or anything. I would like to know.
Your agruement about self sufficency is true, but only on the idea of humans existing as a species. In civilization the rules for what i consider sucess is more than meare survival. A rough goal is creating the most efficent society while also allowing as many people as possible to share the wealth. (This only goes as far as to still give people freedom, not including economic freedom.)
The only reason I don't support a completely socialist society is that they don't work, but I have nothing against the distribution of wealth if the distribution doesn't affect the total wealth.