In PM's with GenSeca I have tried to set up some mutual ground on which we could both stand in agreement to look at the issue of the accumulation of wealth, but we couldn't find any place where we were both comfortable enough to even begin a discussion. That's too bad since our disagreements are common to many people in this country.
Basically we are trying to legislate morality and that's impossible to do. When one lives in a greed-based culture in which it is socially acceptable to live in vast luxury while others starve, and blame the hungry people for their plight, then of course legislating to care for the poor will be hugely unpopular.
As long as one works primarily to enrich oneself, then of course having any of one's gains taken away and given to others will be anathema. I understand that even if I don't share that perspective. It seems to me that implicit in this self-enrichment philosophy there maybe some assumptions, such as it's a level playing field and we all have the same opportunities, that we all have the same basic capabilities, and that the individual accumulation of wealth and power are the highest goals to which a human can aspire. Or perhaps if one is more truthful one realizes the inequities in the system but doesn't care as long as they can get their share of the booty.
I don't think any of those assumptions are true. The playing field is far from level and opportunities are available selectively based on who you are, where you live, who your parents were, how much they had, physical attractiveness, innate skills, mental capacity, and perhaps most importantly one's individual ethical flexibility.
We live in a socio-political system based around the idea of rewarding people for greedy self-interest and by pitting these people against each other in a competition that provides more goods and services than any other system we've ever devised. The downside to this system is that it rewards the people who are ethically flexible enough to work the system to their own advantage by bending or breaking the rules. Our prisons are full of people who got caught in small crimes, but the really big criminals take their bank bailouts home and never fear the law because they've already bought it. The system disproportionately rewards the biggest criminals, the smoothest operators, and the most ethically retarded among us. These are the people who use their power sub rosa to create laws, court decisions, regulations, and lies to further their self-aggrandizement. One can look at the accumulation of wealth in this country and see this process working very well for the richest people at the expense of everyone else.
GenSeca seems to feel that this is the best possible way for the system to work, he doesn't want anyone getting a penny of his money, and I understand that. He talks about "rational" arguments, but is it rational to wallow in excess when other starve? Maybe to some, but not to me. Living a compassionless, me-first lifestyle--however American that is--says that the suffering of others has no meaning, that life besides our own has no intrinsic value, and that the Might is Right philosophy represents the highest good.
I agree with GenSeca that the forced redistribution of wealth is not the best way to do things, but when the wealthy use their power to keep ever larger quantities of money and goods for themselves perhaps we are justified in taking a portion of it from them.
Has there ever been a GenSeca economic system in which the rich were not required to provide for the poor? Yes, it was called the feudal system and the rich people owned everything, the poor owned nothing, and the poor worked in virtual slavery to the rich. Was this a peaceful time? No, the rich fought amongst themselves incessantly trying to get more money, land, and power. Marriages were arranged and daughters sold off to the highest bidder while starvation and disease ran rampant throughout the land.
