: I would say 'rough bars' are prone to missuse and variable interpretations to 'prove' one thing or anoteher. It would have to be pretty sure. Reasonable quality would need defining etc.
OK, lets try it this way- if we abolished capital, would they have an income? Simple enough definition, come the revolution, they'll find out...
: The point is that they are not striving to be big boys or whatever, that they are pursuing private goals many of which do not require their income to expand.
Indeed, which is what stops them becoming full out capitalists, i.e. the defining factor being the attemoted increase in capital, accumulation. Such people are still living to consume, C-M-C, not livign to make more money.
: Standards which you perosnally hold as justice. Economic status is pretty accidental from the legitimate viewpoint of the new born. They dont get to control it (hence the blamelessness).
But I'm not blaming them- lets try it this way-:
Imagine a man, nice looking dude, going round the maternity ward, handing out lolly-pops. Totally randomly, even he doesn't know which, some of the lollypops are poisonous, and so, say, one in five of the children will die. Is it unjust to stop him? And is it unjust to take the lollypops off them as have them allready? Can it be unjust, since they are blamless, they are also deservedless, i.e. they have done nothing to deserve the sweets, so its just fair game to strip them of them, as it would be fair game, say, if I always take advantage of a bus route that runs past my house (through no desert of my own) and that suddenly disapears.?
: Good road safety tip, but its not some general principle applicable to humankind.
Isn't it? Surely the point being where we must have authority, we must have it, but the presumption should be against it.
: then why do you seek to readress its status, ie lower it. If I were to suggest that 'criminal families' children be removed from them and 'educated properly' would that be 'just'?
But again, you centre on the child, look above, I am removing a guilty *system*, and I'm not 'lowering' their status, i'm raising them from master to equal. there can be no freedom, even for the masters, among slaves. Byron.
: Super, encourage a situation where they can catch up - without holding the baby back meanwhile.
Why should we allow the child privellege? Should it continue to be allowed treatment before all others?
: Unknowingly receiving stolen goods means she simply must accept their return to the actual owner, its not her fault its yours.
And this difers from the Baby, how?
:If such a rigerous enforcement of property was in existance throughout histiry imagine how much less 'privaleged classes' we would have no, for instance the British landed gentry who simply claimed land without even adding any value to it. (gosh, I must be going all 'geolibertarian')
Very Georgist of you.
: No, I do far worse than that, I point out that to 'correct' it you must in effect take punitive action agaimst a human who has no culpible responsibility for being 'lucky' enough to be born into a richer environment. There being no point in time when you can do it wihtout thus affecting millions. Break some eggs to make omolette?
But if the baby has done nothing to earn its rewards, it is not injust to remove those rewards. Imagine this:
Dinner time, and careless uncle comes round, he leaves a chiocolate bar on teh seat, which Twin 1 gets, because twin 1 was nearer. this chocy sweet will spoil their dinner, and its upsetting twin 2 who ahsn't got one, do you remove the sweet, got undeservednly and through pure chance?
: Because, for the new born - its wealth is as apparently and legitimately 'random' as its genetics.
From teh point of view of teh new-born, but from our point of view, it was given seaties by a deranged man (see above). it gets its wealth through human action, action we can change, we can't vchange genetic profiles.
: Lets assume that inheritance was banned, what then? Imagine three parents who all have the same resource. 100 each. Parents A dont use much and gift 50 to their child when hes 18. Parent B uses 50 of them to educate the child in a way that allows them more opportunities. Parent C spends all the extra on playing golf. Thus, unless you are regulating the way in which parents bring their children up you cannot avoid inequality developing (genetics and ability aside for a moment). hence egalitarians support seperating children from parents in matters of education etc, as proposed by Marcos and seemingly supported by SDF in calling child rearing a 'social responsibility'.
But it precisely through such systems that social injustice continues and is propogated.
: See above.
: I think that view of mankind has it being all reactive, whereas mankind is notoriously proactive. Behaviour can govern economic situation.
Indeed, 'Humans make their own history, but not in conditions of their own choosing', however, at birth I was not able to shape my economic conditions.
: Yes, finite resources under any system means that control of such is not equally available to all. As long as there is advantage to be had by being able to control more resources (which socialism doesnt resolve, just hopes to devolve to small situations) then competition remains.
But surely all competition is a desire to attain a certain self-hood (not to have more than everyone else, per se).? the point of socialism is that it permits such abundance of goods for all to be able to attain self-hood and satisfy their desire for recognition of the Other. You transcentalise the desire to out do each other, without basis.