Incentivizes*

I’ve already explained from whom, for whom and for what purpose. From the rich, for the poor and to maximize equality.

Maximizing equality is a means to an end.

Too general. I would err on the side of ... you earn the fruits of your labor.

Just maximizing equality for the sake of it is unproductive.

(This comes from a quite egalitarian-viewed guy - me)

Shared resources like infrastructure, Basic healthcare , basic shelters. Keep people alive - I would never propose trying to ‘equalize’ anything.

Easiest way to reach an egalitarian society is letting people choose to share whatever and whenever they like.

High taxes over the rich will prevent them from sharing whatever they have.

In an individual sovereign worldview, the collective is that which manifests from the choices of free humans.

In a collective first worldview, a few people try to speak for the collective, or the terrible aspects of people try to vote for it.

Everyone here should read Animal Farm

Zino that is the answer I want! Just because more equality could be achieved doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better! For example would you rather have a community where the poor get 10% richer evey fifth year and the rich get 10% richer every fifth year or a community where the poor get 10% poorer every third year and the rich get 50% poorer every third year? One option is more equal then the other but but not better for the community (If your goal is minimizing poverty) And for the record I wasn’t making a claim I was playing the devils advocate.

Sure, ofc. We are discussing ideas not ppl

Sure - I understand you were exploring the arguments.

Food time. Brb

@JPMcGlone - do you agree that every society is lead by an elite (a small group of people), no matter if it's individualistic or collectivistic ?

Put equality of outcome at the top of your hierarchy and you will get it, but at the cost of everything else

I don’t even think you will get it. You simply can’t equalize for ‘everything’

@Yussuki ₪ I do not agree with that. America was unique in that we didn’t have to Feudal Lords for a long time. We had redundancy. Families, churches, communities, states.

Now we are becoming a Feudal system

Yes. You didn't have feudal lords. You had slave owners.

Acting feudally.

The incompetent are incentivized to take from the competent, and if we don’t punish the theft, we deserve it

We didn’t always have slaves and not everyone had slaves. Our cities, for instance, were quite free

JP, It's not theft if you consent.

But yes, slavery is terrible. That said, many benefitted from the arrangement

If someone steals from you and your forgive them, it’s still theft. Forgiveness isn’t consent, it’s forgiveness

JP, what's the year the USA was born ?

1776?

Christ forgives your sins, he doesn’t consent to them

Yes

I’m waiting for my eye dr lol

> If someone steals from you and your forgive them, it’s still theft. Forgiveness isn’t consent, it’s forgiveness
@JPMcGlone

But the original theft was theft, because you did not consent.

Yes

You agreed with me, oppositely.

Every society is lead by an elite (small group of people) no matter if it's collectivistic or individualistic. In USA, the States that make up the USA are lead and administered by a small elite. Every societal structure is like a pyramide. You need to have an hierarchy. And hierarchy alwasys comprise less individuals than the base. Moreover. the elites live better than the average guy

Someone disagrees ?

I think you have a claim which requires some backing.

Ok. The number of people making up the Congress is 535. USA has 330 million. So the US society (in general) is administered by 535 people. You agree, @Malachi?

The whole US Govt encompasses 9 million people

“Every society is led by an elite”

No. Unless you’re saying that competency is elite

Is the UK State authority derived from Competence, or from the legitimacy of the Queen?

There hasn't been any society on this Planet whose Authority was derived from Competence.