On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 20:55 -0600, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: > Jed recently brought up some interesting issues related to how will a > modern society manage to "spread-the-wealth" equitably when presumably > robots perform most of the labor.
I was having a similar conversation earlier... Here's the point I don't get: you want to 'spread the wealth', but why? Presumably, it's a moral argument: that people 'should' have the same access to wealth -- and not only that -- but the argument is applied universally, meaning that there are no exceptions. IF people 'should' have the same access to wealth, then there are no people who should be exempt from this moral argument. But, and here's the but... if morality is your guide, then why isn't theft also included in your argument? I am drawing a presumption here, but the implication of your statement is that somehow we all 'should' spread-the-wealth. That generally means that we should threaten people with violence if they don't pay-up to help with the plan. If, however, you have some other method in mind when taking money from people, then my assumption is misplaced, and I can now understand that you are looking for voluntary contributions to spread the wealth. But if you believe in voluntary contributions to 'spread the wealth', then the whole topic is really moved out of public debate, isn't it? By including it here, as a point of public discussion, you're looking to devise a mechanism by which people can be taxed, right? If so, then the principle still applies: why would you apply a moral principle to 'spread the wealth' universally, but refuse to apply a similar moral principle universally, regarding theft? Craig
