[alithinker2]

Before you jump down my throat, remember that I am not very educated in politics. As such, this is just an honest question and Not an opinionated statement.


I read somewhere that "the state is responsible for protecting it's citizens best 'interests'". (Notice the word "interests") But is that true? Is that really the job of the state? Because I thought the state was merely responsible for protecting it's citizen's "rights" and not "interests".

There is a HUGE difference between protecting someone's "rights" vs protecting someone's "interests". Because who is it to say what someone's "interests" are? But when it comes to "rights", we can all agree to some degree on what our fundamental "rights" are.

Maybe you think that I am only playing on words, but to me, there is a huge difference.
For example, it might be in your best interest to become "rich", but do you have the "right" to be rich?
When you use "right" instead of "interest" it suddenly feels like the rest of us have an obligation to make you rich, which is simply not true. As such, the state does not have an obligation to make you rich, you gotta work on it yourself. But it does have an obligation to protect your rights- such as the right to pursue becoming rich.
Do you see the difference?


Think of it this way: a state that wants to protect your "interests" is like your parents trying to tell you what you should do in your life because they think they know what is best for you. While, obviously, sometimes your parents are right in knowing what is best for you, often times, you should be left to discover that on your own. And that is especially true when you become financially independent and start living on your own.


So when it comes to helping the poor, should the state help the poor? Because that is in the poor's best interest- no doubt- but does the State have a "responsibility" to help the poor?
Don't forget that the money that the state spends on the poor is tax money. Helping the poor with tax money is like forcing people to help someone that you think- "you", the state- think is in need of help.
Now there is NOTHING wrong with helping the poor- or anyone really- with your own money. You could just as well spend 90% of your "personal" income or more on the poor- like my hero, president "Jose Mujica". But that is a GREAT thing because you are spending your "personal" money wisely, not people's money. You should have total liberty to spend your personal as you wish- so long as it doesn't intrude on other people's rights.



Of course, all that in theory sounds right. But maybe in reality, things are more complicated.
The problem with economic theories is that they are reductionist/simplifying by nature. The reality of the world around us is much too different. Let's examine REALITY versus the perfection assumed in the theory above.

In reality, why are some people poor?
Bad health, lack of access to education, lack of access to resources, etc... and "bad decisions".
There are many reasons why some people are poor in this world. And many of them don't have anything to do with bad decision making. In a perfect world, only bad decision-makers should be punished by poverty. But in reality, many are punished with poverty without making any decisions whatsoever.

The theory discussed earlier assumes that we live in a "perfect world".
In a perfect world, everybody has same powers/capabilities. And everybody starts the race of life at the same time. In such a world, a poor person can only be poor because they made bad choices/decisions. But in reality, things are different.
Everybody starts the race at a different time- think of older generations vs new generations- and everybody starts the race from a different location- think of a person who inherits enormous amounts of wealth from their parents vs someone born an orphan with no money in their pockets. So are those two equal? Or should we treat those two differently because they had a different start?
Should we "try" and make the race equal to everybody or should we just let it flow as it is because we do not have the "right" to interfere in a world that is not ours?

It is a tough question. And I think in order to answer that question we need to first understand what is our purpose in life. (I know this sounds like a philosophical question- and hence irrelevant-, but it is not. What really is our purpose in life?




If you ask me why do you live, I would answer because I want to be happy. I just know no other way to live. There are many things that make me happy, but being kind to others is among the top things. That is why I live.

That might be a fine answer, but can you apply that to politics? Can you force others to contribute to the wealth/health of the poor with their taxes just because that is what makes you happy? Idk, that is a tough question. I am very willing to share my wealth with the poor- or so I think- but I have a very hard time convincing myself that I have the right to force others to live with my standards. That is probably why I would make a terrible politician

[Drlee]

At its most basic level the answer is fairly simple. Here is the first consideration:

The first order of business of any government is to survive. To this end it provides for defense from external threat either through alliances or through raising a military...usually both. This military can protect the government from external threats and to some limited extent internal ones.

Large numbers of poor people, particularly those who do not see an end to their poverty, are inherently unstable. Ask yourself this question. What should Czar Nicholas have done about reforms and the welfare of the people? Certainly what he did, which was not much, got him killed and ended led to a complete change of government.

If you read about Roosevelt's first few months in office (1933 and the height of the great depression) you will get the answer to your question from an American perspective. When he took office there was pressure in the press and elsewhere for him to take dictatorial powers. (Do not be confused by the word "dictator". In 1933 Mussolini was popular in the US and Hitler just coming to his own in Germany. The word did not have the same connotation as it does now.) What FDR realized was that to maintain any kind of stability in the US he had to "take care of the poor". And so his programs early on were designed to do just that. Not only financially but "spiritually" (for lack of a better term).

Rest assured that this metric is working in all but a few countries in the world today. In the US look at the debate over the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc. At their heart there is an equation that attempts to determine just how much "pain" the populace is willing to absorb while letting the "obvious others" live in comfort.

There are real and profound consequences for letting the pain factor rise too much. A democracy can wiggle around a bit, swinging between liberal and conservative leadership drawn from the same privileged class but that is not a foregone conclusion. Look at the 2016 US presidential race. It does not look like the ones in the past. Ask yourself this question. What happens when an educated populace finds out that the per capita PPP for its citizens (who receive little in the way of government benefits) is higher than Sweden whose population receives a great deal of government assistance. In the case of the US the great fear (a robust third party) could become a reality. Or, of course, there could be much worse consequences.

So there is the simple answer to your question. A government not only should but must provide services to the poor 'at least' to the extent necessary to control them.

Now. Do you want to discuss the moral issue as well?

[alithinker2]

At its most basic level the answer is fairly simple. Here is the first consideration:

The first order of business of any government is to survive. To this end it provides for defense from external threat either through alliances or through raising a military...usually both. This military can protect the government from external threats and to some limited extent internal ones.

Large numbers of poor people, particularly those who do not see an end to their poverty, are inherently unstable. Ask yourself this question. What should Czar Nicholas have done about reforms and the welfare of the people? Certainly what he did, which was not much, got him killed and ended led to a complete change of government.

If you read about Roosevelt's first few months in office (1933 and the height of the great depression) you will get the answer to your question from an American perspective. When he took office there was pressure in the press and elsewhere for him to take dictatorial powers. (Do not be confused by the word "dictator". In 1933 Mussolini was popular in the US and Hitler just coming to his own in Germany. The word did not have the same connotation as it does now.) What FDR realized was that to maintain any kind of stability in the US he had to "take care of the poor". And so his programs early on were designed to do just that. Not only financially but "spiritually" (for lack of a better term).

Rest assured that this metric is working in all but a few countries in the world today. In the US look at the debate over the minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, etc. At their heart there is an equation that attempts to determine just how much "pain" the populace is willing to absorb while letting the "obvious others" live in comfort.

There are real and profound consequences for letting the pain factor rise too much. A democracy can wiggle around a bit, swinging between liberal and conservative leadership drawn from the same privileged class but that is not a foregone conclusion. Look at the 2016 US presidential race. It does not look like the ones in the past. Ask yourself this question. What happens when an educated populace finds out that the per capita PPP for its citizens (who receive little in the way of government benefits) is higher than Sweden whose population receives a great deal of government assistance. In the case of the US the great fear (a robust third party) could become a reality. Or, of course, there could be much worse consequences.

So there is the simple answer to your question. A government not only should but must provide services to the poor 'at least' to the extent necessary to control them.

Now. Do you want to discuss the moral issue as well?

Oh wow, what an ignorant I was! I am indeed a bourgeois, like Klasswar said.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply Drlee. It seems we bourgeois are so high up in our ivory towers,we don't know what is going on down in the real world. I apologize. We should all help the poor.

[Eauz]

No, it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of the poor. Society in general is responsible for not causing harm and taking care of itself.

[alithinker2]

No, it is not the responsibility of the government to take care of the poor. Society in general is responsible for not causing harm and taking care of itself.

LOL I thought you were a communist.

Well, what if society, as a whole, decides to dedicate part of its income to support the poor?
But I get your argument. You're talking about preventing poverty from happening to begin with- rather than treating it afterwords. That is a good point.
So why do some people become poor? What causes poverty to begin with?

[alithinker2]

This topic is fascinating for me- since I am an intellectual bourgeois, and have a lot of time on my hand. So how does poverty come to exist?

Imagine a group of people discover an island. The island is uninhibited and is full of resources. So the people claim the newly found land and start living.
Time goes by and the people populate. Every new born individual brings with him/her new assets- intellectual/human asset. But every new born is also a consumer- he/she brings with them an added demand and burden on the economy.
OK, what happens next?
(Disclaimer, I am not very educated in economics. This is just my personal analysis. I am doing this to understand what is going on in the world around me.)

Economic productivity, in my opinion, seems to be a combination of individual humans -Manpower- utilizing the Resources around them in order to produce goods and services desired by Customers. That means, in any economic activity, there are 3 elements:
1- The Natural Resources that were around before any humans utilize those resource and turn them into products or services. (We say "natural" resource, but this doesn't always have to be something in nature. The internet- as a platform- is a natural resource around us which some of us utilize to create products/services and generate wealth.)
2- Manpower- the people who use those natural resource and modify them in such a way as to make them useful for the third part of the economic activity.
3- Customers- the people who benefit from those products and services.

Whenever those three elements are in balance, you don't have poverty. Once one of them gets out of balance, you start having problems.
For example:
-There might be a place on Earth (or in Time) where there is an abundance of Resources but a lack of sufficient productive force to utilize those resources. In such a case, you might- or might not- have enough demand, but you don't have enough supply.
-There might be a place where there is an abundance of Resources and Manpower but a lack of demand for those products. In such a case, you have enough supply but not enough demand.
And there might be a place where there is an abundance of manpower, and customer base, but not enough resources.
The list goes on.... 8 different states in total, where an economy can be.

So basically, in any economy, when things get troublesome, you need to look at those 3 elements of the economy, and try to restore balance between them. If you don't balance those three, you start having problems such as unemployment and poverty.

This analysis might sound trivial to you, but to me, I have just discovered GRAVITY! Now I am ready to become president.

[Igor Antunov]

Society in general is responsible for not causing harm and taking care of itself.

And 'society' coordinates this effort how? Magic? Absent of tax dollars, who funds the critical non-profit services such as emergency rooms, police forces, etc? The Church? KFC? McDonalds?

Nonsense.

[Truth To Power]

So how does poverty come to exist?

Poverty is caused by three main factors: natural or chance misfortune (which can include being the victim of crime); unwise personal choices or character flaws; and legal government or societal abrogation of rights. Of these, the third is by far the most important in advanced countries, but the importance of all three varies according to conditions in each society. Governments forcibly remove people's liberty to use natural resources to produce material wealth, to exchange with their fellows (unless they use an exchange medium created as interest-bearing debt), to use knowledge and ideas that would be in the public domain if they had not been removed from it and privatized by law, and to offer their labor in competition with unionized labor (including professionals like doctors and lawyers). These abrogations of people's rights to liberty force them into poverty by depriving them of the liberty to produce wealth -- or even to exist upon the face of the earth -- without paying a parasite for doing nothing.

So why do some people become poor? What causes poverty to begin with?

"When I fed the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor had no food, they called me a communist." -- Dom Helder Camara

Imagine a group of people discover an island. The island is uninhibited and is full of resources. So the people claim the newly found land and start living.

Wait a minute. What do you mean they "claim" it? Are you saying they somehow unilaterally revoke other people's rights to use the land nature provided for all? How would they do that?

Time goes by and the people populate. Every new born individual brings with him/her new assets- intellectual/human asset.

But not more natural resources. So if as you say the resources have been "claimed," every new born individual is not only born into poverty, but must pay a parasite just for space to exist in, as well as for the opportunity to use what nature provided to produce desired goods and services and thus escape poverty.

But every new born is also a consumer- he/she brings with them an added demand and burden on the economy.

They aren't a burden. Every new mouth comes with a brain and two hands. The problem is, they have to meet the extortion demands of a greedy parasite just for permission to use their brains and hands to sustain themselves.

OK, what happens next?

If you are going to go with the "land claiming" nonsense, what happens next is obvious and inevitable: those who own the land use that privilege of abrogating others' rights to liberty to rob and enslave everyone else.

Economic productivity, in my opinion, seems to be a combination of individual humans -Manpower- utilizing the Resources around them in order to produce goods and services desired by Customers. That means, in any economic activity, there are 3 elements:
1- The Natural Resources that were around before any humans utilize those resource and turn them into products or services.

Some natural resources -- especially locations on the earth's surface, which everyone needs to use to exist and produce goods and services to sustain themselves -- inherently can never be turned into products or services.

(We say "natural" resource, but this doesn't always have to be something in nature. The internet- as a platform- is a natural resource around us which some of us utilize to create products/services and generate wealth.)

The Internet is not a natural resource. It is capital -- infrastructure -- produced by the global community.

2- Manpower- the people who use those natural resource and modify them in such a way as to make them useful for the third part of the economic activity.
3- Customers- the people who benefit from those products and services.

It would be more accurate to call them "consumers," as "customers" are people who pay for something others produce. The purpose of all economic activity is to enable consumption, but not all economic activity involves customers.

Whenever those three elements are in balance, you don't have poverty.

What do you mean, "in balance"? As Henry George explained so very clearly and irrefutably in "Progress and Poverty," you have poverty whenever land has been appropriated as private property, and the advance of technology, capital accumulation and population pressure has pushed the margin out onto land that does not yield a living to a typical worker.

Once one of them gets out of balance, you start having problems.

Please explain what you mean by, "out of balance."

-There might be a place on Earth (or in Time) where there is an abundance of Resources but a lack of sufficient productive force to utilize those resources. In such a case, you might- or might not- have enough demand, but you don't have enough supply.

There is always enough demand, never enough supply.

-There might be a place where there is an abundance of Resources and Manpower but a lack of demand for those products. In such a case, you have enough supply but not enough demand.

No, that just means the producers are not producing the right things.

And there might be a place where there is an abundance of manpower, and customer base, but not enough resources.
The list goes on.... 8 different states in total, where an economy can be.

You left out the only "imbalance" that actually does cause poverty: where those who own the resources deprive everyone else of the opportunity to use them unless their extortion demands are met.

So basically, in any economy, when things get troublesome, you need to look at those 3 elements of the economy, and try to restore balance between them. If you don't balance those three, you start having problems such as unemployment and poverty.

Read "Progress and Poverty" (it's available online) and at least minimally inform yourself of the relevant issues.

This analysis might sound trivial to you, but to me, I have just discovered GRAVITY! Now I am ready to become president.

You and The Donald...

[MRMURAT]

Truth To Power is totally right. You just have like ideas which coming from first days of capitalism -specifically wild capitalism- and i also prefer to you that wrote meterials above both capitalism and communism particularly considering this issue. I think that communist archive might be very useful material about that. I've just realized you have much confusion about both economics and how to economics manupulating to politics and human life today.

If you want you can start to read the Karl Marx " Capital ". This will improve your knowledge about how to creating poor and sustaining.

[Joe Liberty]

Only Marxists think the problem is capitalism. Neither are property rights the problem. That's like saying the internal combustion engine is responsible for traffic accidents.

The short answer to your question is, "Maybe". Depends on whether the voting public wants to spend tax money that way. There are many arguments for and against government-provided welfare, just as there are many reasons for poverty (more than a few of which involve much more than a simple lack of money).

As far as moral arguments go, there really isn't one for stealing from Peter to pay Paul. You're violating one moral to appear to serve another; Peter has no say in the matter, and you haven't even begun to address what Paul's root problems are, you're just throwing somebody else's money at him and patting yourself on the back.

In your OP you state that most of us can agree on what our fundamental rights are. But we can't, and that is also part of the problem. Many people think they can create rights out of anything, and I think that has a lot to do with the increasing sense of entitlement in America, in which generations of government largesse has played a part.

In the end, there will always be poverty (because poverty is a lot more than lack of money), and there will always be arguments about the best way to address it. Government assistance is easy because people are personally removed from it: somebody else confiscates some of your money and doles it out for you. You get to sit back and tell everybody how moral you are for supporting a system that absolves you of personal moral decisions.

[Truth To Power]

Only Marxists think the problem is capitalism.

False and absurd. Marx made the same mistake capitalists have gleefully adopted as their own, just for opposite reasons. Both conflate land and capital as "the means of production," ignoring the fact that they are as different as chalk and cheese.

Neither are property rights the problem.

Property rights are definitely the problem: the conflict is precisely that Marxists want to abolish valid property rights in the fruits of labor as well as invalid ones in natural resources (i.e., treating them alike when they are not), while the capitalists want enforcement of wrongful property in natural resources as well as rightful property in the products of labor (same problem).

That's like saying the internal combustion engine is responsible for traffic accidents.

Nope. It's like saying the problem with chattel slavery is that people can't rightly be property.

As far as moral arguments go, there really isn't one for stealing from Peter to pay Paul.

There is when Peter is already stealing from Paul.

You're violating one moral to appear to serve another; Peter has no say in the matter,

He can stop stealing from Paul.

and you haven't even begun to address what Paul's root problems are,

He may have a lot of problems. But the one we have to do something about as a society is Peter's depredations.

you're just throwing somebody else's money at him and patting yourself on the back.

WHAT WOULD MAKE IT PETER'S MONEY??

In your OP you state that most of us can agree on what our fundamental rights are. But we can't, and that is also part of the problem.

Right. You, for example, say that unfounded claims of private "property" in land have unconditional priority over everyone's individual rights to liberty.

Many people think they can create rights out of anything,

Like an absurd claim to own what nature provided for all....?

and I think that has a lot to do with the increasing sense of entitlement in America, in which generations of government largesse has played a part.

Right: the extraordinary sense of entitlement demonstrated by landowners, who even have the effrontery to shriek about government "taking" from them what government and the community's largesse gave them in the first place.

Truth To Power is totally right.

Thank you.

If you want you can start to read the Karl Marx " Capital ".

But Henry George is both a better economist and a far better writer than Marx, so "Progress and Poverty" would be a much better choice.

This will improve your knowledge about how to creating poor and sustaining.

But much less than "Progress and Poverty."

[Rugoz]

There are many arguments for and against government-provided welfare...

Many people think they can create rights out of anything.

- There's nobody left who'd argue that the government should not provide welfare, except a few freaks.

- Of course they can. Rights are man-made, people can define them however they want.

A government not only should but must provide services to the poor 'at least' to the extent necessary to control them.

Your entire post suggests that its the poor who control the government with their voting power.

This analysis might sound trivial to you, but to me, I have just discovered GRAVITY!

You have discovered nonsense.

[Drlee]

Your entire post suggests that its the poor who control the government with their voting power.

Poor people control the government in their ability to demonstrate against it or even bring it down ala the Arab Spring.

The one thing a government fears is social unrest. The thought of formerly middle class Americans taking to the streets utterly terrifies them.

But they also can vote. And there is a very fine tipping point between what can be cut or lowered and what can't.

Consider these figures:

109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population.

Staggering numbers. Every politician in Washington knows these numbers. A few dumbass TEA party folks believe they can eliminate benefits. The very idea is laughable. They can't even realistically hope to make significant cuts.

Look how our politicians (with the exception of the aforesaid dumbass TEA Party fools) are stampeding to refund the government this time. No chicanery there. No grandstanding. The republicans and democrats alike saw how that worked out for them in the past.

We have a major party now that seems more willing than in the past to play the 'class warfare' card. I do not for a moment believe that the democrats are not sold out to the wealthy but I do believe that they are less generous in their kowtowing to them. The republicans have shown, time and again, that they really could not care less in their public face. But behind the scenes they are all doing the math. The last thing they want is a popular voter uprising.

[Pants-of-dog]

Only Marxists think the problem is capitalism. Neither are property rights the problem. That's like saying the internal combustion engine is responsible for traffic accidents.

No, there are those of us who think capitalism is the problem and who are no longer Marxist.

The short answer to your question is, "Maybe". Depends on whether the voting public wants to spend tax money that way. There are many arguments for and against government-provided welfare, just as there are many reasons for poverty (more than a few of which involve much more than a simple lack of money).

The short answer is "yes".

It's simple biology. We evolved into social animals because it provides a survival advantage. The whole point of being part of a group is to make it easier for the members of the groups to access those resources required to survive. If the group actually makes it harder for people to access these resources, then it is doing the opposite of providing a survival advantage.

As far as moral arguments go, there really isn't one for stealing from Peter to pay Paul. You're violating one moral to appear to serve another; Peter has no say in the matter, and you haven't even begun to address what Paul's root problems are, you're just throwing somebody else's money at him and patting yourself on the back.

Actually, the moral argument is quite clear: if Paul is unable to access those resources required for life (health care is a good example) because Peter is using his economic leverage to make it harder for Paul solely for the purposes of Peter's profits, then it seems that the moral thing to do is to use the greater economic leverage of the group to force Peter to accept the fact that Paul's life is more important than Peter's profits.

In your OP you state that most of us can agree on what our fundamental rights are. But we can't, and that is also part of the problem. Many people think they can create rights out of anything, and I think that has a lot to do with the increasing sense of entitlement in America, in which generations of government largesse has played a part.

Rights are created by committed groups of individuals who have used various means of challenging the powers that be, in order to force said powers to recognise these rights as real. Even if we disagree on what rights we should have, that is the method by which we make those rights real.

In the end, there will always be poverty (because poverty is a lot more than lack of money), and there will always be arguments about the best way to address it. Government assistance is easy because people are personally removed from it: somebody else confiscates some of your money and doles it out for you. You get to sit back and tell everybody how moral you are for supporting a system that absolves you of personal moral decisions.

There is also a practical dimension. I myself am unable to pay the medical bills for all of the poor people in my community, despite my desire that even the poorest should be able to access needed healthcare. But if every person contributes to the community according to their ability, we can help each other out according to our need.

[Truth To Power]

The whole point of being part of a group is to make it easier for the members of the groups to access those resources required to survive.

Not really. Mutual protection against predators, preservation of and access to useful information through collective culture, and the advantages of exchange, specialization, and division of labor may be even better reasons to be part of a society.

If the group actually makes it harder for people to access these resources, then it is doing the opposite of providing a survival advantage.

That's true. The biggest example of this problem, of course, is the societal institution of private property in land, which effectively makes most of the population into the slaves of landowners (and, in modern societies, mortgage lenders) by forcibly removing their pre-existing liberty to access and use the resources nature provided for all.

As far as moral arguments go, there really isn't one for stealing from Peter to pay Paul. You're violating one moral to appear to serve another; Peter has no say in the matter, and you haven't even begun to address what Paul's root problems are, you're just throwing somebody else's money at him and patting yourself on the back.

Actually, the moral argument is quite clear: if Paul is unable to access those resources required for life

...because Peter is forcibly depriving him of them, as landowners do, then yes, of course Peter owes Paul (and everyone else) just compensation for depriving them of access to those resources.

It is the lack of compensation from landowners to the community of those whom they deprive of the land that creates the unjust subsidization and enrichment of landowners at society's expense; and it is the lack of compensation to those who are thus deprived of economic opportunity that creates the universal problems of poverty and injustice in capitalist countries, which governments have to alleviate if they are to keep the peace and prevent mass, violent resistance.

(health care is a good example)

No, that's a bad example because health care is not a resource. It is a service that must be provided by someone's labor. As such, there can be no such thing as a right to it: you can only have a right to things that you would otherwise have. People consequently have rights to life, liberty, and property in the fruits of their labor: these are the things they would have, if others did not deprive them of them. It is abrogation of those rights -- especially the liberty to use natural resources -- by the privileged, especially landowners, that secures the indisputable moral basis for compensation.

because Peter is using his economic leverage to make it harder for Paul solely for the purposes of Peter's profits,

This is confused on two counts. First, it is not Peter's "economic leverage" that creates hardship for Paul. Peter may have the ability to provide Paul with education, tools, technology, opportunities, etc. that Paul would not otherwise have had, and his use of such leverage does not deprive Paul of anything he would otherwise have, and therefore creates no obligation for Peter to compensate Paul. Second, if Peter is using a different kind of "leverage" -- privilege, the leverage that legally entitles him to take from Paul what he would otherwise have had -- in a way that creates hardship for Paul, then it does not matter in the slightest whether this is for Peter's own profit or any other purpose: he still owes Paul just compensation for what he takes from him.

then it seems that the moral thing to do is to use the greater economic leverage of the group to force Peter to accept the fact that Paul's life is more important than Peter's profits.

The problem is, it is not clear that Paul's life is more important than Peter's profits. If Peter's profits will enable him to create capital that will result in better access to resources for the whole community, saving ten lives next winter, then Peter's profits are actually more important than Paul's life. It is our inability to know or predict such relationships that make Paul's right to life a negative right: i.e., it is not a right to have one's life sustained by others, but a right not to be deprived of life by others.

There is also a practical dimension. I myself am unable to pay the medical bills for all of the poor people in my community, despite my desire that even the poorest should be able to access needed healthcare.

Your desire isn't really relevant, except insofar as you are voting it. The practical dimension is that for economic reasons we understand pretty well, health care is a case of market failure: it cannot be allocated efficiently by normal market processes.

But if every person contributes to the community according to their ability, we can help each other out according to our need.

Ability is not a valid basis for determining one's obligation to the community, nor is need a valid basis for determining valid claims on the community's resources. Rather, one's obligation to the community is rightly based on what one is taking from the community -- i.e., what one is depriving others of, such as access to natural resources and community amenities, the liberty to exchange with one's fellows, etc. -- and one's claim on the community is rightly based on the deprivations one is subject to as a result of the community's presence and functions.

[Davea8]

I read somewhere that "the state is responsible for protecting it's citizens best 'interests'". (Notice the word "interests") But is that true? Is that really the job of the state? Because I thought the state was merely responsible for protecting it's citizen's "rights" and not "interests".

It depends on the state and its stated intention for forming. For example, a state formed for the purpose of advancing capitalism with extra consideration for the richest and most successful capitalists would not be likely to spend much legislation on caring for citizens' best interests. Such a state would not have a very high level of satisfaction found among its citizens.

On the other hand, a state formed for the purpose of providing the best living conditions and best lives for the maximum number of citizens would also take care of business interests but do so in a manner that produces the best benefits to society as a whole. Businessmen would be prevented from wielding political power for their own benefit. They would be required to serve society by providing a social good as their main reason for existing. The citizens' level of satisfaction would be the final indicator of whether the state is protecting the citizens' best interests and it would be high, as in the case of Denmark.

The problem you and the rest of us face is that no government will announce that it holds the success of the richest and most successful businessmen as its primary concern. The people would rebel. So governments always say they are "democracies" or "socialist", particularly when they are not. So one must look at what the state does and whom they favor while ignoring rhetoric.

[nucklepunche]

For me the basic morality starts out with the fact that you cannot have private property outside the context of society.

People originally lived in small hunter gatherer societies in which there was no centralized state, but also no private property.

Private property arose when people began moving into cities and coincidentally moving into states. Libertarians like to overlook this but it is true, left-wing anarchists are right in that private property cannot be sustained without state coercion.

That being said I think that private property has been good for society over the years in that it has promoted division of labor, allowing people to choose their occupation and specialize leading to us building better and more advanced civilizations. It has also encouraged people do deliver valuable goods and services people want motivated by the desire to acquire more property.

Private property has had its dark sides like inequality and even slavery, but on balance we have advanced to a much more comfortable life via private property. I don't think the life of a hunter gatherer living in a cave is the life I want, but I suspect it is the life we would have had if we had not developed private property or the state. I believe the arrival of these two institutions facilitated the technological advances that led us to today.

Private property, being the result of a society and inherent coercive institutions, is important but in my view not a completely inalienable and unrestricted right as libertarians view it. Society does have the right to use the surplus of property in order to benefit society as a whole, since people who own private property benefit from society recognizing and protecting their claim. The debate is between how much then government should do. Most people in society accept my reasoning, even a lot of people who call themselves conservatives but simply favor a smaller social safety net.

As to the practical question, I think a society with perpetual inequality and poverty would be a miserable society for all. Everything DrLee said applies. Society is eventually going to demand some sort of social reform. This is why government should provide some programs for the poor. The key is balancing programs to help people in society versus causing laziness. To some extent any program will include a moderate disincentive to work. This is why you need to look at all factors, including the world in absence of those programs.

[JohnRawls]

The answer for this is not simple and not obvious whatever people may say.

First question should the government take care of the poor? Well it sure as hell has an inherent interest to do so, because people who are trying to survive usually either protest, become violent or use other illegal means to obtain a living if its not possible to do using legal means. Government programs help fix that to a degree. Now if the percentage of people protesting or revolting is low, than it can be stopped by either military or police force but only if its reasonable in size. Morality of the question is debatable though. I am not speaking about the whole ' Poor robbing the rich argument here ' but the general situation, if you forever gonna care for the poor, than there won't be much insensitive for them not being poor nor the system need to be changed to prevent people from becoming poor ( Hence the Marxism vs Capitalism etc debate)



Now to what extent, is a very hard question. There is no real answer to this also. Simply because it depends on the money the government has and it can spend. The willingless of the upper class allow the government to spend that money. The willingness of government to efficiently spending that money. The political will to expand or decrease welfare. It is a slow and painful process.

[Rich]

As far as moral arguments go, there really isn't one for stealing from Peter to pay Paul. You're violating one moral to appear to serve another;

By that logic there's no moral argument for private property. Monopolising land use and using violent aggression against anyone who tries to exercise their right to use that land. Libertarians will often say I improved the land therefore I have a right to monopolise it for eternity, pass the monopoly on to my children or well the theft to someone else. To which my answer is fuck off, did I ask you to improve the land? Did I ask you to invest time and resources into its improvement? No so your claim to monopolise the land for eternity is utterly spurious. That's like saying someone has the right to rob a bank because they put a lot of time and effort into planning the raid.

Now of course a society may decide that its in the perceived interests and preferences of the majority to recognise none absolute private ownership. But that's not objective morality any more than the LBW rules of cricket are moral.

[EU rope]

Unless it's a socialist government, NO.
But may be the U.S. is finally ready for the transition to socialism.