Yeah, we can agree that utility is non-linear. What we haven't established yet is: "so what?" :)
> I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used".
Why would it be hypocritical? I'm not advocating for someone else using your property, nor for helping some through harming others.
> However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1]
Didn't we already conclude that evidence is really quite meaningless in this discussion? It's not difficult to find statistics and articles to support the idea of redistribution.
It is difficult, however, to explain why anyone's money should be "redistributed" away from him, considering it's his property. If a rich person's kid has a shitload of Lego bricks, should some of them be taken away from him to be redistributed to poor people's kids?
> Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well.
What does it mean to use one's income well? Who decides if my use of my income is acceptable? Why would anyone be in a position to decide that for me?
If I want to buy my seventh Ford Fiesta because it will bring me immense joy, can you claim I'm not using my capital or income well?
> This one you'll have to take up with the Supreme Court, Congress, the United States Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service who all take it as a given that the United States Government has the right to decide how your property is allocated or used.
Well no, I don't "have" to, and that would be roughly as worthwhile as writing to your representative, asking not to get shafted by SOPA/CISPA/PIPA/NDAA/PATRIOT ACT/etc.
Instead, I brought it up with you, as part of OUR discussion here, which you're perfectly capable of continuing by answering my question.
I realize that I am capable of continuing this discussion on this forum but I'm not going to. I do not consider the comment thread on this article on Hacker News an appropriate venue for an extended debate on moral absolutism, the value of the existence of government, and the ethics of taxation and robbery.
I would be happy to continue the debate in a different venue — a thread with the ethics of taxation as it's core concept, a different website, an e-mail thread, a phone call, or an in-person meeting. Let's take this to a more appropriate place, and I'll happily continue the discussion as long as it remains productive.
> I think it's a fair question, but it seems hypocritical to ask immediately after asking: "why would anyone else have the right to decide how their property is allocated or used".
Why would it be hypocritical? I'm not advocating for someone else using your property, nor for helping some through harming others.
> However, every study I've seen done on this issue has shown that unconditional cash transfers to impoverished people tends to be used reasonably well[1]
Didn't we already conclude that evidence is really quite meaningless in this discussion? It's not difficult to find statistics and articles to support the idea of redistribution.
It is difficult, however, to explain why anyone's money should be "redistributed" away from him, considering it's his property. If a rich person's kid has a shitload of Lego bricks, should some of them be taken away from him to be redistributed to poor people's kids?
> Certainly there will be some people who choose not to use redistributed income well, just as there are some people who have lots of capital who choose not to use their income well.
What does it mean to use one's income well? Who decides if my use of my income is acceptable? Why would anyone be in a position to decide that for me?
If I want to buy my seventh Ford Fiesta because it will bring me immense joy, can you claim I'm not using my capital or income well?
> This one you'll have to take up with the Supreme Court, Congress, the United States Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service who all take it as a given that the United States Government has the right to decide how your property is allocated or used.
Well no, I don't "have" to, and that would be roughly as worthwhile as writing to your representative, asking not to get shafted by SOPA/CISPA/PIPA/NDAA/PATRIOT ACT/etc.
Instead, I brought it up with you, as part of OUR discussion here, which you're perfectly capable of continuing by answering my question.
Here's a related video though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE