Jere Hodges Jr Last question: what do you do with the person who just will not work to support themselves? I really want to know your answer. Do you not believe those people exist?
January 29, 2011 at 7:20pm · Like · Comment
Jere Hodges Jr
Jere Hodges Jr One other question: Why $20 million? Shouldn’t people be able to live a satisfactory life on $10 million? 5? $250,000?
But again – I’m back to the basic question: how do you collect it without murdering millions?
January 29, 2011 at 7:19pm · Like · Comment
Jere Hodges Jr
Jere Hodges Jr I’ve admittedly joined this group out of morbid curiosity and a need to explore for information.
My first question is this: By what means would the wealth which is spoken of here be collected and then redistributed? What means would be implemented to prevent those involved in the collecting and redistributing from taking “a cut” for themselves out of what was being collected and redistributed?
January 29, 2011 at 7:15pm · Like · Comment
Jere Hodges Jr
Would the collection required the use of military force? Or would one expect such confiscation to be conducted by a police force? A mob? A voluntary surrender of property? Is your organization actually prepared for the violence that wou…See More
January 29, 2011 at 7:15pm
A boycott by service providers who have a heart for the poor should be enough. Of course it’s voluntary otherwise to be legislated into reality. Why pin the violence label like this on us? See the dove on the label? *PEACE*.
At worst court cases? Its not like everything would be taken away in any case, and 20 million is 20 times more than a millionaire has and certainly lives comfortably by. Thats 50 times a 401K y’know.
I quote Rand but do not follow his works entirely. Deserts btw can be greened up in time. Real estate is indeed not, but in true application and by technicality applied out of spirit of law, we’re talking about lack of ALLODIAL titles and EMINENT DOMAIN that can be applied to Alienate land. And 6 billion refers not to England alone but all post colonial lands and other illegally annexed territories. It’s unconscionable to hear about Commonwealth subjects (outdated and arcane concept btw) being beggars or living off the dole while land could be distributed to them for at least subsistence and living space purposes. You don’t need to build a 300K sterling Council house to roof and feed a family. Give them the space to build simple but spacious homes and grow crops. The lands and welath of the world belong to everyone. Don’t threaten the poor by making them think they are not entitled. They have a right to settle an area as they need for subsistence and a home at the least. And this would cost nothing but a certificate of ALLODIAL TITLE so they will not later be trauimatized by being forced to move around.
Therefore, it is your READING of my data that is flawed, in error. Ergo, your assumptions about MY READING OF DATA are also in error. And thanks for the good luck wishes. I however can’t wish you luck in keeping people landless and homeless or insisting they remain dependent on dole when so much empty unused land is available.
Like most social engineering endeavors – you will succeed not in raising the poor to a higher standard, but only in lowering the standard so that more people are equally miserable. Thats a quick assumption. But as in Evo Morales or Fidel Castro, land has already been distributed out of kindness. I think more should follow, unless the G20 needs to collapse from quantitative easing to the point of a proleteriat revolution? 20 million is fine enough a ceiling if anything.
Why 20 million? I can’t remember when or didn’t bother to take down the link, but a few months or a year or so back (and inspired by this same site, or so we here would like to think heh), CNN stated in a report that one only needed 10 million to have a pinnacle of living standards. I propose 20 million, which is 50 times 401K. If 50 times 401K is considered lowering the standard, I’d find it hard to imagine an EQUAL WORLD even in the distant future. We cannot all be billionaires and if you think any single person is entitled to more than the others, expect another French Revolution, because like Tunisia and Egypt, the tolerance for extreme sequestration of wealth is not going to be tolerated by EQUAL Humans anymore.
What do you do with the person who just will not work to support themselves? Basic food and shelter. The rest is up to them. If mediocrity on a low level dole is fine for them, I couldn’t judge them any more than they could judge me. The world is our food and shelter, what they ‘get’ is what civilisation and the civilised are bound by a sense of ethics to abide by humanitarian principles to offer freely the bounty of the world, simply because we are that enlightened and will not leave anyone behind in the display of meaningless and petty calculativeness you seem to be displaying here or the fear of lack of means implemented to prevent those involved in the collecting and redistributing from asking “a cut” for themselves out of what was being collected and redistributed?
The last point probably will have to be Transparent Accounts vetted by Public Trustees and independent auditors, public listings of contributions by government or private individuals on websites (no hidden checques or anonymous donors pls) and a wholly voluntary structure for ALL personnel so that it does not become like one of those corrupt religious institutions.
Try the below response for good measure :
February 9, 2011 at 9:27pm
Marah Freedom We obviously come from very different backgrounds but surely you cannot deny the merit and humanitarian need for wealth distribution or a ceiling for sequestration of wealth. Think it over.
February 9, 2011 at 9:29pm