Well, there's one race that may be happening I actually care about.

[Scribbly]

I justify it on the basis of "stop whining you rich fucks, or I'll come to your mansion with tanks and take the rest.  FFS".

This is also a great justification.

[Disco Pickle]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.

They are not the same.  Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.

Mind elaborating on that a bit?  I'm not sure I entirely understand.

[Doktor Howl]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.

They are not the same.  Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.

Mind elaborating on that a bit?  I'm not sure I entirely understand.

What's to understand?  It's a false analogy.

[Disco Pickle]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.

They are not the same.  Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.

Mind elaborating on that a bit?  I'm not sure I entirely understand.

What's to understand?  It's a false analogy.

I asked for an explanation of why it's false.  He said it was false.  I got that. 

[Scribbly]

To phrase it in a too-over-the-top manner:

Nothing is made for free. Even if you alone, using your own power, hew a tree branch into a crude tool in order to start taming the land, the very act of you doing so has deprived others of the tree branch, the land, and any profits you derive from it.

Therefore, by accumulating wealth, you have robbed society.

Upon your death, why should that wealth not be redistributed back as much as possible?

[Cain]

I thought the history of Europe from 1789-1990 gave plenty of excellent reasons as to why vast wealth disparities and concentration of power in a few hands is undesirable.

Apparently, I was wrong 

[Doktor Howl]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

Please stop perpetuating the false comparison of a citizen (or family) to StateCorp™.

They are not the same.  Any comparisons made between the two to illustrate "unfairness" is flawed.

Mind elaborating on that a bit?  I'm not sure I entirely understand.

What's to understand?  It's a false analogy.

I asked for an explanation of why it's false.  He said it was false.  I got that. 

Well, for starters, my family doesn't have to keep the sea lanes open, build post roads, regulate interstate commerce, manage natural disasters, maintain a standing army, or any of the other insanely complex tasks which a nation has to deal with.

Stating that they are equivalent is like stating that maintaining a manual pump for a well is a direct equivalent to maintaining a nuclear power plant's cooling system.

[Cain]

HOW ABOUT THE CREATION OF A POSSIBLE ARISTOCRACY UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC RULE?  HOW ABOUT THAT CAUSING A BACKLASH OF LEFTWING RADICALISM, WHO TEND TO ALSO HATE DEMOCRATIC RULE?  HOW ABOUT THAT LEADING TO A FASCIST BACKLASH, AND THEN WE HAVE A HUGE FUCKING WAR AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE?

OH HO, THAT CAIN, HE'S JUST JOKING.  NOTHING LIKE THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED HISTORICALLY.  CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER IN A FEW HANDS IS FAR MORE PREFERABLE THAN THE POSSIBILITY OF THE STATE ACTING IN A "COERCIVE" MANNER.

GOD DAMN IT I WANT TO BEAT MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE LESS BRAIN DAMAGE THAN THIS CONVERSATION

[Cramulus]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

specifically a moral justification of inheritance tax?

In a word: utilitarianism

Inheritance tax can lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[Doktor Howl]

HOW ABOUT THE CREATION OF A POSSIBLE ARISTOCRACY UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC RULE?  HOW ABOUT THAT CAUSING A BACKLASH OF LEFTWING RADICALISM, WHO TEND TO ALSO HATE DEMOCRATIC RULE?  HOW ABOUT THAT LEADING TO A FASCIST BACKLASH, AND THEN WE HAVE A HUGE FUCKING WAR AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DIE?

OH HO, THAT CAIN, HE'S JUST JOKING.  NOTHING LIKE THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED HISTORICALLY.  CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND POLITICAL POWER IN A FEW HANDS IS FAR MORE PREFERABLE THAN THE POSSIBILITY OF THE STATE ACTING IN A "COERCIVE" MANNER.

GOD DAMN IT I WANT TO BEAT MY HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD CAUSE LESS BRAIN DAMAGE THAN THIS CONVERSATION

Now, now...People just weren't PURE enough the first 1000 times we tried this.

[Doktor Howl]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

specifically a moral justification of inheritance tax?

In a word: utilitarianism

Inheritance tax can lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

This.

Government, however odious, is NECESSARY, and the fucking bills HAVE TO BE PAID. 

[Doktor Howl]

ok, I understand these arguments, even if I don't entirely agree with them.

But answer me this: How does a moral society reconcile the immorality of taking wealth from one family's heirs to give to others (assuming that it would even be put to that use at all) for the crime of acquiring "more than their fair share" (whatever that is).

If a citizen did it, it would be robbery, no matter what noble cause for which he used it. 

But it isn't a citizen.  It is a government agreed to by the citizenry, and one of the purposes of that government is to make sure things function, more or less, and that involves taxation.

Unless you think roads and schools just grow by themselves.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to function without them?

[LMNO]

As I was writing the below response, you guys did a much better job.

For posterity, what I had written:




One is an individual with singular wants, needs, and exhibits behaviors usually in their individual best interests.

The other is a collection of rules and agreements, usually contradictictory, which are (hopefully) designed to ensure individuals who live under those rules don't try to kill each other.

Collections of rules are neither inherently logical nor moral, nor should they behave in the same manner as individuals.

As an example, take the budget crisis.  An individual facing looming debt in a recession would cut spending heavily, while trying to increase income.

A state facing debt in a recession should spend money, as best explained by Keynes.

[Doktor Howl]

As I was writing the below response, you guys did a much better job.

For posterity, what I had written:




One is an individual with singular wants, needs, and exhibits behaviors usually in their individual best interests.

The other is a collection of rules and agreements, usually contradictictory, which are (hopefully) designed to ensure individuals who live under those rules don't try to kill each other.

Collections of rules are neither inherently logical nor moral, nor should they behave in the same manner as individuals.

As an example, take the budget crisis.  An individual facing looming debt in a recession would cut spending heavily, while trying to increase income.

A state facing debt in a recession should spend money, as best explained by Keynes.

Fact 1:  No individual, in the current environment, can sustain their standard of living (or even their lives) alone.

Fact 2:  No two people have exactly the same ideas as how to run things.

Fact 3:  We therefore have hired a government to run things.  While that government is far from perfect, it must be remembered that the Soviets thought they could make things perfect.  Object lesson, there.

Fact 4:  Nothing is free.

The US government has the same flaw that all other governments save monarchy have (and it has its own problems):  A system was designed with the idea that monkeys would act unnaturally in order to adhere to the system.  Since it is proven that monkeys will ALWAYS act like monkeys in any group of monkeys larger than 7 individuals, it is obvious that the system can NEVER be perfect.

But would you want it to be?  Seriously? 

[Disco Pickle]

Thanks for all the input guys.  You've gone a long way toward changing my mind on a few things and helping break down some concepts for me.

Cain, chill out man.  I think I've more than once expressed my ability to change the way I look at the world, most often and recently by spending time on this forum and getting you guy's input.  Blowing your head gasket because I asked a question isn't good for you.