Envy

Originally posted by @wajoma
The only thing wealthy folk can do is make you an offer 'x' dollars, if you don't like it just say so.

The goobermint just takes it under something called emminent domain.

They also continue to charge you rent, even though you pay off your mortgage, the goobermint will never let you be debt free, every month they want their rent/tax/fine for you ownin ...[text shortened]... s of wealthy folk threatening property rights without resorting to the violence of state.

The government is a threat to property rights in the same sense as Ferrero is a threat to Nutella.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The government is a threat to property rights in the same sense as Ferrero is a threat to Nutella.

An attempt at witty obscure.

A fail at witty obscure.

Originally posted by @wajoma
The only thing wealthy folk can do is make you an offer 'x' dollars, if you don't like it just say so.

The goobermint just takes it under something called emminent domain.

They also continue to charge you rent, even though you pay off your mortgage, the goobermint will never let you be debt free, every month they want their rent/tax/fine for you ownin ...[text shortened]... s of wealthy folk threatening property rights without resorting to the violence of state.

Property taxes are a reasonable way to fund public services and are not in any way an assault on property rights, which have an exhalted status in US and UK law. On the contrary, property is rarely if ever taxed fairly and in the UK rarely taxed even in a meaningful way. Obviously, if you object to any and every tax you will object to property taxes but you will have to explain the delights of living without public services or government when the only source of power is wealth.

Perhaps you have some examples of wealthy folk threatening property rights

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house

This example nicely illustrates the confusion in your absurdist post. The manipulation of a public agency to misuse emminent domain for private greed is neatly exemplified by Trump and, because this was a misuse of emminent domain the courts have sometimes protected property owners against him.

All that tells us is that:

Property rights have strong legal protections
Governments has prescribed rights and indeed duties which must be exercised in the public interest and which can be scrutinised and held to account in the courts
Wealthy property speculators use every dirty trick they can to bully their way to an undeserved profit at the expense of less wealthy opponents.
Government is open to manipulation by the wealthy and often acts in the interests of the wealthy.
Sometimes a government agency acts illegally or outside its proper authority and sometimes a government agency succumbs to corrupt influence. It is then doing stuff it should not be doing and has to be held to account - which it usually can be through the courts or the political process.

The necessary alternative to weak and corrupt government is not no government but better government and publicly accountable government. That requires politically active, conscious and informed voters.

The public's only protection against the wealthy is the government which makes and applies laws and the courts which make government accountable to the public. Take them away and you are reverting to medieval structures of force or at best perhaps to the rule of a plutocracy.

Originally posted by @finnegan
Property taxes are a reasonable way to fund public services and are not in any way an assault on property rights, which have an exhalted status in US and UK law. On the contrary, property is rarely if ever taxed fairly and in the UK rarely taxed even in a meaningful way. Obviously, if you object to any and every tax you will object to property taxes but ...[text shortened]... u are reverting to medieval structures of force or at best perhaps to the rule of a plutocracy.

Guess you missed this:

Perhaps you have some examples of wealthy folk threatening property rights without resorting to the violence of state.

Note the bolding.

Originally posted by @wajoma
Guess you missed this:

Perhaps you have some examples of wealthy folk threatening property rights [b]without resorting to the violence of state.

Note the bolding.[/b]

Guess you missed this:

"If you investigate the origins of land ownership you will be surprised how often it originates in taking land from other people, how much is transferred through inheritance, and how little of its value is in any remote way attributable to the efforts of the owner. The privatisation of land once in common ownership, as in Britain's land clearances or the USA's genocide of native Americans..."

As you see, your reference to emminent domain was not in any way a refutation of mine to the historical origins of land ownership. Land clearances in the UK were quite a long time ago you know. The Indian wars continued to about 1890.

That is why my subsequent post observed that yours was 'absurdist' (it was an illogical mishmash of random remarks) and I used the Trump story to show how the issues actually get mixed up with each other. I wrote: "This example nicely illustrates the confusion in your absurdist post. "

The wealthy have always been able to use the resources of the state for their own ends. Still do. That abuse is what democracy fights back against.

Originally posted by @finnegan
Guess you missed this:

"If you investigate [b]the origins of land ownership you will be surprised how often it originates in taking land from other people, how much is transferred through inheritance, and how little of its value is in any remote way attributable to the efforts of the owner. The privatisation of land once in common ownership, as in ...[text shortened]... es of the state for their own ends. Still do. That abuse is what democracy fights back against.[/b]

You're off on another subject, otherwise known as diversion. Not all land was taken by wealthy folk, not all land was taken full stop, some land has been taken and retaken, unless you have some specific record of who owns what where it means nothing. It's part of history. Got some specifics, names places, surveys by all means go for it.

Don't try and justify eminent domain because some land was taken somewhere by someone. There is no eminent domain with out the force of state. Rich folk make use of the force of state, so do poor folk. But it is the force of state that is the issue not the wealth non-wealth of those who engage it's force under the cop out,"Hey, it's legal".

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The correct answer is indeed Norway.

Now, why would it be "envy" to enact sound policies that make the vast majority of people better off?

Hint: look up what "diminishing marginal utility" means.

Here is what wiki says about it.

Lerner applied the concept of utility and its associated "law of marginal utility" to the distribution of income in society. The law of diminishing marginal utility implies that poorer people will gain more utility from money for additional spending than the wealthy. For instance, if a homeless family is given a gift certificate for a house, they will be able to use it to provide shelter for themselves. If a very rich person is given such a gift, he may spend it on a vacation residence which he will only use a few weeks of the year.

As such, aggregated utility would be maximized by taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor, and the state of optimized utility would be perfect economic equality. As Lerner puts it, "If it is desired to maximize the total satisfaction of a society, the rational procedure is to divide income on an equalitarian basis" (Lerner, 32). In other words, if we are given a fixed amount of wealth and a group of people to distribute it to, we can maximize total happiness by dividing the wealth equally between the members of that group.

However, in real situations the total amount of wealth is not fixed, and it has been argued that too much redistribution of income can reduce this total amount by lowering incentives for economic growth and development. Knowing this, Lerner qualified his earlier statement: "The principle of equality would have to compromise with the principle of providing such incentives as would increase the total of income available to be divided” (Lerner, 36). In this view, a balance must be reached between equality and incentives.

This makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes that person X, who is poor, needs a certain amount of money to spend in order to be "happy". It also assumes that person Y, who is rich, will still be happy if their income is redistributed in order to make person X happy.

Does money buy happiness? I beg to differ. Some rich folk I know seem pretty miserable.

I would assume then that you view envy as a necessary virtue.

Originally posted by @finnegan
Guess you missed this:

"If you investigate [b]the origins of land ownership you will be surprised how often it originates in taking land from other people, how much is transferred through inheritance, and how little of its value is in any remote way attributable to the efforts of the owner. The privatisation of land once in common ownership, as in ...[text shortened]... es of the state for their own ends. Still do. That abuse is what democracy fights back against.[/b]

Right, the state once promoted private land ownership in order to take it from the Indians via it's citizens and once it was secured began to want to take it back from their citizens now that they are no longer needed to secure it.

Makes perfect sense.

Originally posted by @whodey
This makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes that person X, who is poor, needs a certain amount of money to spend in order to be "happy". It also assumes that person Y, who is rich, will still be happy if their income is redistributed in order to make person X happy.

Does money buy happiness? I beg to differ. Some rich folk I know seem pretty miserable.

I would assume then that you view envy as a necessary virtue.

Happiness (utility) is not a binary quantity. You can be "happy" but less happy than someone else who is also "happy."

The notion that marginal utility diminishes as a function of income is supported by an overwhelmingly vast body of empirical evidence as well as the tiniest modicum of common sense. The only discussion worth having, when attempting to maximize utility (as governments should, in my opinion), is how progressive taxes ought to be, not whether they should be progressive. As your copypaste mentions, this boils down to balancing incentives to earn more money with increasing utility through equalizing incomes.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Happiness (utility) is not a binary quantity. You can be "happy" but less happy than someone else who is also "happy."

The notion that marginal utility diminishes as a function of income is supported by an overwhelmingly vast body of empirical evidence as well as the tiniest modicum of common sense. The only discussion worth having, when attempting ...[text shortened]... n to balancing incentives to earn more money with increasing utility through equalizing incomes.

The US was based on the premise that its citizens would be free to pursue happiness and not have the government redistribute happiness via money

In fact, I find that entitlements make people more bitter. They think money given to them by the government is owed to them and it never is enough.

Originally posted by @whodey
The US was based on the premise that its citizens would be free to pursue happiness and not have the government redistribute happiness via money

In fact, I find that entitlements make people more bitter. They think money given to them by the government is owed to them and it never is enough.

What you "find" doesn't trump reality. People who live in e.g. Denmark are somewhat happier than Americans.

If policy X leads to happier people in society and a more prosperous society in general than policy Y, why opt for policy Y?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
What you "find" doesn't trump reality. People who live in e.g. Denmark are somewhat happier than Americans.

If policy X leads to happier people in society and a more prosperous society in general than policy Y, why opt for policy Y?

Those who feel free are the happiest, whether such freedom is an illusion or reality.

America has had their freedoms eroded over the years. That would be my guess, but it is just that, a guess. Assuming they are happier, you have no inkling as to why. Instead, you just assume to push whatever it is that you are selling

So do you reckon Americans are happier than those in Venezuela?

Originally posted by @whodey
Those who feel free are the happiest, whether such freedom is an illusion or reality.

America has had their freedoms eroded over the years. That would be my guess, but it is just that, a guess. Assuming they are happier, you have no inkling as to why. Instead, you just assume to push whatever it is that you are selling

So do you reckon Americans are happier than those in Venezuela?

Venezuela has low taxation, poor government services, and large income differences. The average American is certainly better off than the average Venezuelan.

A typical Dane has more freedom than a typical American when it comes to making life choices such as choosing a career.

What am I "assuming," specifically?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Venezuela has low taxation, poor government services, and large income differences. The average American is certainly better off than the average Venezuelan.

A typical Dane has more freedom than a typical American when it comes to making life choices such as choosing a career.

What am I "assuming," specifically?

What caused the government to bottom out like that?

They seemed to be fine until Chavez took over.

Originally posted by @whodey
What caused the government to bottom out like that?

They seemed to be fine until Chavez took over.

I suggest you read a bit about Venezuelan recent history - Venezuela also had low taxation, poor government services and large income differences before Chávez took over so they certainly were not doing "fine." The Chávez regime used some of the oil revenues to fund anti-poverty programmes with moderate success, but they never attempted to emulate the successful Nordic model combining a mixed economy, representative multi-party democracy and a strong welfare state.