Distributive justice
Discussion
With the wealth gap in mind, some people cry out for distributive justice. Is it possible? Yes, it is! The world has one closed ecosystem left that is a model unit for distributive justice: North Korea.
The principle is similar to western Europe: those who want average wealth give an average contribution to society - with the small difference that we have more options. We can self-actualise secondarily through education and primarily through contribution to society. Creation of value is unlimited!
Everywhere, where there's freedom for self-fulfilment, there's no ground for distributive justice.
Shame that North Korea plans to open up for free economy. How can I then show my next socialist how distributive justice works?
The principle is similar to western Europe: those who want average wealth give an average contribution to society - with the small difference that we have more options. We can self-actualise secondarily through education and primarily through contribution to society. Creation of value is unlimited!
Everywhere, where there's freedom for self-fulfilment, there's no ground for distributive justice.
Shame that North Korea plans to open up for free economy. How can I then show my next socialist how distributive justice works?
Bodo said:
With the wealth gap in mind, some people cry out for distributive justice. Is it possible? Yes, it is! The world has one closed ecosystem left that is a model unit for distributive justice: North Korea.
The principle is similar to western Europe: those who want average wealth give an average contribution to society - with the small difference that we have more options. We can self-actualise secondarily through education and primarily through contribution to society. Creation of value is unlimited!
Everywhere, where there's freedom for self-fulfilment, there's no ground for distributive justice.
Shame that North Korea plans to open up for free economy. How can I then show my next socialist how distributive justice works?
I think we should rename North Korea "fairness land"The principle is similar to western Europe: those who want average wealth give an average contribution to society - with the small difference that we have more options. We can self-actualise secondarily through education and primarily through contribution to society. Creation of value is unlimited!
Everywhere, where there's freedom for self-fulfilment, there's no ground for distributive justice.
Shame that North Korea plans to open up for free economy. How can I then show my next socialist how distributive justice works?
Then we can send everyone there who wants fairness
No matter how hard you work you get f
k allSocialism is just the secondary product imo. I don't think that there are many Northkorean people who have some sort of political persuasion. Grappling with different political models is too much into self-actualisation, which means that one could get happier than the other by being more successful in attending their needs. That would be unfair towards the other Eloi 
I was trying to hypothesis where "everywhere" may be located and what self-fulfillment really is or means to humans.
There is always that tried and true discrediting argument for advocates of both capitalist and socialist ideology. In the real-world your ideas don't work, it's the moderates who are the successful pragmatists.
The argument for distributive justice (by which I don't mean strict egalitarianism) is simply that the economic model societies have (governed by laws, policies, social convention and institutions) result in a differing benefits and burdens across it's members. We continue to asses and re-asses the manifold complexities of society but, despite much debate and self-delusion, we've not found a direction that better achieves our aims as a society.
You cannot argue that this model is a contemporary imposition either as sub-arguments have preoccupied the intellectual classes for generations. One of my favorite examples is the General Welfare clause in the U.S. constitution and later defined in the Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturing" where Hamilton argues for a distributive justice to prevail such that manufacturing could flourish while James Maddison argued that the U.S. should continue without such impositions and remain a ruggedly individualist agrarian society.
There is always that tried and true discrediting argument for advocates of both capitalist and socialist ideology. In the real-world your ideas don't work, it's the moderates who are the successful pragmatists.
The argument for distributive justice (by which I don't mean strict egalitarianism) is simply that the economic model societies have (governed by laws, policies, social convention and institutions) result in a differing benefits and burdens across it's members. We continue to asses and re-asses the manifold complexities of society but, despite much debate and self-delusion, we've not found a direction that better achieves our aims as a society.
You cannot argue that this model is a contemporary imposition either as sub-arguments have preoccupied the intellectual classes for generations. One of my favorite examples is the General Welfare clause in the U.S. constitution and later defined in the Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturing" where Hamilton argues for a distributive justice to prevail such that manufacturing could flourish while James Maddison argued that the U.S. should continue without such impositions and remain a ruggedly individualist agrarian society.
mondeoman said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
PH clarification:
Does the term "socialist" now include everyone except the most extreme right-wing nutters?
No, a "socialist" is anyone who thinks that taxing "the rich" a higher percentage than anyone is isn't wrong.Does the term "socialist" now include everyone except the most extreme right-wing nutters?
Ozzie Osmond said:
PH clarification:
Does the term "socialist" now include everyone except the most extreme right-wing nutters?
I believe that is the accepted definition in the USA ,along with the use of 'liberal' as a slur ,so it is unsuprising that for those on PH where 'i'm a company director' means i'm a tradesman on his own account , are using such a definition...Does the term "socialist" now include everyone except the most extreme right-wing nutters?
speedy_thrills said:
I was trying to hypothesis where "everywhere" may be located and what self-fulfillment really is or means to humans.
There is always that tried and true discrediting argument for advocates of both capitalist and socialist ideology. In the real-world your ideas don't work, it's the moderates who are the successful pragmatists.
The argument for distributive justice (by which I don't mean strict egalitarianism) is simply that the economic model societies have (governed by laws, policies, social convention and institutions) result in a differing benefits and burdens across it's members. We continue to asses and re-asses the manifold complexities of society but, despite much debate and self-delusion, we've not found a direction that better achieves our aims as a society.
You cannot argue that this model is a contemporary imposition either as sub-arguments have preoccupied the intellectual classes for generations. One of my favorite examples is the General Welfare clause in the U.S. constitution and later defined in the Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturing" where Hamilton argues for a distributive justice to prevail such that manufacturing could flourish while James Maddison argued that the U.S. should continue without such impositions and remain a ruggedly individualist agrarian society.
To clarify, freedom for self-fulfilment is where one is not limited on what to read, learn or achieve. Ie., in the UK the limits are mostly set to where one limits third parties. For example, you might own and read Hitler's 'Mein Kampf', but you must not discriminate or limit others.There is always that tried and true discrediting argument for advocates of both capitalist and socialist ideology. In the real-world your ideas don't work, it's the moderates who are the successful pragmatists.
The argument for distributive justice (by which I don't mean strict egalitarianism) is simply that the economic model societies have (governed by laws, policies, social convention and institutions) result in a differing benefits and burdens across it's members. We continue to asses and re-asses the manifold complexities of society but, despite much debate and self-delusion, we've not found a direction that better achieves our aims as a society.
You cannot argue that this model is a contemporary imposition either as sub-arguments have preoccupied the intellectual classes for generations. One of my favorite examples is the General Welfare clause in the U.S. constitution and later defined in the Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufacturing" where Hamilton argues for a distributive justice to prevail such that manufacturing could flourish while James Maddison argued that the U.S. should continue without such impositions and remain a ruggedly individualist agrarian society.
A popular theory describes the meaning of self-fulfilment:
Maslow describes it as the top of human's hierachy of needs; ie. the stage you reach when all other needs are already served.
In my opinion, in the western European society, this is often done within a career or private interests. For example, people try to solve other people's problems professionally; even if it means they have to sacrifice their private time; or non-professionally, people learn Japanese, just because they're interested in Japanes culture, or train for better times running, because their desire is expressed athletically. Else, some people might find their self-fulfilment in contributing to society; and being honoured by receiving value back: money with which they're free to do what they want.
Parents spend money for their kids so that they have great experiences; Bill Gates likes to donate for cancer research, footballers like to have a flashy car and a high-maintenance wife.
The high-performers of Northkorea are still working on Marslow's pyramid's bottom. They have to spend effort every day to get enough nuitrition. Equally to Northkorea's low performers. There is not a lot to distribute, because people are not motivated to contribute to society.
Isn't the call for distributive justice just placed by the few people that are motivated to contribute without monetary compensation, and the ones that only contribute below average?
Ozzie Osmond said:
mondeoman said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
PH clarification:
Does the term "socialist" now include everyone except the most extreme right-wing nutters?
No, a "socialist" is anyone who thinks that taxing "the rich" a higher percentage than anyone is isn't wrong.Does the term "socialist" now include everyone except the most extreme right-wing nutters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
mondeoman said:
No, a "socialist" is anyone who thinks that taxing "the rich" a higher percentage than anyone is isn't wrong.
Yeah, all these states are real winners on the world stage. Country or territory
Abkhazia
Albania
Andorra
Anguilla
Belarus
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
East Timor
Estonia
Georgia
Greenland
Grenada
Guernsey
Guyana
Hungary
Jamaica
Jersey
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Madagascar
Mauritius
Mongolia
Montenegro
Nagorno-Karabakh
Romania
Russia
Saint Helena
Saudi Arabia
Serbia
Seychelles
South Ossetia
Transnistria
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Ukraine
Money is like manure, unless you spread it around stuff won't grow.
Happiness, social cohesion and general well being is not something you can gain through hoarding money, money can buy you power and is in essence the direct source of inequality.
If you attribute happiness or success by the amount of money you have you ain't normal.
Happiness, social cohesion and general well being is not something you can gain through hoarding money, money can buy you power and is in essence the direct source of inequality.
If you attribute happiness or success by the amount of money you have you ain't normal.
A flat tax rate will never happen in the UK.
The British can be quite selfless when it comes to race, sex, religion, etc etc.
When it comes to the money in their pocket however the gloves come off.
The vast majority of people who call for a flat rate are in the 40% and above range, they can justify it how they like, the trickle down effect, fairness, whathaveyou - the truth is, they'd like to pay less tax.
The vast majority of people who think it's unfair are in the 20% or below range, they can justify it how they like, the economy, standards of living, fairness, whathaveyou - the truth is they don't want to pay more tax.
The amount of people in the UK in the 40% or above brackets is around 15%
The remaining are not... and we live in a democracy.
The British can be quite selfless when it comes to race, sex, religion, etc etc.
When it comes to the money in their pocket however the gloves come off.
The vast majority of people who call for a flat rate are in the 40% and above range, they can justify it how they like, the trickle down effect, fairness, whathaveyou - the truth is, they'd like to pay less tax.
The vast majority of people who think it's unfair are in the 20% or below range, they can justify it how they like, the economy, standards of living, fairness, whathaveyou - the truth is they don't want to pay more tax.
The amount of people in the UK in the 40% or above brackets is around 15%
The remaining are not... and we live in a democracy.
So out of interest, what would the UK flat tax rate be?
Income tax and NI last year amounted to 550B, but I can't seem to find out what the personal gross income is on average to work out what the flat rate tax would be?
I have a feeling it woud be around 30% in order to match existing revenues. - Which if you're earning a minimum wage of 10-15k a year is quite a chunk... So say first 10K tax-free - what would it be then?
Income tax and NI last year amounted to 550B, but I can't seem to find out what the personal gross income is on average to work out what the flat rate tax would be?
I have a feeling it woud be around 30% in order to match existing revenues. - Which if you're earning a minimum wage of 10-15k a year is quite a chunk... So say first 10K tax-free - what would it be then?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff