[mjfl]

But that's not the important part. The violence is the important part. Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity.

Also, I think it is extremely problematic to compare any system with large disparities of outcome with an essentially violent system like feudalism (or just defining "inequality = violence", which people do) because what you are doing is basically justifying violence against that system. Violence against capitalism has happened historically, multiple times, and has led to huge injustices, the slaughter of innocent people, and the ruin of every society that has tried it (unless they ease off like China). That alone is a great counterexample to the idea of capitalism = feudalism = violence.

[8note]

each system is as violent as the people running it. An ideal king is just the land owner collecting rents from the people on their land, and lending rights to people they think can make more wealth from it.

Capitalism is perfectly happy with slavery; it didn't end because it wasn't profitable.

There's still some rather violent things in today's capitalism like "give me all your money or die from cancer" which when the capitalists gave you cancer, isn't much different than the violent king forcing you to farm. You give them what they want or you die.

[WalterBright]

> it didn't end because it wasn't profitable.

Actually, it ended because it could not compete with free labor. It was dying around 1800 because of that, and then the cotton gin revived it. It was dying again in the 1850s, and a big driver of the Civil War was the slave states trying to protect their economy from free labor competition.

I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what works best economically.

[baursak]

Slavery still very much exists in places like Middle East, South Asia, and US prisons, so your argument is moot.

[WalterBright]

Ask yourself why the USSR was unable to compete with the US economically, and could not even feed itself (Kansas in the 1970s was known as "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union". Why the Chinese could not compete with the US until they switched to free labor. Why N. Korea is starving and regular shipments of food from the west keeps things from getting much worse. The Middle East is not known for exporting factory goods.

The examples go on and on.

Where forced labor still exists there is something else propping it up or subsidizing it - like I mentioned with prison labor.

[baursak]

Claiming that labor in the USSR was slave labor is disingenuous and quite a stretch. By the same standard, I can claim that Western wage labor was also slave labor.

I'm also dubious of your Kansas claims (Google search comes up with nothing). Again, by the same standard, I can claim that the US "cannot even clothe itself" today. I'm sure reality is a lot more nuanced than that.

I can expand further on history of the USSR and long-term effects of WW2 on that country's population, which had massive waves of effect well into 1990s, but I'll stop here.

[pikzen]

In case anyone is wondering what libertarian revisionism looks like, look above.

[WalterBright]

The Confederacy couldn't even produce shoes for their soldiers. That's why Lee had gone north to Gettysburg - there was a shoe factory nearby.

[metaphorm]

> I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what works best economically.

citation needed

[memmcgee]

Slavery ended in the US because we fought a war. And some forms of slavery do exist today. See prison labor for example.

[WalterBright]

The war didn't just happen. It didn't start out as a war to end slavery, either (that happened later, with the Emancipation Proclamation).

As for prison labor, most of the cost of that is borne by the taxpayer, not the company using their labor. Keeping people prisoners in the US is very expensive.

[memmcgee]

Nothing you just said supports that slavery ended because of the "free market".

1) The Civil War was absolutely about slavery. Here's a professor at West Point talking about: https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4 (and PragerU is a very conservative source too).

2) The Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. It ended it in states that were still rebelling. It took amendments to the Constitution to end slavery once and for all.

3) I agree that keeping prisoners is very expensive in the US and that most of that cost falls on the taxpayer. But it is very much still (essentially) slavery that the "free market" uses.

[majormajor]

> Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity.

What if they just inherited it?

How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inheritance, or just being the first to colonise (or often just plain steal) some land, or some other less savory source?

[iamnotlarry]

We're not talking about all rich people. We're talking about Jeff Bezos. How did Jeff become the second wealthiest human on the planet?

Well, his mother's family had some wealth. But his mother was a single teenage mom until she married his step-father. His step-father immigrated alone from Cuba at the age of 15. Later, he worked his way through a degree at the University of Albuquerque.

So, I'm not sure how much of a silver spoon he had.

[mjfl]

In an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

[baursak]

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

Like Queen of England's inheritance, for example?

Or anybody inheriting land on American soil?

Totally no violence involved in initially obtaining those assets?

[branchless]

Love this cartoon:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png

[mjfl]

Crimes aren't inherited.

[baursak]

So if I kill you and take your house, and somehow escape justice before dying myself and passing said house to my son, your son forfeits any claim to the house? Correct?

[mjfl]

I think the general consensus is that if you can identify a specific property that has been stolen from you in an estate, you can reclaim it (from the estate). But claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly, or general claims from one group to another, like a common English person against the Queen, a colored person against a random white man, or a Palestinian against an Israelite, those are not valid.

[doug1001]

no. (with a lot of statutory exceptions, i'm quite sure) i believe the applicable common law rule is this:

if there's a (prior) theft in the chain of title, then you do not have good title.

hence the market for title insurance and the market for title searches.

[mhermher]

You don't even have to die in this scenario. Just give the loot to a friend. He inherits the loot but not the crime. Maybe he'll return the favor, or just immediately give it back to you.

[metaphorm]

that's a legal convention that we agree with in America today, kinda, mostly. it has not always been the prevailing legal convention in society.

[owyn]

Inequality sure is.

[dragonwriter]

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

I see a problem with the dead ruling over the living. Your will ends when you do with no extension.

That's not to say there might not be legitimate reasons to allow some inheritance, but extending the will of the dead, economically productive in life or not, is not among them.

[mjfl]

Isn't that why wills are written while people are still alive, and executed as they die? Isn't that why it's called the last will? Not "extending the will of the dead" isn't any kind of legal principle anyways. It's absurd. We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died, come on.

[dragonwriter]

> We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died

Sure, for one reason for convenience. But Jefferson, it must be noted, wanted something similar for every law and Constitution (time based, because the alternative is impractical), specifically because the law should represent the will of the people living under it, not the dead hand of the past generation.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.h...

[iamnotlarry]

Good luck with that.

The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and start a successful business. She might just have a successful business because of all her parents' social connections.

Then dad dies. How do you propose to nullify all the advantages she still enjoys because of her father's wealth?

Can you take away the child's business that was started with a few million dollars from dad? No? But you can take away the million dollars still sitting in the bank?

How about the farm? the house? the boat? Can those not be inherited?

If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

EDIT: better English

[dragonwriter]

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death.

I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly in GP.

OTOH, I'm also not a big fan of capitalism as a system, am glad that it has generally been displaced by the modern mixed economy since being described by its critics, and think that the influence it has on the general shape of modern economies needs to be further curtailed, so I'm not particularly worried that limiting inheritance might further undermine the influence of capitalism; that's a benefit, not a cost.

[terryf]

So where's the line?

I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature.

What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life.

You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.

[averagewall]

People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

[metaphorm]

you're arguing against a strawman, the post you're replying to was discussing the posthumous will specifically.

[visarga]

> In an ideal society,

There has never existed an "ideal society". Power always corrupts.

[milesrout]

Capitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.

[lukifer]

Capitalism is absolutely violent, and just as concerned with with-holding value as providing it (the primary means of price negotiation is the threat of walking away). Look at how much food a grocery store throws away, or how many houses are unoccupied, all in the interests of accounting and bargaining leverage.

However: I take umbrage with "natural right" (the only right nature guarantees is entropy and death), and "fair share" (as decided by whom?). I think a wealthy, free, and just society would include infrastructure investment and The Commons in addition to free enterprise and private property; but good luck getting every single person to agree on the same definition of "fair".

[WalterBright]

Grocery stores throw a lot of food away due to regulation and liability issues, not for bargaining leverage.

[milesrout]

Crap. They throw away food because it's cheaper to throw it away than to give it to those that need it. It has nothing to do with 'liability' or 'regulation', given they still do the same in NZ, which has neither the concept of personal injury liability nor onerous food regulations.

[type0]

Correct, even just paying for delivery to homeless shelters is the money no store owner wants to pay and even if you get volunteers they still have to pay for gas.

Edit: forget gas even paying the employees to sort the food that is still edible costs too much.

[logicchains]

People have a natural right to the results of others' toils solely by virtue of having been born?

[milesrout]

People have a natural right to a fair share of society's toils solely be virtue of being human beings, yes, absolutely.

What you have is not the result of your toils.

[metaphorm]

> What you have is not the result of your toils.

be careful with your phrasing. better to say "What you have is not solely the result of your toils."

[vixen99]

We could remedy that by taking privileged children away from their toiling parents who provide them with advantages not available to other kids.

[Nadya]

Ah, the "Don't read to your children" approach [0]. Don't worry, I know you weren't being serious. Sadly some people are.

[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-yo...

[rorykoehler]

That's kind of why the West is rich ... well it wasn't so natural but hundreds of years of on-going colonialism made it so.

[krzat]

Humanity is inherently violent.

[metaphorm]

Jeff Bezos himself has not performed the productive economic activity that has generated his wealth. He has performed some labor for a corporation, similar to millions of other Americans, except that because of the ownership privileges granted to him by our capitalist system his share of the wealth produced by the corporation he works for is vastly out of proportion with the wealth share almost everyone else in the entire world receives.

the wealth is Amazon's. Bezos owns quite a lot of Amazon. the system permits this level if inequality. that doesn't mean it is deserved or desirable.

[mhermher]

You don't think land lords provided positive economic activity under feudalism? That's absurd, but not as absurd as the implications that capitalist states don't have blood on their hands.