[lazide]

Wouldn't any detriment be related to the land/property itself, and hence that should be addressed?

For instance, if the owner is doing something obnoxious on a parcel in town, the town can put a lien on it, or condemn it. Then the problem is fixed and that parcel is taken away.

If someone is monopolizing hotels (say) in an area, the local county or state can pass a tax on hotels that make it less desirable to do that. Or start taking on anti monopoly action in the hotel industry in the area.

If that same person owns a parcel in another state, how do those two things relate? Or say one hotel in another state?

Unless someone also wants to go after that other parcel or property, anyway, as a prize.

[Eisenstein]

I don't follow you. Wealth is ownership of resources. You are saying 'if the resources are a problem, take them away' which is saying 'remove the wealth'.

[lazide]

I'm saying if a specific resource is a problem due to how it is being used (per a general rule or principle that would be applied generally), then take it away after due process based on that rule or principle. Who owns it shouldn't matter, frankly. If it does, that is corruption - regardless if that person is rich or poor.

Not just because some specific person happens to own it that we don't like for whatever reason right now.

Also known as Article 1, Section 9, or a 'Bill of attainder'.

Aka penalize actual bad behavior equally, not people just because we think they have too much wealth.

That way, if people don't actually create problems, they can have wealth. If they do create problems, wealthy or not, they won't have tools to cause problems.

[Eisenstein]

So the answer to this question: "Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?"

Is 'no'? Couldn't you have just answered with that?

[lazide]

Because that is not the question I was answering at all. And I don’t appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth.

You keep attempting to frame some sort of argument that the ‘sin’ is wealth or not, and the discussion is about if it is okay to take wealth or not.

I’m only interested in if someone is doing something identifiably harmful to others or not, and how to ensure someone is following the rules or not. And if the outcome works.

These are not the same thing, though there is overlap.

That you seem to think they are the same thing - with no evidence, and without addressing it - seems to actually be the crux of the problem, no?

If someone is ‘bad’ because they have wealth, the only available ‘good’ solution is to not have wealth. That is crabs in a bucket, and destructive.

If someone is ‘bad’ because they are breaking a rule or harming someone, the ‘good’ solution is for them to follow the rule or to stop harming someone.

That can actually make things better, assuming those rules or lack of harm actually works or produces wealth, because people can do that and be wealthy. There is incentive to produce and be more.

The big challenge right now is if you actually follow the rules, apparently you get screwed. Following the rules doesn't produce much wealth. Or at least that is the direction things are going.

And if you have wealth, especially if you follow the rules, you’ll be hounded and be at a significant disadvantage. Unless you don’t play by the rules.

Notably, this has always been the case to some degree.

The issue is the corruption, and the rules that are penalizing things either based on attributes someone cannot change, or encouraging things that destroy wealth, instead of encouraging people to change to be more successful by doing what society needs.

Now, perhaps the issue is that no one knows what 'the right thing' is, or what society actually needs in a sustainable way. In which case, actually talking about that might be helpful!

Or no one is willing or able to agree on some reasonable degree of potential harm. Everything has to be perfect (which is impossible).

We can only get to those discussions if we first face the actual argument we're even having though.

[Eisenstein]

> And I don’t appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth.

By having an answer which means one thing but you contend means another then you are having me guess at what the answer is. Answer the question or refuse to answer the question, or ask for a refinement of the question. Don't write an answer and then go off about how it doesn't mean what it obviously appears to mean.

> That you seem to think they are the same thing - with no evidence, and without addressing it - seems to actually be the crux of the problem, no?

Hmmm...who is putting words into which person's mouth?

You are writing a load of lecture material which is what you want to say but is not applicable to the question I asked:

'Do you believe that wealth is an inherent right even if the accumulation of that wealth or the holding of that wealth is a detriment to society?'

[lazide]

'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question]

I've been quite clear on my position (direct and implied). Why won't you be?

I'm interested in desired outcomes and expected behaviors and tradeoffs, not idealism. Sophistry is the enemy of realism and truth. A type of 'crabs in the bucket' mentality, actually, as it's about 'winning the debate' instead of 'coming to the truth'.

For example, your question is presupposing that there is ANY course of action that won't produce an outcome with some 'detriment to society', or at least some part of it. Or that a course of action could not have both positives AND negatives for the same people in society. Or that a right is ever actually inherent/inalienable, or not. Or that folks in a society may have the right to determine (independently) what they consider to be to their detriment or not.

Among other things.

What desired outcome are YOU advocating for?

Will you actually address the real questions?