[sjducb]

Most hunter gather societies have big differences in productivity between members. I remember reading one example where one man did all of the hunting for a tribe of about 40 people. He really enjoyed both the hunting and the status of being the best hunter. He shared the meat freely. No one was taking it away.

[lumenwrites]

Nothing about the current system (capitalism) prevents people from sharing freely, that's just charity. I think it's wonderful and admirable when people do that, and I fully support that, as long as it's voluntary.

I'd be happy to live in a version of society where there's enough abundance and good will that people just give to charity, and that is enough to support everyone, and nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want.

I only dislike it when people advocate for involuntary redistribution of wealth, because it has a lot of negative side effects people aren't thinking through. Also, because I think that it's evil and results in the sort of society and culture where it would be a nightmare to live in.

[ido]

Isn't "involuntary redistribution of wealth" literally every country on earth though (aside from a few that have such a lack of rule of law that the state can't tax the population)? Do you consider the entire developed world (and most of the rest) a nightmare to live in?

I live in Germany where we have taxes & don't consider it a nightmare.

[lumenwrites]

I think it's a gradient. When I think about the "nightmare to live in", I think Soviet Union or North Korea. Those are the places who went all-in on redistribution.

Most western countries mostly respect individual freedom and property, taxes being an exception to that, somewhat limited and controlled. I see that as a necessary evil - something we can't fully avoid (at least, I can't figure out how we'd do that), but should try to minimize, to avoid sliding down the spectrum towards more and more evil versions of that.

I think most western countries are nice to live in because they do comparatively good job at respecting people's freedom, property, and the right to keep the stuff they earn.

Advocating for more redistribution is taking steps away from that, in the direction people don't realize they don't want to go in.

[andrekandre]

  > Advocating for more redistribution is taking steps away from that, in the direction people don't realize they don't want to go in.

with shared ownership (e.g a cooperative business) there isn't a forced redistribution in the first place, i think thats the point of the original poster?

[immibis]

Do you consider redistributing everything from the people to the dictator indistinguishable from the reverse?

[dragonwriter]

> Isn't "involuntary redistribution of wealth" literally every country on earth though (aside from a few that have such a lack of rule of law that the state can't tax the population)?

Places with governments that weak also tend to prominently feature involuntary redistribution of wealth. It tends to be more self-service at the hands of the end-recipients and without the kind of ethical theory behind it that is at least the notional framework fo redistribution by functional governments, but it still very much occurs.

[sjducb]

It’s not as involuntary as I made it sound. I think if he decided not to share the meat then he would have problems with the rest of the tribe.

[ido]

you also can't eat more than so much meat anyway and it spoils at some point (especially in a society without electricity/refrigeration).