http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/09/takers-makers-and-givers Comments On: Takers, Makers, and Givers by Enigma en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 18 May 2013 16:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Where's the work ethic?]]> Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:40:32 -0800 The Stranger
Individuals acting outside evolved private law would be acting in an immoral way. Groups acting outside these same boundaries would also be acting in an immoral way. Applied private law, properly understood, incorporates the ethical boundaries which bind all of us.

Regarding property, you've imagined an obligation from property law which forces the non-property owners to work for the property owners. I reject your premise. Denying property as a right is to deny all of our evolved ethical foundations. Shall anyone help themselves to your personal property as well?

Taxation is simply adding an exception to the rule/ethic which says that taking from your neighbor is okay if done under the guise of a Democratic Republic. This is merely an attempt to bifurcate ethics into "individual" and "group" ethics - and smuggle in situational ethics. You can't build a polity around inconsistent ethics because anyone can justify any number of ethical transgressions on situational grounds. It underlies the justification for our government torturing terrorists, wiretapping, and war. All of these are justified by either group expedience or a consequentialist philosophy which must subordinate our individual ethics. We stagger about as a society, applying different and changing "rules" in a confused moral haze, and then we wonder why it often results in outcomes that we cringe at.

Posted by I_am_a_lead_pencil]]> Wed, 14 Nov 2012 06:35:41 -0800 The Stranger There are no circumstances where it is moral for a group to do that which is immoral for a member of that group to do alone.

Well, let's see, you've just explained that any form of majority rule is unacceptable (because consensus means nothing.) The criminal justice system is also right out (because if a single person acting alone as a vigilante judge, jury and executioner is immoral, then a system where those roles are distributed among many must also be immoral.)

Finally, turn around your sentiment to address the concept of "property" and you'll see it works the same way: If it's immoral for an individual to hold another person in bondage and claim all the fruits of their labor, then it's just as immoral for a class of property holders to amass all the profits while allowing the laborers that makes those profits possible to exist on subsistence wages. A set of laws that codifies inheritance of property, to borrow your construction, is a construct which allows the privileged minority to feel excused from the ethical constraint of forcing others to do their work for them while they reap the benefits.


Posted by Proteus]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:40:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by I_am_a_lead_pencil]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:14:51 -0800 The Stranger
great OP, enigma -- thanks!
Posted by pir]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:03:21 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sissoucat]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 04:03:31 -0800 The Stranger Posted by chi_type]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:21:58 -0800 The Stranger
It may be a symptom of how precarious getting by has come that so many are so willing to divide us up so firmly and irremediably: if you're concerned about your (acceptable) place in the world, being told that you're there because of some set of inalienable virtues inherent in you---as opposed to luck, time, or chance, even partially---must be of great comfort.


Posted by Gerald Fnord]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:55:42 -0800 The Stranger http://labornotes.org/blogs/2012/10/turn…
Posted by Portlander]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:10:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:31:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by kim in portland]]> Sat, 10 Nov 2012 19:41:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by uncreative]]> Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:12:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 23:09:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by SJN]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 19:24:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by I totally read Marx in college]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:54:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ABCV]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:29:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by internet_jen]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 17:34:44 -0800 The Stranger I was reading Joe. My. God. last night, with all those conservatives grousing about the "Takers" winning, which is what inspired the piece. Especially the Ann Coulter post for some reason.

I agree with stirwise @30, I think it's absurd to use this language as well. Unfortunately the Right is really good at branding and I think it's time the Left use that power for good. I also commend you for never needing the assistance many do, but still see the benefit it provides to society.

And I'd also like to thank everyone for pointing out how little those 1% clowns actually "Make" for society. I know there are some great numbers out there looking at how much more benefit the person on Food Stamps brings to society versus an investment banker. But I'm late for class and can't hunt it down.
Posted by Enigma]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 16:58:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Brooklyn Reader]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:50:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DawginExile]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:45:23 -0800 The Stranger
The amount of money that the elite have sucked out of a system that they've rigged in their favor is orders of magnitude more than the cost of a social safety net. Hell, if they hadn't TAKEN it all, we could all probably be basking in the social comfort net.

check out 'Give Back'
http://youtu.be/e-hUl_L-3es
Posted by gregorious]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:39:46 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Ken Mehlman]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:11:31 -0800 The Stranger
My point is, we can find flaws with either model of "giving". I personally believe that they both have value, and I'm proud to be a compulsory taxpayer who can also give to private charity at my own voluntary option. The two aren't mutually exclusive, which you are implying.
Posted by Hernandez]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:54:48 -0800 The Stranger others receiving them. No man is an island, and all that.
Posted by stirwise]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:47:54 -0800 The Stranger Posted by sisyphusgal]]> Fri, 09 Nov 2012 14:46:03 -0800 The Stranger