Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nightraven900 t1_j76euyb wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in There Are No Natural Rights (without Natural Law): Addressing what rights are, how we create rights, and where rights come from by contractualist

There forever and always has been and will be power imbalances. That's how power works, not everyone can or is even suppose to have the same amount of power. And its the nature of power to accumulate.

The US does indeed have a unique culture of people becoming wealthy. It allows for people to keep more of the wealth they earned compared to other countries. Most millionaires in the US aren't born into wealth, they earn it.

Class mobility in socialist countries is a bit over stated as there is already a smaller class disparity in those countries in the first place so of course it would be easier for people to raise class status when the gap isn't as large. In the US you still have class mobility but it happens in a much wider range compared to other countries. IE the potency of the class mobility in the US is much higher. Not to mention the US having more freedoms than those other countries comes with the downside of letting people make the wrong decisions.

Darwin is referring to biology were as we are referring to society. Both have separate rules as to how success is gained. But even by evolutionary standards wealthy people did adapt to some situation they found themselves in and became wealthy as a result of said adaptation. So wealthy that they no longer need to worry about adaptation ever again and in alot of cases neither do their children, thats what success is.

Forced redistribution of resources has never worked out well. I dont think its in peoples best interest to attempt to topple a stable societal structure that has provided all the resources we have in our modern world. Its like saying someone deserves to get something stolen because they were tempting a thief. Its the thief that is the problem, not the person who get stolen from.

1

[deleted] t1_j76k1yx wrote

[deleted]

1

nightraven900 t1_j77ujre wrote

They are related yes but are not the same thing. So their concepts dont exactly transfer over. But still i even said that by evolutionarily standards that wealthy people have adapted and succeeded.

Society isn't a scale, its not mean to be perfectly balanced ESPECIALLY not when there is a focused goal to achieve some kind of forced balance, that often leads to societal catastrophe. Thats what the purpose of capitalism is, the ability for a economy to correct itself with extremely limited intervention.

Wealthy people very often can afford to forget about adaptation after they have lost their mo at. If you see that as a bubble that is about to pop then there shouldn't be any issue then since the bubble popping would be the problem fixing itself.

People have large amounts of wealth currently have a much different position than something like a monarchy did in the past. They dont control the government and there isn't just some singular target or family. Its just a bunch of individuals many of whom people dont even know the names of.

No one is forced to follow capitalism, if they want to they can move to one of the non capitalist countries and try any number of alternative economic systems that they want. Socialism may not be as extreme in its forced redistribution compared to its contemporaries but it is still forced. And in a country that values individual liberty above all else those two are not a good fit. Natural laws are hard set into reality, and even those we be can occasionally bend, man made laws hold even less meaning than them. The goal is less constraints of freedom, not more.

0