what distribution of pay would minimise violence and escalation of war and crime to nuclear winter?

Question

if fortunes were limited to $2 million [which is above the most a person can make, by their own work, and save, after a lifetime's expenses] and the overfortunes were distributed equally among all workers [which would give every family another US$70,000 a year], would violence increase or decrease?

would such a state of things be infinitely more just and less violent? [99% would be better paid, 90% would be 10-1000 times better paid, 100% of people would be much safer from violence [kidnapping, assassination, coup, revolution, guillotine, etc], the chances of nuclear winter would shrink dramatically, there would be no tyrannical or overbearing behaviour of ruling classes, corporations, etc, there would be 10 times as many scientists, businesses, inventors etc, high real income growth, high capital formation [investment], democracy, liberty, equality [because money is power and great inequality of money is great inequality of political power [= undemocracy, fascism, communism]

Answer 1

You have a point about kidnapping and assassination, certainly, but I think the flaw in your argument is that it is wishful thinking to suppose that "there would be no tyrannical or overbearing behaviour of ruling classes". In the Soviet Union, there were no exptremes of high wealth by modern US standards, but few people have equalled Stalin for tyrannical behaviour.

Violence and escalation of war start in people's hearts. The only difference in essence between you hitting me in the local bar and the Zionist government invading Lebanon is that of scale. If people believe in non-violence and teach their children human values such as peace, compassion and truth, THEN we will usher in a higher age of low violence.

Answer 2

The assumption behind your question is flawed. You assume that there exists some magical formula for distributing wealth that would "minimize violence and...war and crime...".

The truth is that violence and war and crime are not always caused by economic yearnings. People murder doctors in abortion clinics, not because the doctors make more money than the murderers, but because the doctors are doing something of which the murderers disapprove. That's just one example, which disproves the validity of your assumption.

Besides, the adjective "ideal" in the phrase "ideal distribution" implies that there has to be a value judgement made. Different people have different values. Some people think that everyone on the planet should have hot and cold running water, as well as air conditioning and a Mercedes Benz, even if they don't do a thing to earn those benefits. Others think that benefits must be earned. Some people think that the majority has a right to limit the amount of wealth that the most-productive members of society can accrue. Other people (rightly) view such ideas as nonsense.

I suggest that you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", if you seriously believe that one person has a right to steal the fruits of someone else's labor. And that's what you'd be doing, if you were to cap each individual's wealth at $2 million.

Answer 3

Much debate and opinion has been put into this subject over the years and popular opinion is that there would initially be a difference but within a short period the existing balance will be restored as it is now. That is to say that others will have got my money and be rich and I will be poor again.