iyo, what %age of ppl are able to grasp the following logic? and what %age do you think will concede...????

Question

the premises & conclusion?

1. everyone will readily agree that everyone will readily agree that, if a govt committed the enormous injustice of taking 90% of income and wealth permanently off a randomly chosen 90% of ppl, and giving it to a randomly chosen 1%, violence would increase 100x and happiness [peace, safety, law, order, etc] decrease 100x

2. therefore everyone will readily agree that everyone will readily agree that, if a govt was doing that, and stopped doing that, reversed that policy, violence would decrease something like 100x and happiness increase 100x

3. we have worse injustice than this [1% get 90% of world income, 90% get 10th-1000th of world average hourly pay, etc]

so

4. we can be 100x happier, have 100th violence, by the limitation of fortunes to the just maximum earnable by a person by their work, and giving the overfortunes back among the earners/true owners [which will give every family in the world another US$70,000 income per year]

Answer 1

1. Your numbers and logic are arbitrary. No one with any education in logic will agree with your supposition.

2. If you take money from 90% of the population and give it 1% of the population what happens to the other 9%? You DO know, don't you, that 90% +1% = 91%?

3. You cannot measure a value concept such as 'happiness' as a percent.

Answer 2

Your framework only values work. What about the role of capital. If some people choose not to consume all of their income, but to invest it with the hope of getting a return and thereby become wealthy, shouldn't they be allowed to?

The percentage of me that accepts your proposition 2 is 0%. ie if the government starts taking all of the past savings from people who have saved and gives it to other people, then happiness won't necessarily increase.

Since stage 2 of your logic is flawed, 3 and 4 don't follow, even if I was to accept proposition 1.

Answer 3

Your thinking reminds me of Zimbabwe, were the goverment
seized the large farms owned by whites since colonial times
and turned them over to blacks.

When did the economy start to deteriorate?
Experts say that in the last 10 years, Mugabe has transformed Zimbabwe from a prosperous agricultural producer to a country wracked by corruption, political conflict, and economic upheaval. Half of Zimbabwe's 12.5 million people currently depend on food aid to survive. Mugabe's controversial program of forced land redistribution--commercial farms were seized from white farmers, the country's major landowners from colonial times, and turned over to blacks--sent the economy into a tailspin.

Why did land redistribution damage the economy?
Much of the land went to Mugabe cronies, government officials, or people with no farming experience. Food production crashed. Extensive corruption and the arbitrary nature of the land redistribution, combined with other expressions of Mugabe's increasingly repressive rule, scared off foreign investors.

Answer 4

About 1%. About 1% will concede anything.

Answer 5

I readily agree that we readily agree that you readily agree to doing things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever...