Quote from: bitcoin2cash on July 06, 2011, 06:45:58 AM

Quote from: Mittlyle on July 06, 2011, 06:17:57 AM

If ideology states that transfer of wealth is okay, and then you argue that you should also agree kidney transfers by the same logic, you have a straw man if de facto the ideology really doesn't agree that.

The original poster is trying to argue that certain people are being inconsistent so of course the majority disagrees with that.

Some left-wingers definitely are inconsistent. So are some libertarians. Whats the point of arguing against those who by definition are, well, straw-man of the ideology. The point we should look at is if the left-wing ideology is consistent, not whether some random individual is. If the point of this thread is that some left are inconsistent then my point has been that not all are and thus this thread has little significance.

Quote

Quote from: Mittlyle on July 06, 2011, 06:17:57 AM

Reason of poverty and excess wealth in aggregate can be accounted for systemic unfairnesses in the economy. Interest is one mechanism that greatly favors those already wealthy. Reason for kidney failure, on the other hand, is mostly sheer bad luck.

What do you mean by unfairness? Is it fair that some people are smarter than others? Is it fair that some people can make millions of dollars because they are good at tennis? I agree but why is anyone owed anything because of this? Maybe you mean some other kind of unfairness.

If somebody is good at tennis and other isn't, I do not define that really unfair. If the referee would be consistently partial then thats unfair. Same in here: problem isn't that some are naturally more talented than others, or even that they have more wealth. It is that your wealth determines the rules you play by. If poor, you pay interest for being that way, if you are affluent you are paid. In other words you get different amount of wealth relative to your contribution to the economy (~your skill in the game). Economics is just an arbitrary construction so why not fix it with another one so what you really contribute matches better to what you get.

Quote

Quote from: Mittlyle on July 06, 2011, 06:17:57 AM

Transfer of wealth can be done equally among certain group, organ transfers can't. Thus forced kidney 'donation' is against the principle of equality as all equal individuals don't have to donate a kidney, but one would have to go with random donors.

I don't understand what you're saying. Some people have to give more money than others, some none at all. Some people have to give kidneys and others don't. There's nothing exactly equal in either case.

First think of two groups, one with 2 functioning kidneys and second smaller group with no functioning kidneys. To redistribute the 'health' one has to arbitrarily pick the donors and that is not equal because someone in equal position didn't need to give a kidney. Now think of two groups, one wealthy and one poor. To do a transfer of wealth we can share the burden of wealth-loss equally among the wealthy group. Thats equal in that group. When I say 'Transfer of wealth can be done equally among certain group' I mean that in certain income-class the burden is shared equally. Of course your wealth determines how 'responsible' you are under such system. Somebody earning twice what the other is paying more but their position is not equivalent in the first place.