Quote from: Beliathon on August 07, 2014, 10:41:09 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 07, 2014, 08:55:29 PM

What if you have to use force to take property to distribute equally? Isn't that violence?

Given that cryptocurrency exists, that hypothetical is totally pointless. We don't need to use force - not anymore. Wealth is being redistributed as we speak. --> https://bitcoinwisdom.com/

But wait what? That's not true at all there is a lot of wealthy crypto users. And a lot of very poor ones. That looks like inequality to me.

Quote from: Beliathon on August 07, 2014, 10:41:09 PM

But.. here's a question for you to ponder.. when is violence justified? Are there any situations in which it is a "conditional good"? For example, is a slave justified in using violence to free himself from the bonds of slavery?

Yes I get what you are trying to say. And I agree to some extent violence might be a necessary mean.
But let's forget about the food and slaves for a moment.
Is violence a necessary mean to redistribute all property?

I can understand you viewpoint if you have a starving man that needs food. It's essential for his survival. But what about a rich guy that has real nice jewelery (which has sentimental value to him since he inherited it).
Would you use violence to take the jewelery to redistribute?
Where do you draw the line?