stardust91977 - 17 November 2011 12:51 PM

If “we the people” are serious about establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, then I do tend to think that there should be limits on personal wealth until those goals are achieved. That said, I would have no idea how to go about doing something like that, and, rationally, do not believe that it’s a viable solution, merely the ethical one.

^^Great post IMO!^^
  Nowadays, it seems un- American to set limits on almost anything at all. Greed. religion, intellectual property, stupidity, political power, nothing seems off limits. We all wish for success and take pride in most forms of it. Be it in ourselves or others. Lets not limit it but at the same time, lets not fail to tax it appropriately. Call it socialism or whatever you like but compulsory philanthropy, seems the way to go. Its, We the People. Not, Us rich bastards that get to make all the rules and suck the rest of you dry until only one of us has ALL the cash.

Well, should there be limits on wealth? Well that entirely depends what you are out to do, if you want to be a moral person, as according to the “wellbeing thesis @ sam harris”, every sensible person should immediately study what wealth is, in its current incarnation, and how the capitalistic accumulation relates to societal/individual well being.
For my money, Id venture a guess that having an elite few, enjoying the fruits of the millions of workers, isnt the best way to maximize wellbeing, naturally some responses in this thread, surely suggests that its possible still, but again, that just reflects the creativity and open-mindedness (the obvious lack there of) that you would expect to find, specially when it comes to americans and money-economics (the truly shallow analytic capabilities that is, when capitalistic production is concerned).

Cole! - 16 November 2011 10:02 PM

Should there be limits on personal wealth? I question if it is wise to allow private individuals in our society to amass huge quantities of wealth. I believe that this puts too much power in the hands of people who do not deserve it.

Well they earned that money. If someone has huge sums of money they most likely own a business where they gave the consumer what they wanted.  So if they have the money they actually do deserve it. If you put a cap on personal wealth then the business would stop because the owner would say what is the point of working if I cannot make more money, thus the business would go away and people that the business employed would become unemployed. And your question actually pertains to distributing wealth which is a socialist trait which automatically makes the answer a no.

DanielMoore1991 - 28 December 2011 06:46 PM

  And your question actually pertains to distributing wealth which is a socialist trait which automatically makes the answer a no.

So as long as the few richest people decide how to distribute the wealth created by those whose labors they own, that’s fine with you. But if a representative body of all the people puts certain limits on the distribution (re: personal accumulation) of the wealth created by all working people, then that’s a socialist trait?

So as long as those who control the wealth decide where it goes, then it’s fine? What’s so evil about “the people in common” controlling the wealth?

So as long as those who control the wealth decide where it goes, then it’s fine? What’s so evil about “the people in common” controlling the wealth?

If they earn it, no problem.  Otherwise, it’s called theft by force.  If “people in common,” whatever that means, translates to some majority of those who have less, confiscating by force of numbers not merit, that wealth earned or created by a minority more wealthy, then it’ll amount to a dictatorship of the “masses,” an assured road to social and economic deterioration.  That’s like claiming the middle and bottom parts of a class based on merit, claim the grades of the upper part.  Well, poor metaphor, but maybe grossly true.