No, because without addressing the root causes of inequality, the redistribution would gradually re-redistribute back towards an unequal state.
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
Implied continuous confiscation and continuous redistribution.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pauliegtweets @G_S_Bhogal
You could also make all production nearly equal (obviously to lowest common denominator) a la Khmer Rouge city-to-fields policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
I wasn't advocating any of those options. I simply pointed out that your claim wrt 'truth' being a necessary requirement for equality is fallacious. It makes for a pithy quote, but is demonstrably untrue.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pauliegtweets
You still haven't shown why it's fallacious. You said all you'd have to do to make an equal society would be to redistribute wealth. I pointed out that this would be a transient solution at best. That's as far as we got.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
No. Take N cups, that for whatever reason accumulate different amounts of water over time. Now continuously pour all of the water out of them into a bucket, then refill them equally from that bucket. The reason, ie 'truth', is not required. This is a trivial concept to grasp.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pauliegtweets
Sorry but that's a terrible comparison. People are not cups, and wealth is not water that stays in a cup forever. Wealth transfer is in the nature of society. If you redistribute wealth and do nothing else, then gradually the wealth will accumulate back to the smartest/luckiest.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @pauliegtweets
Your strategy of continually taking wealth from everyone and then redistributing it sounds like Communism. And if you know anything about history, you'll know that Communist societies invariably ended up the most unequal of all. Your strategy would go the same way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal
You made a claim. I gave you specific historical examples that falsify that claim. When you failed to comprehend those, I gave you an analogy like they do in kindergarten. The moral judgement of particular historical examples is irrelevant to whether your claim is fallacious.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
"I gave you specific historical examples that falsify that claim." Err... what?
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @pauliegtweets
Okay, I now have enough information about you to know that this conversation is a waste of time. Thanks.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.