Firstly it is unjust because it's debatable whether the parents have really earned or deserve that money - if they have ridiculous amounts, I would argue they don't deserve it.
This assumes an awful lot. Your position presumes guilt with no foundation. Unless you can prove that something is stolen from others there's not much you can morally do about someone's wealth. I do not blanket assume those with easier situations than myself are criminals. There is a difference between having something that is unearned and theft. In fact, I would argue that a gift is earned because someone felt the receiving party deserving.
Your reply doesn't seem to match what you're replying to. Undeserved and unearned are not the same as things being stolen by criminals.
Justice and ownership are quite separate concepts.
I beg to differ. Theft is violation of ownership. Violence is violation of ownership of one's body. Almost any crime you can think of that has a victim is a violation of the victims property rights in one form or another. Restoration of that ownership is justice.
Again, you've plucked a strange focus on criminality out of nothing. If an employer pays all green-skinning people $1 an hour and all blue-skinned people $10 an hour for equivalent work, the system is unjust. There is no criminality involved.
They deserve it because it was given to them.
I think the weakness of that argument speaks for itself.
The rich already pay an unequal amount of protection money to the state.
The money the rich pay to the state isn't needed by them, they are not struggling to feed their children or shelter and educate their families. They should pay much, much more when hardworking people are deprived their basic needs.
>> Firstly it is unjust because it's debatable whether the parents have really earned or deserve that money - if they have ridiculous amounts, I would argue they don't deserve it.
> This assumes an awful lot. Your position presumes guilt with no foundation. Unless you can prove that something is stolen from others there's not much you can morally do about someone's wealth. I do not blanket assume those with easier situations than myself are criminals. There is a difference between having something that is unearned and theft. In fact, I would argue that a gift is earned because someone felt the receiving party deserving.
Your reply doesn't seem to match what you're replying to. Undeserved and unearned are not the same as things being stolen by criminals.
>> Justice and ownership are quite separate concepts.
> I beg to differ. Theft is violation of ownership. Violence is violation of ownership of one's body. Almost any crime you can think of that has a victim is a violation of the victims property rights in one form or another. Restoration of that ownership is justice.
Again, you've plucked a strange focus on criminality out of nothing. If an employer pays all green-skinning people $1 an hour and all blue-skinned people $10 an hour for equivalent work, the system is unjust. There is no criminality involved.
> They deserve it because it was given to them.
I think the weakness of that argument speaks for itself.
> The rich already pay an unequal amount of protection money to the state.
The money the rich pay to the state isn't needed by them, they are not struggling to feed their children or shelter and educate their families. They should pay much, much more when hardworking people are deprived their basic needs.
No memes or images. Exceptions may be made in the case of images of an ongoing news story becoming available.
User-edited titles are not allowed. Copy the headline directly and use it as the post title. Corrections in spelling or minor alterations may be acceptable.
News articles written over a month before posting must have the date of the article in the post title.
No paywalls. Use an archived link to post a paywalled article.
Your reply doesn't seem to match what you're replying to. Undeserved and unearned are not the same as things being stolen by criminals.
Again, you've plucked a strange focus on criminality out of nothing. If an employer pays all green-skinning people $1 an hour and all blue-skinned people $10 an hour for equivalent work, the system is unjust. There is no criminality involved.
I think the weakness of that argument speaks for itself.
The money the rich pay to the state isn't needed by them, they are not struggling to feed their children or shelter and educate their families. They should pay much, much more when hardworking people are deprived their basic needs.