each system is as violent as the people running it. An ideal king is just the land owner collecting rents from the people on their land, and lending rights to people they think can make more wealth from it.

Capitalism is perfectly happy with slavery; it didn't end because it wasn't profitable.

There's still some rather violent things in today's capitalism like "give me all your money or die from cancer" which when the capitalists gave you cancer, isn't much different than the violent king forcing you to farm. You give them what they want or you die.

> it didn't end because it wasn't profitable.

Actually, it ended because it could not compete with free labor. It was dying around 1800 because of that, and then the cotton gin revived it. It was dying again in the 1850s, and a big driver of the Civil War was the slave states trying to protect their economy from free labor competition.

I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what works best economically.

Slavery still very much exists in places like Middle East, South Asia, and US prisons, so your argument is moot.

Ask yourself why the USSR was unable to compete with the US economically, and could not even feed itself (Kansas in the 1970s was known as "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union". Why the Chinese could not compete with the US until they switched to free labor. Why N. Korea is starving and regular shipments of food from the west keeps things from getting much worse. The Middle East is not known for exporting factory goods.

The examples go on and on.

Where forced labor still exists there is something else propping it up or subsidizing it - like I mentioned with prison labor.

Claiming that labor in the USSR was slave labor is disingenuous and quite a stretch. By the same standard, I can claim that Western wage labor was also slave labor.

I'm also dubious of your Kansas claims (Google search comes up with nothing). Again, by the same standard, I can claim that the US "cannot even clothe itself" today. I'm sure reality is a lot more nuanced than that.

I can expand further on history of the USSR and long-term effects of WW2 on that country's population, which had massive waves of effect well into 1990s, but I'll stop here.

In case anyone is wondering what libertarian revisionism looks like, look above.

The Confederacy couldn't even produce shoes for their soldiers. That's why Lee had gone north to Gettysburg - there was a shoe factory nearby.

> I don't think it's a coincidence that social justice has tended to follow what works best economically.

citation needed

Slavery ended in the US because we fought a war. And some forms of slavery do exist today. See prison labor for example.

The war didn't just happen. It didn't start out as a war to end slavery, either (that happened later, with the Emancipation Proclamation).

As for prison labor, most of the cost of that is borne by the taxpayer, not the company using their labor. Keeping people prisoners in the US is very expensive.

Nothing you just said supports that slavery ended because of the "free market".

1) The Civil War was absolutely about slavery. Here's a professor at West Point talking about: https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4 (and PragerU is a very conservative source too).

2) The Emancipation Proclamation didn't end slavery. It ended it in states that were still rebelling. It took amendments to the Constitution to end slavery once and for all.

3) I agree that keeping prisoners is very expensive in the US and that most of that cost falls on the taxpayer. But it is very much still (essentially) slavery that the "free market" uses.

> Feudalism wasn't unjust because the kings had a lot of money, it was unjust because they got a lot of money through force and not through productive economic activity.

What if they just inherited it?

How confident are we that everyone who has a lot of monetary power today got to that place originally through productive economic activity vs. illegitimate/criminal activity, or unproductive economic activity, or inheritance, or just being the first to colonise (or often just plain steal) some land, or some other less savory source?

We're not talking about all rich people. We're talking about Jeff Bezos. How did Jeff become the second wealthiest human on the planet?

Well, his mother's family had some wealth. But his mother was a single teenage mom until she married his step-father. His step-father immigrated alone from Cuba at the age of 15. Later, he worked his way through a degree at the University of Albuquerque.

So, I'm not sure how much of a silver spoon he had.

In an ideal society, we identify theft/criminal activity and get the money back. That's part of what we have government for right? Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

Like Queen of England's inheritance, for example?

Or anybody inheriting land on American soil?

Totally no violence involved in initially obtaining those assets?

Love this cartoon:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/COQgS0MUcAA7-RK.png

Crimes aren't inherited.

So if I kill you and take your house, and somehow escape justice before dying myself and passing said house to my son, your son forfeits any claim to the house? Correct?

I think the general consensus is that if you can identify a specific property that has been stolen from you in an estate, you can reclaim it (from the estate). But claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly, or general claims from one group to another, like a common English person against the Queen, a colored person against a random white man, or a Palestinian against an Israelite, those are not valid.

General consensus of people who've benefitted from said stealing*

In each of the cases you listed, the person who would've had claims against them has power over the plaintiff

So if I unknowingly buy a stolen bike off Craigslist, I get to keep it? If the owner later identifies it with proof and requests me to return it, do I get to say "sorry, no" to him?

> claims against someone who purchased the stolen goods unknowingly ... are not valid

I am not sure about that. A stolen good cannot be legally buyed from the thiefs.

No, you won't kill it so casually. It is: "legally bought from the thieves".

no. (with a lot of statutory exceptions, i'm quite sure) i believe the applicable common law rule is this:

if there's a (prior) theft in the chain of title, then you do not have good title.

hence the market for title insurance and the market for title searches.

You don't even have to die in this scenario. Just give the loot to a friend. He inherits the loot but not the crime. Maybe he'll return the favor, or just immediately give it back to you.

that's a legal convention that we agree with in America today, kinda, mostly. it has not always been the prevailing legal convention in society.

Inequality sure is.

> Also inheritance is ultimately the extension of the will of someone who was economically productive, so I see no problem there.

I see a problem with the dead ruling over the living. Your will ends when you do with no extension.

That's not to say there might not be legitimate reasons to allow some inheritance, but extending the will of the dead, economically productive in life or not, is not among them.

Isn't that why wills are written while people are still alive, and executed as they die? Isn't that why it's called the last will? Not "extending the will of the dead" isn't any kind of legal principle anyways. It's absurd. We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died, come on.

> We don't rewrite every law after the people that wrote it died

Sure, for one reason for convenience. But Jefferson, it must be noted, wanted something similar for every law and Constitution (time based, because the alternative is impractical), specifically because the law should represent the will of the people living under it, not the dead hand of the past generation.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s23.h...

Good luck with that.

The daughter of a wealthy estate might receive the very best in private education, music lessons, etc. She might take her allowance and start a successful business. She might just have a successful business because of all her parents' social connections.

Then dad dies. How do you propose to nullify all the advantages she still enjoys because of her father's wealth?

Can you take away the child's business that was started with a few million dollars from dad? No? But you can take away the million dollars still sitting in the bank?

How about the farm? the house? the boat? Can those not be inherited?

If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

EDIT: better English

> If you reject all inheritance, you reject much of the incentives of capitalism.

I reject the idea that inheritance is a matter of right, and particularly that there is any moral right in extending the will of the dead past their death.

I don't, OTOH, disagree that some inheritance may even socially useful and worth permitting, with appropriate conditions and limitations, on that basis. In fact, I said so explicitly in GP.

OTOH, I'm also not a big fan of capitalism as a system, am glad that it has generally been displaced by the modern mixed economy since being described by its critics, and think that the influence it has on the general shape of modern economies needs to be further curtailed, so I'm not particularly worried that limiting inheritance might further undermine the influence of capitalism; that's a benefit, not a cost.

So where's the line?

I was born and grew up under an actual communist rule. It was terrible. Also, it didn't really work due to fundamental human nature.

What human nature you ask? Well, mine for example. I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have. So that I can leave my wealth to my children (three so far) so that they can continue from a better position than where I started from (almost nothing, except the education my single mother gave me) to get an edge in life.

You want to take that option away from me? Sorry, not gonna work.

> I'm working my ass of so that I can have more than you have.

why do you want to have more than someone else? that implies that you derive pleasure from the deprivation of others, which is sadistic.

I think you should work so that you can have the things that you want for yourself, not so you can have more than someone else.

I like the freedom that monetary success gives. I've seen it briefly and it was freaking awesome.

The only reason it gives that freedom though is derived from inequality. The world is an extremely complex system and complex systems have weird emergent and unpredictable behaviours.

Also, some people contribute more than others. I'm certainly not saying that I'm the biggest contributor, but I do know people who can code circles around me (yes, I used to be a software developer, hey, this is HN you know) and really can do things that I could not, because they depend on fundamental understanding of complexity that I'm simply unable to comprehend. There is no way I could have come up with Paxos for example and clearly it has been extremely useful technology. Also I'm sure the inventor (Alan Kay, IIRC) makes a ton more money than I do and he deserves it!

There is no fundamental equality, because people are not equal and peoples contribution to society is not equal.

Bezos already has paid more taxes than I will ever pay - so he has in fact contributed more.

No, I only want to take 75% of that option from you if it didn't return into the economy during your lifetime.

Good luck trying, you're not getting it :)

Unfortunately for you, that is not up to you to decide, but to society as a whole. And society has those pretty fun tools like police forces, etc.

But don't worry, there are much bigger fish to fry than you. You probably won't even be impacted, given the amount of wealth that can be recuperated from the leeches at the top, we can probably already make a much more egalitarian society.

I can vote, just as everyone else :)

So, the problem here is that I don't understand why you think Jeff Bezos is a "leech" exactly. The guy built a business and became very successful. What the heck is wrong with that?

I'm building a house for me and my family. I mean literally building it myself, not hiring people to build it for me. It's fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating.

I've also been involved in building three companies so far. That has been fun - sometimes. Other times it's hard and frustrating.

If one of those companies is/was successful, would I also be a "leech" by your definition?

Absolutely! And in most likelihood, such a system will never be put in place, so you can sleep soundly.

Amazon could run very well without Bezos, at this point, solely through workers. Bezos at this point serves nothing but effectively leeching the wealth produced by employees. But appropriation of the means of production is not the subject.

Bezos being successful is not the issue. However, he is effectively an annuitant, and produces very little of value. This brings up the question of why does he deserve that money now? As he's been building the company, yes, eventually (and even then, his only contribution is capital. The rest of his work can be done by anyone else). Nowadays? I'm doubtful.

Secondly, this fortune would much better serve society as a whole than be passed through generations, effectively creating a lineage of oligarchs. If I have to choose between bettering the living conditions of millions or letting Bezos keep his net worth... I'm not going to cry for him.

The most important question is of course, how much should be taxed, and what amount of wealth is too much? Everyone will have different answers. But there are other solutions to taxation. Capping salaries and profits from shares to a factor of the lowest salary in the company, etc.

If one of those companies is successful, that you have managers upon managers doing most of the work for you, yes, you would be a leech.

Good luck on that house, however. I know from first hand experience that it is a tough thing to do. Make sure everything's done properly.

Sorry for the long time to reply, this is one of the best conversations I've had on HN yet. It's always fascinating to talk to someone with a radically different opinion on things! Thank you for that!

Your argument seems to be that amazon could and would have run just as well without Bezos. The counterargument for that is - why isn't any other company in the same line of business nearly as successful as Amazon then? Clearly, if the concrete people don't matter and the only contribution of the leader is capital, then there is no particular reason why another, as-well-capitalised company shouldn't be as successful as Amazon? Yet none are. Why?

My argument is that a good manager can bring 10 people who separately would each be capable of making 1 abstract thing per month together into a team and create 100 abstract things per month.

There is a saying - a person is smart, crowds are dumb. What Bezos and other leaders bring is the ability to make crowds smart and work together towards a goal.

So, if a good leader can effectively make the difference between a successful company and a broke company, then I do think he deserves 100x or a 1000x more than some guy who's looking for every possible opportunity to slack off and do as little as possible.

Also, you argue that he has already contributed all he can and is now just reaping the rewards from his previous efforts. Doesn't the same apply for any pension scheme though?

actually, you'll be dead

People care about what's going to happen after they die. You can see this from any global warming activist. They're not concerned about their own live but about future generations. Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

> Are you saying they should mind their own business and ignore the grandkids who might have more storms and famines?

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that once they're dead, what they cared about when they were alive matters, if at all, because and to the extent people still living care about it, and that there is no inherent right that the dead have to have their will dictate actions or rights of the living once they have died.

that's not the same type of thing as inheritance of material property and money. the inhabitability of the earth is an existential priority. what we do with leftover bank account balances when someone dies is not.

you're arguing against a strawman, the post you're replying to was discussing the posthumous will specifically.

> In an ideal society,

There has never existed an "ideal society". Power always corrupts.

Capitalism is inherently violent whether you like it or not. The police violently repress anyone seeking what they have a natural right to: their fair share of the wealth.

Capitalism is absolutely violent, and just as concerned with with-holding value as providing it (the primary means of price negotiation is the threat of walking away). Look at how much food a grocery store throws away, or how many houses are unoccupied, all in the interests of accounting and bargaining leverage.

However: I take umbrage with "natural right" (the only right nature guarantees is entropy and death), and "fair share" (as decided by whom?). I think a wealthy, free, and just society would include infrastructure investment and The Commons in addition to free enterprise and private property; but good luck getting every single person to agree on the same definition of "fair".

Grocery stores throw a lot of food away due to regulation and liability issues, not for bargaining leverage.

Crap. They throw away food because it's cheaper to throw it away than to give it to those that need it. It has nothing to do with 'liability' or 'regulation', given they still do the same in NZ, which has neither the concept of personal injury liability nor onerous food regulations.

Correct, even just paying for delivery to homeless shelters is the money no store owner wants to pay and even if you get volunteers they still have to pay for gas.

Edit: forget gas even paying the employees to sort the food that is still edible costs too much.

People have a natural right to the results of others' toils solely by virtue of having been born?

People have a natural right to a fair share of society's toils solely be virtue of being human beings, yes, absolutely.

What you have is not the result of your toils.

> What you have is not the result of your toils.

be careful with your phrasing. better to say "What you have is not solely the result of your toils."

We could remedy that by taking privileged children away from their toiling parents who provide them with advantages not available to other kids.

Ah, the "Don't read to your children" approach [0]. Don't worry, I know you weren't being serious. Sadly some people are.

[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417997/professor-if-yo...

That's kind of why the West is rich ... well it wasn't so natural but hundreds of years of on-going colonialism made it so.

Humanity is inherently violent.

Jeff Bezos himself has not performed the productive economic activity that has generated his wealth. He has performed some labor for a corporation, similar to millions of other Americans, except that because of the ownership privileges granted to him by our capitalist system his share of the wealth produced by the corporation he works for is vastly out of proportion with the wealth share almost everyone else in the entire world receives.

the wealth is Amazon's. Bezos owns quite a lot of Amazon. the system permits this level if inequality. that doesn't mean it is deserved or desirable.

You don't think land lords provided positive economic activity under feudalism? That's absurd, but not as absurd as the implications that capitalist states don't have blood on their hands.