Mikkel Høgh

The reason why Denmark is (still) such a magnificent society is that we have not accepted a theory like yours.

Creating a good society is not a question of sharing out blankets but of making a structure that enables everybody to get his own blanket. That is a political process. It cannot be done by individuals.

The way I see it, that's two sides of the same coin.

As long as you're handing out free blankets, no one would do anything on his own to acquire one - so not only should you enable people to buy their own blankets, you should also give them reason to do so.

Mikkel: "You should enable people to buy their own blankets"

Great idea. Let's give them money.

Yeah, let's give them money - by giving them a job :)

Let's give people money, by giving them a job, by making sure everyone has money.

As long as the money isn't conditioned on not having money, there's no more disincentive to work than faces the sons of millionaires. And just to ensure that we don't do those folks the disservice of leaving them with no incentive to contribute to the economy, we can relieve them of some of their unearned wealth. That's a little unfair, though– what is the distinction between earned and unearned, really, in an economy with gross inequities? No, from a moral and purely technical standpoint, it makes sense to share everyone's wealth– wealth that only exists, that could only exist, in the context of society.

The very conservative change of a 2 to 6 percent annual wealth tax, globally redistributed without discrimination, would have a radically positive effect on economies and societies everywhere. Income taxes that pay for services could be cut or dropped, because people could purchase their own services. The more powerful effect though is the opportunity we would all have to earn livings creating new ways to meet people's needs, because everyone would have the resources to meet their needs. Even the rich countries, better set up to be productive, would benefit from the opportunity to meet needs in poor countries, although over time all communities would have the resources to build up their own infrastructure.

I also think whole new structures for organizing ourselves economically would arise, because many of the centralized, hierarchical models only have their advantage due to the monopolization of capital.

Relevant: Why I loan with Kiva.

I don't find myself in agreement with you. In fact, I find your post to be a bit hard to understand, but then, I never went to college.

You're talking about “…a 2 to 6 percent annual wealth tax, globally redistributed without discrimination…. That is, in my opinion, bad for two reasons:

One: Who would be doing the redistribution? Every time there's been a system of redistribution, there's never been anything remotely resembling fairness. What ever organisation we set up to do it, would quickly turn into a bureaucratic, nepotistic swamp. A whole new industry of lobbyists would be set up quicker than you can say “special interests”.

Two: Redistribution is generally unfair, punishes productivity and rewards laziness. Anyone capable to do so should be forced (by his own needs, not by others) to earn his own living, to support himself.
Self-preservation is one of the most important kinds of motivation, and redistribution destroys that.
The concept of redistribution usually stems from the notion of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” - which was populised by Karl Marx.

And if you think capital is monopolised, you need to take a reality check some time. Yes, there are big corporations with lots and lots of money. But they are just the “supply” part of supply and demand.
Without “demand”, ie. consumers, they would quickly cease to exist.