The combined wealth of America's 500 richest is greater than the combined consumer debt of 320 million people. Why is it immoral to seize the assets of so few when it would benefit so many?

But if you could magically take the wealth of 500 people and wipe out the debt of everyone, would that be immoral?

Yes, that would be immoral. Let's just prime our intuitions about this a little bit.

  1. How would you feel if you were one of the 500 people whose assets were seized? You'd probably be very upset, feel very betrayed and used. (Does the rest of society view you thankfully, or are they happy that they could seize your things because you're not even a human to them? You're just a rich person who deserves to be dehumanized?)

  2. What if some of these assets were family heirlooms? Or a gift that your grandmother gave to you on her deathbed, and that you loved very much? How would you feel?

  3. What if the people who are in this debt were in it because they were irresponsible? That is, they took on a lot of debt because they went and bought a Corvette for themselves? And all the people with pornography addictions and went into debt buying cam girl shows? Would the redistributed assets really be in better hands or maximize utility, even in the medium term? Wouldn't a lot of just be squandered?

  4. What if these people worked really hard every single day, and were careful with their finances in order to amass that much wealth? Isn't it extremely unfair and ridiculous that those people who wanted more more more now now now, and bought ridiculous things with their credit cards are rewarded and get off the hook, meanwhile the few who worked so hard and showed restraint have all their assets seized?

  5. Generally speaking, perhaps those who have the most wealth deserve it, because they make the best use of the assets and resources. These assets were given to them because they provided a good or service that society valued and wanted (meanwhile others were off dicking around and getting drunk). If you took away their assets, wouldn't we be moving it to hands that would use them less efficiently, and fulfil fewer preferences and needs of society at large? If this is somewhat true, then even from a cold utilitarian perspective, most assets should remain in the hands of the 500, let alone seizing all of their assets.

/r/askphilosophy Thread