[edit]
Hey! You changed your post. But now it’s more clear what you meant. I don’t know what to say. One man’s trash is other man’s treasure? There are too many power hungry people right now. Until the masses know and understand how jacked things are and how much more jacked they’re going to get, “nothing” will change. Tobacco and Guns are only populer because the people make them popular.
[edit]
I’ve come to the conclusion that all things are based on energy. Money, food, power, books, oil, etc. are all derivitives of engery. Energy is also relitive to the viewer.
All this fiddiling with politics, taxes and EVERYTHING boils down to how much energy (power) a person has (think they have). All (most) people respond to all (most) situations in a way they think it will benitfit them best. Animals do the same thing.
I don’t know of many people that act any diffrently then animals. Is that what you meant by dog-eat-dog world?
Mr. Fan,
Let me explain the terms I used. The libertarians belive that the less government , the better. They tend to believe in a completely unfettered free market economy. The objectivists (Ayn Rand’s group) are the ultimate believers in meritocracy. They have an “only the strong should rule” kind of outlook.
So your posts kind of reflect that stream of thought.
I believe in meritocracy too. But there must be some level of equality at least in terms of health care and education in my POV. Why?
Creating more wealth if you are already wealthy is very easy. Wealth can be gained through hard work or good fortune. But in either case, when it’s passed from one generation to the next, this wealth can cause gross inequality to occur over time. Maybe your father worked hard and made millions but maybe you’re just a rich, spoiled kid who didn’t work for it. get my example?
Okay. So what? Well, when the extremes of rich and poor become too great, extreme wealth-redistribution systems like communism become popular among the poor and then social unrest occurs. This may lead to an overthrow of the rich.
To avoid this social unrest, I would argue that everyone should be given access to free health care for life and education up to university level. And, of course, that means taxes (especially from the rich) to pay for it.
That’s where the handout should end however IMO.
So taxing the rich from this POV actually allows them to keep the majority of their wealth and promotes social stability.
Rational self-interest governs everything. Perhaps. Is this the basis for morality? Do all morals simply derive from individual rational self-interest?
An illustration: murder is wrong. We agree because to condone random killing would endanger our own survival. But cut adrift, with no food, we would not see it immoral for a group of people to sacrifice one of their members because it increases the chance of survival for those remaining.
Mr C: will get back to you from home computer (can make a longer post).
Are wars, bombings, death penalties wrong? Many people say yes, but many act no.
Where is this topic going? Why are you asking so many questions?
I got my “morals” from experience, what me mama and papa told me and from everything I see. I assume others got them the same way. And they’ve been handed down that way since we were swinging from vines.
You wanted some kind of moral justification for redistributing wealth because you feel that, “they are poor, we are rich” does not seem to cut it. How’s this:
Economic inequality is the chief form of human alienation. Money is the universal value of all things, the alienated essence of man’s labor and life, and it dominates him as he worships it. When workers produce objects over which they have no control (because the objects belong to their employers) the workers are alienated from their essential humanity. Labor for wages is not free productive activity but is the result of domination and coercion. Employers become rich, while wages are driven down to the bare minimum needed to sustain the workers. Merely increasing wages is not a solution but only a form of slave-salary. Accumulated capital increases its domination because competition between capitalists forces them to make labor ever more productive, only increasing competition between workers, driving wages down futher. Moreover, this competition eliminates the special skills of workers, transforming them into a mechanical, monotonous work-force.
Human beings cannot be free if they are subject to forces that determine their thoughts, their ideas, their very nature as human beings. Conciousness does not determine life, but life determines conciousness.
The answer of course is not merely a slight re-distribution of wealth but the abolition of private property. Greed, egoism and envy are not inevitable. They would disappear in a world in which private property and private means of production were replaced with communal property and socially organised means of production. We would lose our preoccupation with private interests and would find happiness in working for the good of all. With communist production there would be no exploitation to line the pockets of capitalists, and workers would receive the full value of their labor. Relieved from oppressive conditions, cooperation would increase, and as the division of society into different classes disappears so would the resulting conflicts. In short, we would create a utopia for all.
[quote=“miltownkid”]“Wrong”? We? Who is we and why is murder wrong?
[/quote]We = people. Why is murder wrong? Dunno - are morals just about rational self-interest. Or are they absolute?
[quote=“miltownkid”]Where is this topic going? Why are you asking so many questions?[/quote] Wherever you want. To hear your answers.
MT: Yeah. Have read this nonesense many times. Thanks for the giggle. Its full of bloopers:[quote=“Mother Theresa”]wages are driven down to the bare minimum [and]… labor [becomes] ever more productive[/quote]
Oops, Karl… you may want to rethink that bit.
I didn’t notice this one in you list of posts. “They are poor, we are rich” does cut it logically. You can keep people poor, but not too poor because they’ll get all out of control and hard to handle. I don’t know much about the real numbers on taxes, but does much even make it to the poor anyway? I’m sure the majority goes right back to the rich some how (medical, military and such).
I looked up some definitions for ‘morals’ and everyone I found had good, right, bad, wrong or some off shoot of it in it’s definition. I would usually only say “only nothing is absolute”, but I guess some things can be “closer” to being absolute then others.
Morals are based on the person and not the population. Slavery was (and still is) moral to some large groups of people. If I had it my way people would have access to resources required for living (food, water, etc.) and the internet (information). What more can you ask for? I’ve spent enough time looking at facts and figures about money and resources to know that if the people wanted that, it would/could be done. For a long time I was really irked by how jacked the world looked. I think I just needed to change how I was looking at it.
That’s cool I was worried about getting off topic.
I was worried about getting off topic.