Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[agrohimgfu]

• <a href="https://www.port... by agrohimgfu
  [Today at 01:50:21 AM]
• Professional Advice: Reco... by Davidfak
  [Yesterday at 11:59:18 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [Yesterday at 03:21:43 AM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Antonioair
  [May 09, 2024, 04:28:57 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 07:52:26 PM]
• <a href="https://www.port... by Davidfak
  [May 07, 2024, 01:37:16 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4952
• Latest: WllkeiJocky

Stats

• Total Posts: 129628
• Total Topics: 7187
• Online Today: 153
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[reimero]

What are you referring to as "honorable"?

Using force to push your morality on others?  I beg to differ.  That seems a little too "might makes right" for me.  Personally, I think a civilized approach is probably a lot more "honorable".  One that doesn't involve theft and the use of force on individuals.

I call people who do not want to share their money with their the poor dishonorable, selfish. What do you call a "civilized approach"? The right of the strongest, the richest? To share is civilized, to want to have everything for yourself is barbarian.

But back on-topic, there are a lot of different people in the world, and everybody is different, born and raised. If we raise our children to share, no tax is needed.

The voluntary of giving of one's property to another is called charity.  The forcible taking of someone's property against his will is called theft.  We teach our children to be charitable.  We teach our children not to steal.

[BizB]

I call people who do not want to share their money with their the poor dishonorable, selfish. What do you call a "civilized approach"? The right of the strongest, the richest? To share is civilized, to want to have everything for yourself is barbarian.

Benevolence is lost in a socialist world.

[Demosthenes]

I call people who do not want to share their money with their the poor dishonorable, selfish.

Selfish, sure.  Dishonorable?  Maybe I'm missing something in the translation here, because I'm not clear on what you mean by that.

What do you call a "civilized approach"?

An approach that respects individual rights.

The right of the strongest, the richest? To share is civilized, to want to have everything for yourself is barbarian.

See, and I am of the opinion that using force to take that which does not belong to you to be barbaric and uncivilized.

But back on-topic, there are a lot of different people in the world, and everybody is different, born and raised. If we raise our children to share, no tax is needed.

I see.  Well, I disagree, if nothing else on moral grounds.  Using force to redistribute wealth isn't "sharing".  It's theft.

I have absolutely nothing against helping those less fortunate than myself.  Do it all you want!  Why not?  I do.  I give whatever I can afford.

But the moment you advocate the initiation of force on individuals to accomplish socioeconomic goals, you pretty much automatically waive any right to claim any kind of moral high ground.  You are essentially just another advocate of totalitarianism.  Might makes right.  The strong take from the weak for their own benefit.

If that's what you're advocating, fine, I suppose.  But don't expect people to be enthusiastic about supporting it.  It doesn't sound like a very just system to me.

[Demosthenes]

Sharing is fine, to an extent.  I give alot of my time to help people who are elderly, handicapped, etc.  Not to people who sit around watching Jerry Springer because they know that the government will give them money at the end of the week anyway.

I bust my ass working two jobs to make ends meet.  Maybe I should just stop and let you guys all pay my bills for me.

(emphasis added)



And that, TeraHammer, is why capitalism is the better way to go.  Detta summed it up more adroitly in those few words than anything else yet posted here.

[Min]

Not only is it unjust...it just doesn't work.

The pilgrims used a socialist economy at first.  They almost starved because there was no reason for anyone to work.  It wasn't until they were allowed to keep what they grew that they started to grow crops and become prosperous.

[Demosthenes]

So, for the benefit of our Hollandish friend here, Detta, could you answer some questions for me?

1) Are you wealthy?

2) Are you exploiting "the masses" in your selfish acquisition of money, property, personal gain?

3) HOW DO YOU FILTHY CAPITALISTS SLEEP AT NIGHT!!!!?

Sorry.  That last one was right out.

[pbsaurus]

It would be nice if we were an actual capitalistic society, too.  But obviously we're not.

[WASABI]

But back on-topic, there are a lot of different people in the world, and everybody is different, born and raised. If we raise our children to share, no tax is needed.

Darwin says that is impossible.

Those who don't share get better results. Better results encourage imitation.

[TeraHammer]

Sharing is fine, to an extent.  I give alot of my time to help people who are elderly, handicapped, etc.  Not to people who sit around watching Jerry Springer because they know that the government will give them money at the end of the week anyway.

I bust my ass working two jobs to make ends meet.  Maybe I should just stop and let you guys all pay my bills for me.

(emphasis added)



And that, TeraHammer, is why capitalism is the better way to go.  Detta summed it up more adroitly in those few words than anything else yet posted here.

I completely agree with that. People who are too lazy to work, should not get community money. However, incapable people should get money from the community chest because the government can distribute that in a better way than tons of charity companies.

Darwin says that is impossible.

Those who don't share get better results. Better results encourage imitation

Hehe, nice one. Yes, apperantly so.

[pbsaurus]

Sharing is fine, to an extent.  I give alot of my time to help people who are elderly, handicapped, etc.  Not to people who sit around watching Jerry Springer because they know that the government will give them money at the end of the week anyway.

I bust my ass working two jobs to make ends meet.  Maybe I should just stop and let you guys all pay my bills for me.

(emphasis added)



And that, TeraHammer, is why capitalism is the better way to go.  Detta summed it up more adroitly in those few words than anything else yet posted here.

I completely agree with that. People who are too lazy to work, should not get community money. However, incapable people should get money from the community chest because the government can distribute that in a better way than tons of charity companies.

Can they?  Show me a government and I'll show you corruption and inefficiency.

[BizB]

However, incapable people should get money from the community chest because the government can distribute that in a better way than tons of charity companies.

Argument based on fallacy.

[xolik]

Perhaps, but I am still interested on how you reached the conclusion that humans are inherently evil. Care to elaborate while I go fix my quote tags?

It's like you had stated earlier. I formed this opinion based upon personal observations, either first hand or from various media sources. Most people I know IRL are greedy, selfish, vain and lazy. The amount of 'evil
 actions to 'good' actions seems to be overwhelmingly in the favour of 'evil.'

But of course, this is according to MY definition of 'evil', which constitues the actions I outlined above. I don't want to derail this thread any further about human nature, but I'll be happy to try to explain it further PM if you are intereseted, but I must warn you that religion plays a hefty part of it, so you can kiss all logic goodbye.  

[Min]

1) Are you wealthy?

Nope.  I buy my clothes at the thrift store and drive a 15 year old pickup truck that's about to break down.  I live a very modest life.  

2) Are you exploiting "the masses" in your selfish acquisition of money, property, personal gain?

Not that I'm aware of.  My job requires people to buy a new house every few years.  But that's they're business.  I don't really like the profession I'm in now, but it pays most of the bills.

3) HOW DO YOU FILTHY CAPITALISTS SLEEP AT NIGHT!!!!?

Well, the layer of hundred dollar bills under my sheets makes the bed very comfortable.

[BizB]

Hmmm... he shore do like deletin' or editin' them posts.

He challenged us to examine the Dutch govt.

I'd rather spend my time here: http://www.flabber.nl/

[pbsaurus]

So the Dutch government isn't full of politicians seeking power?  So the Dutch government is efficient?  More so than a typical charity?  So there is no corruption?

Does your government create jobs?  What is your unemployment rate?

[TeraHammer]

However, incapable people should get money from the community chest because the government can distribute that in a better way than tons of charity companies.

Argument based on fallacy.

Why is that? I think they would have a better overview where they can best put in their money.

[WASABI]

People who are too lazy to work, should not get community money.

How do you tell the difference between "too lazy" and "can't find a job"? My argument might go something like "but I would feel opressed in a job like that", and maybe that's right. Would you force me to work in such an opressive environment? And that's just a silly example. It's not easy to tell the difference.

However, incapable people should get money from the community chest because the government can distribute that in a better way than tons of charity companies.

I know from experience (I work for a university that depends on the government of my country) that governments can't do anything right. Ok, that was oversimplification. Governments are by nature inefficient. Everything has to be double checked to prevent corruption.

[Demosthenes]

1) Are you wealthy?

Nope.  I buy my clothes at the thrift store and drive a 15 year old pickup truck that's about to break down.  I live a very modest life.  

2) Are you exploiting "the masses" in your selfish acquisition of money, property, personal gain?

Not that I'm aware of.  My job requires people to buy a new house every few years.  But that's they're business.  I don't really like the profession I'm in now, but it pays most of the bills.

3) HOW DO YOU FILTHY CAPITALISTS SLEEP AT NIGHT!!!!?

Well, the layer of hundred dollar bills under my sheets makes the bed very comfortable.

Thanks, Detta.

My point is, capitalism might mean an economic system based primarily on self-interest as the main incentive to perform.

But that doesn't make it inherently evil.

The alternatives involve disregarding individual autonomy, particularly with regard to the right to the fruits of their own labors.  This leads inevitably to loss of liberty on all fronts, not just economic.  

Slippery slope argument?  Sure.  But I have all of documented human history supporting me on that conclusion.

Detta is a capitalist.  A self-serving, greedy, typical American capitalist.

She works two jobs, she pays her bills, and she fulfills what she sees as her own needs first.  Shame on her, right?

[Demosthenes]

Perhaps, but I am still interested on how you reached the conclusion that humans are inherently evil. Care to elaborate while I go fix my quote tags?

It's like you had stated earlier. I formed this opinion based upon personal observations, either first hand or from various media sources. Most people I know IRL are greedy, selfish, vain and lazy. The amount of 'evil
 actions to 'good' actions seems to be overwhelmingly in the favour of 'evil.'

But of course, this is according to MY definition of 'evil', which constitues the actions I outlined above. I don't want to derail this thread any further about human nature, but I'll be happy to try to explain it further PM if you are intereseted, but I must warn you that religion plays a hefty part of it, so you can kiss all logic goodbye.  

And the acknowledgement of the subjective nature of good and evil is why Xolik's input is always welcome in any debate.  

[TeraHammer]

I call people who do not want to share their money with their the poor dishonorable, selfish.

Selfish, sure.  Dishonorable?  Maybe I'm missing something in the translation here, because I'm not clear on what you mean by that.

I'm reffering to morality. If you see a girl with matches selling on the streets on Christmas Eve, it would be honorable to help her.

But the moment you advocate the initiation of force on individuals to accomplish socioeconomic goals, you pretty much automatically waive any right to claim any kind of moral high ground.

Excuse my english, but I can't follow what you mean with "waiving any right...moral high ground"

You are essentially just another advocate of totalitarianism.  Might makes right.  The strong take from the weak for their own benefit.

If that's what you're advocating, fine, I suppose.  But don't expect people to be enthusiastic about supporting it.  It doesn't sound like a very just system to me.

Yes I think I am 'totalitair'. For the people that earn the support that is.

[Min]

Detta is a capitalist.  A self-serving, greedy, typical American capitalist.

She works two jobs, she pays her bills, and she fulfills what she sees as her own needs first.  Shame on her, right?

You forgot the part about my third "job".  In quotes because I don't get paid for it.  I spend most of my free time running a non-profit organization that helps countless less fortunate people every year.

[jeee]

If there is no higher power to divide at least some money between the various groups within a society, and all money they earn will be right into their own wallets, it will create an unovercoming gap between various groups. The rich will become even richer and the poor will be poorer. People are selfish and any money left will go to the ones next to them who (most of the time) are in the same social class as they are.

Rich people will have more money left to be charitable and they will only donate money to the poorer if they are force to do so by the general public opinion. That force will be less since we already stated that every one must take care of themselves and the general opinion of that society is like that.

The poor ? They will just barely have enough and if they have something left it will go towards the ones close to them.

Middle class will make ends meet and will keep doing so.

[TeraHammer]

Detta is a capitalist.  A self-serving, greedy, typical American capitalist.

She works two jobs, she pays her bills, and she fulfills what she sees as her own needs first.  Shame on her, right?

Yes, shame on you!

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary. I'm not pleading everybody should earn the same, but to centralise what you call charity by taxes.

[Demosthenes]

I call people who do not want to share their money with their the poor dishonorable, selfish.

Selfish, sure.  Dishonorable?  Maybe I'm missing something in the translation here, because I'm not clear on what you mean by that.

I'm reffering to morality. If you see a girl with matches selling on the streets on Christmas Eve, it would be honorable to help her.

Certainly.  It would be honorable to help someone you see in need, if it is within your capability.

But it is dishonorable to force SOMEBODY ELSE to help others in need.

Being "honorable" with somebody else's property isn't "honorable".  It's theft.  You're in effect harming someone else to help someone.

In the end, you're doing far more harm than "good".

But the moment you advocate the initiation of force on individuals to accomplish socioeconomic goals, you pretty much automatically waive any right to claim any kind of moral high ground.

Excuse my english, but I can't follow what you mean with "waiving any right...moral high ground"

What I mean is, to sum up your argument (and I apologize if I misrepresent it here), you are advocating a system which forces individuals to help others because it's the "right thing to do", morally, right?

You are using force.  On individual people.  Via the government.  To propagate a "moral" idea.

What I am saying is that by being in favour of such a thing, you are being inconsistent, morally.  You are no more "moral" by advocating harming individuals to help others than he who has wealth and refuses to share it.

If anything, you are less so... at least if a selfish person has wealth he does not wish to share, he is not ACTIVELY harming anyone else.

You, on the other hand, are advocating harming EVERYONE to help a few.

The morality of that, as a philosophy, is dubious at best.  

You are essentially just another advocate of totalitarianism.  Might makes right.  The strong take from the weak for their own benefit.

If that's what you're advocating, fine, I suppose.  But don't expect people to be enthusiastic about supporting it.  It doesn't sound like a very just system to me.

Yes I think I am 'totalitair'. For the people that earn the support that is.

I think you misunderstand.  What I mean by "totalitarianism" is that you are in essence supporting a system in which ultimate authority is granted a governing body, with which they can do whatever they please, simply because they are in power.

[Demosthenes]

If there is no higher power to divide at least some money between the various groups within a society, and all money they earn will be right into their own wallets, it will create an unovercoming gap between various groups. The rich will become even richer and the poor will be poorer. People are selfish and any money left will go to the ones next to them who (most of the time) are in the same social class as they are.

Rich people will have more money left to be charitable and they will only donate money to the poorer if they are force to do so by the general public opinion. That force will be less since we already stated that every one must take care of themselves and the general opinion of that society is like that.

The poor ? They will just barely have enough and if they have something left it will go towards the ones close to them.

Middle class will make ends meet and will keep doing so.

Define "rich".

Define "poor".

Define "enough".