Monument to Greed

[Merge]

Quote by: G. Adams Why does he not deserve to spend his money on himself? Why should he be forced to take care of the worlds poor? Tell me, have you ever in your life purchased a luxury? And by luxury I mean anything, anything at all, not essential for you to live another day. So, a chocolate bar, or a computer, or any piece of clothing not as basic as possible to keep you warm? Why do you have the right to spend your money on these things, things you want to make your life more enjoyable, when others are dying as children? Why do you deserve the right to spend your money more than this guy? Why would it be fair for him to donate what he has generated to those who have done nothing for him? It would be noble, and generous, and kind of him to do so, but why would it be fair for him to donate it? He will already no doubt pay more tax per year than you or I will make in a lifetime, so why should he give up more? When would you be happy with what he has given? When he is living in the gutter? By the way, a donation is voluntary.

I'm not discussing donation, I'm discussing fairness. You are criticizing the position that this billionaire should share his wealth because you say it is unfair. I am saying that if you are to judge situations based on fairness, why is it fair for one person with more opportunities in life to be wealthy while another person with less opportunities is poor? Fairness says that the money is his, but it also says that the money should be distributed to the less fortunate. My point is that the criteria for which you claim the billionaire deserves his wealth (fairness) is the same criteria which dictates that he should spread his wealth.

As for myself, yes, fairness would dictate that I should share my property and wealth with less fortunate people (If I am accurate in my interpretation of fairness).

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa I see you define "exploitation" solely according to law, which again is not in line with basic libertarian thinking. There are conventions of etiquette that have nothing to do with law, obviously. The same holds true for what is exploitative and what is not. If the man we're discussing had any workers underneath him, and if he commands them about like mere automatons, then their job is exploitative. However, if the project is collectivized and each worker has his/her say -- that is, if they can become more human and less machinelike -- then the exploitation factor is reduced. As I've pointed out enough times, one reason some are reluctant to go off assistance programs is the poor distribution of wealth in a capitalist system. Grandpa h.

I'll apologise now for any possible spelling mistakes as my monitor is going crazy and it's difficlut to see my writing clearly.

No, I arrive at my understanding of exploitation as where someone's lack of understanding of their position (in regards to rights, options etc) is used as a weakness against them. So someone who works spraying crops by hand with dangerous pesticides without safety equipment not knwoing the danger he is in is being exploited. However, if a person takes up work by his own choice knowing it is dangerous is not being exploited, as he understood the terms of his work before accepting. This is not the position of the law.

However, in turns of being compensated for exploitation, I think the law is the best method available.

How are the people below him being exploited if they have, by their own free choice, accepted the terms of his work which may well be to work in a boring uninvolved manner? Has he trciked them into working for him somehow?

Working in a collectivist environment does not reduce exploitation. Indeed, I would say it encourages it. What if you are really good at your job, much better than others in your workplace. They then decide as a group that, because you can work harder than them, for longer than them, that you will work some essential unpaid overtime? If you accept the collectivist mentality, you can do the work better than anyone else, so you are best placed to do that work and should do it. Is this a better situation? Is it now much improved that a group of people are directing your working life instead of one? Now if this is a collectivist factory in a capitalist society, then that person did enter into work in the factory by choice. However, if it is a collectivist factory in a collectivist society then he isn't free to choose to leave the factory. If everyone else in his community thinks he is best for that job he is forced by their collective decision to stay in that job.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Merge I don't see why he wouldn't be able to. I guess anyone claiming that he did exploit people would need to provide evidence. Unfortunately, I'm not interested in the matter enough to do that research, but maybe someone else is. Also, on this view of things, if I rob a bank for 10 million and invest the money and double it in 5 years, then pay the bank back the 10 million plus interest, would such thievery be okay? Lets say I made 5 million in the process. Would that money rightfully be mine? I'm not presenting this as an argument, just wondering how you would approach such a scenario.

If your not prepared to back up your points, there's nothing for me to argue with you, making your effort in typing on a debate website rather redundant.

How is the example you describe similar to the actions of the man in question? He has not, to the best of my knowledge, stolen anything. The people who work for him have not been press ganged into work, therefore their labour has not been stolen from them. A trade has occurred, money for labour, not a theft.

in answer to your actual scenario, it would of course be wrong. Taking private property without explicit consent (a lack of objection is not the same as voluntary agreement) is wrong even if you put it to a positive use. Just like a government taking money from private citizens without their consent, veen if it is for positive ends like feeding the poor, is wrong. I'm glad you brought up that example, as it so simply explains my position.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Merge I'm not discussing donation, I'm discussing fairness. You are criticizing the position that this billionaire should share his wealth because you say it is unfair. I am saying that if you are to judge situations based on fairness, why is it fair for one person with more opportunities in life to be wealthy while another person with less opportunities is poor? Fairness says that the money is his, but it also says that the money should be distributed to the less fortunate. My point is that the criteria for which you claim the billionaire deserves his wealth (fairness) is the same criteria which dictates that he should spread his wealth. As for myself, yes, fairness would dictate that I should share my property and wealth with less fortunate people (If I am accurate in my interpretation of fairness).

I ask you why is it fair for people who, through no fault or effort of their own, have been born into more opportunity to be persecuted by government more than anyone else? I would argue that a fair society should treat everyone as equals, whether or not they are poor or rich, opportunity rich or opportunity poor. Yet you are arguing for a society where because you are rich, or talented, or perhaps just particularly hard working and thrifty, to be treated worse by government. That because you are these things, you are allowed to be stripped of your hard work more than anyone else. it is you and your ilk that are fighting for an unjust, unfair society.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams I'll apologise now for any possible spelling mistakes as my monitor is going crazy and it's difficlut to see my writing clearly.

That's okay. I make typing errors all the time, and sometimes I accidentally delete something before posting and don't notice it until later.

Quote by: G. Adams No, I arrive at my understanding of exploitation as where someone's lack of understanding of their position (in regards to rights, options etc) is used as a weakness against them.

That's a new definition to me. I think people can be very aware and still be exploited. In social terms, I thought exploitation meant the "utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes" -- especially in an unfair manner. It typically means someone profiting from you, either in a workplace or if you're "selling your ass" out on the street for a pimp.
It can also mean monopolization, or legally claiming exclusive rights to an idea and profiting from it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams I ask you why is it fair for people who, through no fault or effort of their own, have been born into more opportunity to be persecuted by government more than anyone else? I would argue that a fair society should treat everyone as equals, whether or not they are poor or rich, opportunity rich or opportunity poor.

This is a reversal of reality. The state tends to mistreat poor people far more than it does the rich. It's an obvious consideration, at least to any of us who are not total ideologues. It's one major reason why many are "opportunity poor." One way to escape poverty and free up opportunities is to get rid of elitist control over resources.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa That's okay. I make typing errors all the time, and sometimes I accidentally delete something before posting and don't notice it until later. That's a new definition to me. I think people can be very aware and still be exploited. In social terms, I thought exploitation meant the "utilization of another person or group for selfish purposes" -- especially in an unfair manner. It typically means someone profiting from you, either in a workplace or if you're "selling your ass" out on the street for a pimp. It can also mean monopolization, or legally claiming exclusive rights to an idea and profiting from it. Grandpa h.

Well, technically to exploit is simply to use, period. But it has a social meaning these days which is kind of wishy washy. But in your understanding of it, it can have no immoral connotation however because it is so broad. If I hire a plumber to fix my pipes, it is for a selfish purpose for both of us, he wants his fee and I want to water to stop leaking, yet neither of us can be accused of being immoral.

Whereas in mine I am focusing on an abuse of someones ignorance, which has better grounds for accusations of immorality.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa This is a reversal of reality. The state tends to mistreat poor people far more than it does the rich. It's an obvious consideration, at least to any of us who are not total ideologues. It's one major reason why many are "opportunity poor." One way to escape poverty and free up opportunities is to get rid of elitist control over resources. Grandpa h.

You are an idealogue, grandpa. There is nothing wrong with being so.

How does the state mistreat poor people more than the rich? In the UK, if I do no work, despite having no disability, I can have the dole, social housing, child benefits and a whole host of other perks. If however, say I earn £50 000 per annum (approx $100 000 atm) I will be taxed at 22% for the first £35k, and 40% for the other £15k. The state is not treating me equally. For doing nothing, I am rewarded. For working hard I am punished, and the harder I work the more they punish. Because I have been born with the desire and determination to succeed, the state is taking even more from me.

Now the state does do some things worse to poor people in the UK than the rich. These days the taxman comes after poor people more than the rich, because the rich can hire lawyers to show where they have not broken the law, whereas the poor can't so just have to do as they are told. This is wrong. However, we can solve this easily enough by scrapping the income tax.

But otherwise, how does the state treat poor people worse than rich?

Getting rid of elite control of property, and how would you do that? As in China perhaps? Where the state holds the resources in common, and every can, in theory, get access to them?

Or simply get rid of the control and expect every to play nice over them?

Say everyone did play nice, and everyone had an equal right of access. Say their are two scientists. One is a known genius, to have produced results again ad again. The other guy is pretty much rubbish, but he still has his equal right of access. There is, within your area/territory/commune only just enough of one resource that both scientists need for one of them to complete their experiments. In a capitalist society, the succesful guy could buy the resource because he has generated enough wealth to either pay for it personally, or his abilities give enough confidence for a backer to buy it for him.. The guy who is no good wouldn't be able to either pay for it or find a backer. So what happens in your society? If both have a right to the product, and both do not intend to give it up for anyone else, neither will get the product. You might say, well the rest of the commune/group will give the better scientist their share, but in this example both scientists need all of the resource to complete their tests, so even if the entire community, but the other guy, gives their share, it is not good enough. How is this resolved in your manner?

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams Well, technically to exploit is simply to use, period. But it has a social meaning these days which is kind of wishy washy.

The meaning is real enough to those going through it.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

[duplicate post]

[grandpa]

Quote by: G. Adams You are an idealogue, grandpa. There is nothing wrong with being so.

That's why I used the term "total ideologue" -- someone who tends to reject conditionality. Or it could mean believing things couldn't be true if I believed them false.

As for how to break up unhealthy monopolies, there is no 100% foolproof way people could go about it.
I could generalize about a Ghandian approach, or a less peaceful one. Apart from that I cannot say much.

I wouldn't recommend using the state, because that is its own coercive and elitist monopoly. Really, it's like asking how one may escape from prison. Many methods might work in theory, but in practice there are no guarantees.

Grandpa h.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: grandpa That's why I used the term "total ideologue" -- someone who tends to reject conditionality. Or it could mean believing things couldn't be true if I believed them false. As for how to break up unhealthy monopolies, there is no 100% foolproof way people could go about it. I could generalize about a Ghandian approach, or a less peaceful one. Apart from that I cannot say much. I wouldn't recommend using the state, because that is its own coercive and elitist monopoly. Really, it's like asking how one may escape from prison. Many methods might work in theory, but in practice there are no guarantees. Grandpa h.

I am not a total idealogue in that I am not open to new views, new information and altering my position. This has happened twice in the time I have been on Volconvo. Though I doubt anyone could be bothered to look, including me, you can see that I have had two significant shifts in opinion and many minor shifts based upon someone's better arguments, opening my eyes to things I had missed. Communist, to left-anarchist, to libertarian. I am not so fool hardy as to think I am always right.

[LadiesMan217]

I don't know how this man made his fortune, but I think it is wrong to call this man greedy for being such a successful businessman. Are any of really less greedy because we don't have billions of dollars?

[grandpa]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Are any of [us] really less greedy because we don't have billions of dollars?

Yes, we are less greedy if we don't have billions of dollars.

Grandpa h.

[LadiesMan217]

Yes, we are less greedy if we don't have billions of dollars. Grandpa h.

Please tell me how.

[grandpa]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Please tell me how.

Main Entry: greedy
Pronunciation: \ˈgrē-dē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): greed·i·er; greed·i·est
Etymology: Middle English gredy, from Old English grǣdig; akin to Old High German grātac greedy
Date: before 12th century
1 : having a strong desire for food or drink
2 : marked by greed : having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions
3 : eager, keen <greedy for fame>
synonyms see covetous
— greed·i·ly \ˈgrē-də-lē\ adverb
— greed·i·ness \ˈgrē-dē-nəs\ noun

[LadiesMan217]

Main Entry: greedy Pronunciation: \ˈgrē-dē\ Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): greed·i·er; greed·i·est Etymology: Middle English gredy, from Old English grǣdig; akin to Old High German grātac greedy Date: before 12th century 1 : having a strong desire for food or drink 2 : marked by greed : having or showing a selfish desire for wealth and possessions 3 : eager, keen <greedy for fame> synonyms see covetous — greed·i·ly \ˈgrē-də-lē\ adverb — greed·i·ness \ˈgrē-dē-nəs\ noun

I know the meaning of greed grandpa, you have in no way shown how this man is greedier than you or I. Are you saying that only the rich have a selfish desire for wealth and possessions? We all have this selfish desire, this is why work for money, start businesses, gamble, and invest. So just because someone has been more successful at accumulating his wealth does not inherently mean that he is greedier than the poorest person on the planet.

[grandpa]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 I know the meaning of greed grandpa, you have in no way shown how this man is greedier than you or I. Are you saying that only the rich have a selfish desire for wealth and possessions?

It's greedier by definition. If someone has billions of dollars and a lot of possessions, he/she is by definition greedier. If you don't believe so, the word loses much of its meaning, if not all of it.

Grandpa h.

[LadiesMan217]

It's greedier by definition. If someone has billions of dollars and a lot of possessions, he/she is by definition greedier. If you don't believe so, the word loses much of its meaning, if not all of it. Grandpa h.

Not even the definition you provided said that. Your definition said it was a selfish desire for wealth and possessions. We all have a selfish desire for wealth and possessions, but just because we aren't as successful at acquiring them does that make us any less greedy? If you define greed simply as having a lot of money and possessions then your argument loses much of its meaning, if not all of it.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: grandpa Yes, we are less greedy if we don't have billions of dollars.

You mean all I have to do to become a millionaire is be greedy? Well hot damn! Call me Greedy McGee, the Greediest Man in the World. Where's my money?