Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

forecg · Feb 23, 2004, 01:09 pm

I'm posting this in the political forum because I think it's right at the heart of the differences between political ideologies. Suppose you have three different worlds:

In the first world, people don't create or destroy wealth - they just take it from each other. Rich people are the ones who take the most and are bad, while poor people are the ones who are oppressed and are good. No one gets rich honestly. Greed is bad because it's essentially the desire to steal from others.

In the second world, people ONLY create wealth through hard work and honest trade. Rich people produce the most and are good, while poor people produce little and have no one to blame but themselves. No one gets rich dishonestly, and greed is good because because it's essentially the desire to be productive.

The third world is a combination of the first two; some people get rich by stealing and oppressing, while others do it through hard work and honest trade. You can't tell whether a person is good or bad based solely on how much wealth they've accumulated and it's stupid to attempt to. Two different kinds of greed exist and should not be confused with one another.

Which world do you think we live in? Is it one of these three, or is it some mix of two of them or something else completely? What kind of objective evidence can you offer in support of your view?

Anniee · Feb 23, 2004, 01:12 pm

The problem with the first world existing is the belief (mistaken) that wealth is just "out there." It isn't. It has to be produced to begin with. Your first world would have had to BEGIN as world #2 and likely would become world #3, which is what we have, with the government stealing what we produce and giving it out willy-nilly. The government is indeed rich through its thievery so it wouldn't be fair to assume they deserved it. :)

Feb 23, 2004, 01:19 pm

Annie's point is very astute..

The third comes closest to describing the current situation and those who come by their wealth dishonestly are usually easy to spot by the title in front of their name: President, congressman, representative, judge, prosecutor, warden etc.. :)

mooseboy84 · Feb 23, 2004, 03:03 pm

i dont think such broad characteraztions can be made of rich people being bad and all poor people are good. i want to be rich! try living poor for a while. there are alot of very rich people that give lots of money to charity, and not just for tax purposes.

i sort of agree with you on one point, that in the first world wealth is taken and not created. people say that wealth is created, i do not belive that to be so true. yes the numerical number can increases, however i see wealth sort of as a pie. there is finite difference of money and people move into and out of varrying groups of possesion.

in lay mans terms: redistributive income. yes bill gates and paul allen "created" money from microsoft that numerically wasnt there before. however, a calculation could probably be made that other people lost real world income in an adjusted percantage as to what was created by them. that is not to say that bill gates is evil or the anti christ. one thing someone must observe besides income is living condtions, and they have improved for many people, that should count towards something in the grand scheme.

Feb 23, 2004, 04:07 pm

Who lost wealth by the creation of Microsoft? Please be specific.

In the case of most techonologies, the practical aspects of living become easier, various conveniences become cheaper, thus allowing more leisure time, even or perhaps especially for those who are not wealthy. I do not care for Winblows, but because of its popularity, the cost of computers has decreased, the cost of communication has decreased, and the ease with which information is attained has increased. All of this amounts not only to the creation of wealth, for microsoft and others, but also for a higher standard of living even without adding in any monetary calculation.

Packratt · Feb 23, 2004, 07:45 pm

It's a mix of #1 and #3. Unfortunately I don't have time to explain why I know this to be true right now, but I will later.

You should have made this a poll though.

Packratt · Feb 23, 2004, 11:53 pm

Here's a decent article that explains my stance somewhat. greed

Honestly working hard and gaining a reward for that ethical hard work is not greed. But the people who usually work the hardest are not rewarded much in our society, so it's a pretty obvious fallacy that an honest hard day's work makes one wealthy... I should know.

But greed is not only a matter of what methods one employs to gain wealth or even how one uses wealth, but also how one percieves wealth. Greed is an overwhelming desire to have more than what one could ever want for, it is gluttony for money and power, it makes those whom it infects fat in ego and restricts the arteries of their decency and humanity, for above all else, they only desire more, and only for more's sake.

Greed is the desire to have more than what one is worth, and who here can say honestly that they are a person who is more deserving than most and who's wrongs are not the same wrongs as the rest? Show me that person, and I will show you a compulsive sociopathic egomaniac, in other words, I will show you the very nature of greed.

Kyran · Feb 24, 2004, 04:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,)
Which world do you think we live in? Is it one of these three, or is it some mix of two of them or something else completely? What kind of objective evidence can you offer in support of your view?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I have noticed what forceg is saying is true. Socialism, Capitalism, and "The Mix" reflect these 3 worlds respectively. Socialism implies that a man's role is servant (employee) not master (employer); because in this system no one is allowed to own a business. Capitalism expresses the inverse; that man's role is as his own boss, subject financially to no other men.

We exist in the third world; the melting pot. Logically, any mix of the 3 worlds results in the repetition of one. It is still an excellent subtle method to cause others to reveal their political alignment. Good job.

Let us not confuse the definition of a simple term. Greed is the ambition to accumulate wealth beyond the point of free trade and labor. There is nothing innately evil in "survival -> success" through Employment or Entrepeneurship.

The desire to survive maintains the Moderacy of an individual. Bill Britt (a capitalist millionaire) teaches that a will to succeed surpasses the "comfort zone" of mere survival. This means that individuals who try to succeed in life and never give up can become wealthy. In retrospect, many individuals are a stranger to the desire to survive. They rationalize Careers and Jobs as success, because from where they are it is perceived to be better. This concept is taught in schools, as you are all aware.

Packratt can serve as the first example of someone from the Economic Equality Bracket (the first world).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Honestly working hard and gaining a reward for that ethical hard work is not greed. But the people who usually work the hardest are not rewarded much in our society, so it's a pretty obvious fallacy that an honest hard day's work makes one wealthy... I should know<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

EE Bracket members do not understand that Hard Work is less efficient than Smart Work. Janitors should make less than teachers, doctors, or any other professional field; especially an entrepeneur. A greedy ditch-digger would expect to be paid more than his labor is worth. He might form a workers union in an attempt to force his employer to suit his selfish desires.

Under the free market, the most popular and useful work is rewarded the most. Greedy individuals see it as unfair, and demand a level of Forced Equality. Greed is uncompromising, and unwilling to change to suit the self. Once someone attempts to force another to supply their needs and wants, the greed has manifested into larceny.

Packratt, please respond to the following questions descriptively and let me know if I expected your answers accurately. I believe this will demonstrate first-world mentality.

Do you own a successful business and why? (No)
Do you think running a business is risky and why? (Yes)
If people weren't allowed to own businesses, would you feel the playing field is level? (Yes)
(If previous question Yes)
What do you think of being forced to be in business?

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 24, 2004, 05:00 pm

Greed is a word used by jealous poor people to discribe rich people who worked their asses off to build their business from the ground up and are now coasting on it's success. They have every right to do so.

However...there are those what oppress people and steal their money. They're called "the government".

Poetic_Justice · Feb 24, 2004, 05:24 pm

Don't just say government, because government isn't the only culprit.

Government is sued by both workers and corporations to defraud eachother. Usually corporations get the upper hand simply because they have more and easier access to wealth adn intelligent persons.

Many poor people aren't jealous, they simply see the lack of fainess, shown by the government's discriminating regulatory laws.

And the rest are led like sheep by one corporation against another.

From Freedom, Prosperity
Dave

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 24, 2004, 05:59 pm

The poor see a lack of fairness in what? That they are poor and other's are not? That is how the world works.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Government is sued by both workers and corporations to defraud eachother. Usually corporations get the upper hand simply because they have more and easier access to wealth adn intelligent persons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I disagree with the assessment that corporations get the upper hand.. While it may be true that the more intelligent one is, the more likely he is to work in and support the private peaceful sector, this accumulation of intelligence is far from sufficient to overcome the complete power of the state. Whenever the government or government agents are proven to be in error, the government simply dictates the result with no regard to truth or justice.

So while I will agree that the government and its minions is not the entire problem, clearly it is the largest problem by orders of magnitude.

Feb 23, 2004, 01:12 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	The problem with the first world existing is the belief (mistaken) that wealth is just "out there." It isn't. It has to be produced to begin with. Your first world would have had to BEGIN as world #2 and likely would become world #3, which is what we have, with the government stealing what we produce and giving it out willy-nilly. The government is indeed rich through its thievery so it wouldn't be fair to assume they deserved it. :) Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 23, 2004, 03:03 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	i dont think such broad characteraztions can be made of rich people being bad and all poor people are good. i want to be rich! try living poor for a while. there are alot of very rich people that give lots of money to charity, and not just for tax purposes. i sort of agree with you on one point, that in the first world wealth is taken and not created. people say that wealth is created, i do not belive that to be so true. yes the numerical number can increases, however i see wealth sort of as a pie. there is finite difference of money and people move into and out of varrying groups of possesion. in lay mans terms: redistributive income. yes bill gates and paul allen "created" money from microsoft that numerically wasnt there before. however, a calculation could probably be made that other people lost real world income in an adjusted percantage as to what was created by them. that is not to say that bill gates is evil or the anti christ. one thing someone must observe besides income is living condtions, and they have improved for many people, that should count towards something in the grand scheme. <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 23, 2004, 07:45 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	It's a mix of #1 and #3. Unfortunately I don't have time to explain why I know this to be true right now, but I will later. You should have made this a poll though. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 23, 2004, 11:53 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Here's a decent article that explains my stance somewhat. greed Honestly working hard and gaining a reward for that ethical hard work is not greed. But the people who usually work the hardest are not rewarded much in our society, so it's a pretty obvious fallacy that an honest hard day's work makes one wealthy... I should know. But greed is not only a matter of what methods one employs to gain wealth or even how one uses wealth, but also how one percieves wealth. Greed is an overwhelming desire to have more than what one could ever want for, it is gluttony for money and power, it makes those whom it infects fat in ego and restricts the arteries of their decency and humanity, for above all else, they only desire more, and only for more's sake. Greed is the desire to have more than what one is worth, and who here can say honestly that they are a person who is more deserving than most and who's wrongs are not the same wrongs as the rest? Show me that person, and I will show you a compulsive sociopathic egomaniac, in other words, I will show you the very nature of greed. "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 24, 2004, 04:03 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (forecg,) Which world do you think we live in? Is it one of these three, or is it some mix of two of them or something else completely? What kind of objective evidence can you offer in support of your view?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I have noticed what forceg is saying is true. Socialism, Capitalism, and "The Mix" reflect these 3 worlds respectively. Socialism implies that a man's role is servant (employee) not master (employer); because in this system no one is allowed to own a business. Capitalism expresses the inverse; that man's role is as his own boss, subject financially to no other men. We exist in the third world; the melting pot. Logically, any mix of the 3 worlds results in the repetition of one. It is still an excellent subtle method to cause others to reveal their political alignment. Good job. Let us not confuse the definition of a simple term. Greed is the ambition to accumulate wealth beyond the point of free trade and labor. There is nothing innately evil in "survival -> success" through Employment or Entrepeneurship. The desire to survive maintains the Moderacy of an individual. Bill Britt (a capitalist millionaire) teaches that a will to succeed surpasses the "comfort zone" of mere survival. This means that individuals who try to succeed in life and never give up can become wealthy. In retrospect, many individuals are a stranger to the desire to survive. They rationalize Careers and Jobs as success, because from where they are it is perceived to be better. This concept is taught in schools, as you are all aware. Packratt can serve as the first example of someone from the Economic Equality Bracket (the first world). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) Honestly working hard and gaining a reward for that ethical hard work is not greed. But the people who usually work the hardest are not rewarded much in our society, so it's a pretty obvious fallacy that an honest hard day's work makes one wealthy... I should know<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> EE Bracket members do not understand that Hard Work is less efficient than Smart Work. Janitors should make less than teachers, doctors, or any other professional field; especially an entrepeneur. A greedy ditch-digger would expect to be paid more than his labor is worth. He might form a workers union in an attempt to force his employer to suit his selfish desires. Under the free market, the most popular and useful work is rewarded the most. Greedy individuals see it as unfair, and demand a level of Forced Equality. Greed is uncompromising, and unwilling to change to suit the self. Once someone attempts to force another to supply their needs and wants, the greed has manifested into larceny. Packratt, please respond to the following questions descriptively and let me know if I expected your answers accurately. I believe this will demonstrate first-world mentality. Do you own a successful business and why? (No) Do you think running a business is risky and why? (Yes) If people weren't allowed to own businesses, would you feel the playing field is level? (Yes) (If previous question Yes) What do you think of being forced to be in business?

Feb 23, 2004, 01:09 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
forecg Molten Ash Posts: 36	I'm posting this in the political forum because I think it's right at the heart of the differences between political ideologies. Suppose you have three different worlds: In the first world, people don't create or destroy wealth - they just take it from each other. Rich people are the ones who take the most and are bad, while poor people are the ones who are oppressed and are good. No one gets rich honestly. Greed is bad because it's essentially the desire to steal from others. In the second world, people ONLY create wealth through hard work and honest trade. Rich people produce the most and are good, while poor people produce little and have no one to blame but themselves. No one gets rich dishonestly, and greed is good because because it's essentially the desire to be productive. The third world is a combination of the first two; some people get rich by stealing and oppressing, while others do it through hard work and honest trade. You can't tell whether a person is good or bad based solely on how much wealth they've accumulated and it's stupid to attempt to. Two different kinds of greed exist and should not be confused with one another. Which world do you think we live in? Is it one of these three, or is it some mix of two of them or something else completely? What kind of objective evidence can you offer in support of your view?

Feb 23, 2004, 01:19 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Annie's point is very astute.. The third comes closest to describing the current situation and those who come by their wealth dishonestly are usually easy to spot by the title in front of their name: President, congressman, representative, judge, prosecutor, warden etc.. :)

Feb 23, 2004, 04:07 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	Who lost wealth by the creation of Microsoft? Please be specific. In the case of most techonologies, the practical aspects of living become easier, various conveniences become cheaper, thus allowing more leisure time, even or perhaps especially for those who are not wealthy. I do not care for Winblows, but because of its popularity, the cost of computers has decreased, the cost of communication has decreased, and the ease with which information is attained has increased. All of this amounts not only to the creation of wealth, for microsoft and others, but also for a higher standard of living even without adding in any monetary calculation.

Feb 24, 2004, 05:00 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	Greed is a word used by jealous poor people to discribe rich people who worked their asses off to build their business from the ground up and are now coasting on it's success. They have every right to do so. However...there are those what oppress people and steal their money. They're called "the government".

Feb 24, 2004, 05:24 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Poetic_Justice Igneous Magma Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 209	Don't just say government, because government isn't the only culprit. Government is sued by both workers and corporations to defraud eachother. Usually corporations get the upper hand simply because they have more and easier access to wealth adn intelligent persons. Many poor people aren't jealous, they simply see the lack of fainess, shown by the government's discriminating regulatory laws. And the rest are led like sheep by one corporation against another. From Freedom, Prosperity Dave

Feb 24, 2004, 05:59 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	The poor see a lack of fairness in what? That they are poor and other's are not? That is how the world works.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:06 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Lightbearer Guest Posts: n/a	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Government is sued by both workers and corporations to defraud eachother. Usually corporations get the upper hand simply because they have more and easier access to wealth adn intelligent persons.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I disagree with the assessment that corporations get the upper hand.. While it may be true that the more intelligent one is, the more likely he is to work in and support the private peaceful sector, this accumulation of intelligence is far from sufficient to overcome the complete power of the state. Whenever the government or government agents are proven to be in error, the government simply dictates the result with no regard to truth or justice. So while I will agree that the government and its minions is not the entire problem, clearly it is the largest problem by orders of magnitude.