Should a rich person help a poor person just because they're rich?

[Mike T]

Morgan_Freeman wrote

t's not possible for government to "support" a capitalist system. Capitalism is defined by the noninterference of government, not the presence thereof.

Tell that to the Robber Barons who were able to amass great quantities of wealth with help from the government. Much of the wealth that's out there possessed by the feelthy rich can be trace directly back to them. The plain simple fact is that only by tyranny can a government survive when there is too great a divide between the rich and the poor. You can see examples of that all over the globe.

[SteveA]

Though capitalism is based upon individual private ownership and free markets/trade I think some care needs to be taken to not over extend the concepts of private property too far.

The reason why corporations were added to capitalism is to address things where ownership is shared between multiple people. The ideal is individual ownership which of course allows people to pool resources together as a corporation but I don't think all resources are neatly cut into pieces that can be assigned individual ownership easily.

Basically, I've heard some arguments from "geo"-libertarians that at least with regard to pollution, like water or air pollution seem to point to areas of shared/common ownership (though not always equal, as they usually state).

Anyway, I think we've had problems in the past with abusing the concept of private land ownership in areas where someone may not even have any vested interest in the land. Sometimes areas have a prior interest by multiple people that needs to be recognized as well. Another typical problem of our current interation of capitalism is the reliance on a top-down definition by government of who owns what via titles. Yes, it would be nice to have government defend title ownership of land but then again, relying on it for this service can be a weakness if it gets the definition wrong and also it could be viewed to some extent as "free" services to property owners that other people pay for.

I think the ideal is individual private ownership and free markets in both increasing freedom and prosperity for everyone. Many socialists worry that such a system would lead to the rich getting richer but I believe that's mistaken in that the current system actually provides a way for individuals in power to forcibly alter things. If everyone kept what they justly acquired, I'm rather certain this would reduce income disparities (not that there's inherently anything wrong with disparities, only when wealth is unjustly taken).

Tell that to the Robber Barons who were able to amass great quantities of wealth with help from the government. Much of the wealth that's out there possessed by the feelthy rich can be trace directly back to them. The plain simple fact is that only by tyranny can a government survive when there is too great a divide between the rich and the poor. You can see examples of that all over the globe.

You posted this while I was posting my reply.

Yes, it would be better to see property definitions occur in a more bottom-up fashion than rely on government to fairly assess who owns what with titles. Look at both property taxes and the recent supreme court verdict where relying on government to tell people who owns what seems to cause more grief than it's worth.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman It's wrong because people have been coerced into paying for you. You've replaced a slightly disadvantagious situation with a dubiously advantageous and morally corrupt one. Moreoever, its a huge net loss because socialist government systems generate massive waste, stifle the economy, and all but end innovation.

It's wrong? Are you saying that all working class people who can't afford to have their kids go to University should receive no help? How is it slightly disadvantageous? Getting a degree will put me far ahead of anyone else and especially for the work I want to get into (Biotech). As a matter of fact, I'd have no chance of getting a job in Biotech without Uni, unless I wanted to be a cleaner at the labs...
How is it morally corrupt? Are you saying that only those who can afford it should get higher education?

Your Cold war views of Socialism are rather perplexing, but hey, reality is that Britain is doing just as well with its socialist's values. The people here voted for a government that decided to introduce the National Health Service, which ensures free health care for all British citizens. Are you saying that is morally wrong as well? Should we just horde our wealth because we can? I just wonder why people like you bother living in a society...

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Mike T Tell that to the Robber Barons who were able to amass great quantities of wealth with help from the government.

That isn't capitalism. It's cronyism. And its inevitable when the government grows too large.

Quote by: Mike T Much of the wealth that's out there possessed by the feelthy rich can be trace directly back to them.

If this is true (I suspect it's not), then the state should have no trouble returning the money to its rightful owners.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Pooeypants It's wrong? Are you saying that all working class people who can't afford to have their kids go to University should receive no help? How is it slightly disadvantageous? Getting a degree will put me far ahead of anyone else and especially for the work I want to get into (Biotech). As a matter of fact, I'd have no chance of getting a job in Biotech without Uni, unless I wanted to be a cleaner at the labs...

From what I've seen, employers in technical arenas don't place a lot of importance on degrees but instead on knowledge, skills and prior work experience.

Yes, a degree can help but then again you can be working in the field during that time and studying on the side privately.

Besides, if someone is paying for another persons education for a specific industry, doesn't this just rob them of the resources to possibly fund their own education, or otherwise spend the money we'll assume they worked for?

How is it morally corrupt? Are you saying that only those who can afford it should get higher education?

He was saying it's immoral in that it enslaves one person to serve the desires of someone else and it also promotes apathy in both the sense that people don't view their job skills as something they are responsible to assure are developed but instead creates a dependence on others for this. It also promotes apathy in that, let's assume you get a job in the biotechnology industry, does the extra income go largely to pay for an education for someone to work the same job, so they can pay more taxes etc. Instead of people being accountable for their own actions, they are held accountable for the actions of others. It's not too hard to see why most redistributionist systems tend to fail, because they remove much of the natural incentives people have to improve their lives - in this specific example, it doesn't matter what you do, you're given an education. So why should parents bother with assuring their children get a good education if it's an entitlement? Obviously noone would get a very good education if parents weren't very involved in the process. Oh, and what do you know education isn't becoming an increasingly failed institution in the U.S. at least. Maybe because we treat something so valuable as if it were "free"?

Your Cold war views of Socialism are rather perplexing, but hey, reality is that Britain is doing just as well with its socialist's values. The people here voted for a government that decided to introduce the National Health Service, which ensures free health care for all British citizens.

It's only called "free". It's not truly free. Wait until after you finish school and start working, then you'll understand.

You might also notice that whatever industry you work for is mysteriously funded or regulated to a large extent by government. That's socialism. It's not slavery or communism in that you are specifically required to work in support of government desires instead of your own, it's merely a shell game played via. money and taxes to keep you supporting the latest government ventures. (I guess as long as you're supportive of what your government is doing, that's fine, but consider what government has you working on and what your personal desires are and see if they are in agreement or if you're being manipulated into powering a system that works against you).

Are you saying that is morally wrong as well? Should we just horde our wealth because we can? I just wonder why people like you bother living in a society...

Who are we suppose to give our earnings to and why?

Society is fine. Slavery is not.

[ibm]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman That's entirely possible. Do you have some evidence to back this up?

no, morgan, it's not merely "entirely possible", but entirely certain. i'm not gonna write an essay to answer your question, but the widening gap in b/w the rich and the poor in america is not a secret. do a google and see for yourself. and my real life experience tells me the same thing.

[oranged]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 This is the most obvious and base philosophical question when it comes to politics as the government is nothing more than a machine that takes money away from those who have it and gives it to those who don't. Do you think that, as a human being, you're obligated buy your wealth to help other humans simply because you have more and they have less? My answer: no. You should get to keep every red cent that you earn and do with it what you please. That's the ultimate freedom that anyone should expect.

How do the people get rich, the money has to come from somewhere, it comes from leaching of other economies, and poor people. (buy=shop/by=close to or through, not trying to be mean, just so you know.)

[SteveA]

Quote by: oranged How do the people get rich, the money has to come from somewhere, it comes from leaching of other economies, and poor people. (buy=shop/by=close to or through, not trying to be mean, just so you know.)

Wrong.

People create wealth. Are there only a fixed number of cars in the world, and if one person has a car that means someone else can't drive? No it means someone else is free to make/earn their own dang car.

It's only theft when something is taken against someone elses desires (do a google on the IRS).

I include government granted monopolies in this as well, in that they deny people the ability to freely work/trade for what they desire but it stems from the same issue - using force to dictate economic issues.

The only way to improve the overall economy is to increase the efficiency of our efforts.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: SteveA From what I've seen, employers in technical arenas don't place a lot of importance on degrees but instead on knowledge, skills and prior work experience. Yes, a degree can help but then again you can be working in the field during that time and studying on the side privately. Besides, if someone is paying for another persons education for a specific industry, doesn't this just rob them of the resources to possibly fund their own education, or otherwise spend the money we'll assume they worked for?

I don't think you understand. The biotech industry, including pharmaceuticals for example, requires a BSc inorder for you to be just a lab technician. If I want to work in this field then I need to have a degree.

Quote by: SteveA He was saying it's immoral in that it enslaves one person to serve the desires of someone else and it also promotes apathy in both the sense that people don't view their job skills as something they are responsible to assure are developed but instead creates a dependence on others for this. It also promotes apathy in that, let's assume you get a job in the biotechnology industry, does the extra income go largely to pay for an education for someone to work the same job, so they can pay more taxes etc. Instead of people being accountable for their own actions, they are held accountable for the actions of others. It's not too hard to see why most redistributionist systems tend to fail, because they remove much of the natural incentives people have to improve their lives - in this specific example, it doesn't matter what you do, you're given an education. So why should parents bother with assuring their children get a good education if it's an entitlement? Obviously noone would get a very good education if parents weren't very involved in the process. Oh, and what do you know education isn't becoming an increasingly failed institution in the U.S. at least. Maybe because we treat something so valuable as if it were "free"?

It is not apathy, it is given the less well off a chance in life. My parents would struggle to send me to University, let alone my other two sisters. I would be at a massive disadvantage and I also wouldn't be able to work in the field I wanted. Are you claiming that shared responsibility is a bad thing? That everyone should fend for themselves? Should we all be lonewolves?

Quote by: SteveA It's only called "free". It's not truly free. Wait until after you finish school and start working, then you'll understand.

I'm doing an industry placement, they're taxing me 22%. What more do I need to know?

Quote by: SteveA You might also notice that whatever industry you work for is mysteriously funded or regulated to a large extent by government. That's socialism. It's not slavery or communism in that you are specifically required to work in support of government desires instead of your own, it's merely a shell game played via. money and taxes to keep you supporting the latest government ventures. (I guess as long as you're supportive of what your government is doing, that's fine, but consider what government has you working on and what your personal desires are and see if they are in agreement or if you're being manipulated into powering a system that works against you). Who are we suppose to give our earnings to and why? Society is fine. Slavery is not.

Why do you claim it is slavery? You're free to leave by yourself and not pay any tax if you want. Just don't expect my benefits in return. Why is it slavery when the majority are willing to pay their taxes? Why is it slavery when they get something beneficial in return?

But hey, if you don't want poor shmucks like me going to University, I'll probably won't get a straight answer from you but there you go.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants It's wrong? Are you saying that all working class people who can't afford to have their kids go to University should receive no help?

No, I'm saying that they shouldn't be helped by taking money from people by force.

Quote by: Pooeypants How is it slightly disadvantageous? Getting a degree will put me far ahead of anyone else and especially for the work I want to get into (Biotech). As a matter of fact, I'd have no chance of getting a job in Biotech without Uni, unless I wanted to be a cleaner at the labs...

Actually, mass government subsidization of higher education has led to a massive oversupply of college degrees. The result is that companies demand college degrees as sort of a bare minimum, even for positions that don't really demand a collge degree at all.

Quote by: Pooeypants How is it morally corrupt? Are you saying that only those who can afford it should get higher education?

That's not what I said at all. I said it is morally corrupt to *forcibly* fund these kind of programs.

Quote by: Pooeypants Your Cold war views of Socialism are rather perplexing, but hey, reality is that Britain is doing just as well with its socialist's values.

The facts say otherwise:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter...letterv3n1.pdf
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4157
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/h...e/ukmired.html
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/h...kfundbias.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...19/ixhome.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsper...410938,00.html

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: ibm no, morgan, it's not merely "entirely possible", but entirely certain. i'm not gonna write an essay to answer your question, but the widening gap in b/w the rich and the poor in america is not a secret. do a google and see for yourself. and my real life experience tells me the same thing.

The presence of a "gap" is not the same thing as the "poor getting poorer". I am a big fan of that "gap" -- it means the sky's the limit. Liberals who loath this gap are simply basing their politics on envy.

I am well aware that it is that popular opinion that the "poor are getting poorer", and there there is no end to the supply of bureaucrats, victicrats, professional whiners, and self-loathing liberals who will doctor the evidence any way they can to make this appear to be the case.
It simply isn't true. If it were, then how do you explain the millions of people all over the world clamoring to get into the US?

[YumTum]

The rich has a social and moral responsibility to pears within there society.

There are problems agree in that there can be a reduction in incentive if every1 is forced to be equal, but it is in the interest of a society as whole to have the foresight to decrease the poverty gap.

If every1 has the opportunity to be successful u have increase ure countries ability and talent to have a grow further economically, and philosophically. Imagine an entire society that was University Educated. Surely there would be a greater understanding (at least) of the world that surrounded them. Also a greater aware as to the ideas and beliefs of a wider range of people, and the skills to interpret them far better. Hopefully less predjudice and generalisations.

A large part of society at the moment is ignorance and greed. Things would be allot better if the was more striving for the greater good, however this seems quite a idealistic position, as humans as the most demonstrate this trait very rarely.

Quite a long rant,
Hello I'm Gareth.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants Why do you claim it is slavery? You're free to leave by yourself and not pay any tax if you want.

You mean seceed? No, we're not exactly "free" to do that.

Quote by: Pooeypants Why is it slavery when the majority are willing to pay their taxes?

.... because the minority aren't willing.

Quote by: Pooeypants But hey, if you don't want poor shmucks like me going to University, I'll probably won't get a straight answer from you but there you go.

False dichotomy. There are ways to get your way through college without relying on the government dole.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: YumTum There are problems agree in that there can be a reduction in incentive if every1 is forced to be equal, but it is in the interest of a society as whole to have the foresight to decrease the poverty gap.

Why?

Quote by: YumTum Things would be allot better if the was more striving for the greater good, however this seems quite a idealistic position, as humans as the most demonstrate this trait very rarely.

This was tried in the Soviet Union and China. The result? Millions of people dead.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman No, I'm saying that they shouldn't be helped by taking money from people by force.

Is it by force? Are you saying that people don't need to pay their taxes? People don't need services provided by the government? I'm not saying the system is perfect but you're suggesting seems to be that everyone should fend for themselves even though that is possible.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Actually, mass government subsidization of higher education has led to a massive oversupply of college degrees. The result is that companies demand college degrees as sort of a bare minimum, even for positions that don't really demand a collge degree at all.

I don't know about the US education system at the mo but anyho, I just wanted you to know that for something like the Biotech industry, a BSc is required simply because ensures that their employees have the level of education and practical knowledge.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman That's not what I said at all. I said it is morally corrupt to *forcibly* fund these kind of programs.

I think it's morally corrupt to not fund it. Morals are relative, so what is your point?

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The facts say otherwise: http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter...letterv3n1.pdf http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4157 http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/h...e/ukmired.html http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/h...kfundbias.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...19/ixhome.html http://society.guardian.co.uk/nhsper...410938,00.html

Thank you for pointing out how badly managed our NHS is. I know this to be a fact, however, it has been running since the 1950's and only because of silly governmental redtape has been allowed to go into disarray. So just how is the British economy doing with our socialist's values? Is collapsing already? I hadn't noticed.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman .... because the minority aren't willing.

Then why do they choose to live here? They are free to move to other countries. The minority isn't suffering because they're being taxed are they? Are you claiming that due to high taxation, people are struggling to feed their kids?

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman False dichotomy. There are ways to get your way through college without relying on the government dole.

Not really, what other choices did I have. I already stated that my parents couldn't have afforded it, my course costs 9000 pounds per year and one top of that is the living costs, which at bare minimum would still add up to nearly 4000 pounds a year (varying depending on where you live).
My guess is you'd suggest applying for a scholarship. Which is fine but those are still very limited compared to government sponsorship.

Maybe you're afraid of a larger educated society perhaps?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Pooeypants I don't think you understand. The biotech industry, including pharmaceuticals for example, requires a BSc inorder for you to be just a lab technician. If I want to work in this field then I need to have a degree.

Well, who requires the degree? I've gotten a lot of technical positions with no degree at all.

And if it's truly necessary, then if you can't provide this, your parents should have made plans if they intended for their child to have a BS degree.

I might want my children to have a lot of things but I can only afford so much. It would unfair to others to expect them to pay for children I chose to have.

Quote by: Pooeypants It is not apathy, it is given the less well off a chance in life.

But governments don't typically create value, they just move it around (and at an overall cost too). So who isn't going to be able to afford to get their degree, or house, or be able to afford children etc. to pay for you to attend a university?

Let's not be greedy. We need a bit of compassion added to the system.

Quote by: Pooeypants My parents would struggle to send me to University, let alone my other two sisters. I would be at a massive disadvantage and I also wouldn't be able to work in the field I wanted. Are you claiming that shared responsibility is a bad thing? That everyone should fend for themselves? Should we all be lonewolves?

No, I've only said that theft is still unjustified.

Government, of necessity needs to be representative of its constituents. You can't expect government to create a scenario where one group of people are sacrificed for the interests of others, without finding conflict and dissent emerging.

If parents can't afford to send their children to a university, why should they expect someone else to do this for them?

Quote by: Pooeypants I'm doing an industry placement, they're taxing me 22%. What more do I need to know? Why do you claim it is slavery? You're free to leave by yourself and not pay any tax if you want.

Not really. There's no way to "opt out" of the taxes, at least not without some IRS responses.

Quote by: Pooeypants Just don't expect my benefits in return.

Yes, I'd agree that would be part of the deal assuming there was a way to "opt out" of the system.

Quote by: Pooeypants Why is it slavery when the majority are willing to pay their taxes? Why is it slavery when they get something beneficial in return?

If a majority of the people on your block wanted to paint their houses brown and they made you pay for and paint your own house brown as well, would that be much different from slavery? We can assume there were underlying threats of physical harm/incarceration or financial action to enforce this. Sure, they receive something beneficial from it but wouldn't it be better to live in a society that just accepted the fact that not everyone needed to live by the same standards, or that it was seen as unjust forcing someone to comply unnecessarily with a system they felt worked against their interests for no real legitimate grievance?

Quote by: Pooeypants But hey, if you don't want poor shmucks like me going to University, I'll probably won't get a straight answer from you but there you go.

I just couldn't help responding to your post because I was a poor schmuck too. My bedroom was a closet when I was growing up and I have no degree but I'm one of the best engineers around in many areas.

I've got an uncle who homeschooled his children. The oldest child is now a multimillion and going to buy a boat and take his family on cruise around the world. Their other children are doing fine as well ... no degrees.

Sure, some people need more assistance but there are plenty of resources for motivated people.

Oh, and consider this. Imagine I had to help pay for someone to attend a university, that I couldn't afford to attend? It's not "free". We can't all go to universities, nor should everyone go because we don't need everyone to do similar things in any event.

I'm just saying that it's limiting and harmful to have the mindset that one persons education is dependent upon other people to supply. There are many ways to learn and universities are just one of them (and an expensive option as well).

[YumTum]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Why?

If focus is possibly driven of sucess being in terms of gaining finacial wealth rather a improvement of the greater economy by increasing the countries living standards and education.

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This was tried in the Soviet Union and China. The result? Millions of people dead.

But they were under dictatorships, if there was a intergration of a democratic government system, that would be alot better.

Its a hard one to put in place, as there are left and right at the moment. I just think that there to be more forward thinking and less short term gain.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Pooeypants Is it by force?

Yes, it is. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.