Greed is good

[Leopard]

disrespecting the Earth? How does one 'disrespect' an inanimate object? What garbage...

[white rice]

Depends on what good is. If you like accumulating something in order to fill a growing void inside your life, then greed is probably good. If you like running something to the ground just because you want to or don't care about the future, then greed is better. If you think everyone not greedy is lazy and you have a warped sense of reality, then greed is great.

If you think that it's a race to see who's richer or greedier, then it...well...sorry to break it to you, but death doesn't give a shit.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
If you like accumulating something in order to fill a growing void inside your life, then greed is probably good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

So if you have a perverse void (ie. some guy enjoys raping girls to fill his loniless), then its good?

What about a "void for power"? What if you gain power in order to fill a void (the lack of power)? Hitler had a void too. He filled it.


</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If you like running something to the ground just because you want to or don't care about the future, then greed is better. If you think everyone not greedy is lazy and you have a warped sense of reality, then greed is great. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Greed isn't about destruction. Its simply about wanting something that could be given to other people.

You're greedy. You have a computer when you could sell it, give money to the poor, and save thousands of lives. You have a life when you could kill yourself, sell the organs, and save other peoples lives.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Greed isn't about destruction. Its simply about wanting something that could be given to other people.

You're greedy. You have a computer when you could sell it, give money to the poor, and save thousands of lives. You have a life when you could kill yourself, sell the organs, and save other peoples lives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Greed is about 'wanting something that could be given to other people'? what?

that is everything... so the definition is worthless... why even post?

[castille]

Just to explain it a little better (well a simpleton would've got it, but I guess you didnt): Greed is simply about wanting something that could have been given to others.

So your computer. You're using a computer. Why? African children starve, while you tap away on your keyboard. Do you know, if you sold your computer, you could feed a single child for the next 4 years?

The greed in you refuses to do this. You want your computer, your luxury food, your clothes, while children starve. You could sell your clothes (you just need 1 pair) and feed more children, but your greed hangs onto it.

[Leopard]

oh, yes, I guess I must be a simpleton - I didn't realize that there actually were still people who believe that communism can work for humans in their current state...

so by your definition, a person is greedy if, somewhere, anywhere, another person has 'less' than the 'greedy' person?

wait, I have more hair than a bald guy... am I greedy? the 6'10" person has bigger lungs and thus consumes more oxygen... he must be greedy - should be giving some of that stuff to me!

hmmm, I should I divide up my penis amoungst all the poor women folk that don't have one (or perhaps even access to one)? and when do I collect my due breasts?

yes yes, I know its a bit over the top, these examples... but no more so than your unrealistic definition... we are human, we are different, we are not equal - get over it!

[castille]

And we are greedy, get over it.


Greed isn't an evil thing. Ok, maybe Western media propagandises your mind and tells you greed is bad (just watch the Simpsons, they portray Mr Burns as an evil person, but I doubt any billionaire acts like that). But greed is essential for survival.

Remember our ancestors, the cavemen who killed animals so they would survive? Thats greed. They took lives for their own lives. Its not even survival; they could've eaten tree bark (yes its edible), or leaves, or berries.

[Man Against Time]

As long as you keep defining Greed as, "anything done for your own benefit," then yes, greed is good. Sucks for you that you are not talking about greed at all though.

[Sasha]

GREED
excessive desire for something, such as food or money
Collins Paperback English dictionary

to say greed is bad is a tautology, it must be true because greed is defined as TO MUCH.

[FreedomFirst]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sasha,)
GREED
excessive desire for something, such as food or money
Collins Paperback English dictionary

to say greed is bad is a tautology, it must be true because greed is defined as TO MUCH.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Agreed. Greed is bad. But should it be illegal? No way in hell. The last thing I want is for my government to start getting into the business of "how much is too much?"

Of course, I live in America, my government is already in that business. :(

[narg]

This is a stupid and useless debate.

Whether greed is 'good' or 'bad,' it is a fact of life and a constant in society that cannot be done away with. In arguing its merits and downsides, we do little better than arguing the pros and cons of the earth's gravity, or whether being carbon-based life forms is 'good' or 'bad.'

Furthermore, in this context, the word 'good' is meaningless. The only useful way to interpret it is as "Is greed beneficial to society?", and there is absolutely no useful evidence to show anything about that, since there never has been nor never will be a society without greed to compare ours to.

The entire question is flawed and hollow.

[Leopard]

good point narg

especially since 'greed' is a subjective term...

[commonsense]

Libertarian Anarchism is Noam Chomsky's word for Totalitarian Socialist Elitist

Don't be fooled. Read a few pages from Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" and any quotes from any of the Founding Fathers, and if you're honest with yourself, you'll see, basically, that anybody institutionalizing telling anybody else "what to do" beyond what our Founding Fathers strictly circumscribed, is SELF-SERVING AND TOO DAMN MUCH!

The U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and all colonial American authors are not merely "government", but history's greatest philosophy of contending with the nature of man in society, and his only hope for real spiritual ascendancy and societal evolution.

...May it not take revolution to make enough souls see their eternal wisdom.

Now let's start embracing their philosophy once again.

Ronald Reagan was a great speaker.

[Leopard]

commonsense, you seem to contradict yourself...

Libertarian Anarchism is Noam Chomsky's word for Totalitarian Socialist Elitist

and

if you're honest with yourself, you'll see, basically, that anybody institutionalizing telling anybody else "what to do" beyond what our Founding Fathers strictly circumscribed, is SELF-SERVING AND TOO DAMN MUCH!

do not seem to jive, explain please

[Packratt]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Just to explain it a little better (well a simpleton would've got it, but I guess you didnt): Greed is simply about wanting something that could have been given to others.

So your computer. You're using a computer. Why? African children starve, while you tap away on your keyboard. Do you know, if you sold your computer, you could feed a single child for the next 4 years?

The greed in you refuses to do this. You want your computer, your luxury food, your clothes, while children starve. You could sell your clothes (you just need 1 pair) and feed more children, but your greed hangs onto it.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hmmm... Not to argue with you necessarily... But just to bring up a point.

I can assure you that the computers I own are not worth that much in market terms. They are the pieces of garbage toss out by others that I have made whole again. So, as such they have no real value to a capitalist.

Yet, many of these pieces of trash I save have been given to those who could never afford to type away on such 'luxuries' by capitalist means in the hopes that these 'luxuries' will grant them the ability to learn 'necessary' skills that may or may not help them help themselves out of their situations.

So, my computers might actually have the potential to feed children eventually, though not by the means that you are thinking of...

In other words, it is not greed that motivates me to use computers.

[Leopard]

wow! now I have seen it all - two socialists battling each other!

[commonsense]

To clarify my Noam Chomsky reference:
I don't claim to be an expert, but the little I've read of his politics (not his linguistics...which I wish he would stick to) talks of not only governmental "anarchy" but also anarchy in the sense that a man is not really free if he punchs a time clock or enters a workplace where he receives orders from another man "over" him....I think I can get pretty philosophical myself, but this is where he loses me, because one is not forced, per se, to get a job or live in a built-up society, I guess you could eke out an existence eating grubs, etc and still find plenty of joy but it would certainly be limited by this hypothetical region's population density...but more to the point, because that is not the picture in his mind when he says "not having to answer to a boss" what Chomsky really advocates is some sort of communal take-over of the plant, or business or factory, etc by some sort of democratic committee "rule" that does not include governments, armies, cops, etc so he says the "libertarian anarchist" is really free-est of all concepts...but he's crazy! (funny too, that he advocates gun control at the same time)
What he is really advocating is perhaps a dissolution of govt as we know it, but clearly includes elitist bureaucrats presiding over these "democratic boards" or whatever he envisions. Its all just incredibly bogus and is merely a front for international socialism. All "systems" that are ostensibly "social" or "communal" always have an elitist corp running and usurping off the top of them. At least in our system there's movement possible and would be more so if people weren't too busy paying taxes to govern themselves better locally, even with "encumbent advantage, etc, we have an immediate solution to our thieves in govt, where elsewhere it takes much more wrangling, military coups or revolution.
The only American revolution we need is to read the founding fathers, and Thomas Paine and get an overview of the oppressed state of the common man throughout history to see the beauty of our constitution.
Chomskyites secretly know that anything to demonize corporations, (which is what he says he is doing when he really should be criticizing the U.S. congress overreaching its philosophical constitutional restrictions---if politicians' present day extraconstitutional purview were not found so acceptable by a public that doesn't know its founders intentions..."greedy corporations" would have no one to bribe.
So indirectly, these so-called "Libertarian Socialists" which are so way out of any conceivable practical vision of the future, DO succeed in what their actual goal is, which is turning americans against our govt's international campaigns(like Iraq) which is fine, except they do so in favor of "world egality" and "United Nations" rule which, as bad as much of our foreign policy is, what the U.N. really is is much worse... the U.N. being a front for International Socialism, basically the destruction of the U.S.
This not to say that Chomsky doesn't identify many political, corporate, military, and class phenomena correctly...he does.
But! he does so by shifting the blame to corporations which are free associations of free people (essentially) that rise or fall according to the choices of free people (largely) and the "market", yet everything govts do, especially socialist govts, they do by FORCE
It always comes back around to this:
Wealth would not be aided to be concentrated in the hands of a few...
Corporations (especially high-tech and military)wouldnt be being indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer...
And there wouldn't be such social and (exaggerated)health problems...
IF ONLY THE U.S. GOVT WERE RESTRICTED BY EVERY ONE OF ITS ENLIGHTENED CITIZENS TO ADHERE TO ITS FOUNDING PHILOSOPHICAL PRINCIPLES, WHICH SOCIALIST ELITIST TOTALITARIANS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY OBSCURING AND PERVERTING BEING TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS
Add in a little creative voluntary solutions to conditions like needing to undo our welfare state, and that's the answer...

Our social conventions, call them "morality" or "peer pressure" are what keep greed in check, and the bonus of liberty to pusue one's and his family's own best interest unrestricted by government usurpation brings the added bonus of having much more to give... a very positive, if not absolutely "perfect (Hah!) proposition"

but let's look at greed and freedom and capitalism's opposite...

ENVY!!!! Upon which evrything about Socialism and "egality" are based...
The moral acceptance of brutal force to bring it about, continually scrutinize with armed agents, and of course to centrally control by its self ordained elite, instead of one's own efforts and ingenuity...

Nothing positive about that. Theyve got most of the world, at least half the americans and almost every child and student sold on it.

Read a little Colonial American history and authors... please.

[dotcoma]

Greed is good? Yeah OK, guys...

[Leopard]

roxdog,
ok then, what is your definition of both 'greed' and 'good'?

michael

[thrillofitall]

Greed is one of the most natural human instincts. it can be good in certain societies. overall i would say that if everyone was a little less greedy, the world would be a much better place.