quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well it only becomes philosophical when you bring in moral rights and wrongs, however, concerning this scenario the only right and wrongs that pertain to this situation are those established by law. Once again, if an individual chooses to be a part of an established society, they must adhere to the laws set by society.

i would say that this is highly moral. in fact, isn't it all about morals? you may be aware of that you doesn't follow the law, but still you doesn't necessarily think that it is wrong. then they break the law, but doesn't do anything wrong (in their opinion). so who is wrong and who is right?

quote:

As long as an individual is of sound mind to be able to distinguish what is legal and what is illegal, and they realise the repurcussions of their actions, they are held accountable for their actions. If for example, I was born stupid, and I grew up in a "bad" environment and I chose a life of crime as an "easy way out" of my predicament instead of working hard, then I am still responsible for my actions. A poor person who steals because they don't want to work hard is no different than a middle class person who steals because they don't want to work hard. They commit the same crime on different economic scales, and they should be treated the same.

so why are you lazy? why are some not lazy? why are some very ambitious? why do some people get out of the bad life, some not? do you decide to be lazy or are you lazy? yes in some way you decide to be lazy, but then you have to ask, why do you decide to be lazy?

yes you make you own decisions but, on what grounds do people make their decisions? how are your mind formed? sure it isn't formed by itself, you either think like you environment or you are smart.

as i can see it, there is no way you can make "own" decisions if you are not smart, and still if you are smart, you are influenced a lot by your environment.

individuals choices are highly overrated imo!

quote:

Then by this standard of values, the poor will always be more morally bankrupt than those who are wealthier. That's simply discrimination by social class.

yes it is, therefore you should make their environments as good as possible and you should make their choices easier to take, and therefore the poor will not be as morally bankrupt.

quote:

If your environment/upbringing dictates the choices you make in life, then one can extrapolate that those with poor environments/upbringings will statistically make the wrong choices in life. If that is the case than why do we not operate under the assumption that "we"/the government know more than they do and know what's good for them regardless of their choices or their beliefs of what is good for them? It all comes down to the simple argument about whether we as humans have free choice.

no this is the tricky part, what is really a good society and what is a bad? who live happier, the poor or the richer? i believe in a society with a high standard and good economy and a happy people. i also think that it is the government's task to fulfill that, and therefore also the government should try to "take the right decisions for the people". imo well educated people know better than poor/uneducated, so why should they not push to make people think "right"?

quote:

If we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and make choices independant from outside factors than we should have the ability to make the choices we want to about our lives. If we are simply animals so to speak whereby our actions are instinctual at best than we should NOT have the ability to make choices about our lives since we do not have free choice. In as much as there is an asylum for the insane since they lack the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and make informed choices in life, shall we establish an asylum for the poor whereby the government/ "elite" make their choices for them? Either we are individuals that have the ability to make free choices, or we are products of animalistic instincts. Therefore do you afford humans the RIGHT to choose or not?

i have to admit i didn't think this extreme before, but the more i think of it the more i realize how little we really have of a free choice. we are much like animals, yes. we have the choice but the question is more why do we take the decisions we do?

but i do still believe in personal choice just that i have now realized how little we affect our own choices.

quote:

Well you have a fast, state of the art computer, fine foods, a spacious apartment, a monthly budget of X amount of kroner (?),a gaming system perhaps? Is being fed, clothed, and housed not a decent life under these circumstances? These are all luxury goods ...

200 years ago, being fed, clothed and housed was luxury, today it's not. the line is moving forward, considering how much money some people have; being fed, clothed and housed is not a decent life.

quote:

But I didn't jump out the window by my own will. It was a product of my genetics and my environment ... I didn't have a choice

that has to be a strange environment you have lived in, were people jump out of their windows

Renegade: Your doubts about the full-proofness of capitalism mirror my own. I don't maintain any pretenses at all that capitalism is the epitome of all that is right. Much of what I have argued have been from an abstract standpoint of rights and responsibilities laying forth the groundwork for a capitalistic society. However, for the exact reasons that a communist utopia is unattainable, I recognize that a utopian capitalistic society is unattainable in its present form. Therefore, I realise that society exists to better individuals and that individuals should provide some contribution to society. For those reasons, I am FOR welfare. I am for assistance to the mentally/physically disabled, and I am for a bigger government role than what I would necessarily envision in a libertarion idealistic society. One should attempt to provide opportunities to everyone in society.

However, one problem I have with your arguments are with entitlements. You seem to imply (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a problem with capitalism is that the playing field is not COMPLETELY level for all individuals. Specifically, some are born into easier lifestyles than others. While I understand the necessity of the state to provide a certain level of competance to attain accomplishments in life, I believe I would balk at limiting the means with which others devote towards making their offspring better candidates. For example, if you're a wealthy person, why should you NOT have the ability to send your children to good schools? Why should you not have the ability to tutor them and have them excel in life? As it is your right to be successful in life, reap the benefits of your labor, isn't it your right to pass those benefits off to your children to succeed in life?

Essentially, my question is, is at what point do we limit personal accomplishment in order to "level" the playing field?


St. Andrew, I haven't forgotten you ... I'll address your arguments next free chance I get over thanksgiving

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i would say that this is highly moral. in fact, isn't it all about morals? you may be aware of that you doesn't follow the law, but still you doesn't necessarily think that it is wrong. then they break the law, but doesn't do anything wrong (in their opinion). so who is wrong and who is right?

Hmmm, I'm not sure I quite understand what you are trying to say. I believe that damned language barrier is at fault! Although I do respect you making the effort to argue in my primary language .

quote:

so why are you lazy? why are some not lazy? why are some very ambitious? why do some people get out of the bad life, some not? do you decide to be lazy or are you lazy? yes in some way you decide to be lazy, but then you have to ask, why do you decide to be lazy?

I am lazy because I choose to be. There have been many a time when there have been no otgher reasons for me to not do work other than me not feeling to do work. Genetics or upbringing do not play a role. There are plenty of lower class people who choose to work 50/60 hours a week in order to make ends meet. By the same set of standards, there are plenty of people who earn a lot of money who work 60/70 hours a week to make ends meet. Regardless of our socio-economic situation, we all make decisions about how much we want to work.

quote:

yes you make you own decisions but, on what grounds do people make their decisions? how are your mind formed? sure it isn't formed by itself, you either think like you environment or you are smart. as i can see it, there is no way you can make "own" decisions if you are not smart, and still if you are smart, you are influenced a lot by your environment. individuals choices are highly overrated imo!

Well then this is where we disagree. I am of the opinion that we as humans, are at a higher level of competance/understnading than animals. I like to believe that we have the ability to distinguish right from wrong and make correct choices in life regardless of our upbringing/environment. Do I know what is good for a mother of 4 who is getting less than 30,000 a year? No SHE does.

quote:

yes it is, therefore you should make their environments as good as possible and you should make their choices easier to take, and therefore the poor will not be as morally bankrupt.

What? That's elitism at its purest. The poor make unethical, ammoral, stupid decisions at best therefore THEY are better off when WE make decisions for them ...

quote:

no this is the tricky part, what is really a good society and what is a bad? who live happier, the poor or the richer? i believe in a society with a high standard and good economy and a happy people. i also think that it is the government's task to fulfill that, and therefore also the government should try to "take the right decisions for the people". imo well educated people know better than poor/uneducated, so why should they not push to make people think "right"?

So why do we not place a weight on individuals who went to college? Any person that went to college automatically receives 2.5 times the vote of a person who did not go to college. They are "smarter" right? Therefore they would know better how to run the country ... The "stupid" don't know how to govern themselves. It's fun seeing how the the "intelligentsia" works

quote:

i have to admit i didn't think this extreme before, but the more i think of it the more i realize how little we really have of a free choice. we are much like animals, yes. we have the choice but the question is more why do we take the decisions we do? but i do still believe in personal choice just that i have now realized how little we affect our own choices.

So which is it? Do we have free choice or are we products of our environment? They are antagonistic of each other.

quote:

200 years ago, being fed, clothed and housed was luxury, today it's not. the line is moving forward, considering how much money some people have; being fed, clothed and housed is not a decent life.

Exactly, so in light of all the luxuries that you possess, why are people still poor around you?

quote:

that has to be a strange environment you have lived in, were people jump out of their windows

No not everybody jumps out of their windows ... but I don't want to work such that I can take care of myself. I would much rathter YOU take care of me, becaues I was raised this way.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Essentially, my question is, is at what point do we limit personal accomplishment in order to "level" the playing field?

Children of rich parents will always be "priveleged", so I'm not saying that rich people shouldn't be allowed to do what's best for their child all I'm saying is that those at the other end of the spectrum (poor family, lack of access to quality education and so forth) should be allowed to grow up in conditions as similar to those in rich families as possible. So it's not about lowering the bar for rich people, it's about raising the bar for poor one's.

Like I said, this is best done by funding schools and low-income families and - as it is the more well-off who pay the large majority of taxes - this is where the majority of the funding should come from. Therefore, it should be the obligation of those better off to raise the bar for those less well-off and contribute to the setting up of a truly capitalistic society. Given that they have benefitted so much from such a society, they should be actively willing to contribute towards its propogation and sustainability into the future.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Given that they have benefitted so much from such a society, they should be actively willing to contribute towards its propogation and sustainability into the future.

I agree with you to some extent--ideally, they should be willing to an extent, but when you say they are obligated you start to delve into rights infringement and entitlement. It's a very fine line, indeed. You can't dictate charity.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I agree with you to some extent--ideally, they should be willing to an extent, but when you say they are obligated you start to delve into rights infringement and entitlement. It's a very fine line, indeed. You can't dictate charity.

Well, you are obligated to pay the taxes. I don't see why a part of those taxes shouldn't go for charity.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I agree with you to some extent--ideally, they should be willing to an extent, but when you say they are obligated you start to delve into rights infringement and entitlement. It's a very fine line, indeed. You can't dictate charity.

quote:

Well, you are obligated to pay the taxes. I don't see why a part of those taxes shouldn't go for charity.

I'm not sure I like the word "charity". The ideas I'm talking about here have as much in common with centrally funded necessities like "road-building" - i.e. a social necessity that isn't going to be funded in another way - than what we normally associate with "charity" - i.e. the mere act of giving money or goods to those less fortunate as part of some empathetic act. The point that I'm trying to get across here is that levelling the "starting-point" for all individuals isn't mere charity, it's in the best interests of the capitalistic system: it isn't merely benefitting the individuals who receive the money (as with "charity") but rather the whole of society as well.

And yep, like our resident rocket-scientist (top pic ) Drug_Tito said, taxation is what I had in mind when I used the word "obligation". The theory is, if you want to live in a society (and, no matter how much of an individual you are, it is most likely within your best interests to live within a society) then it makes sense that this society should impose upon you - and all other citizens - an obligation to contribute back to it, in order to "sustain" it. Now in an ideal world, of course, these tax-contributions would be entirely "optional", but let's be honest: if taxation wasn't legally binding, who'd be willing to hand over their income (up to 50%+ of it depending on where you live) if they knew there wasn't going to be a homogenous contribution from all other citizens?

The lengths people go to to avoid paying tax, even though it is a legal requirement, should give us some indication of what would happen if we made tax a "voluntary" contribution.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade And yep, like our resident rocket-scientist (top pic ) Drug_Tito said, taxation is what I had in mind when I used the word "obligation". The theory is, if you want to live in a society (and, no matter how much of an individual you are, it is most likely within your best interests to live within a society) then it makes sense that this society should impose upon you - and all other citizens - an obligation to contribute back to it, in order to "sustain" it. Now in an ideal world, of course, these tax-contributions would be entirely "optional", but let's be honest: if taxation wasn't legally binding, who'd be willing to hand over their income (up to 50%+ of it depending on where you live) if they knew there wasn't going to be a homogenous contribution from all other citizens? The lengths people go to to avoid paying tax, even though it is a legal requirement, should give us some indication of what would happen if we made tax a "voluntary" contribution.

totally agree whith that, and most of the other things you have written.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmm, I'm not sure I quite understand what you are trying to say. I believe that damned language barrier is at fault! Although I do respect you making the effort to argue in my primary language .

hehe, it's good practice for me actually, have raised my english grade a lot since i started to post on TA. but you understand most of what i'm trying to say, or is my english hard to understand?

anyway, what i was trying to say was that people doesn't necessarily define right and wrong the same as the laws, and all people don't care about right and wrong, and then the question is why don't they do that? no cause they are raised in the wrong environment with wrong ethics.

quote:

I am lazy because I choose to be. There have been many a time when there have been no otgher reasons for me to not do work other than me not feeling to do work. Genetics or upbringing do not play a role. There are plenty of lower class people who choose to work 50/60 hours a week in order to make ends meet. By the same set of standards, there are plenty of people who earn a lot of money who work 60/70 hours a week to make ends meet. Regardless of our socio-economic situation, we all make decisions about how much we want to work.

you still miss my point, why do we take the decisions we do?

quote:

Well then this is where we disagree. I am of the opinion that we as humans, are at a higher level of competance/understnading than animals. I like to believe that we have the ability to distinguish right from wrong and make correct choices in life regardless of our upbringing/environment. Do I know what is good for a mother of 4 who is getting less than 30,000 a year? No SHE does.

yes i agree, human are at a much higher level of competence/understanding but still we do not affect our decissions as much as you think we do. i'm not a supporter of communist government (not really a pure socialist either, more like socialist-liberal) where the people doesn't have to take any choices, i do believe in personal choice, BUT people should not be punished for something that they doesn't really control.

quote:

What? That's elitism at its purest. The poor make unethical, ammoral, stupid decisions at best therefore THEY are better off when WE make decisions for them ...

yes that may be elitism, of course it doesn't always apply but most times i think that that is the best.

quote:

So why do we not place a weight on individuals who went to college? Any person that went to college automatically receives 2.5 times the vote of a person who did not go to college. They are "smarter" right? Therefore they would know better how to run the country ... The "stupid" don't know how to govern themselves. It's fun seeing how the the "intelligentsia" works

yes, probably that would be the best way, BUT the value of a human should be the same whoever you are. so this is why i don't support communism/elite societies, nor do i believe in societies where every individual has a too big choice, so therefore something in between is the best.

quote:

So which is it? Do we have free choice or are we products of our environment? They are antagonistic of each other.

not necessarily, you can do free choices, but as i said before, you shouldn't blame them to much if they make the wrong, and it's society's task to help them if they make bad choices, it's also society's task to help people make good choices.

quote:

Exactly, so in light of all the luxuries that you possess, why are people still poor around you?

imo, the definition of poor is proportional to how much money the average/rich man has. so the poor is being richer and richer the line goes forward.

is like with computers, 10 years ago a 80mhz computer was something very fast and you could do "everything" with it, today you can't do a shit with it, even though you still can do the same things with it like you could 10 years ago. Everything is relative.

quote:

No not everybody jumps out of their windows ... but I don't want to work such that I can take care of myself. I would much rathter YOU take care of me, becaues I was raised this way.

poor you... people who jump out of their windows and get into a wheelchair to get on welfare i would more define as mentally ill

There is a huge difference in paying taxes to the government (Which they can then use to fund (UGH) various entitlement programs like social security, medicare, etc, as well as to provide certain public goods like roads/infrastructure, defense, etc.) and having some lazy "poor" (Poor in relation to me because they're obsessed with the 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentaility) person sitting on the sidelines crying that I am obligated to give him a portion of my hard earned wealth simply because I have made more than he has (By whatever means, as long as I have not infringed on someone elses rights by so doing). I have no problem paying taxes--I pay a shitload already and never bitch and moan about it because it affords me the rights to act by my own free will etc. What I get pissed off about is the people who don't pay anything in taxes trying to lay claim to my wealth, as if it's their birthright to own some of my personal property. In my (admittedly somewhat idealistic) view of a free society, nobody is "entitled" to more than they produce. If a "poor" person pays nothing in taxes, he is entitled to ZERO tax rebates--then it becomes a forced welfare society where wealth is arbirarily redistributed in a manner that infringes on the rights of those who already are paying the lionshare of what it costs to run the system.

Put it this way--if you continually try to take more and more from the most productive members of society and give it to the dead weight, you'll likely hit a critical point where the prime movers go on strike and say 'to hell with the rest of you'. What will the looters do for themselves when they can no longer count on the 'rich' people to 'give' them a living? Maybe then they'll see the light.


St. Andrew--if you make $5 million dollars a year, are you rich? I can't see how you wouldn't be, I mean you could pretty much purchase anything you want (With the exception of your own private jet and a few other things) and live decadently for all of your days.

OK, what if Warren Buffet or Bill Gates moves in next door to you? Let's see--Gates is worth about $40 billion now. Suddenly your net worth is only .0125% (.000125) of your neighbor. Does that make you poor? (Relatively speaking perhaps, but are you REALLY poor?). Would you then feel that your new neighbor should just turn over $20 billion dollars to you so that you're both "equally rich"? I imagine Gates would probably have you dragged out and shot in public before he would do such a thing. How is that any different from simply stealing his wealth? Why do you feel that you're entitled to his hard earned wealth? You did nothing to earn it other than the fact that you live next door to him and his wealth dwarfs yours, relatively speaking. Shouldn't wealth/poverty be more of a measure of happiness? If you're content with your life, aren't you more rich than money alone can bring you? The entitlement menality is rapidly becoming one of the most destructive facets of our society.

It's great to want to be wealthy and successful, but stealing isn't the way to get it. Taking by force is not how you achieve happiness and success.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka There is a huge difference in paying taxes to the government (Which they can then use to fund (UGH) various entitlement programs like social security, medicare, etc, as well as to provide certain public goods like roads/infrastructure, defense, etc.) and having some lazy "poor" (Poor in relation to me because they're obsessed with the 'keeping up with the Joneses' mentaility) person sitting on the sidelines crying that I am obligated to give him a portion of my hard earned wealth simply because I have made more than he has (By whatever means, as long as I have not infringed on someone elses rights by so doing). I have no problem paying taxes--I pay a shitload already and never bitch and moan about it because it affords me the rights to act by my own free will etc.

but still, if you have a system where you actively everyday you are on welfare has to do something to get out of it, then you really can't blame them for being lazy if they don't get a job.

quote:

Put it this way--if you continually try to take more and more from the most productive members of society and give it to the dead weight, you'll likely hit a critical point where the prime movers go on strike and say 'to hell with the rest of you'. What will the looters do for themselves when they can no longer count on the 'rich' people to 'give' them a living? Maybe then they'll see the light.

you can also put it the other way around, there is not a chance that the 1% richest in a country make up for their 20 000times higher fortune. what if the working class, the ones actually producing something in society, went out to strike cause they wanted fairer salaries?

and just because you have a welfare society doesn't mean that everyone in that society stops working!!!

quote:

St. Andrew--if you make $5 million dollars a year, are you rich? I can't see how you wouldn't be, I mean you could pretty much purchase anything you want (With the exception of your own private jet and a few other things) and live decadently for all of your days. OK, what if Warren Buffet or Bill Gates moves in next door to you? Let's see--Gates is worth about $40 billion now. Suddenly your net worth is only .0125% (.000125) of your neighbor. Does that make you poor? (Relatively speaking perhaps, but are you REALLY poor?). Would you then feel that your new neighbor should just turn over $20 billion dollars to you so that you're both "equally rich"? I imagine Gates would probably have you dragged out and shot in public before he would do such a thing. How is that any different from simply stealing his wealth? Why do you feel that you're entitled to his hard earned wealth? You did nothing to earn it other than the fact that you live next door to him and his wealth dwarfs yours, relatively speaking. Shouldn't wealth/poverty be more of a measure of happiness? If you're content with your life, aren't you more rich than money alone can bring you? The entitlement menality is rapidly becoming one of the most destructive facets of our society.

if you can buy everything you want, you are not poor, regardless of how much money everyone else in society has. but if the case were: you make 5 million dollars a year (this year is 2057 or something...), you can not buy everything in society, there is sooo many new very expensive things that you cannot afford (although you can still afford everything you had before), almost the whole society afford those things, but you cannot. then yes in a way you are poor.

But i think this is very theoretical, i don't think we will ever live in such a overflow so 5 million dollars is poor... and probably i would change my mind in welfare policis in such an overflow...

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew you can also put it the other way around, there is not a chance that the 1% richest in a country make up for their 20 000times higher fortune. what if the working class, the ones actually producing something in society, went out to strike cause they wanted fairer salaries?

Honestly, if you remove the potential union factor, you'd probably see that those employees would not have jobs and would be replaced by someone who is willing to provide the same service at an appropriate wage rate who would gladly take the place of the worker who is jealous because he doesn't have as much as the owner of the company. It happens every day. Look at how jobs are leaving the U.S. to go to China and the Phillipenes right now. I have conflicing feelings about this, but it is a reality of a free economy that as technology improves, some jobs become commoditized and shift depending on who is willing to do the work at what price.

They could certainly quit and go on strike--that is their freedom and their right to choose to do so, however they would be smart to realize that they would not have a job in the first place if not for the person they are striking against.

quote:

if you can buy everything you want, you are not poor, regardless of how much money everyone else in society has. but if the case were: you make 5 million dollars a year (this year is 2057 or something

My example assumes the date is today, as $5 million today seems rich by today's standards. Perhaps the problem is that your 'wants' aren't in line with your abilities. In this case you should rethink your priorities.

quote:

imo, the definition of poor is proportional to how much money the average/rich man has. so the poor is being richer and richer the line goes forward.

You are in direct conflict with yourself. It can't be both. Compared to Gates, you are virtually homeless with your $5 million salary. My point is that you have to determine your own happiness--it's not something you can put a price tag on.

Last edited by Shakka on Nov-28-2003 at 18:02