User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 140

  1. #81
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Says who? That is your personal value, not the universal truth.
    Actually, that is not true. If something is a right, it's supposed to be universal, by definition. If you are telling me you don't believe in any right to property, that is your belief, and this debate will be intractable. May I take people as slaves in your society, if 51% of the population says it's OK? As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter if 99% of the population says that is OK. It's still an affront. How are property rights different?


    Exactly. To be consistent, we must not reward children for the deeds of their ancestors neither.
    WE aren't doing anything. The people with the wealth can do with it as they see fit. It's not our call to decide how their property is transferred. If they want to cut their idiot son out of the will, the idiot son will have to learn a trade and quick.


    Absolutely. Inheriting the proceeds of crime is even more "wrong" than inheriting unearned wealth.
    Do you know how easy that would be to take ad absurdum?


    There are no rights other than what we collectively decide to defend by force. We are perfectly free to decide which "rights" are worth defending.
    How can something be a "right" if it's just up to that? Wouldn't that rightly be considered a privilege or political reality?


    Nothing can be done about people having unequal abilities and luck, but much can be done to ensure that the disparity does not become great enough to result in social unrest that will weaken the society.
    People say this all the time, but does this really happen in countries with almost no absolute poverty and functional market economies? Usually, the destabilization comes when government largesse is cut, as is happening in France currently.


    If you don't care about fairness and believe that everyone deserves whatever they can get under prevailing circumstances, then why shouldn't the poor simply vote in a radical socialist government if they have the power? That's perfectly righteous in a democracy, isn't it?
    The United States, at least, is not a pure democracy. We have a rule of law in place that protects the minority in such a situation. Democracy has limits.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #82
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    How can economic value be "intrinsic?" It's completely based upon market interactions. That is what is meant by "all men are created equal."
    When profit and the market are the only concerns, then how are "all men created equal" beyond the fact that they are equally irrelevant and expendable in the light of the greater value of making profit?

    Human value is what I proposed as intrinsic. That only extends to economics in terms of not exploiting and harming human beings through economics. Exploiting the impoverished by paying impoverished wages is the same as stealing someone's hard-earned money. When profit is the only goal, then harm to individuals occurs. If you count human beings as having value, then it is wrong to allow suffering for the sake of profit.

    Why is profit of greater importance than treating humanity with compassion and respect to insure their health and well-being? Corporate-based Capitalism as it exists now demonstrates placing value on profit over the well-being of humanity and the planet. What is the purpose of hoarding and why is it something worth pursuing? Might it be one of the most profoundly irrational pursuits humanity has demonstrated when one considers its true cost?

    Capitalism could perhaps be a positive thing for humanity, but it has gone horribly wrong in its current state.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If something is a right, it's supposed to be universal, by definition.
    Something is a right only if we declare it to be. That declaration is meaningless if we do not defend it. The American position on property rights is not universally shared in the world. It's not universal shared even in America.
    If you are telling me you don't believe in any right to property, that is your belief, and this debate will be intractable.
    I do not believe in property rights as you define it. I believe it must be based on fairness. Fairness is when scenarios are set up such that people would be happy regardless of which set of circumstances they are assigned. The inheritance system fail this test miserably.

    May I take people as slaves in your society, if 51% of the population says it's OK? As far as I am concerned, it doesn't matter if 99% of the population says that is OK. It's still an affront. How are property rights different?
    Democracy is expedient, but it does not guarantee fairness. Democracy needs to defer to principles of fairness whenever the the two conflict.

    The people with the wealth can do with it as they see fit. It's not our call to decide how their property is transferred.
    We (society) are required to risk our lives to defend the wealthy people's property rights. That gives us the right to demand some say in how they are allowed to use the wealth. Otherwise, why should we bother to defend them.

  4. #84
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Envy is not the prerogative of the poor.
    It is the privilege of the rich.
    The poor cannot afford to envy.
    It is a game of a class of peers only.

  5. #85
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Something is a right only if we declare it to be. That declaration is meaningless if we do not defend it. The American position on property rights is not universally shared in the world. It's not universal shared even in America.
    Who is we, and how do we decide? Through the ballot box? Do we need a 51% majority to make murder illegal now? What if that proposition fails? You don't seem to have thought this through to the end.


    I do not believe in property rights as you define it. I believe it must be based on fairness. Fairness is when scenarios are set up such that people would be happy regardless of which set of circumstances they are assigned. The inheritance system fail this test miserably.
    That is a completely bizarre definition of fairness, one that would never allow any situation to be truly fair in any circumstance. "(P)eople would be happy REGARDLESS of which set of circumstances they are assigned?" REALLY? Besides, what about wealthy people's happiness? Does that not count? Surely they are worth the same as the happiness of any other person, if we believe in equality before the law/God/whatever.


    Democracy is expedient, but it does not guarantee fairness. Democracy needs to defer to principles of fairness whenever the the two conflict.
    OK, we agree that democracy is a means, not an end. But who decides "fairness?" What if I think that even more economic inequality is fair? You've told me that my definition of property rights isn't universal, so who gets to say what the universal definition of fairness is? And don't say "voters" or "society, by voting." That is a total cop-out. I don't feel you're being logically consistent at all.


    We (society) are required to risk our lives to defend the wealthy people's property rights. That gives us the right to demand some say in how they are allowed to use the wealth. Otherwise, why should we bother to defend them.
    Who is requiring you to do that? You don't have to do shit to protect someone else's property, unless you're talking about taxes that go to police, courts, the military, etc, and that stuff goes to YOUR property, as well. When was the last time you were forced to risk your life for someone else's house?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #86
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Envy is not the prerogative of the poor.
    It is the privilege of the rich.
    The poor cannot afford to envy.
    It is a game of a class of peers only.
    Expound on your thought please...

    Also... Pure merc. you rule.

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Who is we, and how do we decide?
    Your original assertion is that rights are universal. If you believe that, why don't you go to Afghanistan and parade around with a cartoon of Muhammad? You should have nothing to fear because your universal rights protects you.

    Obviously, your rights don't exist unless it is enforced.

    That is a completely bizarre definition of fairness, one that would never allow any situation to be truly fair in any circumstance.
    You are missing my point completely. I am simply stating that resources need to be allocated in a manner that reasonable people will find satisfactory. For the good of society, there has to be enough disparity to motivate people to work harder, but not so much that they become disenfranchised.

    I haven't seen you propose a better definition for fairness. You are simply citing status quo as if there was something sacred about it. Do you believe rules need to be fair? If not, then what would motivate the disadvantaged to follow them? Why not just rebel?

    But who decides "fairness?" What if I think that even more economic inequality is fair?
    If your definition of fairness involves you taking a much smaller slice of the pie, then I have no problem with it. Otherwise, you don't actually believe such a division is equitable.

    You don't have to do shit to protect someone else's property, unless you're talking about taxes that go to police, courts, the military, etc, and that stuff goes to YOUR property
    Of course I am referring to the state and the military. People would only be motivated to defend their country if they feel it's worth defending. Extreme disparity is not going to help with that motivation.

  8. #88
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    Your original assertion is that rights are universal. If you believe that, why don't you go to Afghanistan and parade around with a cartoon of Muhammad? You should have nothing to fear because your universal rights protects you.

    Obviously, your rights don't exist unless it is enforced.
    I disagree. I still have that right anywhere in the universe. My rights would be violated in your situation, but they exist just the same. You REALLY are boiling things down to "might makes right," even if you don't fully agree with that mindset or application.


    You are missing my point completely. I am simply stating that resources need to be allocated in a manner that reasonable people will find satisfactory. For the good of society, there has to be enough disparity to motivate people to work harder, but not so much that they become disenfranchised.
    I am a reasonable person. I don't think we need to allocate much of anything by force. Money shouldn't have much effect on political power, anyway. Political power should be reduced and decentralized as much as possible.


    I haven't seen you propose a better definition for fairness. You are simply citing status quo as if there was something sacred about it. Do you believe rules need to be fair? If not, then what would motivate the disadvantaged to follow them? Why not just rebel?
    Yes, rules definitely need to be fair. I think that, economically, the general results of voluntary market exchange are fair by definition. That's the "voluntary" part of the equation.


    If your definition of fairness involves you taking a much smaller slice of the pie, then I have no problem with it. Otherwise, you don't actually believe such a division is equitable.
    If I don't do anything economically valuable, then yes, I deserve a much smaller piece of the pie. My beliefs necessitate that I accept a chance of economic failure. I WELCOME that risk. I am fairly certain that my "slice" will be much bigger than my parents', though. BTW, I HATE that metaphor, because it suggests that the resources belong to society as a whole, rather than individuals.


    Of course I am referring to the state and the military. People would only be motivated to defend their country if they feel it's worth defending. Extreme disparity is not going to help with that motivation.
    OK, what is wrong with that? If a nation's citizens don't feel it's worth defending (from invaders foreign OR domestic), then it won't last, anyway. Social welfare policy would be the LAST of the worries in a place like that.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I disagree. I still have that right anywhere in the universe. My rights would be violated in your situation, but they exist just the same.
    A feeling of entitlement does not make a right. If that was the only criteria, then a Taliban could assert that his God given right to beat his wife gets violated in America.

    You REALLY are boiling things down to "might makes right," even if you don't fully agree with that mindset or application.
    Nothing is universally right or wrong. These labels arise only through mutual agreement. Simple example is vegetarianism. You say it's wrong to eat meat. I say it isn't. Who's correct?

    Yes, rules definitely need to be fair. I think that, economically, the general results of voluntary market exchange are fair by definition. That's the "voluntary" part of the equation.
    Well, I don't voluntarily give heirs the right to consume what I produce without giving anything in return. Yet it is currently forced on me by the state through inheritance laws.

    If I don't do anything economically valuable, then yes, I deserve a much smaller piece of the pie.
    Then why do you support unlimited inheritance principles? They give a privileged few a free pass to consume the best of what others produce without having to contribute anything themselves.

    If a nation's citizens don't feel it's worth defending (from invaders foreign OR domestic), then it won't last, anyway. Social welfare policy would be the LAST of the worries in a place like that.
    Exactly. That is why policies must feel equitable to most. Otherwise, society will collapse.

  10. #90
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    That is only partially true. Not all wealth is earned. Many are simply born into money. They are given a free pass to consume the best without having to contribute anything to society. Why do they deserve it more than you? Why should you not feel envious and work to eliminate the injustice?
    Their claim to the money is on the basis that they inherited it. Be that weak or strong, it is in any case stronger than your claim to the money, which is on the basis that you want it.

    Dignifying your greed by codifying it into tax law doesn't make it ethical.

Similar Threads

  1. Has anyone ever taken a real MBTI?
    By The Ü™ in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 06-05-2016, 09:57 PM
  2. How has developing your secondary function changed you?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 10:44 PM
  3. Envy: one of the darkest emotions?
    By Maverick in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 02:49 PM
  4. The Creature has Arrived
    By Varelse in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-26-2007, 12:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO