 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
monkspider,
quote:
I think we basically reach an impasse in regards to natural rights and so forth. Naturally you are a strong supporter of them, I am not so much. |
In that case, what do you make of free will?
quote:
But consider this, capitalism necessitates greed, surely we are in agreement there. |
Not at all. Again, all true capitalism is, is allowing people to do what they wish with their property. It is neutral on the subject of altruism/selfishness. People can be altruistic and capitalist, and selfish and capitalist.
quote:
I think we would even both agree that, by capitalism's nature, it creates greed as well. |
No. If someone is greedy, I don't think that is the fault of an economic system, but rather the fault of the individual.
quote:
Capitalism molds a society into it's own image, people who live and grow up in a capitalist society begin to apply the cold logic of capitalism to other areas of life. |
Again, capitalism is just a system of economic freedom. That is, you are free to act as you please within it - either selfishly or altruistically.
quote:
In perhaps subtle ways. often times, but it undoubtedly does occur. For example, cutting off someone on the highway is very likely a result of learning capitalism's lessons and applying them to every day life. |
What? So you are equating bad driving with capitalism? Cutting someone off on the highway could just be a jackass teenager out to impress someone, a ***** soccor mom taking kids to practice, someone who is late for a meeting, or any number of things.
quote:
In a society that was all-oriented, rather than self-oriented, that same person who would have cut someone off in a capitalist society would perhaps learned lessons that would taught him to act in such a manner. |
Again, I don't agree that capitalism teaches us to screw other people. True, the point of capitalism - true capitalism - is to better ourselves, but ONLY through moral means. A true capitalist would not encourage or condone fraud, for example, because that's not what capitalism is about - it's simply a system of economic freedom. Freedom does not extend to coercing others, because that doesn't make sense. Freedom is the absence of coercion, so how can one exercise freedom through coercion?
quote:
In this way, capitalism creates immorality in perhaps subtle ways. Of course, greed by can create immorality in more obvious ways, in fact, greed by it's very nature, is intrinsically immoral. |
Ah, here we go. So greed is immoral. Immorality implies sinfullness. However, capitalism did not create greed any more than it created sin. Jerusalem in the time of Jesus was not capitalistic, yet the money changers in the temple exercised greed, and Jesus turned them out. When Jacob stole Esau's birthright, again, an example of greed in a non-capitalist society. There are any number of Biblical examples showing that greeds exists absent capitalism.
No, the fact that we all sin - MUST sin, in fact - is a result of our sin natures, which are a result of original sin, which has nothing to do with capitalism. You might even say that the original sin had to do a bit with greed - taking the forbidden fruit can be seen as a wish to maximize one's pleasure/knowledge/whatever at any cost, which is certainly greedy.
But don't try to tell me that greed was created by capitalism. It just obviously isn't true.
quote:
Believe it or not, future communism will not trample on your natural rights anyway. Essentially you have always maintained that property is a sacred right that must be upheld at any cost. Taxation, even if for the good of the whole, so you say, is absolutely immoral. You will be pleased to know that there will be no taxation required or no strong central apparatus in the future state. Everything will be given willingly, no coercian necessary. From a certain point of view, this state will be libertarian and communist at the same time. |
You know that what you are arguing for is impossible given the sin nature of man. If you want a society without sin, you'll have to wait for Jesus to return. Once Jesus returns, your sinless society will automatically manifest itself.
Therefore, don't argue for an impossible ideal - not just an improbable one, but an IMPOSSIBLE one, according to the Bible. Rather, pick the best humanly possible system, and support that. I believe that a system which protects individual freedom is the most moral system we can create.
quote:
The thing is, people will finally realize what they should be doing and live out the philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus, Ghandhi, Buddha, and so on. |
Living without being willing to defend yourself is frankly impossible in a sinful society. Look what happened to Jesus, after all. He died on the cross. That doesn't mean that his ideals were wrong, just that they are not possible in a sinful and imperfect world, if you wish to survive.
If someone tries to rob or kill you, your best solution isn't to roll over, but to pull out your handgun and skull-**** them. It's simple self-defense - turning the other cheek is NOT practical, and by the way, if that teaching was as literal as you seem to think it is, then why did Jesus' disciples carry swords? Peter did cut the ear off of the Roman guard, after all. Why did Jesus allow Peter to carry a sword, if he didn't believe in self defense?
quote:
promise you that capitalism will be over with within twenty years, maybe as few as 8 or 9 if we are lucky. |
That's preposterous. And quite frankly, if I sense this happening, I will quite happily buy an arsenal, get a few buddies together, and take out as many rioting, immoral, thieving bastards with me as I can. If they come after me, tell me I can't own property, or whatnot, then there are going to be some issues, and I promise you, in the US, I'm not the only one who feels this way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
this is weird... while the income disparity is, in all honesty, pretty reasonable and what would be expected, the change in income disparity is ridiculously in favour of the rich and the wealth disparity is unbelievable huge... any reason why the income disparity would be so relatively small compared to income growth and wealth? |
That's because of compounding. Suppose in 1979, you, Albert Speer had 1 million dollars, and a friend of you had 50,000 dollars. Over the course of 20 years, your wealth increased by 42% a year, and his 11% a year. In 1999, you'd have 1111 times what you had started with, or 1.11 billion dollars. Your friend, on the other hand, would have only a bit over 4 million.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
How could you assert to discuss economic systems on one hand, and claim this on the other? |
The point is that people should be free to do whatever they wish, economically, except for fraud/coercion. What they do is really no one's business but their own, unless and until they commit fraud/coercion. When I say "none of your business", I simply mean that it's not your place to try to force them to do something else, not that you can't know about it. Just don't imply that wealth disparity is some problem that needs correction.
As to Bill Gates, wah wah wah. I'm not exactly sure what he did wrong, and I fail to see how anyone was hurt by what he supposedly did. Show me evidence to the contrary and I'll gladly admit to being wrong, but on the other hand, I know the evidence conflcts.
I'll defer to Asher - I'm not gonna argue anymore for or against MS and Gates, as I don't know enough about it.
If it makes you happy, substitute Bill Gates for some other rich guy. It doesn't really matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
cinch:
"I think it could be pretty easily interpreted that Jesus was interested in political reform. He was a rebel on multiple levels; the spirituality was intertwined with the politics. "
How so? Where did Jesus demand political reform? If Jesus was interested in changing politics, why didn't he make appeals to the leaders? He didn't talk to politica leaders, he talked to peasants who were of no special importance to their society?
"Jesus told his apostles to shun their material goods and come follow him. Do you really think he'd be a proponent of the buy-buy-sell-sell free market melee?"
No, he wouldn't be a proponent of the free market. Or any other system for that matter. Jesus was having his apostles live their lives in a certain way, to set an example. He was trying to change the economic system, or force people to part with their private possesions(as would nessecarily be a part of a socialist system)
Jesus said that man with two coats should give one to a person with none. He did not say the government should force the man with two coats to have his coat redistrubted.
"All he said is that they were good teachers... What's so wrong with that?"
Because Jesus was much more then a good teacher, he is the Son of God and redeemer of our sin, and so shouldn't just be lumped together with Buddha and Ghandi.
monkspider:
"All I am saying is this, great souls such as the ones I mentioned represent the next stage in human evolution. "
Humans are sinful being, and this age humans will remain sinful. I don't know the specifics of how things will be after the events in revelation take hold, but for this time we have to worry about the present age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kropotkin
A thread that started out good with a interesting topic destroyed by people that has to tell everyone about their morals all the time. Surely this is not about morals, it's about economics. And the question is why there's a growing disparity not just in the US but in many other countries as well (although from different situations).
Can this be connected to the changes of the economy since the oil-crisis? Industrial jobs, and to a large extent low-skilled ones have declined. The service sector has a huge demand for "super-skilled" persons but at the same time also for low skilled workers at the bottom. Unlike in the industry, the productivity growth and profits per worker are small. This sets a limit to their wages. A harder situation for the people with little skills and a growing labour market for those who have the right skills might be one answer to the question why income (and wealth) disparities are growing after 1972.
Just two cents, feel free to comment. |
I have to agree: the big growth in wages for the lower 20% in the US after the war surely comes from the boom in industry, but not only has industrial production become stagnant, but new factories don;t need as many people. So you do get a shift to the service sector, but the osrts of people who shift form manufacturing to service are not likely to ake much, in fact, since they are likely to be non-unionized, they get less.
But I think the change did not begin with the oil crisis: I think it begun more in the early 80's, during those economic hard times, when a lot of companies restructured. Also, the ending of many regulations, specially finantial ones (in 1971, before the oil boom) and in the early 80's and mid 90's allowe dfor huge growth in the value of investments, which I think was the biggest chunk of the growing disparety of wealth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
I don't understand how you guys can argue logical points using the Bible as a source... It's hardly a credible study on the points you are talking about : human behavior, the history of economics, the concept of wealth... |
I'm using the Bible because when talking with monkspider, that is a good source to use. If you were in the debate, I would not debate from the Bible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
Sava, the point is that when debating with a person, your argument in that particular case can be made stronger if you use and quote a source which they view as important. This is true of anyone.
The Bible certainly isn't the best way to argue in favor of my views, yet it can be done, and because of the parties in the debate, that's why I'm doing so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
if yo mean to suggest that it is welfare that keeps people poor, well, you are wrong |
That is not what I am getting at at all. I don't think it is welfare or any "feed the hungry" programs that cause hunger in the US. I think the problem lies on a sociological level, in that the ppl do not necessarily spend the money they receive on what that money was intended. This could be due to addictions, education (or lack there of), self image issues, and/or weakness to mass media...
I know a guy that went on unemployment after he lost his job, he even got a 6 mos severence package. The money that is alloted to unemployment is suppose to be used to keep ppl on their feet while they find a new job. It wasn't until his unemployment ran out that he actually began to even look for a job...
I have a freind who is on welfare. He lives on Ramen and carrot sticks. Yet, this guy has a nice brand new TV, drinks more beer than I can wave a stick out, which he gets, by the way, by selling his food stamps to his neighbor...
All I am saying that ppl out their starve because of choices that they made, and that when their brand new TV is not as shiny as it once was or it isn't showing the shows the want, they begin to complain...
I know that this not the case for all ppl, I mean my friends neighbor is getting extra food stamps for cheap! She is really responsible and treats her kids with respect, makes them go to school, and tries her best... I just don't think you can balme starvation on poverty, when the standard of living of even the lowliest of income earners is relativly high compared to the rest of the world.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-05-2003 10:33
It's hardly a credible study on the points you are talking about: human behavior, the history of economics, the concept of wealth...
|