As for capitalism, as in free market capitalism, Dr. Paul explains it well here. Start listening at 12:12 He explains that socialism of any sort si what is unethical nd that capitalism is the ethical solution. In another place he has explained that the free-market system "is the only humane system" that exists.
"The bird or the cage?"-The Lutece Twins
"A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan
"There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan
"That every man may act... be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose"- Jesus Christ, Doctrine and Covenants 101:78-80
That's great, except for one thing: The question was not about whether or not Capitalism or Socialism was ethical, the question was whether or not rich people were eithical.Originally Posted by PierzStyx
Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!
This question seems retarded to me. It's equivalent to saying "Blacks make up the majority of inmates in prison. A survey has shown that more blacks have been in prison. Therefore blacks are criminals".
A higher proportion of blacks have been / are in jail != Blacks are more prone to be criminal.
Which is the same as
A higher proportion of rich people are unethical != Rich people are unethical.
It's an absurdity and this so called "study" doesn't pass the logic test. The OP implies causation when correlation has never been able to prove such.
You believe productive should subsidize the less productive & unproductive otherwise they're "evil rich hoarders", that's what liberals say as well
You carry this fallacious notion that there's any fundamental economic difference between
1) government taking $X from productive & giving it to unproductive
2) productive doling out $X in charity to the unproductive
NO, the fundamental economic effect is the SAME, that capital is gone,those goods/services are gone, poof, it's spent & it gave nothing back to the society in return, & since those goods/services were consumed unproductively, society as a whole is poorer with less capital & goods/services------- again, why shouldn't the unproductive have the "moral obligation" NOT to consume more than they produce?
And you keep believing that those who won't do that (aka evil rich hoarders) aren't benefitting the society, when in fact is that they DO, by conserving capital & purchasing-power, by investing, creating jobs & goods & services & prosperity can only be achieved by producing more & more goods & services
I HAVE answered it indirectly many times, when I say I don't care if you dole out everything you've got so long as you've earned it thru voluntary interaction, same holds true for all the "chariters", if you want to give then it's your business, just don't be ignorant to not realize how the "hoarders" are benefitting the society
You talked about the retarded girl & African poverty, etc When one has capital, one can choose to spend on the girl OR one can invest it in some profitable company in Africa,
which will make those among them who wish to be productive have jobs & the goods/services they produce will be NET ADDITION to the global supply of goods & services & thereby have a systemic effect of lower prices ---------- I know exactly where I'll be putting my money, now, I don't expect everyone to make the same choice BUT what I absolutely DETEST is when people, incapable & unwilling to learn economics & incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE blaming those choosing the second option & reviling them as "evil rich hoarders", when in fact, they're only helping the society in a different way that socialists don't want to understand
(By the way, it doesn't even have to be directly invested in Africa, production of more goods/services anywhere will be add to the global supply & many POOR PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE anywhere will be better off because of it one way or another due to lower prices)
Again, you keep ignoring one of the most fundamental principles of the market about "opportunity cost"
You ignore that since the goods & services are LIMITED, when you choose to subsidize the unproductive (of any kind) but you'll likely be doing so at the expense of others who may wish to be productive but there mayn't be enough capital to hire them because it was spent on unproductive, not to mention, since that is unproductive spending, the whole society is poorer, with less goods/services, higher prices & the POOR PRODUCTIVE PEOPLE are poorer than they otherwise would've been
Again, this isn't necessarily an argument against charity as such but against the narrow socialist belief that "evil rich hoarders" don't benefit the society
Last edited by Paul Or Nothing II; 04-10-2012 at 08:28 AM.
There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
+1
Couldn't have summed it up any better!
Yes, capitalism is simply a method to allocate LIMITED resources as well as we can, there's no perfect solution because there's no cornucopia that socialists pretend that there is or should be, so that "everyone can have a good life", it's simply not possible without collapsing the very systems that lead societies to prosperity - self-interest, capital & profit! So we're simply left with imperfect choices & we try to choose the best possible alternative!
There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
Poor people are the majority in the world, if they supported a more fair system based on freedom, at least democracies, then everyone would be better off but NO, they THINK they can use government power to rob others so that they could have a better life, but instead the corrupt use that same government power to enrich themselves so the poor's misery is largely self-inflicted & they try to drag others into misery as well; so if anything, it's the poor who need to be more "ethical" & NOT covet others' stuff, & support a freer & fairer system, & may be then we'll be able to vote in people like Ron Paul
There is enormous inertia a tyranny of the status quo in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis actual or perceived produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
- Milton Friedman
No, that's not what liberals say, we currently have half our population on some sort of govt assistance and the vast majority of those people are perfectly capable of working yet choose not to because it's easier to sit on their butt and do nothing, liberals are perfectly OK with this and in fact want to increase these numbers and will scream bloody murder if you even suggest we take someone off assistance. For you to say I'm anywhere near their line of thinking is about the same as when NeoCons accusse Ron of not wanting to defend the country just because he doesn't want to go to war needlessly or have bases in every country around the world.
I did like what you wrote here:
..and this is all that I've been saying since this discussion began, but as I said, some of you just can't resist a chance to go into your attack mode and "shoot down some Socialist". As for the rich hoarders NO, I did not say that they don't provide ANY benefit to society, I just don't hold them in as high regard as you seem to and don't take it to the extremes that you do. If there is a town with 60 people, one of them get's hurt and the other 59 all pitch in to help him out tell me again how exactly is that going to bring that town to ruin?
The reason you are so harsh on my ideas is because you can't seem to refrain from equating it with the horrible abuse we have with the "social programs" in this country and the monstrosity it has become. When you were a child, you produced nothing and consumed much, when you get elderly you will again consume alot and produce nothing, someone in each case (hopefully) will take care of you - is that wrong?
As for Africa, I never brought Africa up, that was someone else who was asking me a question and I responded to it.
Last edited by Butchie; 04-10-2012 at 03:39 PM.
Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!
Your goal, pious.
Your means, evil.
That's the root of the your moral dilemna sir.
You believe you can perform a good -individually or across society- by a means of evil; believing the end justifies the means.
Your goal is so full of piety, you justify stealing from others to accomplish it. You declare "My goal provides the Grace of God, thus any means, including using the devil, we must not shy away from!"
But good sir;
No good comes from evil means - and all you get is tyranny and suffering.
It is our choice of what Means by which we accomplish our goals that determines the piety of our goal AND our piety of action
Take care of the means, and the goal takes care of itself.
Last edited by Black Flag; 04-11-2012 at 12:12 AM.
Paul
No, you missed the point!
As long as the Providers of Violence are for sale, there will be buyers
The buyers will be Socialists, who will trade their votes for money from the State in the form of welfare and by such votes give legitimacy to the State;
and/or
The buyers will be the wealthy, who will trade their money to the State in return for their violence to enforce mercantilism, fascism and economic cartels.
But the problem is NOT capitalists - it is the Providers of Violence holding up their "services" to the highest bidder.
Thanks for the +1!
But more to that thought -- the Fascist/Mercantilists need the Socialists and the Socialists need the Fascist/Mercantilists.
1. The Socialists legitimize the violence the Fascist/Mercantilists need to enforce their cartels. Fascist/Mercantilists love Socialists when they legitimize State action and the State acts on behalf of the Fascist/Mercantilists a great deal.
2. But Socialists hate the Fascist/Mercantilists cartels, monopolies and corruption and rage against them ... to a point... and that point is:
3. Fascist/Mercantilists provide the money to the State for the welfare enjoyed by the Socialists. Socialist love Fascist/Mercantilists when they provide money to the State for the Socialists to consume.
4. But the Fascist/Mercantilists hate the Socialists for "wasting" their capital and resources funding unproductive "slaves" and rage against them .... to a point, and that point is ... line 1.
This interplay happened during the Age of Empires too, except is between the Crown and the Church.
The Church legitimized the Crown ... we see that ceremony still today, where the crowing of a regent comes at the hand of a Church man.
The Crown of course funded the Church and its extensions into society; pervasively driving the masses into obedience to God and (of course) the State.
One could not do well without the other, and it is no surprise to see the diminishing of Empires in lock step with the diminishment of the Church to be replaced by:
Mercantilists and Socialists - one funds, the other legitimizes
Last edited by Black Flag; 04-11-2012 at 12:25 AM.
Sigh, here we go again, I guess I have to ressurect my "silver round challenge" - Look friend, if you can find where AT ANY POINT I suggested stealing from anyone you win a genuine 1-oz silver round that I will ship to your home.
Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote