Are wealthy people unethical?

[The Gold Standard]

What are you talking about? Who do I "steal" from to take care of him? I pay him with money I earned, have you even been paying attention to this conversation? What job should he get if not for me? Oh, sure, he could find some secretarial job I'd imaigine IF anyone would hire him in this market, which most won't because of what you mentioned - all of the disability rules, but even if they did, he'd be bringing home a whopping $10/hr which wouldn't even begin to pay his bills. Then how about another neighbor of mine who's kid is retarted, where is she going to work? She can barely dress herself let alone hold a job. I am no liberal by any stretch, but I am starting to see why they view alot of us as heartless.

You are talking about today's economy like it is anything like a free market. I don't know how much he would bring home or how much his bills would be. I know the bills would be much less than they are now. If we had a free market prices would have been falling for the last 100 years instead of rising. The only heartless people are the ones that are happy with printing enough money to price people out of jobs and being able to afford goods and services.

As far as the neighbor with the handicapped kid, where do you think the kid will work as things are now? If she can't work then she can't work no matter the system. I know in a free market her parents would have a much better chance of taking care of her since any special goods or services she needs would be more abundant and affordable. There are charities to help people with disabilities. You don't need a government to seize money at gunpoint to help people. It is hard for me to fathom how people don't call the "liberals" heartless.

[Butchie]

You are talking about today's economy like it is anything like a free market. I don't know how much he would bring home or how much his bills would be. I know the bills would be much less than they are now. If we had a free market prices would have been falling for the last 100 years instead of rising. The only heartless people are the ones that are happy with printing enough money to price people out of jobs and being able to afford goods and services.

As far as the neighbor with the handicapped kid, where do you think the kid will work as things are now? If she can't work then she can't work no matter the system. I know in a free market her parents would have a much better chance of taking care of her since any special goods or services she needs would be more abundant and affordable. There are charities to help people with disabilities. You don't need a government to seize money at gunpoint to help people. It is hard for me to fathom how people don't call the "liberals" heartless.

You clearly have come into this conversation half-way through as your replies continue to pin things on me that I never said and certainly do not support, I'm not going to repeat everything I've already said, go back, read the discussion from the beginning then we can talk.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Yeah, right, show me the honest guy who believes in "rights to life, liberty & property, & justice through due process!" and is still a billionaire.

Majority of population socialist thinkers - socialist big government - corporatism - corrupt system - no capitalism

Your "christian" argument...don't even know where you are going with that. I was merely pointing out that Ron is a strong defender of capitalism but also is very supportive of charity, so if I have it wrong than so does he.

Ron Paul - one man - no messiah - has his personal opinion

I also love your fairytale world where some set of "rules" is going to prevent the rich from gaining power over others, I don't care what system or what rules you put in place, unless people have some ethics and are vigilant it will ALWAYS devolve into what we have here, as we are all obviously witnessing as our Consitution is ignored on a daily basis, even our founders said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" "We have given you a Republic, if you can keep it." A marriage between govt and business is inevitable if the people aren't vigilant.

Majority of population socialist thinkers - socialist big governments - corporatism - corrupt system - no capitalism

You keep saying that I have a distorted view of things when it is you who keeps distorting my words, and your video examples prove this (I've already watched those numerous times BTW). The people you are depicting are freeloaders which is the very thing I have been clear about TIME AND AGAIN that I agree should not be receiving aid, but you just don't want to listen, you want me to be this big govt socialist and no matter what I say you'll hear what you want to hear.

You think like a socialist - you do - because you don't want to understand capitalism - so you can't convince anyone of capitalism - socialism continues to reign supreme - so does corporatism - corrupt system

So, I'll try to make this as simple as possible, answer me this question if you will: My friend in the wheelchair which do you prefer -
1. Under my philosophy he has a job, he pays his own bills, he has a purpose and some pride.
2. Under our current govt if I didn't give him a job he'd be at home, miserable, leeching off various govt programs.
3. Under your system, well, since he can't make anyone a profit or produce more than he consumes, I guess, what...he starves to death?

I'd have to say, I'm yet to see more self-centered person on this board, I've been talking all this long about SYSTEMIC consequences of economics & you keep talking about yourself & your friend & what not
Look, I don't care if you give your friend everything you've got, if you've earned it then it's your decision ------ my simple point has been that there's more to life than what your little self-centered lens can see, & that even the "evil rich hoarders" can benefit the society by way of conserving capital & purchasing-power to help produce more jobs & goods & services, so just because someone isn't doling out free money does NOT mean that they aren't helping the society in other ways, have you gotten my point yet?

NOTE: I will concede this, yes, in a completely IDEAL world with your definition of capitalism, things would work as you suggest, however, my point is that this is not an Ideal world, if it was we wouldn't have the problems we see to begin with, I'm trying to say that without some ethics capitalist will break the rules and will eventually take hold of the govt, it's just a fact of life.

Do you even read? I've already said, capitalism does NOT propose an "ideal world", in fact, it's perfectly understood that there will always be people who will violate rights but that's going to happen in any system because that's just how life is BUT what capitalism proposes is that limiting the government means that more people will have to produce goods & services in order to enrich themselves, whereas in big government socialist/corporatist systems, buying out the government is the usual way to enriching oneself

You keep saying over & over, rich will take over the government, rich will take over ----- yeah, & your point is??? CAPITALISTS ALREADY KNOW THAT, THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO LIMIT GOVERNMENT, why is that so hard to grasp?

[Paul Or Nothing II]

I am no liberal by any stretch, but I am starting to see why they view alot of us as heartless.

Believe me, you're liberal for all practical purposes even though "technically" you're not but you follow all their economic theories & the usual appeal to emotion & all the typical rhetoric

"Heartless"? I'll say capitalists are "objective" or "realists" They understand that we don't live in perfect world & have limited resources & goods & services & the only way maximize production of goods & services is by allowing those who help produce them to keep their share & re-invest & produce more & so on

If a capitalist & a socialist arrive at a scene where people are drowning
Socialist, being the emotional wreck, decides to save everyone even though it's unlikely he can, & everyone dies
Capitalist being a realist, realizes that he can only save X number of people safely, he does that, rest die but he chooses the best possible alternative, which was the only real option he had

We don't live in perfect world, we probably never will, it's like a choice between bad & worse, capitalist being a realist, chooses bad as the best possible alternative while socialist chooses to daydream about what if there was an option named best

Being idealist may give some fake sense of "moral high ground" but a realist understands that he must choose the best possible alternative, even though it's not perfect

We DON'T live in a world where there's a cornucopia with a limitless supply of goods & services to offer everyone a great life, no, they've to be produced first & those who're helping produce them must be allowed to keep them & re-invest them to produce even more & so on, that's the only way making everyone's life better in the LONG-RUN, & that every time one gives to "charity", one is giving up on the jobs to productive people & goods & services that that money could've produced if invested in a productive endeavor

[Butchie]

Believe me, you're liberal for all practical purposes even though "technically" you're not but you follow all their economic theories & the usual appeal to emotion & all the typical rhetoric

"Heartless"? I'll say capitalists are "objective" or "realists" They understand that we don't live in perfect world & have limited resources & goods & services & the only way maximize production of goods & services is by allowing those who help produce them to keep their share & re-invest & produce more & so on

If a capitalist & a socialist arrive at a scene where people are drowning
Socialist, being the emotional wreck, decides to save everyone even though it's unlikely he can, & everyone dies
Capitalist being a realist, realizes that he can only save X number of people safely, he does that, rest die but he chooses the best possible alternative, which was the only real option he had

We don't live in perfect world, we probably never will, it's like a choice between bad & worse, capitalist being a realist, chooses bad as the best possible alternative while socialist chooses to daydream about what if there was an option named best

Being idealist may give some fake sense of "moral high ground" but a realist understands that he must choose the best possible alternative, even though it's not perfect

We DON'T live in a world where there's a cornucopia with a limitless supply of goods & services to offer everyone a great life, no, they've to be produced first & those who're helping produce them must be allowed to keep them & re-invest them to produce even more & so on, that's the only way making everyone's life better in the LONG-RUN, & that every time one gives to "charity", one is giving up on the jobs to productive people & goods & services that that money could've produced if invested in a productive endeavor

No, I don't agree with their philosophies, that's just who and what you want me to be so you keep saying it yet I've never suggested anything even remotely close to what liberals propose. You just keep equating helping out those who truly are in need with welfare, which I have never supported or even come close to supporting. Something you seem to refuse to admit is that there truly are people who simply cannont "produce more than they consume" and it's not because they are lazy or irresponsible, I have posed the question to you time and again as to what you would do about such people and all you do is come back at me with examples of people who are more than capable of working but don't because it's easier to suck off the govt dole. I live near Detroit friend, for you to even suggest I support the welfare system is beyond hilarious.

As for my "selfishness" I am using that example because it is a relevant one that I have personal experience with, if you like I can talk in hypotheticals about disabled/infirmed people in general, but what difference would it make, the principle and question would still be the same, and apparently your answer would be the same, but then again you haven't given an answer other than to say those people aren't productive, OK, they are not productive, never will be, so again, what do you do with them? Can you answer that? Yes, we do live in a world of limited resources, but it is far from being at the point where we need to say "Oh, you can't produce, you die". Your examples aren't even close to being relevant.

[Black Flag]

BUT THAT IS THE POINT!!!!! Unless there are some eithics in business as opposed to just making profit this is what will happen every single time, so again, to the OP's question, are rich people unethical? I agree with you capitalism works in theory as long as everyone plays by the rules, but history shows people will not play by the rules.

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.

[Black Flag]

a choice between bad & worse

Exactly, Paul.

Human suffering is unsolvable - it will always exist until the end of time to plague mankind

The very best we humans to mitigate as much as we can is to chose the best methodology that relieves the most suffering from most people

The choice we have:

Either equity in horrific suffering or great inequality of wealth.

There is no third way.

[Roy L]

As long as the Providers of Violence are for sale, there will be buyers

And the violent are always for sale.

The buyers will be Socialists,

No, such claims are just stupid. Socialists typically don't have any money. The buyers of violence are the rich. They have the money. It's not rocket science.

who will trade their votes for money from the State in the form of welfare and by such votes give legitimacy to the State;

Nope. Never happened. The poor are far less likely to vote than the rich or middle class.

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.

Bingo.

But the problem is NOT capitalists - it is the Providers of Violence holding up their "services" to the highest bidder.

Wrong. The problem is that the capitalist and socialist systems are both INHERENTLY violent, and take the forcible violation of people's rights as not only a given, but as necessary and beneficial.

The socialist pretends capital is land to justify stealing capital; the capitalist pretends land is capital to justify stealing land.

[Roy L]

Human suffering is unsolvable - it will always exist until the end of time to plague mankind

Suffering is not the problem. That's just Buddhist claptrap. Suffering is merely a product of evolution's search for effective motivators.

The very best we humans to mitigate as much as we can is to chose the best methodology that relieves the most suffering from most people

No, the best we can do is face the facts and their logical implications. You need to find a willingness to do that.

The choice we have:

Either equity in horrific suffering or great inequality of wealth.

There is no third way.

Bull$#!+. Great inequality of wealth is strongly associated with horrific suffering, as well as poverty and war. The third way, which capitalists and socialists reject with equal ferocity, is justice.

[PierzStyx]

It's not purely rhetoric. The studies are a matter of scientific fact.

More like "science". First of all it was statistics, not "science". Morality is not something that can ever be determined scientifically. You can do statistics to determine if a group of people do what you think is moral or not. But even then you should take care. Statistics can eaisly be warped not just in how you use words in question asking, but in how you gather the data itself. Stats is by far the most untrustworthy form of mathematics there is out there.

Also, what are these "experimental and naturalistic methods" these used? That the system is not explained means you should take care.

Simple observation argues against this as well. People steal, and lie, and cheat irrespective of class. And poor people do it a lot.