Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 213

Thread: Are wealthy people unethical?

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    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.
    Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!

  4. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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?
    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

  5. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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
    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



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #185
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Butchie; 04-06-2012 at 01:18 PM.
    Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!

  8. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Black Flag; 04-06-2012 at 09:33 PM.

  9. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    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.

  10. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    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.

  11. #189
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    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.

  12. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by furface View Post
    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.

  13. #191
    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.

  14. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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.
    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.
    Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #193
    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.

  17. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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 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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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
    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

  18. #195
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    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.
    +1

    Couldn't have summed it up any better!

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    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.
    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

  19. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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.
    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

  20. #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    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
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    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 societ
    ..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!

  21. #198
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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?
    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.

  22. #199
    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.

  23. #200
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    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.
    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!



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Butchie View Post
    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.
    And I am still waiting for mine from the last time.

    You advocate redistribution of wealth by taxation and government, just like the last time.
    You do not see this as stealing, so you do not pay up your silver.
    You do not see this as violent, so you do not pay up your silver.

    You advocating the IRS and its army to go and take money to fund your scheme, but this is not theft nor violent to you, so you do not pay up.

  26. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    And I am still waiting for mine from the last time.

    You advocate redistribution of wealth by taxation and government, just like the last time.You do not see this as stealing, so you do not pay up your silver.
    You do not see this as violent, so you do not pay up your silver.

    You advocating the IRS and its army to go and take money to fund your scheme, but this is not theft nor violent to you, so you do not pay up.
    When and Where did I ever say ANY OF THIS?!?!?!?! Please, by all means, show me the quote and I will happily send you your round, how about this, if you CAN'T find it, you send me one?
    Golden Rule? Booooo. Go back to Texas!

  27. #203
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Paul

    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.
    One of teh reasons I love Napoleon. Giving the finger to the Pope by crowning himself!

  28. #204
    Is Miyamoto unethical?

    NEVER compare Shigeru Miyamoto to Mitt Romney!

    Rich people aren't unethical. But oftentimes, they're hard-workers. It's people who steal from the taxpayers and exploit the government who are unethical! But someone like Shigeru Miyamoto certainly isn't one of them!

  29. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by Lishy View Post
    Is Miyamoto unethical?

    NEVER compare Shigeru Miyamoto to Mitt Romney!

    Rich people aren't unethical. But oftentimes, they're hard-workers. It's people who steal from the taxpayers and exploit the government who are unethical! But someone like Shigeru Miyamoto certainly isn't one of them!
    Shigeru created many a high quality product. For those not in the know, Nintendo Games. The Wealthy People I would refer to as Unethical are the ones that got rich and did NOT produce a Product, or provide a Service. Financing Money should not be a profitable service as it isnt a service, it is a method of money manipulation that transfers the wealth of the poor to those who issue the money. Romney did have his hands involved in a Factory (not sure that much about it, but there is a product, so Ok, honest so far...), but is probably as guilty as sin of Insider Trading and expoiting tax loopholes provided by Off Shore Tax Havens, so I think he is as guilty as any other money manipulator that will never be charged with a crime. Money Manipulation involves NO RISK, yet RISK is the Excuse that Mega Banks have for charging Interest. How is that possibly honest?

    Miyamoto = Made Games and Sold Them, Ethical, earned his keep
    Romney = Off Shore Tax Shelters, unethical, profited from money manipulation.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  30. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    The Wealthy People I would refer to as Unethical are the ones that got rich and did NOT produce a Product, or provide a Service.
    Who are you thinking is rich that does not produce or provide a service???

    Financing Money should not be a profitable service as it isnt a service, it is a method of money manipulation that transfers the wealth of the poor to those who issue the money.
    So you believe you should be able to use the money I earn and use it to buy YOUR goods that you want today - thus depriving me of using that money to buy MY goods today ... and not compensate me for this.?????

    You take a loan because you do not have money, but you desire something RIGHT NOW.

    A loan is a deferment of payment to satisfy a desire today.

    If nobody loans, you have to wait until you earn and save to enjoy this thing - .... and that is sometime in the future.

    But you have a short-time preference ...eat, drink and be merry because tomorrow you may die!
    So you want your toys today, and not wait.

    A person who saves is the opposite. They have a long-time preference.
    They would rather defer spending money today to buy goods and spend that money in the future for future goods.

    So, you say to me "lend me the money you aren't spending today so I can spend it today. I will get it back to you in the future when you want to spend it, and both of us win"

    But I say, good deal if it don't rain!

    What happens if you don't pay me back? I'm stiffed! So, I'm going to charge a fee so that those that stiff me, I can cover by those that repay me....and now, both of us win!

    To think lending money is some sort of conspiracy to keep you poor is mindless thinking.

  31. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Who are you thinking is rich that does not produce or provide a service???
    That you ask this question shows you are not personally acquainted with very many rich people, if any at all.
    So you believe you should be able to use the money I earn and use it to buy YOUR goods that you want today - thus depriving me of using that money to buy MY goods today ... and not compensate me for this.?????
    You do not understand how banks create the money they lend:

    "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." -- JK Galbraith

  32. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    That you ask this question shows you are not personally acquainted with very many rich people, if any at all.
    You continue to demonstrate how little you know.

    You do not understand how banks create the money they lend:
    You continue to demonstrate how little you know.

    "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled." -- JK Galbraith
    They manufacture it out of digits in a computer.

    I suppose that is too simple for your mind to comprehend.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #209
    I am not wealthy , and I may be unethical today , what say all of you of this ?

  35. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You continue to demonstrate how little you know.
    How many rich people do you know personally? How many have you worked with closely enough to know how they get their money? I'm guessing none.

    I know personally and/or have worked with at least half a dozen people who by any reasonable definition are rich. Not one of them -- NOT ONE -- got the bulk of their wealth by commensurate contributions to the production of goods or services. Two of them inherited. One is an outright scam artist. One gets sweet deals through corrupt officials in poor countries. The rest all got the bulk of their wealth through privileges of one kind or another: land titles, mineral rights, spectrum allocations, bank charters, government contracts, loans and grants, patent and copyright monopolies, etc.

    "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." -- Balzac
    You continue to demonstrate how little you know.
    You continue to demonstrate that you have no facts, no logic, and no arguments to offer, just your extremely ill-informed opinions.
    They manufacture it out of digits in a computer.
    OK, so you at least agree that you were wrong when you claimed they don't create it at all.

    But in fact, they create it out of lenders' legal obligations to repay the loans they get.
    I suppose that is too simple for your mind to comprehend.
    You continue to demonstrate how little you know.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 09:05 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-31-2011, 08:21 AM
  3. For Some Reason Washington, D.C. Has The Most Wealthy People
    By clb09 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 02:25 PM
  4. Do Rich/Wealthy People Deserve Tax Breaks?
    By nickcoons in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 09:29 PM
  5. FOX has no rights!! It is unethical!
    By quantized in forum Fox Boycott
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-29-2007, 02:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •