Eat the Rich

[Carl.]

Top stuff. Every word.

Yes they are.

 

[Sage]

Should an individual whose intellect has deteriorated due to exposure to Ayn Rand be denied psychological counselling [...]

You know, nobody has told me I needed psychological counseling... I don't think Duke's ever been told that before either... Hey, what about ///M-Spec?... One of you will probably say it to danoff, but he happens to be more outspoken (and have a little more free time at work, I guess) than the rest of us. Leave low-blowing insults out of this.

At that, I've just noticed something – Everybody who's arguing a Capitalist stance is living in America, and everyone (as far as I can tell) who's arguing a, um, non-Capitalist stance is living in Europe. And the people taking the more neutral stance are a mixture.

Comments? I can't think of any.

[edit]:

In the long run, the weak, who are many, will topple the strong, who are few, by violence.

Wasn't that almost the exact sentence that Karl Marx used to describe how Communism would come about?

Please, please note that I'm not accusing you of being Communist or anything of the like – However, when I read that sentence, that was the first thing that came to my mind. I just wanted to open it up for conversation.

 

[87chevy]

I believe some one stated the "survival of the fittest" thing earlier. Well did you ever consider that we are not jungle animals? We are intellectually advanced enough to have gotten past that. We are not gazelle that only know to run as fast as they can when a cheeta comes calling. We have the ability to stop turn around and see old grandpa has been left behind and we can go back and fight off the cheeta to protect him. We are not base animals that only rely on primal instinct. To say that we are not obligated to help anyone but ourselves is like comparing us to to gazelle (or some other lesser animal). Why do we have laws? Because if you are a human being you have the ability to know right from wrong. Therefore society holds you accountable. Do you not agree danoff and duke? So if we also know that every human being has the intellectual ability to evolve past the laws of animals, should we not hold you accountable for that also?



[and don't go off and argue right vs wrong. you can start another thread for that]

 

[HareTurtle]

Leave low-blowing insults out of this.

Cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.

Lots of young "intellects" have an Ayn Rand phase. The smart ones grow out of it.

 

[frestkd]

Has someone been reading H. G. Wells's Time Machine?

Kristof

 

[Famine]

At that, I've just noticed something – Everybody who's arguing a Capitalist stance is living in America, and everyone (as far as I can tell) who's arguing a, um, non-Capitalist stance is living in Europe. And the people taking the more neutral stance are a mixture.

Comments? I can't think of any.

That's about right - although JPM is in Canada and 87chevy and ledhed are American. I wouldn't call the non pure-Capitalist stance non-Capitalist though - although I appreciate there's not much you CAN actually call it. To my mind anti-Capitalism is as far removed from reality as the pure-Capitalism I've seen put forward so far. The system put forward by ///M-Spec (Edit: sorry!), danoff and Duke simply wouldn't work in the UK (i hesistate to say the rest of Europe as I have little experience of it, but I would guess that since they are roughly similar to ourselves, it wouldn't work there either).

Speaking as a molecular biologist, the pure-Capitalism system seems to be just an extension of natural selection - the strong survive and the weak perish. There is nothing natural about money though, and the only way humanity (the species and the "feeling") can progress is not by natural selection - we are barely subject to it any more, as even the most debilitating chance mutations do not result in the death of a genetic line - but by allowing as many members as possible to thrive, regardless of birth circumstances. It is not very humanitarian to allow someone without a certain amount of a specific abstract concept, invented to remove the issue of mistrust from an archaic barter system, to die of a disease we can prevent.


I have not encountered Ayn Rand, but I think HareTurtle wasn't insulting anyone but the author herself.

 

[87chevy]

^ ok , I think you were just basically agreeing to my last post, but all that micro-biological talk made it hard to tell. I'm a product of the American Public Education System, so it was little hard for me to follow, but i think we are on the same page, and why danoff, duke, and ///M don't see our point, i'm not understanding. I guess they are afraid of losing their advantage over the weak.

 

[ledhed]

Lets get some beer and sit around while we play dueling philosophy's !
Btw ayn Rand is a much better author than the old man Marx and Bertrand Russell.
And capitalism works much better than comunisim or the rest of the isms !
Famine . didnt I see a scaled tax rate in one of your post ? I mean the Beatles moved to the US because the government was taking a large bite out of the ol income eh ?
Anyway if you know that when you work hard you can get rich you have an incentive to work hard. BUT if you know that when you work hard you get to have your money taken from you by force you just wont work hard or even work at all. The Soviet Union and China and all the rest of the Ism places have proven that very well.
when you start justifying taking money from the best earners you start slipping backwards into the ism state. We cant afford that . It takes to long and cost too much blood to remove it.

 

[Famine]

Famine . didnt I see a scaled tax rate in one of your post ? I mean the Beatles moved to the US because the government was taking a large bite out of the ol income eh ?
Anyway if you know that when you work hard you can get rich you have an incentive to work hard. BUT if you know that when you work hard you get to have your money taken from you by force you just wont work hard or even work at all. The Soviet Union and China and all the rest of the Ism places have proven that very well.
when you start justifying taking money from the best earners you start slipping backwards into the ism state. We cant afford that . It takes to long and cost too much blood to remove it.

Yes, you did. I cannot remember the precise figures of threshold earnings, but it's roughly this:
First £4600pa - 0%
Next £1500pa (up to £6100pa) - 10%
Next £29900pa (up to £36000pa) - 22%
Anything over £36000pa - 40%

My brother's earnings are into the 40% tax band, so he pays nothing on the first £4600, £150pa on the next £1500, £6578pa on the next £29900 and whatever he pays in the 40% band. My earnings are in the 22% tax band, so I pay nothing on the first £4600, £150pa on the next £1500 and whatever is left I pay at 22%. My brother works hard - he's an Air Traffic Controller. He doesn't see it as the state taking his money off him by force. He sees it as the compensation he pays to allow his children to have free education and healthcare, to allow him to drive his stupidly fast car on decent roads, to pay for policemen to keep his neighbourhood safe and to pay for the fire service to come and put out any fires that might threaten his family's safety.

The system of income tax works - although we also get to pay tax on pretty much everything else. I recently had to pay around £2500 for the privilege of buying a house. 75% of what we pay for petrol is tax. Most things carry a 17.5% income tax (children's clothes and food is exempt) too. We accept income tax as a way of paying back what we have received (and are receiving) - many of us got to go to University free, and our on-average higher wages reimburse what we've taken out.

It's tax city over here

87chevy - that's perhaps a little unfair. From what he's said previously, I don't believe that at least danoff is in the strong (rich) camp, although by no means underprivileged.


Edit: That's twice tonight I've done that. I think I'll go to bed...

 

[HareTurtle]

Lets get some beer and sit around while we play dueling philosophy's !

Most sensible comment in the entire thread!

Btw ayn Rand is a much better author than the old man Marx and Bertrand Russell.
And capitalism works much better than comunisim or the rest of the isms !

Two instances of "damning by faint praise". Rand's plots were predictable, her "characters" caricatures, and her "philosophy" shallow and self-serving. At least Marx had an original thought once in his life. Russell's fiction was certainly nothing special, but then Rand didn't write Principia Mathematica. I'll get around to the "inherent contradictions" of capitalism sometime.

 

[ledhed]

I'll get around to the "inherent contradictions" of capitalism sometime.

Then I can do the " inherent stupidity of comunism " or do you want to ?

 

[Danoff]

I step away from the computer for a few minutes and I have 2 pages of stuff I disagree with to read and not enough time to respond.

Btw Sage, I was working really hard today. It was especially tough to find a few seconds here and there to rattle off a response. But, now I pay the price for not staying on top of this thread .

Also, I think neither myself nor Duke are in the strong category. Certainly we're not extremely poor because we obviously have computers and internet. ///M just bought a BWM so he'll represent the strong group (couldn't resist ///M).

I'll get around to the "inherent contradictions" of capitalism sometime.

I'm sure those are just misunderstandings on your part, but I'm intersted to hear it.

He doesn't see it as the state taking his money off him by force. He sees it as the compensation he pays to allow his children to have free education and healthcare

First of all, I'd like to point out that the word free here is obviously out of place. Secondly, it's fine to see taxes as not being taken by force. That's because some of them are required for a free society to remain free. However, almost all of them are not required, nor are they productive.

I'd like to highligh the fact that there has been a lot of sidestepping of the basic premise behind this thread.

--Do you think it is morally justifiable to sacrifice the strong in favor of the weak?--

The answer I keep hearing is no. Which means it's not justifiable to tax the rich more than the poor to provide services unless the rich benefit that much more (which they do not). Hare's post ignores this completely. It also ignores the fact that most of the societies he compared the US to were not free, which is why they ended in violence.

The reason governments die at the hands of violence is because people are oppressed. That shouldn't happen in a free society. No group of people should be singled out to bear everyone else's burden or it is exactly that group that will want to rise up against its opressor.

--------------------------------------------------

The first post I wanted to respond to was the on talking about a mother and her baby who was ill and dying. She couldn't afford health insurance so what was she to do?

First of all, you can be put in jail if you do not feed your child. You could be put in jail if you did not send your child to school. And -I believe, or at least you should- be put in jail if you don't get health insurance for your child. Health care plans are not that expensive and should be thought about before one has kids.

That being said, this mother was neglectful enough of her child to not do that and here she is with a sick kid. The right course of action is that she be prosecuted for child neglect and the child be put in state care until a foster parent can be found.

Now lets up the ante (sp?). Suppose the child has some kind of rare disease that is very expensive and not covered by health care. Then certainly the mother could not be accused of neglect. Now I pose the question back to you...

You have a child with a rare disease on your hands, a mother who cannot afford the life-saving procedure, a doctor who can perform the procedure, a rich man who could pay for the procedure, and a gun (meaning you're the government).

Who's head do you put the gun to? The rich man? Rob him of his money so that the child can live? The doctor? Force him to work as slave to your weapon so that the child can live?

Or do you do the right thing? The right thing is to let the doctor or rich man to act out of the charity of their hearts freely, or, if they refuse... let the child die. Just because the technology exists to save the child doesn't mean that the child automatically gets it. If the child had been born 10 years ago, there might not have been hope of saving it. Sometimes you die of a disease and that's that. If I contracted a disease tomorrow that would cost my family 10 million dollars to cure, I would allow myself to die rather than saddle them with that kind of burden. Sometimes your card gets picked. The point is, it's not right to force the doctor or the rich man to take care of the child. It's just not moral. There's no getting around that. It's not justifiable to sacrifice the strong for the weak. Or anyone for anyone for that matter. There are lots of sick kids out there and forcing people to cure them all is rediculous and wrong. Nobody has a right to live or be kept alive, not even children (at least not at all costs). People do, however, have a right to be free.

 

[HareTurtle]

--Do you think it is morally justifiable to sacrifice the strong in favor of the weak?--

The answer I keep hearing is no. Which means it's not justifiable to tax the rich more than the poor to provide services unless the rich benefit that much more (which they do not). Hare's post ignores this completely.

As a defense lawyer might object: "Asked and answered".

No, I do not believe in "sacrificing" the strong for the weak. Nicely loaded question, by the way. But I would argue that it is an essential role of government to mitigate the disparity between the strong and the weak.

I refer to the question as "loaded" because "sacrificing the strong" makes it sound as if we're tying them to an altar and ripping out their beating hearts. Is a society free if it's people are not free to limit the strength of the strong. Not for long. Damn! My pizza is smoking! Later.

 

[Sage]

Lots of young "intellects" have an Ayn Rand phase. The smart ones grow out of it.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but ///M-Spec, Duke, Danoff, and I all consider ourselves Objectivists. And I might as well say this – Regarding Ayn Rand, I have never read a book (Atlas Shrugged) that *clicked* with me so well as that. Never. I've never had a book that I understood so well right after reading it (well, I had to consult Duke about the sex scenes, but aside from that).

I dunno. I sincerely wish there was a gob of land somewhere that's uninhabited and not owned by any nation, so that I could set up a Capitalist society there, and then we could see what happens. As it is right now, it's just about impossible to setup a purely Capitalist society in the world.

 

[Danoff]

a society free if it's people are not free to limit the strength of the strong. Not for long.

This is funny. Is a society free if it is not free to prevent its citizens from being free? It's a rather humerous question.

Not for long you say, but as long as the rights of the individual are protected why would the strong ever be able to oppress the weak? Moreover, why would they want to?

 

[ledhed]

Who gets to play god and choose the cut off price to save the child ? What if its only a million and the insurance covers 1/2. You use free market principles to decide who lives and who dies ? That kind of sucks .

 

[Carl.]

The answer I keep hearing is no. Which means it's not justifiable to tax the rich more than the poor to provide services unless the rich benefit that much more (which they do not). Hare's post ignores this completely. It also ignores the fact that most of the societies he compared the US to were not free, which is why they ended in violence.

The reason governments die at the hands of violence is because people are oppressed.

Prove it. Cite examples of societies were the violence and ultimately revolution was started by the strongest ones in response of being forced to help the weakest, and where this was precisely the reason of the revolution. Then try to find out revolutions that were caused by the exact opposite.

The right thing is to let the doctor or rich man to act out of the charity of their hearts freely, or, if they refuse... let the child die.

This is obviously more likely (and humanly justified in my opinion) to cause a violent reaction than a 40% tax on a portion of a high income.


The ones who don't care about social services and don't agree with the taxes don't react violently, they just find a way around it. Like my hero, Canada's prime minister. His company Canada Steam Ship Lines that helped him to make a fortune while being a supplier for our Country, is based in Barbados. I really admire the guy, I guess he understood something I don't After all, he's wealthier than anyone I know.

 

[HareTurtle]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but ///M-Spec, Duke, Danoff, and I all consider ourselves Objectivists.

That was fairly obvious from the tenor of the conversation. Hence the "hypothetical" barb, which I trust has been received in the light-hearted manner in which it was proffered. Just wanted to let you know that I know where you're coming from. My own infatuation with Rand evaporated twenty some years ago, a victim of a little more experience with human nature and the ways of the world. (Oops, that, I'm sure, sounds damned arrogant, and I'll entertain complaints to that effect in 2024.)

 

[HareTurtle]

This is funny. Is a society free if it is not free to prevent its citizens from being free? It's a rather humerous question.

Not for long you say, but as long as the rights of the individual are protected why would the strong ever be able to oppress the weak? Moreover, why would they want to?

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty. What is "free", and what are "rights". What is "just" and what is"moral". While there are certain aspects of the definitions of these terms on which most people are in agreement, there are also vast grey areas where the terms have different meaning to different people. As I suggested in my previous post, I think the success, such as it is, of Western capitalist/Democratic societies, is in providing a dynamic mechanism for the continual development of a governing consensus on the meaning of these terms. But IMHO no sane society will permit the unrestrained accumulation of wealth and power by "strong" individuals. Would you want to live in an America where Bill Gates IV owns everything west of the Rockies and Donald Trump III owns all of the lands east of the Mississippi.

 

[Danoff]

Prove it. Cite examples of societies were the violence and ultimately revolution was started by the strongest ones in response of being forced to help the weakest, and where this was precisely the reason of the revolution. Then try to find out revolutions that were caused by the exact opposite.

Woah! I never made that claim. My claim was that it is the oppressed who revolt. I don't think that's really questionable. People who aren't oppressed don't revolt.

This is obviously more likely (and humanly justified in my opinion) to cause a violent reaction than a 40% tax on a portion of a high income.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify because it sounds to me like you just said you could understand if the mother who could not afford the health care would be justified in killing a doctor who was unwilling to perform the service for free... and well that's just terrible.

Who gets to play god and choose the cut off price to save the child ?

That's a tough one. I guess it has to do with the size of the budget and amount of taxes the population is willing to bear before it votes someone else in power. Still, paying taxing to cover healthcare for parentless children is something the government is justified in doing. Children with no parents cannot be expected to provide for themselves. I'm willing to bet that there aren't too many orphans with rare diseases out there.

But IMHO no sane society will permit the unrestrained accumulation of wealth and power by "strong" individuals.

The accumulation of wealth in a capitalist society comes with strings attached. The need to satisfy your consumer base to keep the money flowing.

Would you want to live in an America where Bill Gates IV owns everything west of the Rockies and Donald Trump III owns all of the lands east of the Mississippi.

Not sure what that would be like. I can't say no offhand.

 

[HareTurtle]

The accumulation of wealth in a capitalist society comes with strings attached. The need to satisfy your consumer base to keep the money flowing.

Our society has decided, and rightly, I believe, that more strings than that are needed. You might look at the history of monopolies, and the development of anti-trust laws, as a case in point.

Not sure what that would be like. I can't say no offhand.

Ask an Iraqi. They've some experience. Power corrupts, and absolute power...well I'm sure you know the rest. Do you think Jeff Skilling and Dennis Koslowski were inherently more "moral" than Saddam Hussein, or were they subject to more restraints. Dispense with those restraints at your peril.

 

[Carl.]

You could be put in jail if you did not send your child to school.

Well, wasn't that law was created once public shools were in place? You'd still want to keep that law without them? - So having a child an then financial troubles could mean you go to jail, and child could be taken away from you?

That being said, this mother was neglectful enough of her child to not do that and here she is with a sick kid. The right course of action is that she be prosecuted for child neglect and the child be put in state care until a foster parent can be found.

This would be a morally and economically better solution? Wouldn't it cost more and have worst consequences (at both individual and social levels) than giving healthcare in the first place?

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify because it sounds to me like you just said you could understand if the mother who could not afford the health care would be justified in killing a doctor who was unwilling to perform the service for free... and well that's just terrible.

I never said it would justify a murder, killing someone else wouldn't help. But it's obvious that a situation where someone's child will die because a doctor refuses to treat him as he cannot pay enough for it is more likely to cause a violent reaction than a 40% cut on a fraction of a wealthy person's income.

Killing or having a gun on his head are quite extreme terms for situations like that. Do you ever felt that you'd be killed if you don't pay your taxes? Do you think you could kill to be able to keep all your income for yourself?

 

[Famine]

First of all, I'd like to point out that the word free here is obviously out of place. Secondly, it's fine to see taxes as not being taken by force. That's because some of them are required for a free society to remain free. However, almost all of them are not required, nor are they productive.

Perhaps the word "free" is out of place. However, my brother has, over the course of his life, received schooling, training and healthcare that was free to him. Having survived everything life has thrown at him to reach an employable age, he is contributing back to allow others the same opportunity he was given - as do I, and I was given free university education as well.

To take all that has been given and not give anything back is selfish - or opportunistic, depending on your point of view. Perhaps we have been brainwashed into believing this - but there is nothing stopping any one of us leaving this society and joining another one to ply our trade.

I'd like to highligh the fact that there has been a lot of sidestepping of the basic premise behind this thread.

--Do you think it is morally justifiable to sacrifice the strong in favor of the weak?--

The answer I keep hearing is no. Which means it's not justifiable to tax the rich more than the poor to provide services unless the rich benefit that much more (which they do not). Hare's post ignores this completely. It also ignores the fact that most of the societies he compared the US to were not free, which is why they ended in violence.

Why do the rich not benefit much more from the services that everyone's taxes help provide? Generally speaking, richer people live longer than poorer people. They are thus more prone to diseases of age, including degenerative disorders and cancer - the risk of which increases the longer you live - and more likely to require the more expensive treatments available. Does a poor, tax-paying person who does not visit a doctor in their existence (except for the mandatory two certificates which chronicle their life) subsidise a perpetually ill rich person?

Tax rates in this country are known before we start work. It is very easy to move to another one - if I so desired I could move to the US or Canada, or Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan, or even the EU (assuming my language skills were that good).

First of all, you can be put in jail if you do not feed your child. You could be put in jail if you did not send your child to school. And -I believe, or at least you should- be put in jail if you don't get health insurance for your child. Health care plans are not that expensive and should be thought about before one has kids.

Nonetheless, they are an additional expense.

The natural instinct of any animal is to reproduce. Agreed that some do it irresponsibly and even recklessly, but the children should not be punished by death through inaction for the recklessness of their parents.

Back to the world of biology again, species which do not breed do not vary. Species which do not vary stagnate. Species which stagnate die. If you only allow those who can afford children to have them, you cut variation at a stroke - besides which, this policy is difficult to implement (what's the cutoff wage for having a child? Would it be inflation adjusted? How about for two or more children? Is the value different for the two genders? What if you "accidentally" conceive twins when you're only adjudged to be able to afford one?) and even harder to enforce.

You have a child with a rare disease on your hands, a mother who cannot afford the life-saving procedure, a doctor who can perform the procedure, a rich man who could pay for the procedure, and a gun (meaning you're the government).

Who's head do you put the gun to? The rich man? Rob him of his money so that the child can live? The doctor? Force him to work as slave to your weapon so that the child can live?

Too easy. Every legally practising doctor on Earth has taken this oath.

"I swear by Apollo the physician, by Æsculapius, Hygeia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgement, the following Oath.

"To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to share my goods with him; to look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the disciples who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the rules of the profession, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgement and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death. Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art. In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves. All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal. If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.""

(there is a slight variant used by US medics, but it's down to a translation conflict - the words remain although the order is slightly different towards the end).

Fundamental to this oath is what is regarded as the central tenet of medical law - primum non nocere - first, do no harm. Inaction where action is required is regarded as harm by medics, and a doctor could find himself struck off in the UK for not acting - I do not know what the equivalent rules are in the USA.

The doctor is obliged by his oath to treat anyone who asks him for treatment, to the best of his knowledge and ability. No gun would be required, but neither is it out of the kindness of his heart.

People do, however, have a right to be free.

It's a cliche, I know, but freedom to die of preventable illnesses is not freedom.

There's a book called "First, do no harm" (funnily ). The text is available online - it's written by an American physician, and the conclusion (or solution) he reaches is fascinating. If you have the time, please read it.

 

[///M-Spec]

Bah. Stupid brower double posted on me. Mods, please delete. Thank you.

 

[///M-Spec]

I see there are some assumptions flying around here. Let me clear some of them up.

I don't advocate a pure capitalist system. While it is true I lean towards absolution of many social programs in the United States, it would be wrong to assume I want to "privatize everything". That would be pretty nuts. I can't speak for Duke and danoff, but I'm fairly sure they don't either. I also can't venture a guess on Sage's views, since he listens a whole lot more than he speaks.

And just because I count myself in the 'Classical Liberal economics camp' of thinkers doesn't I mean even agree with my esteemed colleges here all the time. Do a search on auto safety regulation and you will see that danoff and I ended up going 12 rounds over that one. In fact, all of us has disagreed on something at one time or another. Its healthy.

As far as Ayn Rand goes, there are many things I find agreeable about her philosophy. There are some things I don't. Certainly I find the choices in her personal life a bit odd. I don't really consider myself an "Objectivist" for a variety of reasons, the most prominent being that I simply lost interest in her work before I finished reading it all. She was a Russian novelist after all, and thus, painfully long winded.

I do reject the notion that I believe "the strong will survive and the weak will perish." Just like I reject the notion that "the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer." They are simple-minded slogans that try to characterize an extremely complex apparatus and but don't accurately reflect reality. Just because I don't want Universal Healthcare the way it is currently proposed the US, doesn't mean I want to see babies die on the street outside a functional hospital ---why do people always assume that?

I believe you can have capitalism and democracy with a minimal amount of government influence. I believe such a system can benefit humanity on the whole. I believe in a certain amount of public works and public services. I even believe in a certain amount of government aid to those truly in need. Just not the sprawling, monstrous creations that is the system we have now.

I think both sides of this argument need to take a step back and avoid playing up the worst, most negative aspects of the other side. Famine doesn't want to show up at Bill Gate's house with a torch and pitchfork and danoff doesn't want to crush a homeless family under his Rolls Royce. You can't have a reasonable discussion by dressing up your opponent as an evil straw man.

As for me being mentioned as one of the "strong", I decline the label. My parents immigrated to the US with a very modest savings and scraped by for 20 years. I grew up in a poor ethnic neighborhood and ate reduced price public school food. At times we lived on my mother's salary waiting tables. At no time did we ever expect or take finacial aid. Eventually, through hard work and perseverance, my folks' ship did finally come in and now they can afford to live comfortably. My parents are living proof of the American dream. Myself, I am not any different from the rest of you. I work hard, support my family and pay my taxes. Yes, I just bought a new BMW, but all that means is I am willing to spend a bit more to treat myself to something I enjoy. I have the same concerns and live in the same world as you.

Meh. Sorry for the length. There was a lot I wanted to cover. Back to the show.


M

 

[Famine]

I think both sides of this argument need to take a step back and avoid playing up the worst, most negative aspects of the other side. Famine doesn't want to show up at Bill Gate's house with a torch and pitchfork and danoff doesn't want to crush a homeless family under his Rolls Royce. You can't have a reasonable discussion by dressing up your opponent as an evil straw man.

You're getting my vote for Funniest Member, come the 3rd GTP Awards. That was class.

 

[///M-Spec]

You're getting my vote for Funniest Member, come the 3rd GTP Awards. That was class.

Thank you. I'm glad we can have a laugh or two despite how serious this topic is.

Wow, are the 3rd awards nearing already?


M

 

[87chevy]

ok, danoff maybe no one has answered your exact qeustion (in first post) for the reason stated by Hare Turtle. Your question is ridiculous. Sacrifice and tax, are not the same words. I'm not sure if you know this. Taxing 40% of a millionares income will not kill(sacrifice) him. He may be 'sacrificing' a little more of his income than others, but he is not sacrificed. so it is a loaded question. No one here is saying all of their money should be taken. but as famine was talking about, the better-off should contribute proportionately to what they recieve. no where in our constitution do you the right to be rich. Being, or being-able-to be rich, is not a right. It's a privelege.

 

[Danoff]

You can't have a reasonable discussion by dressing up your opponent as an evil straw man.

It's hard not to. I truly see redistribution of wealth plans like socialism as evil - as evil as slavery, or theft (which are pretty similar).

I don't see it as dressing up my opponent, I see it as exposing him. I see it simply. Capitalism is fair and socialism is not. Every person in this thread has admitted to that by answering the fundamental question of morality I posed. So to advocate socialism after admitting that it's not fair is advocating either slavery, theft or both.

The particulars (which people love to get wrapped up in) are not so important as the fundamental theme. Are monopolies a big deal? No, they're rare. I think arguments could be made to suggest they have never existed in the history of the world. But they are theoretically possible and easy to deal with. Are orphans, quadriplegics, or retarded people a big deal? No, they're rare and easily taken care of in a variety of ways. These are not inconsistencies in the system, they're part of the calculated, expected need of government. Much like a military, fire department or police force.

Nobody has advocated anarchy in this thread (yet). Human beings need a governing structure. But they need it for very little. Where it is not needed, it not only does not belong but does great harm. Above all, it is important to not be so overwhelmed with compassion for one portion of humanity (the poor) that you are willing to sacrifice the rights (to property) of another portion (the rich). Respect all of humanity enough to know that the poor are working to become rich, and that the rich are offering jobs and opportunities with their resources. Remember that people give to charity and that that is the best possible way to have people help each other - voluntarily.

A doctor who takes an oath does so voluntarily and offers his help to those in need voluntarily - and that is the best possible way for everyone.

the better-off should contribute proportionately to what they recieve.

Then taxes would work the other way around with the rich paying almost nothing and the poor paying the most. But then you wouldn't need taxes at all.

 

[Famine]

A doctor who takes an oath does so voluntarily and offers his help to those in need voluntarily - and that is the best possible way for everyone.

No. A doctor must take the Hippocratic Oath so that he can practise what he has been taught. If he doesn't take the Oath, he cannot be a practising doctor. He is, if you will, forced to take the Oath and bound by that Oath to give medical help to anyone who asks for it.

Thank you. I'm glad we can have a laugh or two despite how serious this topic is.

Wow, are the 3rd awards nearing already?

Must be - I was only here a couple of months before the first ones, and I joined last February.

I don't carry anything from Opinions back out into the rest of GTP - even if I violently disagree, or wholeheartedly agree with you. 87chevy found that out after our first disagreement.