In this thread, we have an abstract discussion without befouling pastries of any size
Pages
| Author | Topic: In this thread, we have an abstract discussion without befouling pastries of any size |
|---|---|
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 21:00
Profile
Homepage
The provision defeats the utility of the query; the only way one man can get more than he deserves in the long run is by ensuring at least one more gets less than he deserves. -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 21:08
Profile
Homepage
Only if you assume that anyone deserves more than the basic essentials of life. And if there aren't enough resources in the world to even give everyone that much without eliminating the possibility of anyone at all having much more than that, then inequality is the least of our problems. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 21:32
Profile
Thuryl, thank you. Alec, I really don't have the time to have a proper debate, alas. Give me one or two short simple questions and I'll try to answer them. Anything longer and I'll have to ignore it. Sorry. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 21:40
Profile
Homepage
You're welcome, I guess. Speaking on behalf of others is one of my worst habits, but I've at least tried to develop something of a talent for doing it accurately. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 21:58
Profile
In an attempt to clarify some of my earlier statements, it's my opinion that we are much more the product of our own decisions and effort than our situation. Obviously a kid starving in a gutter needs to be helped. But I don't think it really matters whether or not you went to Harvard. The one who ends up best off is the one who decides he's going to make the best of his situation and goes for it. [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 22:17: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 22:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:The basic essentials of life vary from place to place. Here a certain amount of shelter is one of them; in Nigeria, a man with that much shelter is well-off. The same goes for quality and quantity of food and water. These distinctions and inequalities exist -- and, incidentally, thousands die daily of cholera and misnutrition -- precisely because people are unable to see enough of the world outside of their peripheral vision to realize how very callous overfeeding their own children is when there are those who cannot eat. Creator: What I expected. I'll quote out the parts I'm interested in a response for for you, then. quote: quote: quote: quote: [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 22:08: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 22:17
Profile
Homepage
Someone's definition of "basic essentials" is a little funny. The amount of living space someone *needs* in order to survive doesn't really vary all that much from place to place. Either: * we have more shelter than we need and the Nigerians of which you speak have just enough, in which case there's nothing wrong; * we have more than we need and the Nigerians don't have enough, in which case we need to start exporting rock to build islands to house Nigerians (or importing Nigerians to live here); * or we have the right amount and the Nigerians don't have enough, in which case the problem is that there just isn't enough space to go around and until the population decreases or we terraform other planets somebody is going to be scraping by on less than is adequate no matter how resources are distributed. Needs are not subjective. If your diet is so inadequate that it's reducing your life expectancy, your dietary needs aren't being met and something should be done about it. If it's adequate and you're just plain hungry for more, you have enough already and there's no reason for other people to have to give you more just because they happen to be getting more than you are. Certainly, there are plenty of people in the world whose needs are far from being met; but are inheritance taxes a necessary or even a useful measure to help them? [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 22:23: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 22:40
Profile
quote:1) Everything we do influences something else, so if we want to get anything done, I think it's fair to say that indirect consequences are rarely worth worrying about. Unless you're prepared to argue that I'm responsible for every business that goes bankrupt because I didn't spend there. quote:Because it's theirs. quote:I'm unconvinced that this is the way things work. More importantly, I don't believe that it is inherently wrong for someone to get more than he deserves. quote:I'm not certain exactly what you're asking here. I absolutely agree that generousity to those less fortunate is a good thing. But the definition of generousity is that you choose to do it. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 22:43
Profile
Homepage
I suppose I'd like to play both sides of this: I think it's fine for wealthy parents to give their children some advantages, because obviously that's one of the major objectives in many people's lives, and people who do manage to be rich might as well have some advantages. However, I think we'd have a more productive society if people who wanted to be truly fabulously wealthy needed to earn it themselves, rather than just inherit it. That's why I'd put some sort of cap on inheritance: I have little objection to wealthy parents going on nice vacations with their kids or whatever, but I do have a problem with people who inherit estates valued with eight digits or more and not only don't have to work a day in their lives, but can live in rather spectacular opulence without working a day in their lives. That sort of person seems far more lazy to me than a person who has trouble finding a job that pays much better than minimum wage and therefore has to work ten or twelve hours per day just to afford enough for a residence and food for a family. The overwhelming majority of the poor are not lazy; there is essentially no way for many of them to earn more money than they do. School is out of the question when you work an average of sixty or seventy hours per week, especially if that job is manual labor or working with one's hands in any way. But more importantly, the entire last paragraph isn't essential to my argument: my argument is simply that allowing people to inherit incredible riches is probably a bad idea. My idea of a good inheritance system is that one should have to earn significant wealth for one's self, and one can leave a reasonable sum to one's children, but only enough to last them their lives at a reasonably modest standard of living. You shouldn't be able to make your kids rich, just to leave them with a few advantages. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
For Carnage, Apply Within
Member # 95
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 22:53
Profile
From a moral perspective, it's hard to see why an inheritance tax is immoral while other taxes are not. Creator (or anyone else), if you have a good argument for why you have a greater right to your property after death than you do during life, I'm all ears. Posts: 567 | Registered: Friday, October 5 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Tuesday, January 25 2005 22:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:Fair point, I suppose. I hope you recognize the difference in degree present here; people do die on a daily basis for want of things which we could comfortably do without. quote:Even after they're dead and have no more use for it? Wow. Someone's got a pretty disproportionate respect for the right to property. quote:You're unconvinced because it's easier than addressing the blunt facts: economic mobility is near to nil and stuff like vigorous respect for inheritance only hurts it; people can and do make it in the world based on their family tree; and a person can readily cruise through life without developing anything that makes life worth living so long as his parents are rich. I don't mind people working their fingers to the bone to get what they ought by rights to have coming to them -- an education, a comfortable living, and so on -- and I know people who chose to do so even though their parents had the money and would give it to them. The difference is that I don't believe it ought to be forced on anyone. It's not wrong for someone to get more than he deserves so long as everyone else who could readily be getting what they deserve is. Consider the example of Melinda Gates - she essentially has the world set out before her on a platter, while other children her age are already working to support their families. quote:There is a reason for criminal neglect as a crime. That reason is this: while it is within your power not to do good even if it costs you nothing, at some point failing to do should be a repugnant offense in a civilized society. Saying that perfunctory respect for human decency should be voluntary is much like saying criminal neglect should be stricken from the books inasmuch as it makes sense on some abstract, perverse level, but in the concrete it is an ugly idea that goes nowhere good in a hurry. Quick and important question, C: do you consider the idea of equality of opportunity an essentially desirable one? [ Tuesday, January 25, 2005 22:59: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 02:20
Profile
Homepage
There are some fundamental problems with poverty and inheritance and this issue. 1) People having children when they can't afford to take care of them. If you're working 60 hours a week to make ends meet for yourself, don't have a kid. Maybe you can go to night school and get certified for a better job where you can work 40 hours a week for better money and then you can have a kid. Too many people are having children when they can't take care of them, which leads to the next problem. 2) A lack of motivation. Parents working 60 hours a week with two kids cannot take an active interest in their children's lives. A parent needs to push and motivate their children to do well in school and whatever else they're interested in. Parents need to be able to take control over their children sometimes. They've had life experience that their kids have not. 3) Spending money on the wrong things. Bill Cosby is absolutely right here. Buying an X-Box and Iversons and a Cadillac when you're living in poverty is not doing anyone any good. Most likely, you're plunging into debt, especially when you could have used that money to buy 'Hooked on Phonics' or something that will give your children a better chance in life, rather than more fun or prestige right now. 4) A lack of values. Parents need to teach their children values. If you see that your mother is a cocaine addict with three children from three different men, you're going to come out of childhood with some funny worldviews. Parents need to teach their children proper morals and values so that they don't end up in the same mess that they're in. Most parents really, really love their children. But a lot of them have no clue about when they should have had them, what they should teach them, etc. If you're living in poverty with three kids and your life is in shambles, there are some questions that you have to ask yourself. Likewise, if you're better off and your children don't succeed, then you really need to look at yourself. TM, I don't believe that saying that not everyone is born equal is racist at all. It's completely true. Not everyone has the same intelligence, not everyone can grasp math or science or history, not everyone can jump the same height, not everyone is or can be the same. Still, a lot of things are environmental factors. I believe that everyone can succeed in school and is capable of A's and B's in honors-level classes. It's just that some people apply themselves, and others just don't think that they can make it, so they don't try. And that's just sad. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 03:57
Profile
Homepage
Sophistry is exhausting, and Creator's doing a good enough job of presenting his own case anyway. Back to arguing for points of view I actually believe, then. quote:By "everyone" I'm sure you don't mean everyone. I mean, there are such things as mental disabilities, to one degree or another. Besides, even for those with the ability, it's hard to be motivated to succeed academically if you know the only way you'll afford college tuition is if you work two jobs at the same time. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 06:05
Profile
Homepage
Drakey, sometimes the money drain in 1) works the other way around. People might not have to work 60 hours per week to make ends meet when they don't have kids, but they might also not anticipate the extra costs involved in raising a family. Someone who could survive on 40 hours per week might find that the only way to make ends meet after having a kid is to work 60 hours per week. It's hard to know exactly how much having a child will cost, too: if the mother is a significant source of income, how soon can she get back to work? Will she be able to work as much as before? Will one need a nanny? How much does that cost? What if the child is born with some sort of disability? [ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 06:05: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 09:46
Profile
The situation about food and housing in the world is ridiculous. There is more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. The reason people don't get fed is purely economic greed and commodity brokerage. Farmers in the United States are paid not to produce food, Farmers in India are also paid not to produce food where people are starving. Look at the facts on food production; there is more than enough to feed everybody in the world. However, if we fed everybody, farmers would not make the same amount of money. Two of the most effective ways of making money legal or otherwise are arms production and hard illegal drug production. It pays to kill not feed people. Housing, like food is a commodity. There is enough money to house most of the people in the world. In fact, we would have less people if we housed and fed everyone. People who are not in poverty have fewer children. This is a raw fact. Higher economic status leads to declining population growth. We may not have a choice in the future about keeping people in poverty. There needs to be some concentration of power and wealth to build large scale projects. Inheritance has been the traditional way in which large amounts of money are kept concentrated. Typically, the inheritors of huge amounts of money build large projects outside of governmwent. Give me a better way to handle this and I would agree with it. I haven't seen one yet. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 11:37
Profile
Homepage
Drakey- I'm not insinuating that there aren't inherent benefits and downsides based on the genes that one has had doled out to one's self. All that Partisan Slith said that truly irked me was that people who are currently wealthy are wealthy based on a superior nature. Maybe there's a case for a system based on genetic capabilities, but the only real implication of stating that such a thing exists now is nothing short of racism. (Not that all minorities are poor, but the affluent minorities are dwarfed by less prestigious counterparts, and well-to-do minorities are considered to be "white" anyway.) I'd go at it proper, but Alec has said all that I otherwise would have. -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 11:45
Profile
Why is it that everything Drakey ever says in topics like this leaves me with a sense of calm and clearness? He always sounds so right. quote:It's also possible that poverty is a function of the # of children. Or the two only increase each other. (But that tends to turn people into statistics, yuck.) -------------------- "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 12:05
Profile
quote:Leaving aside the fact that it's practically impossible to implement? No, I don't. If one person has enough, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that the next has more. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 13:14
Profile
Homepage
Re: Kelandon's Post If you can't answer those questions satisfactorally, then you shouldn't have children. Wear a condom. Don't sleep with so many men. Also, bringing a child into the world without two loving parents is pretty bad too. Re: Food I think that one of the government's most sickening policies is paying farmers to not farm their land. Agricultural subsidies are ridiculous. All of the farming done now could be done by a few people with better results and food could be sold cheaply all across the world. This is protectionism gone way too far. The farm lobby is obscenely powerful. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 15:25
Profile
Homepage
But Drakey, I thought that the Democrats were the good guys...! -------------------- 人 た ち を 燃 え る た め に 俺 は か れ ら に 火 を 上 げ る か ら 死 ん だ Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 16:12
Profile
Homepage
quote:You dodged the question. You're saying you don't believe it's necessary to give everyone the same shot at a good life, and that it is in fact desirable to have social status distinguished immediately at birth? -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 16:16
Profile
Homepage
Hang on, now you're trying to portray anyone who doesn't mind inequality as being actively in favour of it? [ Wednesday, January 26, 2005 16:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 27
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 16:26
Profile
quote: quote:I can see how that made me sound like a bigot, and I apologize if I offended anyone. I tried to play the devil's advocate. Society, back here in America anyway, is dominated by the white male, a fact not opinion. I had written an entire long post stating what I really meant, but after reading it, I realized something. I'm not a spoiled child, despite being well off. I don't recieve pocket money from my parents, I wont get a car, I had to buy my own expensive guitar, etc. But these are things, I have to worry about. Other kids don't even have the opportunity to think about these benefits; some even have to work to support their own family. How can I go and state my opinion on inheritance, child benefits, etc. when I've been sheltered all my life and have never known anything else. How can I say that the honest wealthy citizens got the way they were by working harder than others, when the family and lifestyle to which you are born makes such a big difference. All I have to worry about when I get home from school everyday, aside from personal issues, is the homework load and getting it done for the next day. Some kids are lucky to even get the opportunity to study. Those born poor have to work so much harder than those well off, its completely unfair. Society is unfair, but what can we do about it? Affirmative action is one thing, but its just beating around the bush. I'd start at an improved version of affirmative action, and work my way up. Good healthcare should be a mandatory right for everyone, and not just the rich. There are many problems preventing this, but we have to start somewhere. Changing the topic a bit and opening up another topic to discuss... How do you define an aristocrat? Do you take a Jeffersonian stand or an Adams stand? Do you think people are made aristocrats by who they are, or what they become? Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 16:41
Profile
quote:"No, I don't" is not dodging the question. It's a direct answer. It's not that hard to tell the difference. In response to those two questions, no and no. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
|
written Wednesday, January 26 2005 17:08
Profile
Homepage
So how exactly does someone being born into an assload of money fail to distinguish from someone being born into dirt poverty? -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00 |