Short Political Quiz

Pages

AuthorTopic: Short Political Quiz
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #25
quote:
Originally written by Ash Lael:

quote:
Originally written by Kasumetoru Sai:

But ultimately, any sort of argument that either argues for the existence of an upper-class or addresses its existence "pragmatically" purposefully ignores the notion inherent in the idea of an upper-class that it is somehow morally feasible to allow some people to have much larger sums of wealth than others.
Let's say bloke A has ten million dollars, and bloke B down the road has a billion. Bloke A can whine that his mansion isn't as big as Bloke B's, but I don't really see any moral problems here with allowing this situation to continue.

Similarily, if you work your backside off and contribute a lot to society while I kind of bum around and just work enough to scrape by and feed my 2 minute noodle addiction, I figure it's fair enough that you get rewarded better.

Your example is terrible...Bloke A is already in the top 1% or so. A better example would be your Bloke A verse Bloke C who had to drop out of high school to help pay medical expenses when his little brother's arm broke and now has to keep working 2 minimum-wage jobs to keep himself fed and his mother in a house.
If Bloke C works 50 hours/week at physically exhausting labor he earns $13,390 a year before taxes. Bloke A is probably earning that much weekly by sitting on his backside and watching his nearly tax-free investments grow (13390 is roughly 7% annual growth).

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #26
Being rich isn't inherently evil, nor is being poor. One may posses more money than you, but what does that matter? People are starving? Sure they are. But that has nothing to do with the rich. It has more to do with useless governments namly in the US which completely ignore the real world issues. It is not up to a single class to change the world and make things right. It is up to all classes to change things. That means if you have 5 dollars you are just as responsible for poverty as the person with 2 million. On another note there really is no reason for people to go completely hungry in the Western World. When you can go the grocery store and buy a 25 kg bag of onions for 5 dollars or a similar amount of potatoes. People have forgotten what being poor means. Talk to your parents or grandparents they know what living with very little is like. Just because you don't have as much money as the president doesn't mean you can't live a good life. What is money going to change about your life. Perhaps it will get you a shiny boat or car. But very little else. So you have money, good, go to the movies every day, good buy a new car once a month. To me it makes no difference. It is no better to steal from the rich than from the poor each are essentially as equal as "you" see and treat them.

[ Sunday, December 11, 2005 22:36: Message edited by: VCH ]

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 4239
Profile #27
An effective government would reduce poverty and starvation by giving those who were starving the resources they need not to. Where do they get those resources? From the people who aren't starving. Namely, the rich.

And on a side note, people can't live on potatoes and onions. ;)

--------------------
There are two kinds of game players...those who are newbies, and those who were.
Posts: 322 | Registered: Monday, April 12 2004 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6401
Profile #28
VCH, even if it is the joint responsibility of the rich and the poor to get the poor into a better situation, the point is that the rich are the ones who have the power to do this, not the poor. That's perhaps why most of the emphasis is put on them. And the worst thing is when the rich agree to work to help the poor somehow, but only on their own special conditions. (With the intention of limiting the amount of power the poor will ever have.)

[ Sunday, December 11, 2005 23:13: Message edited by: Thin Air ]

--------------------
I think this is really wonderful.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Tuesday, October 18 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #29
And even if everyone today did have enough to live on, what about future generations? Every joule of energy that's used for a frivolous purpose brings us just that little bit closer to the inevitable heat death of the universe. Whenever resources are spent on building yachts for billionaires, the maximum future human population which the earth could sustain throughout its existence is reduced.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #30
Although true, I suspect the amount of entropy we generate is negligible compared to the entropy generated by stars.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #31
Well, yes. Unless and until we start building Dyson spheres around every star in the galaxy to collect as much radiant energy as is physically possible, it's more of a philosophical issue than a practical one. But since when is an ethical debate on an online forum of any practical importance anyway?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #32
I really ought to have seen that reaction to my post coming.

No, SNM, my example was not terrible. It was excellent. TM did not say that financial inequality while people starve is a bad thing. He said financial inequality is a bad thing. I presented a hypothetical situation where a huge disparity existed - 990 million bucks worth - yet there was no suffering (aside from a bit of envy, maybe) caused by it. I did this to make the point that INEQUALITY is not a moral problem - INSUFFICIENCY is. If everyone has enough, it doesn't matter if some have more than others.

And the accusation that I am "contributing to the worship of Lucre" is, really, pretty stupid. Read my post in context. I never claimed that all wealth is rightfully gained, or that the distribution of wealth that exists in the world now is completely OK. If I claimed that, I would be a moron. What I was doing was (again) presenting a hypothetical example of a situation where one person having a substantial amount more than another person (again, with neither of them being in destitute circumstances that they cannot change) without it being a moral problem - at least in my view.

To clarify once more, because some of you are really good at missing the point, I said this only to rebut TM's claim that any disparity in wealth is an inherently immoral thing. Bringing up Paris Hilton and Africa is completely irrelevant. YES, there are definitely situations where X having more than Y is bad. I do not disagree with that and never have. All I was doing was arguing that there are ALSO situations where X having more than Y is just fine and dandy.

/rant

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 59
Profile #33
quote:
Originally written by Vizhunairee:

In that sense, completely free speech (and writing) would also make copyrights impossible. Those restrict someone's ability to speak or write too. Thinking of government secrets as information that the government has copyrighted for its own protection covers the only justifiable exception to free speech that I can think of. You have the right to say or write anything you want as long as it's your own original words, but when it's someone else's, that other party may have the right to prevent it from being said.

—Alorael, who is not ready to believe that open-source everything is viable. Open-source government will be a long time in coming.

The government might copyright its secrets, but shouldn't the people own the government and its intellectual property?
Posts: 950 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00

Pages