Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883175 - 09/13/02 09:56 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"Define rich. Rich is probably different per person...or perhaps you'd like to determine that for the rest of society?"

Rich is having more than you use and/or need. People usually get rich by capitalizing on means of production and underpaying laborers. As long as there are rich people( having more than they need) then somebody somewhere is going without because of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883510 - 09/14/02 05:52 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

Rich is having more than you use and/or need.

So anyone who has more in his pocket than he requires to meet his needs of the next 24 hours is rich? Anyone with a bit of money in the bank and no outstanding debts is rich?

As long as there are rich people( having more than they need) then somebody somewhere is going without because of it.

Ah. Yet another disciple of Marx, who can't grasp the connection between human effort and wealth. You are saying in principle, that it is impossible for someone to thrive unless someone else starves; that commerce is a "zero-sum" game; that there is a fixed amount of goods in the world, and the only thing the global economy accomplishes is to redistribute the slices of a static "pie".

If you really believe that, it's no wonder you make the statements you do.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #883585 - 09/14/02 06:45 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

It does come down to human rights. And I strongly believe that a person's right to three squares a day outweighs one's right to a private jet and a mansion on every coastline.

Rights pertain to ACTIONS, not to RESULTS or OBJECTS. Any individual has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to feed himself and his dependents (always presuming, of course, that these actions do not violate the rights of others). But he does not have the right to force (either directly or through agents -- i.e. government) OTHERS to provide food to him.

All human existence depends on human effort -- on productive work. You don't get food by lying on your back and waiting for it to drop into your open mouth. You must WORK to get it -- you must identify it, find it, gather it, prepare it, eat it. Since there can be no such thing as human existence without human effort, all that is left to debate is WHOSE effort supports WHOSE existence. My position is that each individual is responsible for continuing his OWN existence. Note that I do not say that an individual may not CHOOSE to assist others. But the mere fact that any given individual exists does not make him RESPONSIBLE for the continued existence of others.

I disagree that human rights only apply to "civilized" people. The founding fathers made no such stipulation in the Declaration of Independance. The language is clear. ALL men are created equal, with certain INALIANABLE rights.

I phrased my point clumsily. Thank you for pointing it out. What I was trying to express is that while it is true that all humans by their nature possess certain inalienable rights, it is only in a CIVILIZED society that they are left free to exercise those rights.

If freedom is described as the right to do what you want so long as you don't step on the rights of others, than the uberwealthy are certainly NOT free to horde such a large number of assets...

Why not? Where is the logical connection?

Whose rights were violated by Bill Gates's purchase of a lavish home? Whose life was damaged by Donald Trump's purchase of a Ferrari? Which individuals were prevented from trading their labor for food by Peter Pocklington's purchase of a hockey team?

Anyway, it would take a bit more than cash to make sure that the rights of every world citizen are met.

Correct. It would take governments that recognize and respect the rights of individuals.

It would take a centralized institution with influences of power.

Not necessarily. If every government of every nation in the world were to adopt AND FOLLOW scrupulously the principles laid out in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no need for such an instituion.

I think that it is extremely important for the US as world leaders to pave the way to ensure that the demands are met...

Which demands? I must have missed something.

...and I absolutely not think that it should be left to personal choice any more than I think murder should.

Here we disagree. To deliberately shoot someone through the head, thereby causing his death, is not even remotely equivalent to buying a Lexus with money you earned through honest means.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883593 - 09/14/02 06:48 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"So anyone who has more in his pocket than he requires to meet his needs of the next 24 hours is rich? Anyone with a bit of money in the bank and no outstanding debts is rich?"

what did I say about 24 hours? you just made that up.

A good example of somebody being rich would be a landlord. He makes his living by owning not just his own home, but owning the homes of many other people. There is no right to the ownership of somebody else's home. You only need one home, so why own more?

"You are saying in principle, that it is impossible for someone to thrive unless someone else starves; that commerce is a "zero-sum" game"

Not really no. I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without. That doesn't necessarily mean there are a fixed amount of resources, but there is only so much resources that are available in any economy.

If you think I am wrong then why don't you tell me why it is wrong??? I won't stop believing what I believe until you can provide me with a more sensible alternative.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinebruisedBlue
nihilisticmystic
Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 21
Last seen: 21 years, 4 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883656 - 09/14/02 07:30 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without."

Define need. There are no NEEDS. There is only a need once a goal has been defined. For example, I have decided (or my instinct has for me) that I desire to live. Therefore I must nourish my body to stay alive. However, I do not NEED to live. What we are talking about here is wants, and man has proven over and over that his wants are unlimitted. Say someone lives in a carboard box. And someone else lives in a castle. Does the man in the cardboard box NEED to live in a castle? Nobody can honestly be on the right side of your argument, because by the very act of wanting, a man is seeking more than he "needs". You own a computer. Do you need it? You probably sleep in a bed. Do you need it? You probably eat and drink food beyond what you require to stay alive. Do you need it? Does that mean your wants are victimizing the less fortunate? You could grow your own farm and gorge yourself on corn and potatoes 24 hours a day. How would that be hurting anyone else. You see where I'm coming from here.

"I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without. "

Once again, define "needs". So do you consider a factory owner who is very wealthy to be an exploiter of the "poor"? What about the fact that he is providing employment to many people which generates wealth for those employees which in turn stimulates the economy. The factory workers have free will to choose to stop working there and focus their efforts elsewhere. Don't you understand the concept of entrepeneurialism? Believe it or not, wealth does not magically appear in the bank accounts of the rich and famous. Granted, some are born into wealth, but the majority build from scratch like everyone else. As the fellow before was saying, everyone has upward mobility. It all depends on the initiative they take.

"A good example of somebody being rich would be a landlord. He makes his living by owning not just his own home, but owning the homes of many other people. There is no right to the ownership of somebody else's home. You only need one home, so why own more?"


Come on man. You make it seem like the people living in rented homes are all victims of the evil landlord. Perhaps people have reasons for renting a home instead of purchasing one. There is no right to ownership of somebody else's home? Why not. By the very virtue of the landlord purchasing these homes, he has the right to own them. What part of that don't you understand?? Once again, needs......Who says you need ONE home? Some people don't live in houses. Some live in tents and dumpsters. Some by choice, some because of circumstances in their life which have led them to poverty. To say that poverty is is caused by wealthy entrepenuers couldn't be farther from the truth. Nearly all the wealth in this country is initially GENERATED BY THE WEALTHY. Open your mind to the idea of unlimitted wealth. Once you do, you may begin to understand that it is ridiculous to place boundaries on the potential for wealth in anyones life. The world is too complex to say there is only so much potential for anything. There are far too many creative ways to utilize resources. Once a certain type of resource is used up, then the money and Research and Development will be focused to finding alternatives. Why do you think we still use so much oil? Because there are so many people making money off it. Not because we can't come up with an alternative. Yeah, Im starting to rant, so, ill stop now.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883698 - 09/14/02 07:56 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

what did I say about 24 hours? you just made that up.

That's why I ASKED for clarification. You neglected to tell us what you think an individual's "needs" are. My question is, at what point do savings (wealth) stop being sufficient to merely provide "needs" and become "excess?" Is it when your bank account is greater than is required to meet your needs for 24 hours? For a month? For a year? For a decade? What is the determining factor?

A good example of somebody being rich would be a landlord. He makes his living by owning not just his own home, but owning the homes of many other people.

He doesn't own homes, he owns buildings. He can sell them, rent them out, let them sit empty, or tear them down.

Where did he get the buildings? Did he steal them? If so he is a criminal and must face the full penalty of the law. But if he built them or bought them, then they are HIS and he can do with them what he wants.

There is no right to the ownership of somebody else's home.

A tenant does not OWN the apartment he rents, anymore than he OWNS the car he rents.

You only need one home, so why own more?

You only need one car, so why own more? What is the point of starting a car rental company?

I am curious. What do you do for a living? Obviously you have never been involved in commerce.

I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without.

You're expressing the same belief in slightly different terms. You seem to think that the REASON some people don't have enough is that others have too much. The only way this can possibly be true is if there is only so much stuff available to go around. Please explain to us how Michael Jackson's purchase of a new Mercedes this year takes food out of the mouths of a tribe of goatherds in sub-Saharan Africa.

That doesn't necessarily mean there are a fixed amount of resources, but there is only so much resources that are available in any economy.

Once again you are doing nothing more than using a different arrangement of words to denote the same CONCEPT. Please explain to us the difference between "a fixed amount of resources" and "so much resources that are available".

If you think I am wrong then why don't you tell me why it is wrong??? I won't stop believing what I believe until you can provide me with a more sensible alternative.

Resources qua resources are useless for human existence. Raw resources must be transformed into goods through productive human effort before they are of use. A pool of oil half a mile underground does nobody any good. A seam of iron-bearing ore buried under a mountain in Siberia is useless until the ore is discovered, extracted, refined, turned into pots and pans and delivered to those who will use them.

How are those who mined the ore responsible for people "doing without"? Or those who refined the ore into steel. Or those who turned the steel into a cooking pot. These people brought into existence something that didn't exist previously. They didn't take it from anyone else. They didn't take something from a fixed pie, thereby leaving everyone else with less, they made the pie LARGER. The money they made from trading the pots for money which they then used to buy their houses, food, and clothing, was not TAKEN from anyone. In a very real sense, it was CREATED by them.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Americans were the ones who coined the phrase "to MAKE money". Before the concept of capitalism was put into practice, everyone thought the same as you -- it is not possible to MAKE wealth, only to steal it from others. I live in the Dominican Republic, where the official language is Spanish. There are many French tourists here, too. It is common for both to use the phrase "to WIN money" when they speak English. As a matter of fact, in Spanish, there IS no phrase equivalent to "making money"... only "to WIN money" -- ganar dinero. Perhaps this is not surprising, what with the Spanish Conquest and all.

I can't teach you the concepts of the creation of wealth in a single post. But you can check a previous thread in this forum which goes into the subject in great detail. See:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=
Forum14&Number=570143&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

Sorry I couldn't make it clickable, but the "URL rename" function seems not to be working properly at the moment. Just remove the space between the lines and you'll have the correct link to a thread titled "The US is NOT Capitalist!" in which all these concepts and more are thrashed out by several contributors.

pinky



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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: bruisedBlue]
    #883704 - 09/14/02 08:00 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Excellent post, sir. I salute you.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883729 - 09/14/02 08:13 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

You are missing the difference between charity and loans. America GIVES outright, with no necessity of repayment, billions of dollars as a GIFT.

Tell you what man. I'll send you 1 dollar as a gift for every thirteen dollars you send to me. Can't be fairer than that can I. See how long you last before you're starving.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #883756 - 09/14/02 08:37 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Tell you what man. I'll send you 1 dollar as a gift for every thirteen dollars you send to me. Can't be fairer than that can I. See how long you last before you're starving.

Let me try to dumb it down for you even more.

I loan you eleven dollars. You agree to pay me back thirteen dollars over the next seven years. At the same time, I GIVE you outright one dollar, and say "This is a gift. You don't have to repay it. Keep it."

So, you didn't receive ONE dollar from me, you received TWELVE DOLLARS from me -- eleven dollars as a loan, plus a dollar as a gift.

11 + 1 = 12

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883925 - 09/15/02 06:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Mark says,

"Rights pertain to ACTIONS, not to RESULTS or OBJECTS. Any individual has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to feed himself and his dependents (always presuming, of course, that these actions do not violate the rights of others). But he does not have the right to force (either directly or through agents -- i.e. government) OTHERS to provide food to him."

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=right says:

"right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

"A just or legal claim or title."

They don't say anything about "actions", "results", or "objects".

It is not my argument that people have the right to persue adequate food. They have the right to receive adequate food.

Just like you have the right to publish your own words, and circulate them around town. You don't need to take any action to gain that right. It is "something that is due to you by law..."

And I believe that a person's right to liberty from poverty is granted to them by nature.

And let me define the right to poverty as I am arguing for it. 'the right to adequate means by which to live a reasonably healthy life.'

I believe that it is because of this right, that we have such a thing as a minimum wage, and free education.

"My position is that each individual is responsible for continuing his OWN existence. Note that I do not say that an individual may not CHOOSE to assist others. But the mere fact that any given individual exists does not make him RESPONSIBLE for the continued existence of others."

Sounds a bit Utipian. You are assuming that the means are available to anyone who wants them, and the only thing keeping the impoverished impoverished is lack of motivation.

Try selling that to an Ethiopian, and I'm sure he'd just look at you funny and then try to eat it.

"I was trying to express is that while it is true that all humans by their nature possess certain inalienable rights, it is only in a CIVILIZED society that they are left free to exercise those rights."

This is an unfortunate reality. That is why it is up to civlized societies like the United States to ensure that while our companies are setting up factories in foriegn lands, that they at LEAST pay the employees there enough to sustain a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families.

"'If freedom is described as the right to do what you want so long as you don't step on the rights of others, than the uberwealthy are certainly NOT free to horde such a large number of assets...'

"Why not? Where is the logical connection?"

IF a right is defined as something that is due to a person nature,

AND IF it is indeed a right to have access to the bare necessities of survival,

AND IF the recourses would be available if not for the hording of the uberwealthy

AND IF one does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others

THEN the uberwealthy do not have the right to horde those assets.

"If every government of every nation in the world were to adopt AND FOLLOW scrupulously the principles laid out in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no need for such an instituion."

Utopian.








--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #884636 - 09/16/02 12:06 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

"right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

That definition is not quite accurate. It should more properly read "something that is ALLOWED to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature". For example, (in the case of a governmental body) the US government is permitted to apprehend and try in a court of law someone who steals from another, and to imprison him if he is found guilty. They have the RIGHT to do so. They are NOT allowed to scoop some random individual off the street for wearing a white hat, and shoot him. They do NOT have the right to do so.

As another example (in the case of an individual), a practitioner of karate has the right (is allowed) to do his katas in his backyard. He is not allowed (does not have the right) to kick to death a little kid walking past his yard.

They don't say anything about "actions", "results", or "objects".

Arresting, trying, and imprisoning an individual are actions. Practising karate is an action.

It is not my argument that people have the right to persue adequate food. They have the right to receive adequate food.

Receive adequate food FROM WHOM?

Why, from other PEOPLE, according to your definition of "rights". There can literally be no other answer. In other words, according to you, SOME people have the "right" to force OTHER people to provide them with food. But that can't possibly be correct, since as you pointed out, ALL men have equal inalienable rights. If this is true, then it follows that all are to be treated equally. If one person has the right to produce NO food, but another MUST produce enough food for two people, where is the equal treatment? The inescapable logical corollary to the statement "Everyone has the right to receive adequate food" is that NO ONE has the obligation to PRODUCE food.

By the way, I just went to my neighbor's place to ask for the food she owes me, and by coincidence she was on her way to my place to ask ME for the food I owed HER. We both decided to ask YOU for our food. You can deliver it in person, if you would like to enjoy our fine Caribbean weather.

Just like you have the right to publish your own words, and circulate them around town. You don't need to take any action to gain that right.

I don't need to take any actions to get the RIGHT to publish. That right is mine by nature. But in order to actually PUBLISH, I must take NUMEROUS actions. I must compose the words, obtain paper and ink, perform a series of actions to get the words onto the paper, and hand the papers to other individuals.

From the above statement of yours, the nature of your logical error is clear. You are equating the ACTION with the OBJECT, which is why you are arriving at a faulty conclusion. Yes, you have the right to EAT. No, you don't have the right to have the food you eat GIVEN to you. I am not denying that everyone has the right to eat, just as I am not denying that everyone has the right to publish.

Just because you are ALLOWED by your nature to do something does not mean you are able do it whenever you want. In fact, it is possible you may never get the opportunity to exercise a particular right. For example, you have the RIGHT to reproduce, but that doesn't guarantee you'll find a mate. You have the RIGHT to drive, but that doesn't mean the government must provide you a car. You have the RIGHT to express your opinions, but that doesn't mean the government must provide you a typewriter, a bullhorn, or even a crayon and some construction paper.

Even though you have the right to eat, in order to exercise that right you must first obtain something which is edible, just as even though you have the right to water-ski, you must first obtain a ski-boat and skis, and find a body of water on which to use them.

It is "something that is due to you by law..."

That phrase is inaccurate. It should read "something PERMITTED you by law..."

And I believe that a person's right to liberty from poverty is granted to them by nature.

I know you believe that. I'm trying to find WHY you believe that. Nature grants men nothing. Everything an individual requires to maintain his existence must be SEIZED from nature. If you don't believe me, try this experiment -- strip naked and walk ten miles into the Siberian tundra, then wait for your food delivery.

And let me define the right to poverty as I am arguing for it. 'the right to adequate means by which to live a reasonably healthy life.'

I presume you actually meant to say "the right to freedom from poverty". I ask again, WHO is obligated to provide the "adequate means" to you? If you get a serious kidney disease, WHO must donate a kidney to you? HOW is the donor to be selected? In a drought-stricken nation, with crop failures and widespread starvation, WHO will provide the food? WHERE will they get it?

I believe that it is because of this right, that we have such a thing as a minimum wage, and free education.

We have such things as minimum wage and free education TODAY (both are very recent developments) not by natural right, but by government fiat, backed by the threat of physical force (which is the only way an individual's rights can be violated). The irony is screamingly obvious -- the only way to fulfill these pseudo-rights is through the violation of real rights.

Sounds a bit Utipian.

Quite the reverse. In a Utopia, everything is effortless.

You are assuming that the means are available to anyone who wants them, and the only thing keeping the impoverished impoverished is lack of motivation. Try selling that to an Ethiopian, and I'm sure he'd just look at you funny and then try to eat it.

I assume no such thing. Sometimes the situation is such that survival is simply not possible, no matter how much effort is expended. Famine, disease, and hostile natural conditions kill people regularly.

This is an unfortunate reality. That is why it is up to civlized societies like the United States to ensure that while our companies are setting up factories in foriegn lands, that they at LEAST pay the employees there enough to sustain a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families.

I'll let you in on another unfortunate reality. Before that foreign factory was built, the workers and their families had an even unhealthier lifestyle. Is it more physically demanding working in some of those factories than it is working in an office job in Iowa? Yep. Do they get paid less than a member of the Teamsters union? Yep. Is it miles better than what they had before? Yep.

Here's a question for you. Suppose a clothing company decides the negative publicity over third-world production facilities will hurt their business more than the lowered production costs would help it, so they decide to manufacture strictly in the United States, using union labor. The factory they were planning to build in Haiti never gets built. What happens to the Haitian laborer who is currently eating twigs and grubs to keep himself alive?

I live in the Dominican Republic, with Haiti across the border. I have first-hand knowledge of how the Dominican poor live, how the Haitian immigrants here live, and how those fortunate enough to obtain jobs in foreign-owned businesses live. Every time a new factory (referred to by the bleeding heart Liberals as "sweatshops") opens, there is intense jubilation in the community. The lineup for positions is endless. This is no undergrad bull session I'm referring to now, this is the real world, involving real people that I know personally. Any time you care to pay me a visit, I'd be happy to give you a tour.

IF a right is defined as something that is due to a person nature...

I'm cautiously with you so far, though the definition is ambiguous. Depends on what sense of "something" and "due" you are implying.

AND IF it is indeed a right to have access to the bare necessities of survival...

"Access"? There are plenty of places on the planet where there is no access to even that much. Faulty supposition.

AND IF the recourses would be available if not for the hording of the uberwealthy...

The Rolls Royce Bill Gates rides in on his way to the theater was not created at the expense of cropland in Ethiopia. This, therefore, is also a faulty supposition.

AND IF one does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others...

One does not. Your understanding of RIGHTS, however, is faulty.

THEN the uberwealthy do not have the right to horde those assets.

The conclusion reached is incorrect because there are two faulty suppositions and one faulty definition in the chain of reasoning.

Utopian.

Less "Utopian" than some unified, benevolent global government -- a "centralized institution with influences of power"?

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: bruisedBlue]
    #884831 - 09/16/02 03:45 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

When it comes to needs, I think we all agree that the defined goal is a goal to live.  It doesn't need to be stated.  It is what scientists refer as "an inately ocurring thingamajiggy."  One could also make a case for a further definition which includes not only survival, but the production of a viable offspring.

So then what is "needed" is what an individual requires in order to survive.  Thoreau whittled it down pretty well, but I don't have Walden with me.  Basically it was down to something like food, water, protection from the elements, and an SUV.

For the man in the cardboard box, as long as it doesn't get too cold, he can live in a box without that, in itself, posing a threat to his survival.  Whether he can get a woman in there to produce a viable offspring with is a problem I'm sure he thinks about a lot.

I don't completely agree with MortMtroN's comment that one person having too much means that another won't have enough.  But I do agree that the process of ACQUISITION and ACCUMULATION--of property, products, wealth, resources--permitted as they are to go unregulated to the point where one person might have a billion times what is needed to live, has produced a serious imbalance of OPPORTUNITY, and therefore has in that way infringed on others' ability to get what they need, i.e. to live.

So even if you believe there will always be "enough", you still might question the SYSTEM, or PROCESS that allows for so few to gain so much of what is available so quickly, and wonder if that system might make it impossible for entire peoples to get their feet on the ground and maintain, for themselves, their own needs.

"So do you consider a factory owner who is very wealthy to be an exploiter of the "poor"? What about the fact that he is providing employment to many people which generates wealth for those employees which in turn stimulates the economy. The factory workers have free will to choose to stop working there and focus their efforts elsewhere."

The fact that he owns a factory and employs several people doesn't, in itself, make him exploitative.  Have a look around the world, and you will find two kinds of factories: satisfactories and unsatisfactories.  :smirk: 

While I have no doubt that many employers and factory owners have a fine sense of personal accountability towards their employees, you will also notice a tendency of the satisfactories to have stronger organization among the workers, generally in the form of a union.  Unsatisfactories are more likely to have no such benefit.  In fact, labor unionists and activists are constantly deprived the right to live and create viable offspring, all over the world.  Why?  Who has an interest vested in preventing these labor unions by murdering their organizers?

"As the fellow before was saying, everyone has upward mobility. It all depends on the initiative they take."

That sounds like it came straight from a Horatio Alger story.  It may seem plausible if we close one eye and squint through the other when viewing our world, but we can't continue to imply that the growing population of poor people worldwide is caused by an epidemic of laziness. 

 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #884940 - 09/16/02 05:06 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

I loan you eleven dollars. You agree to pay me back thirteen dollars over the next seven years.

earth calling pinky...earth calling pinky..

Listen pink, let me just explain how the real world works.

1) America installs a savage dictator in Africa.

2)The dictator asks for "aid" for "development" for his "poor people". This goes straight to the american corporations who set up in the african country to drain it's resources. The dictator takes his kickback.

3) Then comes the tricky time to pay the "loan" back. Guess who pays it. The people of the country who never saw a red cent of the loan in the first place.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Edited by Alex123 (09/16/02 05:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #885042 - 09/16/02 05:49 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Listen pink, let me just explain how the real world works.

1) America installs a savage dictator in Africa.


Well, Alex, why don't you name a few savage African dictators installed by America for those of us who don't understand how the real world works.

2)The dictator asks for "aid" for "development" for his "poor people". This goes straight to the american corporations who set up in the african country to drain it's resources. The dictator takes his kickback.

American corporations? Not always. Many projects in Africa are handled either in house or by European corporations. What about loans from France or Italy or Germany or Australia? Are American contractors employed on those projects? You are right about the government officials skimming large chunks of the money, though. I pointed that out in a previous post.

3) Then comes the tricky time to pay the "loan" back. Guess who pays it. The people of the country who never saw a red cent of the loan in the first place.

As money, no, they often don't. They do, however, get the benefit of whatever project the loan funded: electrical plants, irrigation projects, desalinization plants, hospitals, schools, etc. This presumes the project is ever completed, of course -- a naive presumption in many cases.

I am not arguing that developmental loans to emerging nations is as beneficial to the inhabitants of those nations as the proponents of these loans believe they are. Huge chunks of those loans do nothing more than line the pockets of whichever warlord has seized the reigns of power for the moment.

I was merely pointing out that your claim that for every dollar the US sends to Africa it receives thirteen back (or for every dollar they send to Africa they get sixteen POUNDS back, whichever ratio you pull out of your hat today) is inaccurate. The conflation of "loan" and "gift" conveys a false impression. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume the mistake was out of honest ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

pinky


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #885103 - 09/16/02 06:20 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Primarily mark, I'd like to comment on how much I'm enjoying this debate.

Now, we will try to work out a definition to right that we can both live with.

"That definition is not quite accurate. It should more properly read "something that is ALLOWED to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature". For example, (in the case of a governmental body) the US government is permitted to apprehend and try in a court of law someone who steals from another, and to imprison him if he is found guilty. They have the RIGHT to do so. They are NOT allowed to scoop some random individual off the street for wearing a white hat, and shoot him. They do NOT have the right to do so."

I am extremely uncomfortable with the word "allowed" as used in this context. We are taught that people are born with rights. They are a gift from God, or from nature. I like the word "due" much better than "allowed" because "allowed" implies that rights are merely tolerated, and are not inalienable,

Unfortunately it seems that the US government agrees with you in a lot of cases, but I do not think that this is entirely in line with what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind, nor is it what the people who have fought for freedom through the times have interperated it to mean.

An example, let's take an 18-year-old black man living in Alabama during the early 1960's.

There is an election coming up and this man wants to exercise his right to vote. He goes down to his local voting booth and is turned away. He says "I have the constitutional right to cast my vote." The person behind the desk says "You certainly do. And all you have to do to exercise that right is to go up to one of 'em nigger-lovin states up North. We don't ALLOW that sort of thing down here."

In steps the federal government, and they say 'No, no, no. His right to vote is inalienable, and it will be made available to him HERE and everywhere in the United States.

And so he was granted what was due to him.

"Why, from other PEOPLE, according to your definition of 'rights'. There can literally be no other answer. In other words, according to you, SOME people have the 'right' to force OTHER people to provide them with food."

Okay, we are together so far.

"But that can't possibly be correct, since as you pointed out, ALL men have equal inalienable rights. If this is true, then it follows that all are to be treated equally."

There is a jump there. Because all people have certain inalienable rights, does NOT mean that all are to be treated equally. Only when it is an issue of our basic rights, is that the case.

"If one person has the right to produce NO food, but another MUST produce enough food for two people, where is the equal treatment?"

If it is possible for the person who needs the food to produce it himself, he should. If not, then he should be provided for by those who can. The equal treatment is that everybody eats.

"The inescapable logical corollary to the statement 'Everyone has the right to receive adequate food' is that NO ONE has the obligation to PRODUCE food."

Not only is this true, but it is also true that the government often pays farmers not to grow food to their full potential, to keep growing food profitable. That is sad as fuck. Wouldn't it be better if the government bought the surplus, and shipped it to the starving people of the world?

The argument right now seems to boil down to "what is a right?"

I can't argue with you further because we have different viewpoints to this.




--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #885108 - 09/16/02 06:22 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

I would like to ask about your Salvadorian neighbors, however.

The ones working in the factories.

Do they earn enough to provide reasonably healthy lifestyles for themselves and for their families within the Salvadorian economy?


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #885136 - 09/16/02 06:36 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:09 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #885238 - 09/16/02 07:33 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

brief, my ass.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #885256 - 09/16/02 07:38 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

a bit long, but all true

its funny how you see pinky go on about how fair our market is, but never hear him talk about any negative effects


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #885704 - 09/16/02 12:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"why don't you name a few savage African dictators installed by America for those of us who don't understand how the real world works."



The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.




--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Dominican Republic
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Baby_Hitler 5,326 62 11/10/05 12:00 PM
by psiclops
* Quake in Dominican Republic shakta 501 2 09/23/03 08:11 AM
by shakta
* Conflict of Interest the Other Way Autonomous 694 2 03/22/05 01:27 PM
by JesusChrist
* US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? Edame 827 1 07/11/03 12:55 PM
by Xlea321
* Israel vs. Iraq Biased, but interesting
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Buddha5254 14,106 133 11/08/02 11:01 AM
by Innvertigo
* Russia says to defend post-war Iraq oil interests
( 1 2 all )
pattern 2,963 22 03/28/03 02:31 PM
by grib
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,478 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* Interesting (but long) article on electronic voting. luvdemshrooms 793 0 10/15/03 03:44 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,579 topic views. 2 members, 6 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.