Occupy Wall Street protests

[Michael Archer]

I don't think this is a good measure of prosperity. India is a good modern day example of a nation that has extreme poverty, but an incredible population.

 

I guess you're right. But the life expectancy did shoot up tremendously after the industrial revolution.

 

Infant mortality rates are generally a much better indicator of how prosperous a society is.

 

I'm not too sure about that. Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than United States, and even Canada (just barely). I think it's more a measure of quality of medicine and access, but moving on:

 

Okay, I have two questions related to this. You're saying what right do people have to make claims on the rich. Part of my question, is what right do people have to be rich in the first place? Say a person is born into a rich family that has been rich for generations. Also say the family originally got rich from slave labor back in the 1700s and 1800s and since then members of the family have used their advantages to invest in companies to remain rich. I think we would both agree that using slaves isn't considered right, but the wealth exists today as a result of their work. So this family may work hard at business (or it may not and simply reap from investing), but it also had advantages from slavery that the vast majority of people have not. Why does this family have a "right" to retain their wealth, when descendents of slaves were at a disadvantage for generations and could be working just as hard or not harder than the wealthy families who acquired their wealth by clearly unjust means? By that reasoning what "right" do most Americans have to be here, when most of our conquest is the result of bloodshed or betrayal against Native Americans, Mexicans, and other European colonies?

 

The American concept of rights stem from an individual's own life. The reasoning is that if it is right for a man to survive and live, then it is his right to work for his life. All the rights, like the ones outlined in the Deceleration of Independence, comes from the axiom that it is right for a man to live. Being "rich" simply means "having a lot of property" and the right to property is a corollary to the right to life, so you have the right to be rich because you have the right to own property.

 

I like to think the saying "a fool and his money are soon parted" has a lot of gravity in this situation. No matter how wealthy a family will be, it will disappear if that wealth is not sustained by the same drive and perseverance that created the wealth in the first place. And on a practical matter, it wouldn't really be fair to expropriate that family's money as they technically weren't doing anything illegal. Basically, what I'm saying is that once slavery has been outlawed, the family must sustain their wealth through legitimate means; if they don't they go bankrupt. If they're still rich hundreds of years later, they must have been doing something right. And after the slave family is free to make money, it's not fair to them to blame something that happened hundreds of years ago for their economic failure (if they're still experiencing it that many years later).

 

Native Americans? That's a sticky, controversial subject for another day, but suffice to say that they were society based on tribal worship and collectivism. They didn't even believe that an individual had the right to live for himself, or to own property.

 

As for my opinion on the Mexican-American war: while America was technically wrong (there, I said it), I would like to remind you that was the evil, feudal, slave-holding Southern states that did that.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should try to undo history and correct all wrongs, it's endlessly complex and a fool's errand; but at the same time, I feel like by placing so much emphasis on the individual's property rights, a sometimes very unjust history has to be taken into account. From a philosophical perspective, it can be seen as affirming the actions of ancestors, no matter how wrong they might be.

 

The reason why there's so much emphasis on property rights is, as I've said before, is that property rights come from the right to life. As a society that puts emphasis on an individual's right to life, naturally, it makes sense that an equal amount of emphasis is on property rights. Do you think that human rights and property rights are separate, opposite, or equal? I'm asking, since I believe that property rights and human rights are one in the same.

 

I don't see it as affirming the actions of ancestors. It's more like, "what they did is wrong, but from here on out, this will be a country of freedom and justice." It's not perfect, but you have to look at what the alternative is. My family is from South Africa and the government has all these affirmative action plans for blacks and asians. The South African government is fighting racism with racism. Which is, if I may quote Mike (this is the Accursed Farm forums after all!), "like trying to put out a fire by burning down another building".

 

That's what believe any law that tries to protect rights by abridging the rights of others is like.

 

Holding the value of property rights above all else I feel is a way of maintaining a status quo for those that come from wealthy backgrounds and intentionally leaving things more difficult for those who are not as fortunate REGARDLESS of how hard they works or what their ability is. In fact I saw a related demotivator to this recently:

 

No one said creating wealth was easy. Granted, it's probably easier to sustain a large some of money than it is to grow it from scratch, but the root of growth and sustaining of wealth is the same: freedom and reason.

 

As for Africa, their land is plagued by war and corruption. The little progress they make is always seized by rebels and looters. Africa is a perfect example of why it's important to have a strong government that protects the freedoms and rights of all.

 

Aside from the bailouts, you think the OWS people are being unfair towards the rich in who they're blaming. I am in agreement that I think their grievances should be more directed towards government. Anyway, let's take a hypothetical situation. Pretend government in the USA became extremely small and reduced taxes further, offered far less services, definitely didn't have bailouts and more or less let the free market do what it wanted. Just as hypothetical, let's say that for whatever reason, it doesn't even matter, the class divide got far worse. The upper 1% now got substantially richer, the middle class almost didn't exist, and the working class got much poorer, more comparable to what 3rd world countries have. Finally, let's say private charities existed much in the same capacity they did now. Helping many, but only had the resources to deal with a fraction of the people who were suffering. Everyone who was interested in helping was doing so to the maximum capacity they were willing or able to help with. In this hypothetical scenario, what would you propose as being the solution to improving the quality of life for the 90% or more in the working class, living like peasants? Would this even be a concern from your perspective in this scenario?

 

I'm pretty sure that capitalism created the middle class. As for what I would do? I would try to start a business and make money, but that's really just about it. Again, this is an issue of collectivism being automatically assumed to be that status quo. You're putting the burden of the working class onto me without even questioning the notion that it's my responsibility.

 

All I will say is that if you show a North Korean peasant, a Sudanese peasant, and a Liberian peasent, your working class and said: "these are our peasants", they would probably say that our peasants live like kings.

 

OWS is blaming the elite of our society for being rich. The businessmen are rich, while they aren't. It really sounds like they're blaming the rich people for the fact that they're not rich. I think this attitude comes from the incorrect notion that money is a static quantity that simply switches hands every now and then.

[Ross Scott]

I guess you're right. But the life expectancy did shoot up tremendously after the industrial revolution.

Yes, AFTER. I think if the Industrial Revolution continued without labor laws and rights for workers, it might not have changed much.

 

And after the slave family is free to make money, it's not fair to them to blame something that happened hundreds of years ago for their economic failure

I think there's some misunderstanding. I agree with you. I DON'T think its the descendants fault for the poor's problems nor is it their fault. What I'm saying is, it erodes the concept of a person's right to property for me when it's the direct result of property acquired through immoral means. Yes, the descendant of a slave is still free to earn money, but if they were illiterate for generations, then discriminated against through a good portion of the 20th century, that puts them at a big disadvantage in becoming prosperous compared to someone from a wealthy or middle-class background. I'm not saying affirmative action is the answer, what I'm saying is the "every man for himself" mentality doesn't resolve that problem. It's like having a race where one runner gets to run in professional sports shoes and has a personal coach + training, and the other person gets to run barefoot with one foot tied behind his back. No, he doesn't need all the advantages the other person has, but it would be a better race if you at least untie his foot and get him a pair of shoes.

 

The reason why there's so much emphasis on property rights is, as I've said before, is that property rights come from the right to life. As a society that puts emphasis on an individual's right to life, naturally, it makes sense that an equal amount of emphasis is on property rights. Do you think that human rights and property rights are separate, opposite, or equal? I'm asking, since I believe that property rights and human rights are one in the same.

See, I put the right to life ABOVE property rights, like in the belladonna berry example. You seem to think they're the same, though I think that logic is flawed. Afterall, you can live without property, but you can't have property without your life. As for property rights being a human right, I doublechecked in the dictionary as to the definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20rights

 

They're saying rights that fundamentally belong to ALL persons. To me (and the dictionary), that's not property rights. Take a prisoner who has been locked up. He has no right to property, he could be very dangerous with whatever you give him and he's being punished. However, he has a right not to be tortured, has a right to have food and water, and other basic needs met. Not providing him THOSE rights most of humanity would consider to be inhumane, even for prisoners. You're saying property rights are a basic human right. What about highly dangerous criminals or mental patients? Should they be allowed to possess property when the only thing they'll do with it is hurt themselves or others? Because a HUMAN right means ALL people are entitled to it.

 

You're putting the burden of the working class onto me without even questioning the notion that it's my responsibility.

Actually I'm not, I'm saying it's society's responsibility, so to some degree it's then everyone's (within their means). The rich have a lot more means than everyone else so they get more attention.

 

OWS is blaming the elite of our society for being rich. The businessmen are rich, while they aren't. It really sounds like they're blaming the rich people for the fact that they're not rich. I think this attitude comes from the incorrect notion that money is a static quantity that simply switches hands every now and then.

See this isn't how I'm interpreting it at all, which I think is part of what leads to our disagreement. What I see the OWS movement being about is that SOMETHING is wrong with our system. The rich getting richer while everyone else gets poorer is a SYMPTOM of this. Wealth level isn't important in itself, but not having a system that provides basic needs for its citizens and can allow for wage slavery IS. To make it muddier, SOME of the rich ARE responsible for this, but certainly not all, or even the majority. Like if you're paying lobbyists to railroad a special interest clause in your bill that ensures your company is getting preferential government treatment, then yes, you're a big part of the problem. However, the fact that this is happening on such a large scale now means maybe there are bigger problems with our whole system. I personally think our government's now largely corrupt and not really doing its job of representing the people's interest. Government is supposed to be the power to stand against the elite, because it's a representative democracy. If it's just another tool OF the elite, then that leaves a lot of people kind of screwed and not knowing what to do about it. The OWS movement I think is just sort of an existential manifestation of that, because people don't know what to do. Anyway, that's my interpretation of the LEGITIMATE claims of OWS. Obviously if some guy is protesting because he majored in Classical Literature then is shocked when he can only get a job working at a coffee shop, that doesn't mean too much.

[alphabetagamma]

The reason why there's so much emphasis on property rights is, as I've said before, is that property rights come from the right to life. As a society that puts emphasis on an individual's right to life, naturally, it makes sense that an equal amount of emphasis is on property rights. Do you think that human rights and property rights are separate, opposite, or equal? I'm asking, since I believe that property rights and human rights are one in the same.

See, I put the right to life ABOVE property rights, like in the belladonna berry example. You seem to think they're the same, though I think that logic is flawed. Afterall, you can live without property, but you can't have property without your life. As for property rights being a human right, I doublechecked in the dictionary as to the definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20rights

 

They're saying rights that fundamentally belong to ALL persons. To me (and the dictionary), that's not property rights. Take a prisoner who has been locked up. He has no right to property, he could be very dangerous with whatever you give him and he's being punished. However, he has a right not to be tortured, has a right to have food and water, and other basic needs met. Not providing him THOSE rights most of humanity would consider to be inhumane, even for prisoners. You're saying property rights are a basic human right. What about highly dangerous criminals or mental patients? Should they be allowed to possess property when the only thing they'll do with it is hurt themselves or others? Because a HUMAN right means ALL people are entitled to it.

I don't agree with Michael on most things, but the right to own property is a human right

Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property

[Ross Scott]

I don't agree with Michael on most things, but the right to own property is a human right

Well okay, but if you accept that list, then you can't ignore the others. I'm not sure he would accept all of these:

 

- - -

 

Article 24.

 

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

Article 25.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

Article 26.

 

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

 

Article 29.

 

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

 

- - -

 

25 in particular is saying a right to food, clothing, housing, medical care. Those all require the labor and resources of others if you can't provide for them yourself. I don't think he would agree that people have a RIGHT to those for that exact reason. Unless I've misunderstood him, he would say that it's invalid because making it a right would violate the rights of the people providing those things.

[Doom Shepherd]

Occutrash:

 

bYsuLMyAxQ0

[Doom Shepherd]

Just as a matter of semantics quibbling, just because I have a right "to" something, doesn't necessarily mean that you have to provide it to me.

 

The fact that I have a right to property, doesn't mean you have to give me free property. It just means you can't deny me my property if I get some.

 

The fact that I have a right to free speech doesn't mean that CNN has to give me free airtime.

[Mr Green]

Occutrash:

 

bYsuLMyAxQ0

According to this youtube comment that video is false:

There was no crowbar... I saw the entire situation unfold. People were assembling on the steps of City Hall while hundreds of people were being kettled and arrested at the YMCA. A small group of people went up to the front steps - i assumed they were going to address us. Instead, someone tried the doors - which were amazingly unlocked, and so they went inside. Most of the people DID NOT go in the building... Or have anything to do with the flag burning. It all happened so fast.

[Doom Shepherd]

According to this youtube comment that video is false:

There was no crowbar... I saw the entire situation unfold. People were assembling on the steps of City Hall while hundreds of people were being kettled and arrested at the YMCA. A small group of people went up to the front steps - i assumed they were going to address us. Instead, someone tried the doors - which were amazingly unlocked, and so they went inside. Most of the people DID NOT go in the building... Or have anything to do with the flag burning. It all happened so fast.

 

According to the fact that I can SEE the crowbar being slid sideways into the door handles, and see that the effort being put into breaking the door far exceeds the effort of "trying" unlocked doors, that commenter is lying.

 

Also, "small group?" No, if you're remotely clever you can pause the video and identify numerous people by their outfits and accessories as they enter and leave the building. Around 30 people is not a "small" group. It's a platoon.

[Michael Archer]

You know, I've been doing a lot of thinking (while reading Atlas Shrugged, admittedly), and the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that I couldn't live by the "we are our brother's keeper" morality. Remember when I asked you if it was moral to eat when someone else needed it more than you? You said something along the lines of it was kind of unfortunate, but necessary.

 

This morality holds evil to be that which sustains your life, but is a necessary, practical evil. In conclusion, this means that the good--moral perfection--is something that a human being will never be able to achieve which means that a human being is inherently evil. I always thought that the purpose of morality was to guide my life to help me become a better person, but this morality holds that the more I sustain my life and the happier I become, the more evil I become. When I eat when someone is hungrier than I am, I feel guilty for the simple fact that I'm taking an action to sustain my life. I wouldn't be able to live with myself like that.

 

Because man exists and produces using reason in order to sustain his life, naturally, the more he produces, the more successful and prosperous he becomes. The greater his mind, the greater his wealth. Because a great mind is the cause of great wealth and not the other way around, this morality, in essence holds that the greater the mind, the more he must be sacrificed.

 

This morality also holds that someone's inability is greater than someone's ability; in essence, it holds that the negative is greater than the positive. The amount of success that a businessman has is directly proportional to how much adherents of this morality says that he should be gutted. The amount of abject despondency someone has is directly proportional to how much they should be rewarded, they also say.

 

This means that this morality attempts to reverse the roles of man's nature and to make him something that he isn't. This is why, I believe, this morality is incompatible with humans and will not achieve prosperity.

 

This morality is causing the once great continent of Europe to fall, and America is next.

 

See, I put the right to life ABOVE property rights, like in the belladonna berry example. You seem to think they're the same, though I think that logic is flawed. Afterall, you can live without property, but you can't have property without your life. As for property rights being a human right, I doublechecked in the dictionary as to the definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... n%20rights

 

They're saying rights that fundamentally belong to ALL persons. To me (and the dictionary), that's not property rights. Take a prisoner who has been locked up. He has no right to property, he could be very dangerous with whatever you give him and he's being punished. However, he has a right not to be tortured, has a right to have food and water, and other basic needs met. Not providing him THOSE rights most of humanity would consider to be inhumane, even for prisoners. You're saying property rights are a basic human right. What about highly dangerous criminals or mental patients? Should they be allowed to possess property when the only thing they'll do with it is hurt themselves or others? Because a HUMAN right means ALL people are entitled to it.

 

See, this is the thing--and why I think this conversation is doomed to go nowhere. A man is not a ghost, so he cannot live without property. If you stick a man on a desert island, without property, he will die. A man needs property to sustain himself. You can say all you want that a man doesn't need physical goods, like food, to live, but nature will show him otherwise.

 

I like to think the American Constitution--one of the greatest documents written in history, in my opinion and goes right up there with the Deceleration of Independence--has a lot to say in the matter. "No person...shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." I think the founders were saying that when a man is proved to be guilty by objective facts and law, he has shown that he does not respect the rights of his fellow man, so his fellow man respond to his initiation of force in the only way it can be responded to: by force. That's why the death penalty, as a moral concept, is justified. When a man murders another man, he is at the level of an animal and there's no rational reason that he should be treated like a human being. Now, you can argue that the death penalty is too hard to implement perfectly to prevent accidents--and I would agree with you.

 

Actually I'm not, I'm saying it's society's responsibility, so to some degree it's then everyone's (within their means). The rich have a lot more means than everyone else so they get more attention.

 

Society is simply the sum of its individuals, so strictly speaking it is on me, and everyone else. Your second sentence confirms exactly what I'm thinking about this morality: the more successful someone is, the more he must give. This morality punishes based on virtue, not vice. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

See this isn't how I'm interpreting it at all, which I think is part of what leads to our disagreement. What I see the OWS movement being about is that SOMETHING is wrong with our system. The rich getting richer while everyone else gets poorer is a SYMPTOM of this. Wealth level isn't important in itself, but not having a system that provides basic needs for its citizens and can allow for wage slavery IS. To make it muddier, SOME of the rich ARE responsible for this, but certainly not all, or even the majority. Like if you're paying lobbyists to railroad a special interest clause in your bill that ensures your company is getting preferential government treatment, then yes, you're a big part of the problem. However, the fact that this is happening on such a large scale now means maybe there are bigger problems with our whole system. I personally think our government's now largely corrupt and not really doing its job of representing the people's interest. Government is supposed to be the power to stand against the elite, because it's a representative democracy. If it's just another tool OF the elite, then that leaves a lot of people kind of screwed and not knowing what to do about it. The OWS movement I think is just sort of an existential manifestation of that, because people don't know what to do. Anyway, that's my interpretation of the LEGITIMATE claims of OWS. Obviously if some guy is protesting because he majored in Classical Literature then is shocked when he can only get a job working at a coffee shop, that doesn't mean too much.

 

"Wage slavery?" That's a contradiction in terms. You're comparing enslavement with voluntary employment i.e. you're comparing the use of force with the voluntary cooperation of two minds. I think this stems from the fallacy that business owners paying their workers much less than they make is exploitation. I don't know how someone can think of a concept like that. Almost every single thing you do in your life is not your discovery; your computer alone is the product of decades of research and development from some of the greatest minds in history in order to bring you that convenient flashy box that halves your workload. I personally believe that if I were dropped on a desert island without any tools from the modern world, I would not last long; I rely on the knowledge passed on from me from other people who discovered it themselves.

 

A businessman invents a processor and builds a factory and employs people; his reward is money, while the reward for the workers is--not only money, but also the knowledge that went into the chip that will make them more productive and make them have more leisure, then the workers vote into office a politician to tell the businessman how to work and under what conditions, despite the fact that these workers don't have any formal schooling and would never be able to understand a circuit board. Now, who's exploiting whom? Equating the difference between slavery and trade, is like equating the difference between a gun and man's capacity to reason.

 

You can't claim the right to initiate force against other men. This means that you're saying that you should deal with men as if they were irrational beings; if man is an irrational being, that means you are, and you cannot claim your use of reason to use force. This is another contradiction.

 

OWS has absolutely no knowledge on how to run a company. Yet, they advocate voting in politicians to do the running for them. Simply put, they're declaring that they are not capable of maintaining their own money, but they have the capacity to run big corporations.

 

You say that some of the rich are responsible, while others are not; I agree with you that not all rich people are pulling government favors, but OWS disagrees with both of us. They yell "we are the 99%" and are fervent in their condemnation of the "1%" while they blank out the fact that the majority of the "1%" do not work on Wall Street and the majority of the 1% don't pull government failures. "The 1%" simply refers to the top one percent of the incomes in that country--it says nothing about what they did to earn it. OWS is scapegoating, pure and simple.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I completely agree that the government should get out of Wall Street and vice-versa. From what I've gathered, OWS isn't so concerned about getting the government out the economy: all they want is that the government to stop giving benefits to the upper class, and start giving it the middle class. I do not understand how this abject double-standard is getting past most people. I think OWS fails to understand that the rich are just as much human beings as anyone else. It doesn't matter that they have more money. This contradiction can be easily avoided by telling the government, "If you wouldn't do it to a family below the poverty line, don't do it to the multi-billionaire."

 

25 in particular is saying a right to food, clothing, housing, medical care. Those all require the labor and resources of others if you can't provide for them yourself. I don't think he would agree that people have a RIGHT to those for that exact reason. Unless I've misunderstood him, he would say that it's invalid because making it a right would violate the rights of the people providing those things.

 

Of course; the UN's deceleration of human rights is a perversion of the very concept of rights.

[Ross Scott]

Remember when I asked you if it was moral to eat when someone else needed it more than you? You said something along the lines of it was kind of unfortunate, but necessary.

No, that's not really what I said. It depends on the scale. On a macro-level, I'm literally incapabale of fixing this problem on my own. My sandwich won't help millions of starving people. On a micro-scale (me finding some guy starving in the woods), I think it IS immoral to eat when he clearly need the food more than I do AND I know I won't starve either. However, I do NOT think doing nothing about the problem is necessary, like you say. Again, if there was some magic fund to feed EVERYONE who needed the help and took away a certain percentage of my income (along with everyone else's who could afford it), I would absolutely be in favor of that. Minor redistribution of wealth to help people from starving to death I consider a good thing.

 

Your second sentence confirms exactly what I'm thinking about this morality: the more successful someone is, the more he must give.

See this is actually one of the big arguments made by the OWS crowd. Almost the top earners don't get the majority of their income through wages, but rather through dividends earnings. This is taxed a lot lower (15%) than the majority of tax brackets. So why should someone who earns 30k a year be paying more percentage-wise in taxes than someone earning 30 million?

Also would you agree that if you have 30k a year, giving up say, 20% of your income affects you life more drastically than if you have 30 million or 300k?

 

This morality punishes based on virtue, not vice. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Since when is being successful financially an indicator of virtue? It's no indicator of how kind, helpful, productive, or beneficial to society they are. Also if you're only earning 15k year and trying to survive, do these people really need additional punishment?

"Wage slavery?" That's a contradiction in terms.

So is "dry ice." The two words individually combined don't make sense, but as a whole, they mean a separate concept.

 

To clarify, here's a definiton off wikipedia:

 

"Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially when the dependence is total and immediate"

 

In layman's terms, this means that if you're not earning wages, you're screwed. I don't see that as a desirable system. If you're in a situation where you can't work, I think ideally you shouldn't have to worry about whether you'll have enough money for food, medical care, not being homeless, etc.

 

I mean tell me this, what's the problem in having a system where if you're not working, you're still guaranteed a certain baseline existence by the society you live in. You can have a dwelling that's yours, food, water, access to healthcare, etc. Nothing luxurious, just adequate. If you DO work, you can earn income to spend on whatever you want, like luxury items and services, a TV, a car, a better home, the ability to save money to start your own business, etc. Yes, some of your income would be taken away to fund the basic services for everyone, but by the same token, you're also guaranteeing yourself (along with everyone else) a safety net in case you ever do find yourself in unfortunate circumstances. Why is this system worse than one where a person who can't earn enough wages will end up homeless?

[Michael Archer]

No, that's not really what I said. It depends on the scale. On a macro-level, I'm literally incapabale of fixing this problem on my own. My sandwich won't help millions of starving people. On a micro-scale (me finding some guy starving in the woods), I think it IS immoral to eat when he clearly need the food more than I do AND I know I won't starve either. However, I do NOT think doing nothing about the problem is necessary, like you say. Again, if there was some magic fund to feed EVERYONE who needed the help and took away a certain percentage of my income (along with everyone else's who could afford it), I would absolutely be in favor of that. Minor redistribution of wealth to help people from starving to death I consider a good thing.

 

My bad, it was a while ago (also my bad) and my memory is kind of hazy.

 

I like your sandwich hypothetical. Alright, so if I've got this correctly: you're saying that if you come across a man who's starving, your sandwich (yours that you made and earned rightfully, let's say) morally belongs to him, despite what ever circumstances?

 

If I was in that scenario, the sandwich morally belongs to me, or whoever I pass the right to that sandwich. I easily see myself giving him my sandwich, but depending on the circumstances, it wouldn't be a sacrifice. If he told me that he broke his leg chopping trees to gather wood to build a house to sustain his life, I would give him the sandwich; this wouldn't be a sacrifice, as his payment to me would be his virtue--I would take pleasure in admiring his work ethic, and his perseverance: things I admire in other human beings. Now, if I came across him and he said that he had his leg broken trying to rob someone else's wood and then he promptly demanded that I give him my sandwich as if he was entitled to it and threatened me with harm if I didn't, I would leg it. The former is not a sacrifice and not evil, if I gave the latter my sandwich that would be a sacrifice and that would be evil, in my morality.

 

When you say "redistributing wealth", again, you're advocating the initiation of force on another human being. Again, you can't proclaim the "right" to treat other human beings like irrational creatures by rendering their minds useless through the use of force--this forces a contradiction. If humans are irrational, then you're irrational and cannot proclaim a "right"--a concept that only applies to rational beings.

 

See this is actually one of the big arguments made by the OWS crowd. Almost the top earners don't get the majority of their income through wages, but rather through dividends earnings. This is taxed a lot lower (15%) than the majority of tax brackets. So why should someone who earns 30k a year be paying more percentage-wise in taxes than someone earning 30 million?

Also would you agree that if you have 30k a year, giving up say, 20% of your income affects you life more drastically than if you have 30 million or 300k?

 

I'm not saying people lower should pay more, I'm saying that people shouldn't pay more percentages just because they're more successful; that's punishing the good for being good. I'm not an advocate of taxes, but a good start would be a flat tax: everyone pays the exact same percentage on their income. That seems fair, as far as taxes go.

 

Since when is being successful financially an indicator of virtue? It's no indicator of how kind, helpful, productive, or beneficial to society they are. Also if you're only earning 15k year and trying to survive, do these people really need additional punishment?

 

This is a good point. I guess when you think about this, virtues and vices really depends on your morality. My morality is: if it benefits a man's life, then it's good and it's a virtue; if it destroys a man's life, then it's evil and it's a vice. So, under this morality, when a man produces, earns a lot of money, is successful and happy, his values--his reason, his ability, his self-esteem i.e. the values that make him money--are virtues.

 

You used the word "punishment." Are taxes "punishment?" Don't get me wrong, I agree with you if you say taxing higher is punishment. That's why I think it's unfair to "punish" people simply because they're rich. Rich people are people, too.

 

In layman's terms, this means that if you're not earning wages, you're screwed. I don't see that as a desirable system. If you're in a situation where you can't work, I think ideally you shouldn't have to worry about whether you'll have enough money for food, medical care, not being homeless, etc.

 

Ideally, you should be able to breathe underwater--in fact, not breathe at all, but such is the inescapable nature of human life and existence. No one on the planet is exempt from the law of identity: a quality of man's identity is that he must produce in order to survive. Let's go back to the desert island scenario for a second: even if you made a great argument that you're entitled to other people's work, even if you somehow mustered every single language and every single concept to make a single, irrefutable argument (let's say) for the redistribution of other people's resources and why shouldn't have to work for a bare minimum--you will die if you don't work to produce.

 

I mean tell me this, what's the problem in having a system where if you're not working, you're still guaranteed a certain baseline existence by the society you live in. You can have a dwelling that's yours, food, water, access to healthcare, etc. Nothing luxurious, just adequate. If you DO work, you can earn income to spend on whatever you want, like luxury items and services, a TV, a car, a better home, the ability to save money to start your own business, etc. Yes, some of your income would be taken away to fund the basic services for everyone, but by the same token, you're also guaranteeing yourself (along with everyone else) a safety net in case you ever do find yourself in unfortunate circumstances. Why is this system worse than one where a person who can't earn enough wages will end up homeless?

 

My problem with this is, partly because it reverses cause-and-effect (i.e. a man's wealth is the product of his ability to think, not the other way around, so when you initiate force and render his ability to think useless, his wealth suffers), but because it's simply not fair. It also leaves too many "whys" that are casually unanswered: why isn't an individual free to use his wealth to his best judgement? Under this system's morality, why is it considered "selfish" to buy a yacht and satisfy all your personal wants to make you happy, but it's "noble" to satisfy other people's wants? Why should someone be forced into a system of a constantly changing predator-prey relationship until the prey is exhausted and the predator becomes the new prey? Why is it an individual's virtue to serve someone else's vice? Why is that if Bill Gates said "I donate billions to people who are of less ability to me. I want a Nobel Peace prize, for I am the most moral man on earth." people would call him selfish and unworthy, but the receivers of his billions would be praised for struggling through hard times? Why is it that a loss is considered more moral than a gain if the gain in question was through achievement and ability? Why is someone getting an undeserved welfare check more moral than a businessman who makes billions of completely deserved wealth and promptly spends it on his company, and things that make him happy?

 

My problem with this system is that its morality holds "good" to be a lack of virtue, rather than a surplus of it. My problem is that its a system of stagnation and looting, where a man has no choice and is forced to become one of either a victim who is looted or a moocher who lives off the work of the victims.

[Ross Scott]

Alright, so if I've got this correctly: you're saying that if you come across a man who's starving, your sandwich (yours that you made and earned rightfully, let's say) morally belongs to him, despite what ever circumstances?

Not under any circumstance, but I would say most, yes. I consider it a sliding scale of how much harm the loss of your sandwich causes you. If you have plenty of food and he is starving, then I think he has a moral right to your sandwich. If you yourself are also starving, I think he has no right to your sandwich, you're on equal ground. It can get more complicated than this, but if it's a matter of small inconvenience to you, versus life and death for him, he has more right to the sandwich.

 

Again, you can't proclaim the "right" to treat other human beings like irrational creatures by rendering their minds useless through the use of force--this forces a contradiction. If humans are irrational, then you're irrational and cannot proclaim a "right"--a concept that only applies to rational beings.

Some human beings are very irrational, some are very rational. Many change back and forth depending on their mood. Say an asteroid is coming to wipe out all life on earth. I'm the only one with missile technology who can properly deflect it in time. I refuse to launch it, because I think others don't deserve my technology and I can survive on my own private space base away from Earth, so I'm going to let everyone else die except for 3 of my friends. Am I being rational? If other people seize my missile by force, do they have any right to do so?

 

I'm not an advocate of taxes, but a good start would be a flat tax: everyone pays the exact same percentage on their income. That seems fair, as far as taxes go.

Well say I'm working full-time in fast food earning 18k a year, living in frugally in a hellhole apartment and barely have any money leftover each month. Do you think I should pay the same 20% of my income as someone who makes 10 million per year from investing in a good company, and spends all day playing golf? You talk about fairness, but I don't see how a system like that is "fair" to the working poor. That 20% could mean the difference between heating my apartment during the winter or not.

 

You used the word "punishment." Are taxes "punishment?"

Well you keep saying "punishes", that's why. I don't necessarily see taxes as punishment. I see them as sort of a service charge for living in a state where I have police, roads, sidewalks, water, public education, etc. However, what I do consider to be punishment is any sort of system or policy that ends up making life more difficult for people who are STRUGGLING to have their basic needs met. If I'm earning 18k a year and raising taxes on me means I'll have to starve or else go homeless, I consider that to be causing suffering. I think that's COMPLETELY different than if I'm earning 10 million a year and raising taxes means I can't buy a decomissioned jet fighter. That's not causing suffering, that's causing inconvenience and limitations on my wealth.

 

Why is that if Bill Gates said "I donate billions to people who are of less ability to me. I want a Nobel Peace prize, for I am the most moral man on earth." people would call him selfish and unworthy, but the receivers of his billions would be praised for struggling through hard times?

I think this is just your perception and I consider these kinds of questions irrelevant. If somebody is donating billions to help a lot of people, that's fucking great! Who cares if he's acting entitled, the end result helps a lot of people! Alternately, the only "praise" I know of for people struggling are news media fluff pieces, which don't mean anything. I consider these kinds of arguments to be tangents. I mainly just care about end results, not perception or how people act in the process.

 

Why is it that a loss is considered more moral than a gain if the gain in question was through achievement and ability?

I didn't quite follow your whole argument here, but I can answer this. A loss in wealth is more moral than a gain if it leads to people being able to survive or meet basic needs, regardless of how fair it is. There's going to be unfairness in any system. It's not fair that some people are born into trust funds and other are born as crack babies. It's not fair that some people receive excellent education and others are practically in a public school penal system. Maintaining those advantages and disadvantages via rights isn't FAIR either. I don't know of any system that's completely FAIR. However, a society with enough resources can make sure EVERYONE has their basic needs met and have a much better shot of living a fulfilling life, but only if it wants to. It can just as easily allow half its population to die prematurely from poor living conditions and have a lower lifespan, while allowing the absolute richest to be 10% richer. Is the latter scenario really the greater good?

[alphabetagamma]

If humans are irrational, then you're irrational and cannot proclaim a "right"--a concept that only applies to rational beings.

Just gonna throw this out here, do mentally ill or mentally challenged people have rights under your definition? If a man with schizophrenia is by all definitions "irrational" does he have any rights? If he can't provide for himself because he couldn't afford proper medication and, at the moment, can't properly perceive the world around him, does he deserve to simply die on the street because he didn't work hard enough?

[Michael Archer]

Some human beings are very irrational, some are very rational. Many change back and forth depending on their mood. Say an asteroid is coming to wipe out all life on earth. I'm the only one with missile technology who can properly deflect it in time. I refuse to launch it, because I think others don't deserve my technology and I can survive on my own private space base away from Earth, so I'm going to let everyone else die except for 3 of my friends. Am I being rational? If other people seize my missile by force, do they have any right to do so?

 

Sorry, I meant to say: by definition, a human being is a rational being. Some people choose to use their rationality in greater amounts, but as a law of nature, a human being (i.e. a homo sapien) is inherently rational. You might say, "alright, fine, but then we can initiate force on those who are irrational, right? We can tax irrational businessmen, right?" Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that if a human being behaves in an irrational manner, then you have the right to self-defense. No, in the sense that you cannot say "this businessman is irrational" to have a moral blank check on what he makes. To judge whether or not a human being is irrational, objective standards must be used; for example, when a man is proven in the court of law (which should be through objectively-defined laws) to have committed a crime, or when a team of doctors diagnose a patient as irrational.

 

Your asteroid hypothetical actually made me stop and think for a second. There are too many variables for me to properly answer your question. Why do you have a missile base? What do you use it for? Why doesn't the military have a missile base they could use? Naturally, the military should do that, as it's their job to protect the country from attack.

 

Or perhaps is this just your own version of the lifeboat question i.e. four people in a lifeboat and it only supports one--what is the proper moral action for each person? In this scenario, I believe there is no moral action. You have the right defend yourself from people trying to kill you, but you also don't have the right to initiate force on your fellow man. By virtue of taking one action, you violate the rights of others, so really, morality doesn't really "apply" here.

 

Well say I'm working full-time in fast food earning 18k a year, living in frugally in a hellhole apartment and barely have any money leftover each month. Do you think I should pay the same 20% of my income as someone who makes 10 million per year from investing in a good company, and spends all day playing golf? You talk about fairness, but I don't see how a system like that is "fair" to the working poor. That 20% could mean the difference between heating my apartment during the winter or not.

 

Of course, a flat tax would mean you would have to cut a lot of programs. But think about it this way: under the graduated tax system, if you with your 18k income is paying 20%, the golf man would be paying 40%, simply because he's more successful. How is that fair? Again, I'm incredibly confused here; why is that rich people aren't considered people and it's ok to fleece a rich man?

 

I know you're probably going to answer, "he doesn't need it! He can get along fine if I take it away from him!" Again, on a moral level, you're proclaiming your right to treat another human being like a chess pawn if you think it's ok. You're also proclaiming that this man has no right to live for himself. When you initiate force on another man, you're in effect telling him to act in a way that his mind is telling him not to act. His mind is saying, "if you act in this matter, death will occur"--but you make him act anyway. A man cannot exist without his mind, so fundamentally, when you initiate force on another human being, it's a human sacrifice. I don't care whether you're sacrificing him to a god on top of a volcano, to the king of the country, to the welfare of your citizens; a human sacrifice is always immoral. It's actually at this point, where I view anarchy to be a (slightly) more moral system than socialism; because, at least in anarchy, a man is permitted to make tools to defend himself against an aggressor--in socialism, a man is helpless against the agent of force (the government) because they've stripped the means of defending himself.

 

Well you keep saying "punishes", that's why. I don't necessarily see taxes as punishment. I see them as sort of a service charge for living in a state where I have police, roads, sidewalks, water, public education, etc. However, what I do consider to be punishment is any sort of system or policy that ends up making life more difficult for people who are STRUGGLING to have their basic needs met. If I'm earning 18k a year and raising taxes on me means I'll have to starve or else go homeless, I consider that to be causing suffering. I think that's COMPLETELY different than if I'm earning 10 million a year and raising taxes means I can't buy a decomissioned jet fighter. That's not causing suffering, that's causing inconvenience and limitations on my wealth.

 

There are other ways of funding the police, courts and the military other than taxes and initiating aggression; I posted an essay on tape earlier. I think everything else should be privately run. In the essay, the author says that under such a system, it's true that the rich would be spending a bigger portion of their money on these functions of the government and the poor would be getting an almost free ride. But she stresses the difference between the outcome of the system, and the actual moral level of socialism. The difference between the poor paying less in a capitalist system and the poor paying the same amount in socialism is the difference between a bus letting homeless people fill the seats in the back that weren't bought by anyone and giving the hobos first class seats with champagne.

 

You say that causing limitation on one's wealth is causing suffering, rather that it's putting a limitation on one's wealth; I could not disagree more. Again, do you remember the cause-and-effect relationship I described earlier? Wealth is what occurs when someone applies their reason to the world. When you limit someone's wealth, you initiate force as you're taking something that didn't belong to you. You're rendering the cause of the wealth useless, and wealth will eventually die without its origin. The only differences between a mugger robbing a poor person on the street and the IRS seizing millions of dollars from a multi-billion dollar corporation is that the latter was elected by a majority vote and it will simply take longer for the latter to die. That's the only difference. I fail to understand why robbery is ok if the majority votes it.

 

I didn't quite follow your whole argument here, but I can answer this. A loss in wealth is more moral than a gain if it leads to people being able to survive or meet basic needs, regardless of how fair it is. There's going to be unfairness in any system. It's not fair that some people are born into trust funds and other are born as crack babies. It's not fair that some people receive excellent education and others are practically in a public school penal system. Maintaining those advantages and disadvantages via rights isn't FAIR either. I don't know of any system that's completely FAIR. However, a society with enough resources can make sure EVERYONE has their basic needs met and have a much better shot of living a fulfilling life, but only if it wants to. It can just as easily allow half its population to die prematurely from poor living conditions and have a lower lifespan, while allowing the absolute richest to be 10% richer. Is the latter scenario really the greater good?

 

I'm just going to get this out of the way, if I haven't already: I don't believe in lassiez-faire capitalism because it achieves the "greater good." I don't believe in a concept such as "the greater good" and I don't even know what that means. It doesn't make any sense. You mean a good that somehow supersedes the good of an individual? A society is simply a group of individuals. How can something be a greater good when it abridges the right of an individual? It's true that capitalism achieves a general greater level of prosperity for all; the difference between what we consider a poor person in South Korea and a poor person in North Korea is self-evident, but that's not why I'm an advocate of capitalism. I believe in lassiez-faire, because it's consistent with man's nature and how he survives and I believe every other system make him act in contrary of his nature. Moving on...

 

It's also not fair that some people are born smarter than other people, and it's not fair that some people are better-looking than other people. It's also not fair that we praise child prodigies in school and we tell the slower ones to keep up, and it's also not fair that we hold beauty pageants where the less-than-beautiful need not apply. Some people inherently have more advantages than other people by fact of their birth, but this is simply another fact of human nature--and the egalitarian solution, like all solutions that attempt to reverse man's nature, ends only in pain and suffering. In other words, if someone went to plastic surgeon and said that he was upset about being ugly and was jealous of the fact that other people are prettier than he was, a rational, capitalistic doctor would try to help him; a egalitarian, socialist doctor would break into people's homes at night and mutilate the faces of everyone else prettier than his patients.

 

Don't just dismiss this paragraph and a scarecrow argument. When you think about it, there's absolutely no fundamental difference. What's the moral difference between the above scenario, and a poor person going to the government "doctor" and asking him to break into all the people's houses who are richer than he is to "mutilate" their bank account?

 

Just gonna throw this out here, do mentally ill or mentally challenged people have rights under your definition? If a man with schizophrenia is by all definitions "irrational" does he have any rights? If he can't provide for himself because he couldn't afford proper medication and, at the moment, can't properly perceive the world around him, does he deserve to simply die on the street because he didn't work hard enough?

 

Good question. Irrational people have rights, but not in the same way as other people as their source of rights is impaired. That's why you a doctor can morally institutionalize irrational people, while he can't do the same to a rational person. That irrational person will no choice, but to depend on the asylum to take care of him, his family members, or charity.

 

Surely you're not suggesting that the irrational person has the ability to manage other people's money despite the fact that he can't even manage his own life?

[Ross Scott]

Your asteroid hypothetical actually made me stop and think for a second. There are too many variables for me to properly answer your question. Why do you have a missile base? What do you use it for? Why doesn't the military have a missile base they could use? Naturally, the military should do that, as it's their job to protect the country from attack.

I'll clarify it. Forget the missile technology. Let's say it's tractor beam technology. If we had detected the asteroid earlier, we could have deflected it earlier, but we didn't. Now, it's so close I am currently the only person with the technology capable of deflecting this asteroid. I'm also a billionaire and already have my own personal space station I can live on for the rest of my life. As for why I have it, let's say I invented it. As for what I use it for, I've only done experiments with it, I don't use it for much else.

 

I see this question to be the same as the calabar bean question, just on a larger scale. This isn't the lifeboat question, because I have options. I can CHOOSE to use the tractor beam technology and save all of humanity from the asteroid. However, I can also CHOOSE not to and live out my life merrily on the space station. So, am I being unethical if I choose not to deflect the asteroid and decide to live upon the space station instead? If someone tries to take my tractor beam by force to deflect it themselves, are they being unethical for doing so, as it is my property?

 

You say you can only see rights in terms of absolutes and don't see any middle ground, so I'm trying to take this to an extreme. The way I see it, either you potentially see an individual's property rights as more important than the survival of the human race (yourself excluded), or you don't truly see things in absolutes, like you say.

 

I could be mistaken, but every other argument you made in your post hinges on seeing things only in absolutes, no compromise. In other words, the end outcome doesn't matter to you if you feel a person's property rights have been infringed on ANY level. So with the space station question I'm trying to establish if that's really true.

[Michael Archer]

When I said this was the "lifeboat" question, I wasn't saying it's a lifeboat question for the billionaire, I was referring to the people that were storming the tractor beam--it's the lifeboat question for them. Given your scenario and you're saying they literally have to use the tractor beam or die, then strictly speaking, there is no proper moral action or any immoral action. This is an unrealistic scenario, because most of the time in real life, just because you're destitute doesn't mean that your only option is to steal from other people. In a society where people are free to trade with everyone else, there's always other options. In your scenario, you're framing the question in a way that the other people have literally no alternative, so there is no morality to be applied there.

 

Is the billionaire being immoral by not using the tractor beam? I would say absolutely yes, assuming that he's not being persecuted on earth. Is he being unethical for not using the tractor beam? That's a bit trickier. Let's address the ethical issue first, but both the moral and the ethical solutions have both the same response and justification, since ethics come from morals:

 

I don't know why the billionaire would not deflect the asteroid. Is the mob a tool of an oppressive civilization and government? I don't think it would be too expensive, as if everyone on earth is dead and there's only three or four of you left on the planet, there's hardly a big enough economy and the value of your money declines sharply if there's, like 6 billion dollars for every human being on earth (assuming that you let five or so friends come with you). Is he protesting against the government's dogma that a man must live for the sake of others? Does he know that once he saves them, they'll continue to fleece him?

 

Actually, I easily see an Ayn Rand hero planning to do something like this. If this was the plot of an Ayn Rand book, I imagine that the entire thing would be the businessman suffering oppression from those around him. When the asteroid is about to hit the earth, the government comes to take the tractor beam away from him "in the public interest." The businessman does the only thing he can do when the government shows up: he concedes it to them unwillingly. The government brutes try to operate the beam by bashing their clubs against the controls, but their use of force will never allow them to operate the beam and the businessman cannot operate under force. The moral of the story would be that you cannot reverse cause-and-effect and that when you initiate force on the businessman and render his mind useless, the product of his mind (the tractor beam) is rendered useless as well.

 

I know you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, but the plot is strikingly similar to your scenario, albeit more subtle. The businessman in Atlas takes his few friends he deems to be valuable--the men of achievement and ability--and takes them to a secret society to live and prosper while the rest of the world burns. It's not only until the parasites are out of the way that they decide to go back to the regular world and rebuild.

 

So let's put it two ways: let's first say that the mob is the symbol of an oppressive people and/or an oppressive government. It would be perfectly ethical to let these people die, as they believe that the initiation of force is the standard, they've surrendered their right to be treated as human i.e. they've surrendered their right to be treated as rational beings, as they're using the opposite of reason. The businessman would be perfectally ethically justified in taking the people he deems valuable, a few thousand women, going to his space station, and only coming back to rebuild the earth when the men of force are gone. They would rebuild the earth and have a fun time having sex with the thousands of woman to repopulate the earth. Now, you might say this solution is really improbable and something out of science-fiction; I respond that if you give me a science-fiction scenario, you can expect a science-fiction solution.

 

On the other hand, what if the businessman and his tractor beam are in a society that bans the initiation of force and everyone is free to trade with each other? The businessman got rich, because he was free to trade with his equals. The mob outside his tractor-beam building would--presumably--be his workers, and other businessmen that he's traded with. Yes, you would be acting unethically towards your fellow man, as you would be acting unethically by walking by a person having a heart attack on the street. As for the people outside, this is the lifeboat-question for them, but I like to think that because they've dealt with this man and that he earned his wealth through achievement and not force, they would trust him to make the right decision.

 

Morality is a code that guides a man through life; it tells him when it's right for him to do something, and when it's wrong to do something. Is it really right for you, when you let an asteroid destroy your home planet, let it destroy the only planet capable of producing and sustaining life, with billions of people who are potential traders in order to make your life easier? Is it conducive to the life of a human being to spend his entire life in space, in radiation, in a desolate world with no resources? I mean, if he has supplies to sustain himself in space, it wouldn't last forever, and he would run out eventually without the natural resources that only earth can produce. When I think about it, this question is the equivalent of asking, "The businessman is on the Titanic (let's presume that the Titanic is sailing for all of eternity) and sees the iceberg coming. He plans to abandon ship, and live out the rest of his days on a tiny little lifeboat with all of his friends in the middle of the freezing North Atlantic Ocean, living off the lifeboat's meager supplies when he can easily save the ship. Is he behaving immorally?" Yes it is immoral, as it would be insanity to let the luxurious and proud Titanic--the vessel that sustains your life and lets you experience happiness and would do it for the rest of your life--to live off a pitiful, depressing, objectively inferior lifeboat. That would be the sacrifice of a greater value, to a smaller one.

 

The earth is objectively more valuable than any space station a human being can build: the earth has untapped oil, valuable minerals like gold, forests, ash billions of gallons of fresh drinking water. Living on the lifeboat when you can live on the Titanic is sacrificing a superior value for an inferior value, which I believe is insane and immoral. Unless of course, the Titanic was being eaten by barnacles, and you had the choice between the lifeboat or staying on the Titanic a little while longer until you're consumed by the barnacles along with the ship.

 

TL;DR version: It's immoral to let your fellow man die if he views you as a man of reason and of trade; it's not immoral to let him die if he views you as a sacrificial animal, as if he thinks it's ok to use force on you, he's lost his right be called a rational being as reason is the opposite of force.

[Ross Scott]

Is he protesting against the government's dogma that a man must live for the sake of others? Does he know that once he saves them, they'll continue to fleece him?

Let's say I resent all taxes, and I feel like if I save the Earth I will still be taxed and I don't want to bother with separating everyone that I think will fleece me or not. Let's also assume I could use the tractor beam to transfer all of my possessions onto the station with me and come back to earth after a few years after the ecosystem recovered and humanity was dead.

 

What I'm hearing is that it wouldn't be immoral to let the entire human race die (except for the select few thousand picked in your sci-fi solution, which I consider a valid option for this scenario) because I disagree with the policies of society that does take away SOME of my property, regardless of how little or much that actually is. I would consider this extremely immoral and argue no one's degree of wealth or extent of property should be placed higher than the lives of billions of people. You see property and life as inseparable, but I think this scenario shows that they're clearly not. In one scenario, people steal my tractor beam and deflect the asteroid. I am deprived of my tractor beam, I have to keep paying taxes, my rights are violated, but I get to keep everything else, and billions of people live. In another scenario, NONE of my rights are violated and I get to keep ALL of my property, and billions of people die. How can you say the two are inseparable when the outcome is so drastically different? Even if I fire the beam, I would have to keep paying taxes. If property and life are so connected, by your logic shouldn't the outcomes be the same?

 

Anyway, I am curious about your answer, but I don't think it's worth debating much past this, I've concluded our views are too radically different. You see rights in absolutes and consider property rights one of the most important ones there is. This allows for no compromise on your end. The message I'm getting from you over and over is that the outcome of a situation is irrelevant if people's rights are being violated on any level, no matter how small. I generally don't see rights and morals as absolutes and think they're highly dependent on the situation. I don't see property rights as the most important value to uphold, but rather maximizing adequate living conditions and quality of life for the greatest number of people (within limits) in a way that's not completely unsustainable and still allows for greater material success (also within limits) for people who work and / or contribute to society than those who don't. I think the only common ground we have for OWS is neither of us like crony capitalism, which is one of the protest points. Anyway, if you think I'm missing something here, feel free to let me know.

[Michael Archer]

What I'm hearing is that it wouldn't be immoral to let the entire human race die (except for the select few thousand picked in your sci-fi solution, which I consider a valid option for this scenario) because I disagree with the policies of society that does take away SOME of my property, regardless of how little or much that actually is.

 

Assuming that these thousand are, in my judgement, the only moral people left on the planet, and everyone else believes in initiating force to get their way--then yes. The reasoning behind this is as follows: humans are, by nature, rational beings; if someone initiates force on you and behaves in a way that is in direct opposition to reason and the way you survive, then by definition, they have behaved as an animal and are no longer worthy of the title of "human being".

 

I would consider this extremely immoral and argue no one's degree of wealth or extent of property should be placed higher than the lives of billions of people.

 

You're missing essential questions. When you say "place higher", you must imply that there's a system of values. The missing questions are: value for what and for whom. Only individuals can have systems of values, and these differ from everyone else. So we need a morality and a code of values to help us which I'll talk about later in this post. As you can see, the businessman and the mobber have different moralities:

 

To a person in the mob outside the tractor beam building, they value their lives over the greedy businessman who just wants to watch the world burn and selfishly doesn't care about his fellow man.

 

To the businessman in the tractor beam, he sees a bunch of disheveled angry apes, who can produce nothing and simply want to usurp the sum of the effort of his life: the tractor beam. He values his life's work more than the apes.

 

So, in summary, I imagine that if you asked the businessman how he could justify leaving them behind on earth, he would say something like, "This tractor beam is my life. I put my life and soul into making this tractor beam. My life is more important than the destroyers of my life." If you asked a member of the mob, he'd say "This tractor beam is my life. I rely on this device that another person put their own life and soul into making. Therefore, the beam is rightfully mine." So it depends on who you ask. Since the beam is the businessman's, it's his decision.

 

You see property and life as inseparable, but I think this scenario shows that they're clearly not. In one scenario, people steal my tractor beam and deflect the asteroid. I am deprived of my tractor beam, I have to keep paying taxes, my rights are violated, but I get to keep everything else, and billions of people live. In another scenario, NONE of my rights are violated and I get to keep ALL of my property, and billions of people die. How can you say the two are inseparable when the outcome is so drastically different? Even if I fire the beam, I would have to keep paying taxes. If property and life are so connected, by your logic shouldn't the outcomes be the same?

 

Human beings are resilient and they can suffer much harm without dying, per se. Usurping the businessman's tractor beam would be metaphorically identical to, say, cutting off his hand or removing his kidney. He would physically survive both procedures, but his work in the future is hindered. Even worse, this would set an outrageous precedent: if we can remove the businessman's kidney without him dying, complaining, or taking retaliatory measures against us, why don't we just take the other kidney when we need it? In practice, this would mean that whenever someone has less than the businessman, they're entitled to it e.g. "I have half a kidney while the businessman has two. I need it more than him and he can live without it!" to "I have no kidneys and the businessman has one. He can live on half a kidney" ad inifintum until all the men of production are gone. If you continue to bleed someone, he may physically be alive in the short term, but it's only a matter of time until his blood is all gone.

 

On another note, this raises a fair point: if it's ok to tax someone, is it ok to take their kidney without permission? If no, why? Isn't someone's money equally their property as their kidney?

 

I don't see property rights as the most important value to uphold, but rather maximizing adequate living conditions and quality of life for the greatest number of people (within limits) in a way that's not completely unsustainable and still allows for greater material success (also within limits) for people who work and / or contribute to society than those who don't.

 

This is the utilitarian morality which is, by definition, in complete contrast with the individualist morality. The problem I have with the utilitarian morality ("the greatest good for the greatest number") is that the greatest number gets to decide what is the good, period. Often, this results in "need" being used as the standard for who gets something, which has problems and contradictions as I've explained before (e.g. no objective standard for "need" other than a vote, incompetence is rewarded while greatness is censured). This morality has, not surprisingly, been used to justify many atrocities committed against individuals and other minorities.

 

I've always thought that people who support "minority rights" but reject individualism are usually just racist or sexist. After all, the individual is really the smallest minority ever. That's why I believe in individualism, since I do not see any rational justification to initiate aggression against a helpless human being, nor do I accept the justification of "we're the majority" to trample the minority. Literally, I see any code that uses the majority as a justification as an angry lynch mob.

 

I think the only common ground we have for OWS is neither of us like crony capitalism, which is one of the protest points. Anyway, if you think I'm missing something here, feel free to let me know.

 

I also don't like "crony socialism"; it's crony capitalism, but instead of the corporations collaborating with the government against the middle-class, the middle-class collaborates with the government against corporations (I think this is what OWS wants). I fail to see why one is better than the other.

[Ross Scott]

On another note, this raises a fair point: if it's ok to tax someone, is it ok to take their kidney without permission? If no, why? Isn't someone's money equally their property as their kidney?

No, someone's money is not EQUALLY their property as their kidney. You were born with your kidneys, you were not born with your money. Your money is paper or numbers on a computer that society has deemed to have worth that you've managed to acquire in your life somehow. Removing someone's kidney forcibly is pretty much universally seen as barbaric. I can't really explain it much better than that. It's in the same field as cannibalism for the vast majority of people. Removing of someone's money is highly situational. If removal of this money means a person won't be able to provide for themselves or their family and will die, most people will see that as barbaric also. If it means I won't be able to buy a new car this year, then most will see that as more of a limitation rather than barbarism.

 

I think a lot of our disagreement comes down to you not distinguishing the loss of property for someone who has almost nothing, and someone who has plenty. To me this makes a tremendous difference. It's actually not about money in my eyes, it's about what your money REPRESENTS. For the low income person, the money represents everything they need to survive, and meager accommodations at that. Taking away some of that can be absolutely devastating for the individual. For a wealthy person, it can represent a lavish lifestyle, indulgences, enterprise opportunities to become more wealthy. I can't envision many scenarios where taking away some of that is as devastating as it is to the low income. Really, I see any system that marginalizes the number of people being able to survive at the same time it rewards people who already have more property than the vast majority of people in history as either immoral and / or flawed, regardless of the ideology behind it.

 

This is the utilitarian morality which is, by definition, in complete contrast with the individualist morality. The problem I have with the utilitarian morality ("the greatest good for the greatest number") is that the greatest number gets to decide what is the good, period.

Well you say "period", but that's not what I'm advocating. This is why I said "within limits." Yes, the majority would agree that losing 30% of your taxes when you earn 20k is more devastating than losing 30% of your taxes when you earn 20 million, even if the individual disagrees. However, the individual still gets to decide what to do with his remaining 70%, not the majority. So this isn't a "period" situation.

 

Often, this results in "need" being used as the standard for who gets something, which has problems and contradictions as I've explained before (e.g. no objective standard for "need" other than a vote, incompetence is rewarded while greatness is censured).

I thought we addressed this? Needs have SOME objective standards. Food and water are the easiest objective ones. Those are objective needs. Everyone needs them to survive, period. While we can say things like health care are less objective, let's not complicate this. How are food and water not an objective standard for someone's needs?

 

I mean what are you saying, that "needs" are less objective than "greatness"? Who's the greater person, a teacher living at borderline poverty who has helped thousands of students, or a hedge funds manager who hoards his money and doesn't contribute to any cause? Or who's greater, a star football player who makes millions, or someone making 5 figures who cures a disease?

 

As for incompetence being rewarded, in a utilitarian good, EVERYONE is rewarded with having a social safety net that ALLOWS a person the potential to be great. Incompetent people who don't contribute anything would actually be worse off than anyone else, since they would receive the bare minimum of necessities. However, they WOULD receive the BARE MINIMUM, not less than that, putting them at risk to die or suffer.

 

Well I typed a lot more than I meant to. While some of his logic isn't completely consistent, I recommend this article:

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

 

He argues for both sides and it's a more humorous take on the whole situation. His explanation of parts #5, #3, and #2 apply to this discussion especially.

[Michael Archer]

No, someone's money is not EQUALLY their property as their kidney. You were born with your kidneys, you were not born with your money.

 

Some people are, but I get the feeling that this isn't really what you meant.

 

Your money is paper or numbers on a computer that society has deemed to have worth that you've managed to acquire in your life somehow.

 

I can see where you're coming from. But when I said "money," I meant "wealth." Money is just one of the many forms of wealth. Wealth, as in "all material objects that have economic utility" (from Merriam-Webster). A kidney is a material object that has an economic utility--so is a watch, or a house that you inherited from birth. Why is taxing someone's kidney or taxing their land considered morally different, even though they're both--by definition--wealth?

 

Removing someone's kidney forcibly is pretty much universally seen as barbaric. I can't really explain it much better than that. It's in the same field as cannibalism for the vast majority of people. Removing of someone's money is highly situational. If removal of this money means a person won't be able to provide for themselves or their family and will die, most people will see that as barbaric also. If it means I won't be able to buy a new car this year, then most will see that as more of a limitation rather than barbarism.

 

Again, this is a problem with democracy, rule by majority, and utilitarianism--in my opinion. Moral standard is decided by the majority.

 

I think a lot of our disagreement comes down to you not distinguishing the loss of property for someone who has almost nothing, and someone who has plenty.

 

Well, in principle, it's no different. Both people are people, both earned their wealth, and both have the right to not be robbed. It's kind of like the whole Argentina vs. United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands. Falkland Islands has very little--just a bunch a sheep. Britain didn't need the islands, nor would the lack of them have any impact on their economy. But Britain wanted it anyway, because--in principle--they were entitled to the land since it was rightfully theirs and no one had the right to say otherwise.

 

To me this makes a tremendous difference. It's actually not about money in my eyes, it's about what your money REPRESENTS. For the low income person, the money represents everything they need to survive, and meager accommodations at that. Taking away some of that can be absolutely devastating for the individual. For a wealthy person, it can represent a lavish lifestyle, indulgences, enterprise opportunities to become more wealthy.

 

What does money represent? Well, assuming both the low income and high income person achieved that money through honest means, that money represents the value that they've produced. Someone who has earned more money has produced a greater value than someone who earns less money. So really, in this sense when you "what money represents", you're saying that the greater value someone has produced, the less they're entitled to it.

 

I thought we addressed this? Needs have SOME objective standards. Food and water are the easiest objective ones. Those are objective needs. Everyone needs them to survive, period. While we can say things like health care are less objective, let's not complicate this. How are food and water not an objective standard for someone's needs?

 

Let me put it to you this way: there's a limited pool of money social security gets all year, and they're using need as the standard of distribution. Who's in a greater amount of need: a man who's only joy in life is to paint his Union Army figurines and reenact battles with his friends, or the teenage girl who is socially ostracized and facing developmental problems because she doesn't have a cell phone--does the money go towards Minié balls or a data plan? Who needs more: the mother who needs the money to fix her indoor plumbing, or someone else who needs the money in order to fix his only car which he relies on to get to work? In these scenarios, there is nowhere where you can draw the line as to who needs the money more--each party has its case. Therefore, what social security distributes is decided by a majority vote, and you know how much I hate those.

 

As for production and trade, that's easier to decide what's more productive than not, objectively--it's quantifiable for one thing. A computer with a ten gigabyte hard drive is objectively more valuable than a computer with a five gigabyte hard drive. When you propose transaction, you're saying, "this money represents the value of my work. I deem your product to be equal to the value of my work, so let's make a deal." The businessman will either accept your deal, or reject it. The businessman will only accept the deal if the money offered is equal to the value. There's no majority vote, there's no panel; it's a simple objective evaluation.

 

As for incompetence being rewarded, in a utilitarian good, EVERYONE is rewarded with having a social safety net that ALLOWS a person the potential to be great. Incompetent people who don't contribute anything would actually be worse off than anyone else, since they would receive the bare minimum of necessities. However, they WOULD receive the BARE MINIMUM, not less than that, putting them at risk to die or suffer.

 

This standard says that a person's ability does not give them moral authority to a good, rather that a person's inability gives them the claim, which I don't understand.

 

Also, you said "everyone." What if someone doesn't want to take part in the social security? Is his property threatened if he says no? Again, I fail to see the difference between this, and the mafia's protection racket.

 

Well I typed a lot more than I meant to.

 

I don't mind. I like to think that the phrase "TL;DR" is not allowed in the "Civilization Problems" subthread.

 

While some of his logic isn't completely consistent, I recommend this article:

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/

 

I've seen that. I'm a frequent reader of Cracked, and never has an article ever gotten me mad at the website before. I love Cracked; I like how they make education fun and enjoyable. This article really made me think less of them. Here's why:

 

#5: "'Hey, I work hard for what I have!' is perfectly true. It's also insulting."--So...what is the author implying? That the truth is insulting? I'm sorry he feels that way.

 

"It implies a bizarre alternate reality where society rewards you purely based on how much effort you exert, rather than according to how well your specific talents fit in with the needs of the marketplace in the particular era and part of the world in which you were born."--No, it doesn't. The rich person is saying that the hard work he does produces value. Again, I'm sure it's incredibly hard work to paint Civil War figurines, and I'm sure you're really proud of it (who wouldn't be), but in actual physical value, it's low compared to selling houses or computers. Just because you work hard, doesn't automatically produce value.

 

#3: "The fact that you don't like it only proves that you need it."--what an immature argument. The fact that the author gets mad when I call him ugly, only proves further that he's ugly.

 

"the only reason I haven't murdered a dozen people in traffic is because society will bring consequences if I do"--This is kind of like the Christian argument "I don't do it, so I can get into heaven." I'm an atheist and the reason I don't murder people is because it would be a dick thing to do, and I don't want to live in a society where the standard is force.

 

"And when you're powerful (due to being a politician, or a rich man, or having a position of authority like a...police officer), we turn up the heat even more."--again, equating the difference between economic influence and physical force is like equating the difference between a persuasive argument and the threat of violence. It's equating the difference between production and stealing. It's context-dropping, nothing more.

 

"It's why we hate bullies and dictators and supervillains. It's why we hate people who benefit hugely from society and then pretend like they're living on an island with a population of only them."--I'm sorry, but did you seriously say you hate businessmen for the same reason you hate dictators? There are no words to respond to this...I just feel like they would be wasted. As for the second part, I imagine that the author is referring to the businessman who makes a lot of money, but that sentence can refer equally as well if not more to the consumer; they benefit hugely (arguably more so) than the businessman and then pretend like he's not the cause of the benefit. This is a blatant example of context-dropping.

 

#2: "So, Rich Guy, let me explain this as calmly and logically as I can: Are you fucking 6 years old? Do you still think mom made you clean up your room because she was mean? In the adult world, we get asked to do things because shit needs to get done."--well, "punish" means "impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation; to inflict injury on, hurt" (also from Merriam-Webster). The businessmen certainly feel as if they're getting hurt, so they are getting punished. Fines are considered a punishment and penalty, aren't they? Couldn't taxes be considered the same way? You're losing money, so it's a penalty of sorts. So, the penalty is money and the fault is for having too much of it. That's punishing people for making society work. Author, you need to open a dictionary sometime--punishment isn't always something a parent does to a child. This is a huge scarecrow argument.

 

"It has nothing to do with fairness, it has nothing to do with judging you. It has nothing to do with you at all. There's a whole world out there, with people who need helping and projects that need accomplishing."--oh, I see it now. It has nothing to do with the businessman, you just want his money! He's not a person and he doesn't deserve to be treated like a person, we just want what he makes. You're trying to violate the Law of Causality, author. Money is an effect of a cause; and the cause is the businessman. The money doesn't come from nowhere.

 

"You're only being [forced at the point of a gun] to pitch in because you have the resources. You're not a tall person who us dwarfs are jealously trying to cut down to size. You're a tall person being [threatened with jail or seizure of property] to get something down from a very tall shelf because nobody else can fucking reach it."--Author, I noticed some typos. I fixed them for you.

 

"Really ... I'm not trying to be condescending. We're all adults here."--I guess that's why you called them six years old.

 

So, those are just a few of my many reasons for hating this article and the person who wrote it. It's condescending, context-dropping, and scarecrow arguments. Cracked should stick to educational articles.