It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama and redistribution of Wealth...

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


The point of our government is clearly defined in the Constitution. It has VERY limited roles, and its a shame the American people have willingly let a tyrannical government take over without a peep.

As for the wealthy "hijacking" government. That isnt a problem of the wealthy individual, its a problem of campaign finance laws. Reform those, get rid of lobbyists, and the problem would be solved.




posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


The irony is that the video and the simplistic message targeted even for a kindergarten to understand, appears STILL to difficult for some to grasp.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by mental modulator
 


The point of our government is clearly defined in the Constitution. It has VERY limited roles, and its a shame the American people have willingly let a tyrannical government take over without a peep.

As for the wealthy "hijacking" government. That isnt a problem of the wealthy individual, its a problem of campaign finance laws. Reform those, get rid of lobbyists, and the problem would be solved.


So what would portion of government would you leave?

Would you eliminate all the amendments of the constitution, what would you leave?

Returning to the original constitution would mean things like this

The Senators and Representatives
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Do you accept the above?
crazy

I agree on the finance reform and lobbyist reform



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


I would leave only those departments necessary to uphold the Constitution.

The Amendments are part of the Constitution, and as long as they were legally ratified, I would leave all of them. I may not like some of them, but we cant pick and chose which parts we want to follow.

As for the clause you posted from Article 1 Section 6, again, I dont agree with it, but I'd be forced to support it.

Once we begin picking and choosing what we agree or disagree with, we leave the door open for blatant violations of the Constitution, which is what we are currently, and have seen in the past.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap
 


amen ! as the english knew, without an evil money hoarding sheriff there would be no robin hood



and while we are at it, lets make those lazy senate/congress bums get real day jobs like the founding fathers !

[edit on 17-8-2009 by hisshadow]



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Better Mouse Trap
"Anyone who works hard for their money CAN then spend it how they"-Originally posted by Gateway

I agree, but how many recent rags to riches stories do we have compared to "old money" that has been passed down through the generations. The present day elitist don't work hard for the money, most of it was passed down to them.

Many of the VERY rich people in that elite tax bracket live on this "old money."

Old money= money that was made during the days of slavery, the pimping of the disfranchised during the recession, the forced labor camps, government corruption, organized crime and reckless greed. Rarely does a "nice guy" become super rich, you have to be manipulative and filled with greed.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE TAX INCREASE.


[edit on 16-8-2009 by Better Mouse Trap]






Really? I work in the offshore oil and gas industry and I am usually gone for 9 months a year. If my taxes were lower I would be able to stay home more with my family and watch my child grow but oh no millions on welfare deserve their families more than I do. Hell I even work long days at 12+ hours a day and have worked sometime 36 hours strait but then again I have to work hard for those single mothers.

Your argument holds no water buddy because those people You talk about have tax shelters and can hide their money easier than poor saps like me. These people are the ones that own the government do You really think they pay taxes. Even if they paid taxes like it would hurt them because everything they owned is paid for and how much money do they really need to live their extravagent life styles compared to their income.

If You want to talk about unfair taxes then move on up to the middle class because its fun. The elite give You just enough money to get in to debt and to stay in debt. The elite want us to buy houses so We can be their slaves and to make matters worse We are the welfare pukes slaves also...

I love being a slave its so fun... I love working on a boat 3 months a year for free so some welfare mom can get high, have sex, & drink booze. The whole time she is living it up I am not getting high, having sex, or drinking booze. I love justice this whole world is just isn't it? NOT if it was just I would be the one at home banging the old lady & drinking a beer but oh know the selfish Liberals want their cake and the evil neo-cons need their wars.... So I guess I better grab my cock because when barry gets finished i'll be working 10 months a year for the same take home ..... oh wait then I'll be in a higher tax bracket...



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by orderedchaos
Redistribution of wealth only happens between middle and lower class!

And middle class aren't exactly rich, but work hard for what they have.

Lower class aren't always good-for-nothing leeches, and get screwed in a society that deems their hard work less valuable than, say, a skilled trade.

How we value each other in a society and what we're worth should change. I shouldn't have to dish out my hard earned cash because minimun wage is a joke!

People that make good choices should not have to shell out for ones that made poor choices.

In essence, my heart doesn't bleed for the bleeding hearts.




I agree with You but getting a skilled trade is not a insurmountable task like some people believe. Some of these poor could learn how to weld or learn how to drive a tractor trailor. I don't have a college degree so I had to go in to the offshore oil industry doing what these so called poor people refuse to do. Since they refuse to spend 2 months away from home at a shot for only 2 weeks off I get rewarded pretty well to the tune of 11k a month. Now the worst part about it is You make 100% of the sacrifice but You still pay 1/3 of Your income in taxes. What would happen if I decided to go to Africa for a job and some little punk with a AK47 shoots me and I die? Well like I said I take 100% of the risks and I still pay .33 percent taxes.


There are a lot of jobs out there that do not require a skilled profession but pay pretty good money. I work with a guy who's son works on power lines. His son makes a killing but guess what He has to work his tail off some times with 20 hour days at times. So He makes good money for his sacrifice but yet there are poor people still out there. Hell maybe We are different.. Maybe some people do not roll over and accept defeat as easily as these poor shmuchs on welfare.

Why can't these people become truck drivers? Truck drivers make a decent living but once again they don't want to be away from home! Why can't these poor people become merchant marines? I mean seriously I know tug boat captains that make 750 a day and most of them make 500 a day but then again they don't want to be away from home. Hell the guys on tankers are usually brits and europeans doing the work in the US because once again Americans want to have their cake and eat it too even though they could make a 6 figure income easily .....


Bahhhhh baaahhh I don't want to go home and I want to have my beer and pussy ... Thats the typical poor american male He would rather be poor than make major sacrifices to support his family.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You are well an truly ignorant if you think "redistribution of wealth" is the core argument against this tax system and healthcare reform. Redistribution of wealth can be applied to so many things, in so many ways. Nobody gave you the authority to dictate whats "acceptable" redistribution of wealth and whats not. If you are going to make distribution of wealth your core argument your going to loose because:

-The overgrown military you fellas go on about, that depends on redistribution of wealth, 20% of our taxes go into the military, thats a piece of MY money going into your "strong defense" so if your going to tell me you dont want money taken out of your backside I dont need to be forced to pay for your overgrown military.

-Redistribution of wealth is inevitable regardless of what system you implement and this is what rightie purposefully ignores just to smear a different system. The tickle down system under Bush was still redistribution of wealth, it was only the other way around where the wealth gained the lionshare of tax advantages. For you to argume about this tax system benefitting the middle class but completely ignore the redistribution of wealth in the other system, *SNIP*

-Just as easy for you to argue about redistribution of wealth in this system and can argue that the fair tax system in redistribution of wealth as it continues to take out the income of individuals through their expenditures of goods and services so it still redistributes their money in a collective form vai product taxes. Fair tax is still redistribution of wealth becuase you are takening money from those who earned it and are redistributing it into federal and state services such as police and fireman.

I can really go on. There are so many scenarios redistribution of wealth could be applied to. For to argue against it under one system is real ignorant and I believe just a way to smear a system you dont personally like. Whether you choose to oppose it or not redistribution of wealth will exist in some form so long as there is a collective system of money collecting, the argument is a moot.

SG

*MOD EDIT: Hold off on the name-calling. Cheers -alien

[edit on 17-8-2009 by alien]



Actually You might have a point but the fair tax would be the only constitutional tax system they could use. The reason why its constitutional is because You don't have to buy anything now do you? You could easily grow Your own food and sew Your own clothes. Now the system We have now is unavoidable unless You break the law and the sad fact is everyone has to work except for the few souls that cheat the system so there is no way of avoiding it...

I wouldn't have a problem with social programs if there was a 33% sales tax instead of an income tax. Hell I wouldn't even have a problem with it if medical was thrown in to the tax. The reason why I wouldn't have a problem is the people that are more likely to use the government services would give a greater portion of their disposable income to support those services...


Call me heartless but the system now needs to change because the people asking for all this crap do very little to support the system while the people that support it benefit 0% from the system they support.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by orderedchaos
Redistribution of wealth only happens between middle and lower class!


I disagree. The wealth has been redistributed INTO the wealthy people's hands for the past 30 years or so. That's why 1% of the people own 99% of the money. I don't remember anyone crying about THAT redistribution of the wealth...

Obama's just doing what he can to balance that out just a little.




Well I am a conservative and I don't like the fact that they control a huge portion of the money either... Hey maybe We should go down the line and tax the bankers with their unconstitutional money system and spread it back to the working class. Hell We could even find people that worked in defense industry that were instrumental in starting wars and taxing the hell out of them. Hell find the monopolies that the government has protected for years and tax them to death too....


Hell I agree with what You are saying but You fail to realize when You vote for some idiot like the one We have now its not the rich that pay the taxes but the working class. So when You read all of the arguments about healthcare reform instead of assuming the ones against it are idiots maybe You need to realize that the ones fighting it the most are actually the working class that will pay 90% of the taxes for it.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I think that re-distribution of the wealth is socialist which if we go any further into it like we already have, we will become communist and our forefathers will look down from Heaven and weep for us, and damn every one involved in taking the best DAMN country in the whole world ever and destroying it.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





The only way to fairly "spread the wealth" is to get rid of the exorbitant amounts of red tape that causes small start ups huge overhead costs and causes them to not be able to compete effectively with the larger businesses.


Most people who spout "spread the wealth" actually mean "spread the money" They do not understand the difference between wealth and money.

Money: Coin, Currency, credit, hard currency, soft currency
Wealth: Labor, land and the minerals under it and the things that grow on it.

Sure I would like to "spread the wealth" that means everyone gets off their hind ends and "labors" to produce goods!


I agree, get rid of the red tape, abolish taxes for small businesses and protect them from tort law. Just watch the small businesses sprout up and take off dragging the economy up with them and providing jobs for those willing to work.

The unholy alliance between the Corporations (and finance) and the government needs to be killed. When ten corporations control 80% of the food worldwide, that is too much power in a few families hands and "taxes" will never touch them.

After lots of study I have come to the conclusion "socialism" is the trojan horse the ellite are using to concentrate money and wealth into their hands and keep anyone from the lower class from challenging them.

To see it all you have to do is look at the Clinton Monsanto connection - Robert Sharpiro, Mike Kantor, Mike Taylor, Ann Veneman

Or the environmentalist movement connections with Maurice Strong, David Rockefeller, the Rockefeller foundations, World Bank SAP (cripples third world countries) Greenpeace, Sierra Club and the land for debt swap.

When the leftist "Political Activists" who are funded by Standard Oil money have the gall to rip up at the skeptics for being Corporate shills I ROTFL



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   


Errr...have you done any research into wealth inequality?


No but someone else has. I really get tired of the leftists screaming about this.





Fact: The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay more than one third (39.4%) of all federal individual income taxes collected.

Fact: The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers earn only one fifth (21.2%) of all federally taxable individual income.

Fact: The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers pay more than half again (56.0%) more of the total individual income tax load than they did when President Reagan left office (1989 tax year)

Fact: The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are facing frivolous lawsuits in phenomenal numbers, simply because our lax tort laws make them easy targets of opportunity.

Fact: The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are in more danger of government seizure (forfeiture*) of their private property than ever before in our history, due in part, to the Patriot Act.

Fact: The top-earning 1% of US taxpayers are Leaving the USA at the highest rate in history. Source


And who will you tax when they have all left? The welfare mothers?

Communism does not work. People would rather sit on their duffs and starve than work to support someone they consider a "shirker" It has been proven several times. People work best when given an incentive or they do the minimum needed to "get by" If you "redistribute the wealth" too much people will quit.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The monetary system and slave state are coming to a close. The old ways of greed cannot be sustained much longer. It is imploding within itself. I look forward to the end of this system. I won't shed a tear to come back to a way of living without the dollar. A barter / trade system that doesn't rely on I.O.U.s and debt would be a welcome change as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I think there should only be a sales tax. the more stuff you buy, the more taxes you would pay. Anyone who can afford a new 72 inch TV can probably also afford to pay the taxes on it.

it would also be a nice incentive for those of us who dont buy much stuff because we are being taxed at rate in which we can not afford to spend any money on things other than taxes.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


Your sense of right and wrong is a bit simplistic.

Lets say for example we have 2 indivisible morsels of food in a community of 5 people that are suffering through a famine. Lets assume one person is rich, two others are a mother and daughter, the fourth is the community leader, and the fifth is the groups hunter.

Who do you allocate the two units of food to?

Do you give it to the person who has all the money? Do you give it to the women and children? What if the leader suggests making it a majority vote or a lottery? Or should the person who hunts get the food because he has the highest probability of bringing more food supply back to the group?

Humans use unregulated money (a stored social value system) as simply one mechanism to deal with allocating scarce resources. However to assume money is the only way to allocate a resource is to ignore the fact that economics, especially as it relates to scarcity, implies a theory of moral reasoning or at the very least provides an excuse to circumvent and ignore moral reasoning.

Consider if three out of the five are going to die, is it immoral for the hunter to want to kill three people to balance the scales in his favor? After all three people are going to die regardless of the decision. Likewise if the moral code of the community demands "Women and children first," is it unreasonable for the weak mother and daughter to say they should get the food? The leader, recognizing that all these people are looking out for their own interests, might try to diffuse tension by making it a group decision through majority vote or by leveling the playing field to make sure all people have an even chance by making it a random dice roll. Where the person who saved up all his money might rightfully be upset because he held on to his cash for just such an occasion.

The only thing that's amoral is to take more than is needed. If the hunter kills 4 people he's taken away more life than was necessary to sustain himself and one other person in the group.

The most moral decision is that which sustains the group the longest.

So my point is, is it wrong for a person to take from the rich? No. It's natural and expected, especially when the scales become so unbalanced that people can't even afford drinking water.


Google Video Link


May God have mercy on your soul.

[edit on 17-8-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme


Your sense of right and wrong is a bit simplistic.
How so?




Lets say for example we have 2 indivisible morsels of food in a community of 5 people that are suffering through a famine.
Oh oh...you are accusing me of having a simplistic sense of right and wrong. Yet you ask me to apply my beliefs to an hypothetical, and non existent reality?




Lets assume one person is rich, two others are a mother and daughter, the fourth is the community leader, and the fifth is the groups hunter.
Before you ask me this non-realistic scenario...

You must answer these questions:
How is this PERSON rich in a society of 5? Define rich, in other words, what makes him rich? Do you assume, that he collected all the wealth from the hunter? In your scenario, does the hunter JUST hunts...until nothing is left?

What about the division of LABOR:
Are they in an Island and is the HUNTER the only one who can HUNT...is there something particularly wrong with him THAT he cannot continue HUNTING?


Also is the RICH guy SO inept that he cannot gather, even though he may not be a HUNTER? Is there nothing to gather? Also what is the WORK that the COMMUNITY LEADER does? Are you saying the COMMUNITY leader is a king, and does nothing but lead and EAT the fruits of everyone's labor? What does the mother do to HELP in the community?

IF there is ONLY one hunter, than WHAT'S the incentive for him to SHARE with anyone? Is there division of LABOR? I assume in an Island or as in any other environment people are expected to work and cooperate together? How old is the CHILD?

That's just for starters:

Then you also need to provide me with, how did they arrive at this "Famine"...

Famines do not occur JUST out of thin air, there are reason for Famines. From all the AFRICAN famines, to the Potato famine...all have causes...in fact all of these FAMINES occurred because GOVERNMENT intervention or BAD government policies...




Who do you allocate the two units of food to?
Again before I answer your HYPOTHETICAL scenario I need information. Nobody makes decisions on a WHIM. Do you? You expect me to answer a silly "Survivor/TV" series type of scenario without the benefit of needed in formation?




Do you give it to the person who has all the money? Do you give it to the women and children? What if the leader suggests making it a majority vote or a lottery? Or should the person who hunts get the food because he has the highest probability of bringing more food supply back to the group?
Cannot answer these silly questions, without the info....




Humans use unregulated money (a stored social value system) as simply one mechanism to deal with allocating scarce resources.
Money itself is worthless. It is only a medium of exchange. It is like any other commodity. Except unlike REAL asset commodities, fiat currency's value is determined by the amount in circulation i.e. supply and demand.




However to assume money is the only way to allocate a resource is to ignore the fact that economics, especially as it relates to scarcity, implies a theory of moral reasoning or at the very least provides an excuse to circumvent and ignore moral reasoning.
"?"




Consider if three out of the five are going to die, is it immoral for the hunter to want to kill three people to balance the scales in his favor? After all three people are going to die regardless of the decision. Likewise if the moral code of the community demands "Women and children first," is it unreasonable for the weak mother and daughter to say they should get the food? The leader, recognizing that all these people are looking out for their own interests, might try to diffuse tension by making it a group decision through majority vote or by leveling the playing field to make sure all people have an even chance by making it a random dice roll. Where the person who saved up all his money might rightfully be upset because he held on to his cash for just such an occasion.
I don't know what you did here. But it sounded like you already GAVE an answer that YOU assumed I'd give you.





The only thing that's amoral is to take more than is needed. If the hunter kills 4 people he's taken away more life than was necessary to sustain himself and one other person in the group. The most moral decision is that which sustains the group the longest. So my point is, is it wrong for a person to take from the rich? No. It's natural and expected, especially when the scales become so unbalanced that people can't even afford drinking water.

Google Video Link
May God have mercy on your soul.
I didn't even bother to read the rest of your rant. If you would like an ADULT answer to your HYPOTHETICAL Survivor series scenario then you NEED TO PROVIDE information. I'm no CHILD, yet you expect A LIFE AND DEATH answer to be MADE based ON THREE sentences of INFORMATION. And then..."how kind of you": YOU GIVE an answer that YOU assume I WOULD give, and then CRITICIZE AND CHASTISE ME, with said ANSWER YOU YOURSELF PROVIDED.

Nice one...





[edit on 18-8-2009 by Gateway]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gateway
 


Excellent post. S/F
This is really a simple issue that is constantly being made complicated here on ATS.

Fact - the rich pay a disproportionate share of taxes
Fact - most of the "rich" in the US are not rich from old money. They are small business owners
Fact - every year we have more people in this country who pay NO taxes. That is IMO the greatest weakness in our system. It gives them no stake in the society other than to take more from others.
Fact - choices have consequences. Have a child out of wedlock and that child is far more likely to be poor, go to prison, do drugs, etc

What makes this issue very simple is the fact that when you redistribute wealth, you ultimately wind up with less wealth. This has been proven time and time again, from JFK to Regan to Bush II. When you cut taxes the government takes in more money. The tax crowd simply don't like the fact that the taxes on the rich are staying flat or going down. The argument is posed like an economic one, but it really is an emotional one. Those of you who support the redistribution of wealth, please accept it for what it is - an emotional argument and not one based on sound economic reason nor economic data.

I'll tell you what happens when they redistribute wealth. Folks stop working. Businesses stay purposefully small, wealth moves off-shore, folks move outside of the US.

Funny thing happened this year in New York. All of the leftists were gleefull that bad old Wall Street got taken to the cleaners and the investment bankers and traders got their compensation hammered. The leftists loved the government's getting involved in executive compensation. What happened? New York City had a $4bn shortfall in tax revenue because the bonuses got hammered. New York City had to go to the already broke state and get an emergency line of credit to pay for basic services. Why? Oh, thats right, the evil Bankers and Traders were funding the city through taxes on their bonuses.

What do you think these dudes are doing now? I work in the industry and I'll tell you. They are taking a few years off and spending it with their familys or travelling. Some are going back to school for a subject that interests them, not one that they will ever use to gain employment. Some are getting together and starting their own firms where they can mint cash but be small enough to fly under the government radar as well as escape things like Sarbanes/Oxley. Others are moving outside of the country, or moving to a non-US firm and living outside of the US long enough to be able to be paid in a non-dollar currency. They are sitting out until this socialist nonsense runs it course. Why can and are they doing it? Because they are rich! They might be 30, but they don't need to work another day in their lives. They are not going to continue to work 16 hours a day just to send more cash to the government. They don't mind the 16 hours a day - thats how they got rich. They will not do it because they DON"T HAVE TO. It really is that simple.

What do you think folks will do when the administration implements a policy that hikes taxes for folks who make over $250K (it will be far lower than that, as we all know)? Folks will negotiate a comp package of $240 and take the rest of their comp in deferred comp, tax deferred retirement cash, zero value at time of grant options or phantom stock, additional benefits that have no discernable value like additional vacation. Thats whats going to happen. The result? Less money goes to the government for them to redestribute. Oh well.

Now you don't like it, but thems the breaks. The capitalist has money as his objective. The socialist ultimately has power as his objective. The former is by far a cleaner motivator than the latter.

Grow-up. I'm sick of this PTB, grand corporatist scheme to keep folks down or poor. It is nothing more of an excuse to explain the level of achievement that folks have come to realize in their lives. Instead of complaining about "the man" how about you go out and make some money.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gateway

Originally posted by Xtraeme


Your sense of right and wrong is a bit simplistic.
How so?


On your next read through I hope you'll recognize that when I say your sense of right and wrong is a bit simplistic it isn't me knocking you.

My point was to demonstrate that which is right and that which is wrong is relative to the viewer. I know you want to deal in the realm of the absolute, but a situation can be crafted to completely mimic the scenario mentioned in the above post.

Economic theory is often developed by putting people in these sorts of game scenarios. Furthermore the fact that there are people dying on a daily basis due to lack of food and clean water demonstrates how this scenario scales from the hypothetical micro- to the ultra-depressing-real macro-scale.


Before you ask me this non-realistic scenario...

You must answer these questions:


If you think additional background will make the decision of who gets the shaft more "moral" I'd say you're deluding yourself. But to placate you ...

  • There's a famine because a nuclear blast decimated the landscape, destroying society as we know it.
  • The person who was rich was an artisan who simply saved up his "cash" reserves used to interchange items amongst the local society as well as other groups. You can imagine this to be bottle-caps, seashells, or any other commodity that's tradeable. This sort of concept of "wealth" is common in a barter-economy.

    As for why the artisan doesn't hunt, it's not that he's inept. Rather he doesn't have the training necessary to successfully trap. Imagine for instance if I told you starting tomorrow I wanted you to help me program in FORTRAN or work on a graduate level physics paper.

    Not very practical is it? You can try sure, but success is usually directly proportional to experience.
  • As for the hunter and his incentive to share, it's either that or be on his own. People usually recognize the value of companions. If a nuclear blast decimated the area around them and most of the wildlife is dead, the crops poisoned, etc. the hunter can only do so much to bring back food.
  • Lets say the child is of an age that she can't do anything very useful for the group. So say 6.
  • The leader can be viewed as a jack of all trades. The person who helps strategize their movements, fixes equipment, defends, mediates, etc.
  • The mother takes care of her child like mother's have historically done throughout human history. Perhaps she cooks, helps clean clothes, and does other simple tasks in addition to this.




Who do you allocate the two units of food to?


Again before I answer your HYPOTHETICAL scenario I need information. Nobody makes decisions on a WHIM. Do you? You expect me to answer a silly "Survivor/TV" series type of scenario without the benefit of needed in formation?


I've made the situation as desperate as possible. Can you say in this truly horrible scenario any decision is more moral than another?



Do you give it to the person who has all the money? Do you give it to the women and children? What if the leader suggests making it a majority vote or a lottery? Or should the person who hunts get the food because he has the highest probability of bringing more food supply back to the group?


Cannot answer these silly questions, without the info....


You seem to think I'm trying to put words in your mouth. I'm simply saying I see no moral right or wrong. I simply see people acting in their own interests as humans have always done.



Humans use unregulated money (a stored social value system) as simply one mechanism to deal with allocating scarce resources.


Money itself is worthless. It is only a medium of exchange. It is like any other commodity. Except unlike REAL asset commodities, fiat currency's value is determined by the amount in circulation i.e. supply and demand.


Money is as valuable as people choose to think of it.

If I decided that the US dollar was worthless and I would only exchange Euro's. It doesn't matter how many gold bars the US has backing its currency. The fact that I've shunned the US dollar and only exchange in Euro's debases the US's currency. This is primarily true because cash-flow is often more important than supply or the backing of the currency.

So you can imagine a scenario where the seashells or bottle-caps in this hypothetical society may not be useful to help resolve the dilemma of feeding 5 people with only 2 indivisible units of food. However the money would still be useful exchanging with other roving groups.



However to assume money is the only way to allocate a resource is to ignore the fact that economics, especially as it relates to scarcity, implies a theory of moral reasoning or at the very least provides an excuse to circumvent and ignore moral reasoning.

"?"


My point is all decisions, even when you make a purchase at say Ace Hardware over say Home Depot, imply a moral choice. Even though it's a small choice - it's still nevertheless a moral choice.

If you don't accept that idea follow the link and read the whole article.



Consider if three out of the five are going to die, is it immoral for the hunter to want to kill three people to balance the scales in his favor? After all three people are going to die regardless of the decision. Likewise if the moral code of the community demands "Women and children first," is it unreasonable for the weak mother and daughter to say they should get the food? The leader, recognizing that all these people are looking out for their own interests, might try to diffuse tension by making it a group decision through majority vote or by leveling the playing field to make sure all people have an even chance by making it a random dice roll. Where the person who saved up all his money might rightfully be upset because he held on to his cash for just such an occasion.


I don't know what you did here. But it sounded like you already GAVE an answer that YOU assumed I'd give you.


I gave an answer that demonstrates there is no good answer. If you can come up with a better answer how to feed 5 people with only 2 indivisible units of food I'd be mighty impressed. We have many real world examples of people having to resort to cannibalism in these sorts of scenarios.



he only thing that's amoral is to take more than is needed. If the hunter kills 4 people he's taken away more life than was necessary to sustain himself and one other person in the group. The most moral decision is that which sustains the group the longest. So my point is, is it wrong for a person to take from the rich? No. It's natural and expected, especially when the scales become so unbalanced that people can't even afford drinking water.


I didn't even bother to read the rest of your rant. If you would like an ADULT answer to your HYPOTHETICAL Survivor series scenario then you NEED TO PROVIDE information. I'm no CHILD, yet you expect A LIFE AND DEATH answer to be MADE based ON THREE sentences of INFORMATION. And then..."how kind of you": YOU GIVE an answer that YOU assume I WOULD give, and then CRITICIZE AND CHASTISE ME, with said ANSWER YOU YOURSELF PROVIDED.


Since you seem to dislike the answer I presented by all means come up with a more moral way to resolve that scenario. Once you realize there is no solution you'll understand all humans are basically fighting for their own interests. The only "sin" a person can commit is taking more than they need.

Since people are dying of starvation and due to a lack of water. I think it's fair to say a number of us are sinning on a daily basis.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Gateway
 


Others are moving outside of the country, or moving to a non-US firm and living outside of the US long enough to be able to be paid in a non-dollar currency. They are sitting out until this socialist nonsense runs it course. Why can and are they doing it? Because they are rich! They might be 30, but they don't need to work another day in their lives. They are not going to continue to work 16 hours a day just to send more cash to the government. They don't mind the 16 hours a day - thats how they got rich. They will not do it because they DON"T HAVE TO. It really is that simple


You're right and that's why their assets should be seized. Since people are greedy and lazy, the only way to make people work is to take away all their ill-gotten toys.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by Xtraeme]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


So you are arguing that someone who has a lot of money that decides to not work anymore should have their wealth taken from them? Is that because the have "too much"? Who decides how much is too much?

Do you force them to go back to work? Tough to force a trader to go back to work. He will lose more money the first day then you can imagine.

As far as the out of the country business goes, it is not illegal for a US citizen to be paid in currencys other than dollars. I think it is around 120 days a year that the person needs to be physically in the other country and they can be paid in the local currency. The kicker is that they also in many cases don't pay taxes other than local taxes in the country in which they work. One of the reasons that London is not the world financial capital is because Europeans can get a permanent alien status and live and work in the UK. They pay no taxes in either their country of origin nor the UK beyond local taxes. They have to spend a certain number of days in their country of origin to qualify, which they do through either working from home, taking vacations, seeing clients in that country, bottom-line is that they find a way.

Good for them.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join