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.

 

A New Definition Of Greed

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Voluntary exchange is what created the prosperity you seem to deem as evil.

Voluntary exchange is the only reason someone would actually go out and produce something.

If I desire something someone else has, then I must produce something of value that I can trade them if I am to get from them.

If the other person simply handed me his stuff, and I knew I could always get it by simply asking him, then what reason would I have to go out and engage in productive behavior?

While it is certainly nice of the man to give me his stuff for free, if all the producers did that, nothing would ever get produced.




posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Janky RedWell you stating that taxation is theft is your subjective opinion -

Taxation is far more prevalent in the world than not, empirically so.



I doubt anyone has a problem with taxation iteslf - taxation for the purposes enumerated in the Consititution is acceptable and would necessarilly be very low if limited to those institutions over which the Federal Government has authority.

However, as stated earlier there is no provision in under the US Constitution that authorizes the government to take money from one citizen for the purpose of giving it to another, regardles of the need of the benificiary. There is no provision for the use of Government funds for charity within the US.

Taking something by force, fraud or manipulation from one person and giving it to another is theft by another name.

That is wihout regard to the method used behind the force; at the point of a gun, implication of guilt through pictures of hungy babies or any such other atempt at manipulation, or the tax man via statutes with the threat of incarceration.

The relative wealth of the victim in any crime is just as irrelevant as the need of the beneficiary of the fruits of the same crime.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Voluntary exchange is what created the prosperity you seem to deem as evil.

Voluntary exchange is the only reason someone would actually go out and produce something.

If I desire something someone else has, then I must produce something of value that I can trade them if I am to get from them.

If the other person simply handed me his stuff, and I knew I could always get it by simply asking him, then what reason would I have to go out and engage in productive behavior?

While it is certainly nice of the man to give me his stuff for free, if all the producers did that, nothing would ever get produced.



I am against the run away effects of this exchange, you and foam are both guilty of seeing that every action
has implications. "A Brave New World" is constructed of what you deem impossible or unimportant...
My other objection is that you essentially transfer governance to those with wealth thru a system that compounds wealth exponentially which is a self serving system... I do not consider manipulating a commodity
and digging a hole, equivalent in merit... Your system gives substantial power to those who are professionally unproductive and GREEDY.

Establishing a self serving system that impoverishes people and serves little tangible is Greed - it is a common trait in Government as it is in some realms of meta business, such as derivative trading, water leveraging, OIL.

Making a fine car is productive
Cleaning up a bloody crime scene is productive
Designing your own fire arm is productive

Insuring some garbage pile, manipulation scheme you and your competitors teamed up on is not -

The later is where I make the distinction,

edit on 17-1-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I have a big problem re-branding violent theft as taxation and then claiming it is good.

If something is good for me, it will not require the use of firearms to impose upon me.

I am not a slave.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Covet is a desire for the property.

Greed, by my definition, is a desire to take the property by force.

Covet is about the object, greed is about the excessiveness, the definition is indeed more toward to covetous than greed.


It is impossible to do harm to others by acquiring things through voluntary exchange, since the person giving you the property must be benefiting from the transaction himself.

By voluntarily exchanging things with others, you are actually doing the community a service.

Greed doesn't have anything to do with method, it has anything to do with degree. Such as when resouces are limited or acquiring unnecessary creates too much polution. Greedy is similar to gluttony. It's not illegal but it's harmful. The effect of greed is like glutton, it might do harm in short term, but it'll definitely harmful in long term for the person and or others.
Covet--objects
Greed--degree
edit on Mon 17 Jan 11 by Jazzyguy because: format



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   


The desire to take the fruit of other people's labor without having to work for it.


This sounds more like a definition of premeditated theft. I see greed more as a personal attribute that sits in opposition to conservative. Greed comes across as self centred in action while conservative is community orientated action.



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Golf66
 


I have a big problem re-branding violent theft as taxation and then claiming it is good.

Tax is the law of the land. Obey the law of the land.


If something is good for me, it will not require the use of firearms to impose upon me.

You may feel it's bad but your feeling is subjective.


I am not a slave.

You are not a slave in this matter, since you are NOT forced to stay at all and you may leave. Either that or you can blame your parents. But either way it's not the country's fault. The country will enforce the law of the land, that is what countries do. Do not break the law.
edit on Mon 17 Jan 11 by Jazzyguy because: correction



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


LOL

So that is my choice.

Stay and be a slave or leave.

This is a circular argument.

It does not address the moral justification for imposing slavery in the first place.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

You may laugh about it, but no, everything you said including the moral and the slavery is what you feel about it, it's subjective. If you stay in the hotel you have to pay for the fee, it's not slavery, it's the law. After all you are voluntarily stay there, aren't you not?



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


What kind of a response is that?

Because you like looting people, I should be forced to deal with it?

edit on 18-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

It's a pretty fair question. If you voluntarily stay in your country, you cannot be a slave. Because a slave is not allowed to leave and forced to work. If you stay in the hotel, you should pay the hotel their fee, it's not looting, I believe I'm pretty clear on that. Unless you're expecting the hotel to pay for your room fee, it means you're expecting socialism.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


There is nothing voluntary about having a gun held to my head. A hotel does not use violence to acquire its customer base. It entices them to pay voluntarily with goods and services. The State does not entice anyone to pay, it uses violence against the innocent to make people pay.

Why should I be the one to leave?

Why shouldn't you leave?

By what right are you entitled to use violence against the innocent?

Because the majority thinks looting each other is a good thing?

Is that your only justification?

Saying I should leave is a circular argument, it does not address the moral justification for engaging in violence against the innocent.


edit on 18-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'm on board, I love this idea. I'm not greedy after all. I'll tell you what, nothing more annoying than being a rich guy in a poor country, the greedy beggars are everywhere. Would be nice if they got my money by working for it instead of begging for it.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
I'm on board, I love this idea. I'm not greedy after all. I'll tell you what, nothing more annoying than being a rich guy in a poor country, the greedy beggars are everywhere. Would be nice if they got my money by working for it instead of begging for it.


Apparently you are evil if you want people to work for their paychecks.

At least that's how our current definition of greed reads.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

You are misrepresenting my statement and going all over the place with gun pointing, looting, etc.

I'll say this again, if you voluntarily stay in your country, then you're not a slave, a slave is not allowed to leave. If you are allowed to leave but choose to stay, that's your choice then obey the law of the land, otherwise you're breaking the law. The country has the right to enforce its law.

You have a choice, to stay or not to stay. If you break the law, you are a criminal, since the country has a right to enforce its law, it's not the country's fault but yours. If you don't want to be treated like a criminal then don't break the law.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Making violent theft legal does not automatically make it moral.

Therefore your argument fails.

The US at one point locked up all of its Japanese citizens in concentration camps.

The US at one point had legalized private slavery.

Clearly the fact that something is legal does not make it right.

I suppose your answer to the Japanese citizens we interned during WWII is that they should have left the country.


edit on 18-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I define "wealthy" in a mathematical sense, which is making more money than you spend. I define "poor" as being spending more money than you make. You're middle class if you make equal amount of money as you spend. The desire to make more money than you spend, the desire to be wealthy is good.

...note - If you are wealthy and you have the desire to give back, there are two ways of doing it. First, you can open a business or expand it if you have one already and pay people to work for you, which usually brings in even more abundance if done properly, if it's not a loss leader then it's a wise investment. Second, you can donate your excess money to a charity. Third, the government can take it from you (possibly against your will depending on how you voted) and then implement loss leaders of their own, which does employ people, but may of course be a much less wise investment than you would have made.

The main challenge of the rich is to convince people that they are wiser than the government. Are they? It's a case by case basis.
edit on 18-1-2011 by quantum_flux because:




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
I define "wealthy" in a mathematical sense. Making more money than you spend. I define "poor" as being spending more money than you make. You're middle class if you make equal amount of money as you spend.


I define wealthy in a political sense.

If you make more money on government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, and the suppression of competition through regulations than you pay in taxes, you are wealthy.

If you get looted at a higher rate than you use government services, you are middle class.

If you come out a head in terms of government services used versus how much you pay in taxes, you are poor.


edit on 18-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Note - I updated my entry:


Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by quantum_flux
I define "wealthy" in a mathematical sense. Making more money than you spend. I define "poor" as being spending more money than you make. You're middle class if you make equal amount of money as you spend.


I define wealthy in a political sense.

If you make more money on government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, and the suppression of competition through regulations than you pay in taxes, you are wealthy.

If you get looted at a higher rate than you use government services, you are middle class.

If you come out a head in terms of government services used versus how much you pay in taxes, you are poor.


edit on 18-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


There is not a political definition of wealthy or poor in my mind. I deal in numbers. If the time rate of change of your bank account is positive then you are wealthy. Perhaps we can even look at concavity, if that curve is concave up and the t-roc is positive then you are wealthy and wise. If the curve is concave up and the t-roc is negative then you are poor yet wise...etc. Concave down = foolish
edit on 18-1-2011 by quantum_flux because:




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Making violent theft legal does not automatically make it moral.

Therefore your argument fails.

My statement has nothing to do with legal issue, it's a philosphical matter. You live there voluntarily, you should fulfill your obligation as a citizen. But if you don't want to, no one forced you to stay. You are allowed to leave, you have a choice.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join