Obama and redistribution of Wealth...

Originally posted by dolphinfan
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?

I would say the basics of a civilized society is all people with water, food, and a place to sleep. Until that happens we can't say we're civilized.

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.

Hell I'd just be happy to see them lose a vast chunk of their wealth. For example I know people that are billionaires. Yes, that's right with a 'B.' Ever heard the name Jim Simons? Brilliant and really nice guy, but he doesn't deserve the huge amount of wealth he has. It's simply more than one man needs and / or can use.

I have a very hard time justifying to myself anyone making that much wealth when they haven't actually done anything other than create models that automate millisecond-puts & buys.

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.

Agreed. I had a conversation with someone who was strongly advocating a wealth cap. I pointed out people would simply figure out how to sit at the cap and perpetually circulate money to other economies where there wasn't a cap.

Basically the only solution is to seize assets.

Good for them.

Greed begets guillotines.

I'm actually surprised no one has sat down to create a mathematical model showing the breaking point between the wealth distribution of the upper / middle / lower class that causes inevitable societal upheaval. You'd think a smart greedy person would figure out an accurate formula to model this breaking point before over-enriching themselves.

Basically observing some of my very rich acquaintances all I can say is they're scared sh#tless.

Originally posted by Xtraeme


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.

This is the information that I thought, you would say. You are basically saying everyone brings something to the table. This is the division of labor and this is how society WORKS. By the WAY I noticed you now defined the situation as Nuclear War. Which again points to ONLY one WAY this FAMINE again like any other FAMINE was CAUSED...due to GOVERNMENT. And in your particular scenario NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE.

Back to the division of labor, a hunter due to time constraints, and opportunity costs, has to rely on others to help him with water, shelter, and if need be companionship. The same with the 4 other participants. Therefore it is in their interest...to not bicker, fight nor kill each other for their last meal, but to cooperate and ration what they have. Don't believe me? Do people WHO have FACED life and death situation including STARVATION kill each other so they can eat? Even the Donner PARTY...the people did not resort TO KILL each other for FOOD. Yes some did resort to CANNIBALISM but did so on the ALREADY DEAD. Those that did survive ONLY did so, BY DOING WHAT IS NATURAL AND INSTINCTUAL IN HUMAN NATURE...THEY COOPERATED AND HELPED each other.

Now, you also leave out the participants as being STATIC, and not making any plans themselves. As if FOOD, or the gathering of it or hunting of it, is only done when hunger strikes. As if people do not make plans for their next meal. Human's always make plans, ration, and think of how to prepare for their next meal.

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

How about real situation? Did the people in the DONNER party, do you think they made decisions based on class status?

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.

People always act in their self interest. But have you ever thought that self interest and overall society's interest overlap in some cases. Particularly in one that we live in, this quasi-capitalist society is a good example, where the individual's self interest overlaps with society. Just like it is in Bill Gate's interest to dominate through competition (and of course no government intervention) the O.S. market. Though here Bill Gates has amassed great wealth he has made society better OFF in that we all have nice O.S. systems on our P.C. which makes things a lot easier. Or Sam Walton, great expansion of Walmart has amassed him great wealth, so too does SOCIETY AND CONSUMERS benefit by having greater access to goods.

Of course this individual self interest is DISTORTED AND CAN BE DANGEROUS AND HURTFUL to society IF IT IS COMBINED WITH GOVERNMENT DECREES OR LAWS THAT BENEFIT THE FEW rather than the many. But that is an inherent problem of GOVERNMENT meddling and not of self interest per se...for as without government making or coercing the many to the wants of the fews...then the few have no real coercions or power over the many.

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.

Sure, you can do that now. But you don't dictate what the market decides as whole to use as a medium of exchange. That decision is left to usually the MARKET...that is unless country X decides to use fiat currency as a FORCED MEDIUM of exchange. You think people decided to use paper money? You think it is legal for me to buy something with gold or any other form of exchange. I guarantee you that if the current currency law we have in the books were repealed and allowed for private issued money...that people would turn away from the dollar. How do I know? Why do people rush to GOLD in times of uncertainty or when forecasting inflation?


You have numerous other MISCONCEPTIONS, which I do not have time to delve into tonight since I have to work in the morning. But this is just for begging.....I'LL get to the rest of your misconceptions tomorrow or some other day.



[edit on 18-8-2009 by Gateway]

Originally posted by Gateway
This is the information that I thought, you would say. You are basically saying everyone brings something to the table. This is the division of labor and this is how society WORKS. By the WAY I noticed you now defined the situation as Nuclear War. Which again points to ONLY one WAY this FAMINE again like any other FAMINE was CAUSED...due to GOVERNMENT. And in your particular scenario NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE.

I defined the situation as nuclear detonation.

According to numerous news releases nuclear materials have been available on the black market and available to terrorist groups for some time now. I suppose next you'll tell me that jihadists who strap bombs to their bodies and detonate themselves in highly populated areas are acting out of governmental interest?

To assume government is the root cause of all problems is a bit like blaming ones parents for making poor life decisions.

Back to the division of labor, a hunter due to time constraints, and opportunity costs, has to rely on others to help him with water, shelter, and if need be companionship. The same with the 4 other participants. Therefore it is in their interest...to not bicker, fight nor kill each other for their last meal, but to cooperate and ration what they have. Don't believe me? Do people WHO have FACED life and death situation including STARVATION kill each other so they can eat? Even the Donner PARTY...the people did not resort TO KILL each other for FOOD. Yes some did resort to CANNIBALISM but did so on the ALREADY DEAD. Those that did survive ONLY did so, BY DOING WHAT IS NATURAL AND INSTINCTUAL IN HUMAN NATURE...THEY COOPERATED AND HELPED each other.

The Donner party had dead bodies available to consume. In early Jamestown, back in 1607, the situation was more dire and one man, out of desperation, killed and ate his pregnant wife due to famine.

I'd like to also point out that you side-stepped the question. "Who do you allocate the two units of food to?" If I were to read between the lines your answer can be summed up as, "when someone dies they'll now have 3 morsels of food!"

Make no mistake there are real world shortages of food and water; and, yes, people determine how to allocate those physically scarce resources by using every means of moral reasoning under the sun (favoritism, group survivability logic, majority vote, lottery, unregulated money, moral code of the society, might-makes-right, etc) to bolster their position at cost to someone else.

Since in your view greed and human competitiveness apparently have nothing to do with people getting hurt in a situation of true scarcity. I challenge you to explain why in a world of plenty we have 16,000 children dying per day largely due to undernutrition or, to be more blunt, starvation.

Please explain to me how Coca-Cola plants that drop the water-table from 20 feet in depth to 150 feet is enriching anyone other than themselves, especially in agrarian communities that depend on water for farming?

Oh, that's right Coca Cola is making a profit and thus their usage of the water is clearly superior to that of the peasant farmers who try to scrape out an existence by feeding themselves and their families based on the fruits of their own labors, on their own land no less!

If anything I write here sticks I hope it's this:

The idea of what is moral is completely bogus. The closest thing to rational morality comes through Kant's categorical imperative and in this scenario the only thing that can be said to be "a sin" is taking more than a person needs preventing someone else from having food, water and shelter.

We have many examples in recent history of companies going way, WAY beyond what they need or deserve in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Now, you also leave out the participants as being STATIC, and not making any plans themselves. As if FOOD, or the gathering of it or hunting of it, is only done when hunger strikes. As if people do not make plans for their next meal. Human's always make plans, ration, and think of how to prepare for their next meal.

A person can plan out their next meal it doesn't mean that they're going to acquire it if they lack the resources or skill to get it.

If you don't want to deal with the hypothetical scenario because you refuse to confront the fact that there are situations occurring right now requiring you to determine whether or not YOU as an individual enrich yourself or help make it possible for someone else to survive, you're more than welcome to fool yourself.

My point was fairly straight-forward in my original post, but since I didn't state it explicitly I will now:

We cannot call ourselves a civilized race until all people have water, food, and basic shelter. Until that happens we cannot say we're civilized.

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

How about real situation? Did the people in the DONNER party, do you think they made decisions based on class status?

Alright lets talk about the 1943 famine in India where an estimated 3 million people died. Do you think the untouchables were the first to feel the sting of the famine or was it the Brahmins who suffered first?

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.

People always act in their self interest. But have you ever thought that self interest and overall society's interest overlap in some cases. Particularly in one that we live in, this quasi-capitalist society is a good example, where the individual's self interest overlaps with society. ... Or Sam Walton, great expansion of Walmart has amassed him great wealth, so too does SOCIETY AND CONSUMERS benefit by having greater access to goods.

Capitalism does not solve all problems. Consider the goal of capitalism isn't to drive down scarcity for society, but for the people who invest in the company. Put in economic terms capitalism produces a bell-shaped curve on return on investment (ROI) for society.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b0b0dd02b6df.png[/atsimg]

Just like it is in Bill Gate's interest to dominate through competition (and of course no government intervention) the O.S. market. Though here Bill Gates has amassed great wealth he has made society better OFF in that we all have nice O.S. systems ...

Of course this individual self interest is DISTORTED AND CAN BE DANGEROUS AND HURTFUL to society IF IT IS COMBINED WITH GOVERNMENT DECREES OR LAWS THAT BENEFIT THE FEW rather than the many. But that is an inherent problem of GOVERNMENT meddling and not of self interest per se...for as without government making or coercing the many to the wants of the fews...then the few have no real coercions or power over the many.

Having worked at Microsoft as a software developer I can say with some clarity that if it weren't for the US govt filing an Antitrust lawsuit the consumer would be much worse for wear. MS was literally crushing the competition. Government acts as a stabilizing agent. Certainly no government is perfect, but to think the absence of regulation and the "hand that guides the market" solves all things is a bit like a herder thinking he doesn't need a fence & can just leave his sheep in the pasture assuming God will protect them from the wolves.

All things have and need boundaries.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Are you serious with that tripe?

Who are you to decide what is "too much"?

Simply because you havent been able to succeed in life is no reason to penalize others for doing what you couldnt.

know who else shares your sentiments? Hugo Chavez

[edit on 18-8-2009 by TheAftermath]

Originally posted by TheAftermath
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Are you serious with that tripe?

Who are you to decide what is "too much"?

Simply because you havent been able to succeed in life is no reason to penalize others for doing what you couldnt.

know who else shares your sentiments? Hugo Chavez

[edit on 18-8-2009 by TheAftermath]

Unlike most other people I actually define what "too much" is. If there's a single person who doesn't have food, water, or shelter and someone else has an inequality greater than everyone else. The money from that person would then be taken and given to the other person to have enough to basically live.

Frankly, if you think someone else should have the right to possess a toy over someone having the ability to have a life I think you need to seriously take a deep look at what you consider to be morally correct.

reply to post by Xtraeme


It is you who need to take a hard look at your morality. You're essentially a well meaning despot. History is full of folks like you. Crazy. They all had the best of intentions based on equality. Funny thing is that they would up killing millions of people.

Again, the problem is that when you seize wealth you destroy the incentive to create wealth. As the amoung of wealth declines and you have less and less to distribute, you are on the road to civil unrest. Well now, that is easy to correct. simply thin out the population.

Your world-view is frightening.

If you are so concerned about wealth distribution, join the Peace Corp.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

It is you who need to take a hard look at your morality. You're essentially a well meaning despot. History is full of folks like you. Crazy. They all had the best of intentions based on equality. Funny thing is that they would up killing millions of people.

Again, the problem is that when you seize wealth you destroy the incentive to create wealth. As the amoung of wealth declines and you have less and less to distribute, you are on the road to civil unrest. Well now, that is easy to correct. simply thin out the population.

Your world-view is frightening.

If you are so concerned about wealth distribution, join the Peace Corp.

Amusingly you don't actually argue against my logic. You simply cite history as a benchmark and then label me a despot. Well in turn I'll label you an economic assassin killing children in 3rd world nations. Since you apparently see this as a part of a normal and healthy world cycle.

Now that we're hopefully past name calling the economic dictum that I'm promoting is this: we define what "too much" is by what's "too little." If a person can't survive and someone has more than they need then clearly that person is in a position to help. By putting economic pressure on that person with the excess money it encourages them to use their wealth to drive down shortage of water, food, and shelter.

Note this sits alongside capitalism and a free-market system in a healthy way. It doesn't say "Marxism" or "Capitalism." It doesn't have to be either or.

As for your argument that this sort of system would destroy incentive to create wealth. I disagree. I wrote a long post awhile back discussing this very idea. If you care to read it you can find it here.

reply to post by Xtraeme


The problem with your theory and it is more of a political theory than an economic one is that its basis is the destruction of freedom, plain and simple. By what right do you seize assets and who would you propose seize them? How do they get selected and by whom? Are the citizens of one nation or is it a global body, akin to the UN who is responsible for the terms, conditions and actual redistribution of wealth?

Driving the world to the lowest common denominator does nothing to help those less fortunate. I'm sorry and it is regrettable that folks live in terrible conditions around the world. It is also unfortunate that that has always been the case. We should strongly encourage people to assist them, but there is a stark difference between encouragement and forcing.

As far as your logic which suggests that seizing assets would not create a disincentive to create wealth. Sounds great. Only problem is that it never has nor never will work in practice.

We can leave the rest of the world out of it for now. In western societys it is pretty well known what you need to do to have a decent life. Go to school (free), don't use drugs (free choice), don't commit crimes (free choice), don't have kids until you can afford them (free choice), get married and stay married (free choice). Funny how all of these "rules" have "free" in them.

As far as the rest of the world goes, it is clear and obvious that there are ways of organizing societys that are more successful than others. Should western societys subsidize those societys who have organized themselves in manners that have proven not to be successful. Do those societys based on tribal rule have the "right" to live that way and have that lifestyle subsidized by the rest of the world for ever? You realize that it will be forever, you're a very smart person. Why is that just?

It feels good, I realize that, but it is not just.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Heres a novel idea: You keep your morals to yourself and stop trying to impose them on others.

Seriously, have you considered Venezuela? It seems to be much more to your liking.

Freedom isnt really that big of a deal to you is it?

How much of your personal income do you just give away to "less fortunate" people?

90%?

95%?

[edit on 18-8-2009 by TheAftermath]

reply to post by TheAftermath


What's ashame is you probably don't understand the concept of Kant's Universal Law. Since you're willing to put yourself outside the moral framework that I argued in favor of (there is no right or wrong only taking more than you need) that suggests people should simply take from you because you yourself don't want to be beholden to that concept.

Hope you like what you see in the mirror because it sure ain't pretty. May God have mercy on your pitiful soul.

We need to design a system where everything is based on income. Housing could be based on 10-30% of your income. Utlities 5-10% and car payments 5%. Food prices would be set by each infdivual store. Gas prices could not exceed $2/gallon. Our biggest problem in america is money rather than redistrubiting wealth we need to even out prices.
If you need less money to buy things than it won't matter if you only make $1,000 per month.
The less money a person makes the less that should have to pay for things. If someone makes $1,000 per month they would only have to pay $100 in rent.
Those who make $2,000/month would pay 20% and those who make 3,000/month would pay 30%. It would not go over 30%. Of course it may not work if people suddenly stop living in those run down apartments.
That would mean those run down apartment owners may suddenly decide to fix up their apartments.
It is too complicated now to start a new system but this is how we should have started our system in the first place.

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by TheAftermath

 

What's ashame is you probably don't understand the concept of Kant's Universal Law. Since you're willing to put yourself outside the moral framework that I argued in favor of (there is no right or wrong only taking more than you need) that suggests people should simply take from you because you yourself don't want to be beholden to that concept.

Hope you like what you see in the mirror because it sure ain't pretty. May God have mercy on your pitiful soul.

I look in the mirror every day and live a happy life.

The last thing I need is some twit trying to impose his ridiculous morals on others.

reply to post by Xtraeme


Tell me if the following things mean anything to you:

Freedom

The Constitution

Private Property rights

Only asking because what you propose would do away with all of them.

Again, I ask: Why dont you move to Venezuela? I would be happy to pay for your relocation with one condition. You never again step foot in the United States.

Sound good?

reply to post by Evolution2012


the "re-distribution" of wealth DOES need to occur but not in the obama socialist way. 96% of the world's wealth is held by 1% of the pop. that ain't right ahhhhhhh no it doesnt need to be "redistributed"
by the way that is called stealing.
Its not "held by" its owned by, you make it sound like they are just holding it for a minute. they own it because they built it.
ya know lets loose the class warfare please

reply to post by Xtraeme


I'm actually surprised no one has sat down to create a mathematical model showing the breaking point between the wealth distribution of the upper / middle / lower class that causes inevitable societal upheaval. You'd think a smart greedy person would figure out an accurate formula to model this breaking point before over-enriching themselves.
Its not societal upheaval it's greed and jelouscy of the rich.

reply to post by Xtraeme


My father was involved with Castle Bravo the largest US h bomb detonation on march 1 1954 15 megatons.
He received a large dose of radiation.

reply to post by mnymj


By the way the next event in Bible Prophecy is WW3 which it says will kill the "third part of men" thats one third of mankind.

also refered to as the sixth trumpet war.

I would suggest everyone get right with god while you can.

reply to post by TheAftermath


Well Said Well Said

Originally posted by Xtraeme
I defined the situation as nuclear detonation.

Ok.

According to numerous news releases nuclear materials have been available on the black market and available to terrorist groups for some time now.

Funny how you didn’t mention the FACT that THE CREATION of Nuclear Weapons came FROM the DEMAND OF THE STATE, or Government. Or does the Private Market have Nuclear Weapons? I don’t see individuals demanding for Weapons of Mass Destruction. These GOODS are only demanded by the STATE.

I suppose next you'll tell me that jihadists who strap bombs to their bodies and detonate themselves in highly populated areas are acting out of governmental interest?

Are groups within Iraq, Palestine, or Afghanistan blowing themselves up at the behest of a LARGER group who is WISHING STATE HOOD? Or are they blowing themselves up to destroy their competitors? This has nothing to do with markets nor capitalism. It has however to do with a COLLECTIVE WANT. I can hardly imagine employees of company X blowing themselves up at company Y’s headquarters so as to limit COMPETITION. The ULTIMATE interest in an individual HERE is at the BEHEST is not FOR themselves, BUT A PERCEIVED INTEREST OF THE COLLECTIVE OR State, or further Government control. Be they, Sunni/Shia Nationalists in Iraq, the PLO or Hamas groups vying for POWER or the Taliban/Al queda in Afganistan.

Here you are confused that the ACT of blowing yourself up is at the interest of the self, but rather AS IN perceived interest FOR THE COLLECTIVE. IN this case a collective vying for FURTHER GOVERNMENT POWER.

To assume government is the root cause of all problems is a bit like blaming ones parents for making poor life decisions.

Another silly analogy, you are equating parents, WHO are responsible for teaching morality, cultural norms, and education to an offspring, and making a claim that GOVERNMENT or paraphrasing that it is GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to partake this in your life.

Were you dragged-out of your home and taught at government sanctioned institutions simple do’s and don’t on life? (Don’t steal, don’t kill, respect other people’s property…etc)

Here’s another example: If the American people VOTED for Bush, are they responsible for the DEATHS of Innocent Iraqis in a unjustified WAR? Bush didn’t go through our Constitutional channels to appeal to the people for WAR. Congress or the body which more accurately reflects the population did not have a say in this act…






[edit on 18-8-2009 by Gateway]

So NO, theoretically as well as logically the people are not to be blamed because of the ACTS of individual tyrants within the STATE, who claim to have the support of the people, because they were elected. Is the GERMAN people RESPONSIBLE for the MURDER of MILLIONS of Jews or was the STATE of Germany responsible?

You are confusing THE STATE, THE INDIVIDUALS WITH IN THE STATE, and AND THE PUBLIC and meshing them up…as IF it were ONE OF THE SAME.

The Donner party had dead bodies available to consume.

I didn’t know human are considered normal food? Well, were the people in the Potato famine killing each other or eating their dead? Or the people in the African famines? Where they killing each other or eating their own dead? Or were these people EVEN WITH faced with something AS TERRIBLE as FAMINE that they TOO sought out cooperation, given what little resources they have.

By the way this is what MARX, partially fails....he assumes and makes the philosophical idea that CONFLICT is inherent in human nature. That is WHY he sees, or makes the premise of CLASS STRUGGLE as leading to CONFLICT. When in fact cooperation is inherent in human nature? Sure conflicts do occur within individuals…but mass CONFLICT, DEATH; AND DEGREDATION can only occur AMOUNG STATES. As in the U.S. vs. Iraq…or whatever… generally individuals within different societies do not HATE each other.

In early Jamestown, back in 1607, the situation was direr and one man, out of desperation, killed and ate his pregnant wife due to famine.

Your point being? Was this something common place among the early Pilgrims? Or was this an isolated case? You cannot draw conclusions on individual acts…and claim that society therefore generally resorts to the lowest common denominator faced with a dire situation.

But I on the contrary, can make the claim that GOVERNEMNTS are inherently evil, since they ARE the only MECHANISM possible which, THINKS ITSELF ABOVE MORAL REPROACH…for they are the ONES WHO SEE NOTHING WRONG WITH MASS MURDER (WAR) THEAFT (TAXATION) AND SLAVERY (CONSCRIPTION)

Time and time again, only this institution partakes in it. And if you are going to bring up SLAVERY as something the private sector has created you might as well not. Because mass involuntary SLAVERY is something that can only be condoned and enforced by the STATE. What other institution punished people for freeing or protecting the SLAVE trade? If the government was never involved as heavily in this abominable institution I doubt SLAVERY would have ever lasted as long. All government needed to do is protect individual right of people. And since people include Blacks they would have never been considered part of chattel. Again, the State here is interfering in MARKETS. If individual right is a recognized form of property right, because only YOU THE INDIVIDUAL HAVE claims over you, and hence can very much protect yourself and property. Had this BEEN ACCEPTED by the STATE, all SLAVES would have EVERY RIGHT TO NOT just use every means necessary to protect them, but could have amassed enough sense to REVOLT. And had they revolted, the STATE WOULD have recognized that their individual rights were interfered with.

I'd like to also point out that you side-stepped the question. "Who do you allocate the two units of food to?" If I were to read between the lines your answer can be summed up as, "when someone dies they'll now have 3 morsels of food!"

I guess I need to spell out what I said to simplify it for you. Based on my perception of man, I see the group as trying to work to attain, plan for, and divide up labor to best suit their outcome. It would be impossible to say, her eating and this person not is the best outcome. Since all outcomes are subjective, and your particular morality decides for you THIS IS CORRECT and that IS NOT. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me as an OUTSIDER to DICTATE to a group of 5 this person shall eat, and this one shall not. That decision is best reached in the group.

I will say, UNLIKE you that I GUARANTEE that the OUTCOME of who shall eat AND WHO SHALL not SHALL BE MADE according to a consensus. Therefore NO CONFLICT will occur since the group will reach their decision based on THEIR INFORMATION. How am I to make a decision and a moral decision based on something that I MYSELF am not partaking in? I’m not any of the 5...who am I to say what is the morally correct answer if the group ITSELF reached its own conclusion?

You and I see this situation differently: You see your own scenario as simplistic for you put it as 2 peaces of food and five people trying to kill each other for it…and no other possible outcome could be made possible. Somebody wins somebody loses, according to you and hence all are WORSE off. (believe it or not, you are showing your own MARXIST views here)


[edit on 18-8-2009 by Gateway]