Gee, I wonder if this means you are opposed to inherited wealth (didn't 'work' for it, ya know).
If that wealth is stolen wealth, then the person who stole it errs. Otherwise, it is perfectly moral to receive wealth given in accordance with the will of the giver. Think deeper. This is really not that hard.
Wonder 'what JC would say' about tossing the infirm and the ill over-board?
Jesus Christ is complete nonsense for non-Christian nations, governments and heathen people, including you. So He has no more authority than Ayn Rand to demand we take care of anyone.
Sorry guy, I'm NOT with you on that one. Say, $10 Billion vs., what?, $100 Grand?
It is much more than 100 Grand. That much goes to only one desecrating artist. I only used art as one of thousands of examples. Nevertheless, it is the principle that counts - always. So then if you refuse to support the principle, stop whining about your petty 10 Billions.
Yeah, right... whatever you say. When I learn to read your mind I'll get back to you.
Well, the point of all this is that you first need to read period, and then get back to me.
Plenty of 'rich people' try to steal that 'power' called money too...
(sigh) Then they are wrong, of course - which correlates with my contention.
My point is that, left or right, you've got plenty of people sitting there ready to steal. Get used to it.
Irrelevant.
You contradict yourself here. How can it be 'unimpressive' if the society (and individuals within it) are achieving their relative success 'in the face of extraordinary human oppression.'!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because the systems to which you have referred maintain their state as we know it by in part literally crushing the lives of other humans. In the face of this sort of oppression, 'economic functionality' is unimpressive. It would be far more impressive were these systems capable of producing the same levels of functionality, but ethically. They don't - so your point dies. It is also irrelevant.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now here is my argument: such a society (with all wealth in 1% of the hands) would FAIL...
Perhaps it would - perhaps it would not. That is an argument that simply does not interest me at the moment. The fact is, there is absolutely nothing, not one single thing, that is morally wrong with my owning everything and you owning nothing if I acquire my wealth without myself taking your rights.
[a system wherein 1% of the population controls everything] must have many internal contradictions and inherent weaknesses to have never even developed even ONCE in all of history).
Well, it has developed and many people have died within such systems. Many starve today as a result of having nothing. Their having nothing has no bearing at all on the wealth of their more favored neighbors if those neighbors acquired their wealth without removing the rights of those who starve.
And it would most likely FAIL VIOLENTLY... either from external conquest, or internal revolution.
If those who rise in violence harm those who ethically own everything, they err.
If failure and disaster is an inherent feature of such an economic model and distribution of wealth... than I would argue that that particular model represented an 'immoral choice' for human societies
Your "failure" and "disaster" here are both religious hogwash. Here is objective failure, the direct slaughter of countless innocent children, all of whom had an innate right to have the lives you directly took from them. That is a disaster against human character. Acquiring 100% of the wealth is no objective disaster. That others may die of natural causes such as starvation is a fact of nature - a fact that is not our obligation to remedy at all.
Obviously you don't care, but I reject your 'leftist' characterization as demonstrably false and illinformed.
You are most correct: I do not care. But of course my calling you a leftist is no great issue. It is just an opinion that you've already rejected. I think it is quite accurate however. When you sanction the removal of the innate rights of other humans, you are indeed a leftist, despite your little "tests."
Like Hell it does. You can't 'wish away' an argument you merely don't want to address.
I don't "wish" it away. It is just that it hasn't a thing to do what my point. If you wish to discuss it, discuss it elsewhere - or catch me when I am interested in it - which at the moment I am not.
You are still arguing with yourself here...
It presents a greater challenge than arguing against you.
Tell me when and if you decide that the USA is the country you wish to legally enroll in... or if you have your eyes cast to some other spot on the Globe.
The United States is the single greatest nation in the history of civilization. I choose to remain enrolled in it. But I wish to make it greater by consistently pressing it to reject the ever encroaching leftist doctrines of human oppression and death.
Sorry, the existence (the continued existence ) of human society is not 'irrelevant' to me.
But it is certainly irrelevant to the argument at hand, to wit, it is not wrong at all for only 1 person to own 100 percent of a nation's wealth so long as that wealth accumulation has occurred without that person's having taken anyone else's right.
In other words: you CAN'T... you are BEFUDDLED. (You sing hossanas to this 'music of the spheres', this 'language of nature'... but you are illiterate in it).
I am certainly not "illiterate" in math. I am just too weak in it to describe existence.
It's OK, nothing to be ashamed of... but you will now forgive me if I don't believe you have any direct pipeline into the thinking of Nature and 'Natural Law', and consequently, your 'observations' on the teachings of the Universe may safely be disregarded.
Fine, but simply disregarding the fact that is in your own flesh on the basis of my poor credentials is no fitting argument. And it still does not remove the truth.
I didn't ask for all of it... just the least little part!
And that is precisely what I have given - the least little part, precious little, so little that even you should be able to understand it. But it seems I must give even less.
Logic, too, can be expressed formally. Have at it, I'm listening.
Indeed, and I am certainly not "illiterate" in formal logic. But even here, the use of formal logic to transmit so broad an idea as human character and existence would consume the entire forum. You first understand and accept in your bones the broad ideas, and I will certainly make an attempt to formalize sections of them for you. In fact I do this all the time.
R-I-G-H-T.... you don't want to scare off the poor, ill-educated natives here with your fountains of wisdom. I get it.....
It is not a matter of scaring off anyone, Buddy. But to get involved with formal symbolic logic here is just foolish. Surely you understand this. We are just too broad at this point. I am trying to make a very large argument and have you (or anyone) see the biggest picture. If that happens and you can pick apart the big picture, show its flaws, allow me to retool it, we can certainly formalize and then hash it out in detail. I do have that ability - at least some of it.
?????????? How have I 'redefined humanity'??????????
See below.
So, your personal morality is relativistic... based upon human forms and norms? ... Not derived from anything greater than our pitiful little species of hairless ape?
It relativistic only inasmuch as it relates to the existence of that certain family of creatures in possession of the genetic marker that uniquely identifies them as human - as "us." Apes simply do not have that character.
Sorry, I tend to take what I believe is a longer view... and look to things like speciation events.....
If creatures do not possess the logic that accounts for all human creatures in our family, morality does not apply to them. They are not us. And that is objectively apparent, Buddy.
I looked. Nothing I wasn't already in the know about. As I said: I prefer to look at larger complications, beyond any narrow species-centric focus or mythology. You are welcome though.
And this is how you redefine humanity. You reduce what you are in nature to that which is as significant as everything. That is effective nihilism and serves as a basis for nothing.
You have two objective choices before you - and they are literally all we have in nature. You may choose morality based upon human identity, or morality based upon the identity of everything. Should you choose the latter, then nothing human really matters at all. |
