Buffet/Gates

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

you forgot the 'don't care' part

live and don't care

Living requires caring....caring for one's life and caring for the lives of those who support you. What you want is for me to pretend to care about that which gives me no reason to care and would not return my care.

if caring about the quality of life of those less fortunate than me is somehow bad then go ahead and paint me out as the bad guy with a gun.

It doesn't take a gun to care for the less fortunate. It takes the opposite of a gun: your mind.

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Jesus, this is exasperating.

How do you propose to live a country, benefitting from the services and protections that said country provides, and then say that you feel no obligation to pay the taxes that contribute to the country's infrastructure?

I don't propose to benefit from the services and protections that said country provides. I propose to benefit from the services and protections those whom I willingly pay provide and the services and protections I provide myself.

I don't want your "services" and "protections" any more than I want a $100,000 golf cart.

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

Are you going to pay someone to build roads for you to drive on?

Most certainly.

Are you going to hire your own personal police force and fire department?

No.

farfromglorified wrote:

Living requires caring....caring for one's life and caring for the lives of those who support you. What you want is for me to pretend to care about that which gives me no reason to care and would not return my care.

Caring for one another makes a better world. That is the reason you should care. I care about people who are suffering especially and I ask for no caring in return.

farfromglorified wrote:

It doesn't take a gun to care for the less fortunate. It takes the opposite of a gun: your mind.

Since those in control of the world's resources seem to careless, there needs to be laws protecting those who are less fortunate. Your first statement is the exact reason why these laws are needed. The whole 'why should I care' stance leaves good people out in the cold.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Caring for one another makes a better world. That is the reason you should care. I care about people who are suffering especially and I ask for no caring in return.

I care about more people than I can count. Family, friends, employees, customers, partners, people throughout the world without whom I'd never be able to have the comforts I have today. And I reward those people for the things they do for me. I give them time, effort, money, love....whatever they value that I can provide.

But how does "caring for one another" make this a better world? Can someone eat my care? Can someone live in my care? Can my care save someone's life? Of course not. Only my work or the work of others can feed you. Only my work or the work of others can build your house. Only my work or the work of others can save your life.

You don't want my care. You want my money. You don't want my love. You want my labor. You want those things without providing a value to me. That isn't care -- that is guilt. You want me to be guilty. You want me to feel that I've committed a crime -- the crime of living by my values, not yours. It is only through guilt and force that you can extract what you want and the system you're advocating demonstrates that fact. You tell me to "give back" as if I've stolen something, ignoring the value I've already given to those who have helped me. And if that doesn't work you'll send your goon squads as if I've taken aggressive action at you based on nothing more than my indifference.

Since those in control of the world's resources seem to careless, there needs to be laws protecting those who aren't as fortunate. Your first statemtn is the exact reason why these laws are needed. The whole 'why should I care' stance leaves good people out in the cold.

The only stance that leaves good people out in the cold is the stance of the man standing in the cold or the actions of the men who push them out into it. If you can convict me of pushing one man into the cold, I'll pay your ransom. Otherwise, you can take your Original Sin back to the church where it belongs. My birth was not a crime.

farfromglorified wrote:

I care about more people than I can count. Family, friends, employees, customers, partners, people throughout the world without whom I'd never be able to have the comforts I have today. And I reward those people for the things they do for me. I give them time, effort, money, love....whatever they value that I can provide.

But how does "caring for one another" make this a better world? Can someone eat my care? Can someone live in my care? Can my care save someone's life? Of course not. Only my work or the work of others can feed you. Only my work or the work of others can build your house. Only my work or the work of others can save your life.

You don't want my care. You want my money. You don't want my love. You want my labor. You want those things without providing a value to me. That isn't care -- that is guilt. You want me to be guilty. You want me to feel that I've committed a crime -- the crime of living by my values, not yours. It is only through guilt and force that you can extract what you want and the system you're advocating demonstrates that fact. You tell me to "give back" as if I've stolen something, ignoring the value I've already given to those who have helped me. And if that doesn't work you'll send your goon squads as if I've taken aggressive action at you based on nothing more than my indifference.



The only stance that leaves good people out in the cold is the stance of the man standing in the cold or the actions of the men who push them out into it. If you can convict me of pushing one man into the cold, I'll pay your ransom. Otherwise, you can take your Original Sin back to the church where it belongs. My birth was not a crime.

Yes, your care can, indeed, result in food and the livelihood of others. If your beloved money pays for a meal then that person does not starve, that person lives on. It's too bad the livelihood of other human beings has no 'value' to you but I couldn't disagree more.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, your care can, indeed, result in food and the livelihood of others. If your beloved money pays for a meal then that person does not starve, that person lives on.

????

In your example my "care" is irrelevant. The only relevant products are the money, the food, and the labor of all parties.

It's too bad the livelihood of other human beings has no 'value' to you but I couldn't disagree more.

The exact opposite is what's bothering you. It's not that I don't value human beings, it's that I do. The livelihood of all human beings has a value, a value extending from the thoughts and actions of the human that sustains its life.

It's you who ignores the value of those lives (virtue). It's you who decry the payments people receive for their virtues (profit). It's you who demand payment only in the absence of value.

farfromglorified wrote:

????

In your example my "care" is irrelevant. The only relevant products are the money, the food, and the labor of all parties.

Yeah, because you leave out the 'care' so it has to be a law. How would this person end up without the law in the absense of your 'care'?

farfromglorified wrote:

The exact opposite is what's bothering you. It's not that I don't value human beings, it's that I do. The livelihood of all human beings has a value, a value extending from the thoughts and actions of the human that sustains its life.

It's you who ignores the value of those lives (virtue). It's you who decry the payments people receive for their virtues (profit). It's you who demand payment only in the absence of value.

Are you saying poor people have no virtue? People don't always receive profits because of virtue. I have no problem with profits as long as they don't infringe upon another's livelihood. Sometimes people have tons of virtue but don't ever see much of the profit it creates. Your only value of people is the profit they create.

PonderingMyMaker wrote:

Isn't it ironic? In the end, these two capitalist pigs, perverse accumulators of wealth, enemies of the common people, will do more for poor people than every whiny liberal ever born.

I wonder, at this point, if Ed feels kind of silly for mocking Gates.

Who are you to judge these guys....I can personally tell you that Warren Buffet is a good person, always has been. Very humble in fact, you never know how much money he had by talking to him.

farfromglorified wrote:

Quite well, since he wouldn't be sitting around waiting for someone's care to build him a house.

is that a fact? what about those people with tons of virtue that don't ever see the profit?

farfromglorified wrote:

No. Why would you think that?

because you said that the value of life is virtue and that people receive profit for their virtue.

ffg wrote:

It's you who ignores the value of those lives (virtue). It's you who decry the payments people receive for their virtues (profit). It's you who demand payment only in the absence of value.

farfromglorified wrote:

So in the other words no one has a right to profit as long as someone, somewhere is in need?

Is that what I said? I said their profit shouldn't cause others misfortune.

farfromglorified wrote:

Not at all. That's one of the values I see in people. I value any virtue in any person I meet, regardless of their profit.

But not enough to care?