Courage to Resist

12357

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Nope, I'm saying everything can't be compared along the same lines.

    Ok. But I'm comparing how things are owned based on blanked statements on how things should be owned. Doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.
    You said you took a chance and they didn't. So you consider yourself to have more merit.

    No. I said both approaches are completely valid, based on the person who makes them and the reasons for them.
    Suffering happens when everyone doesn't earn your 'merit' and has a harder life because of it. Look around, do you think people choose to be impoverished?

    Often times, yes. Often times, no. You're confusing "choose to be" and "want to be".

    No one suffers because they don't "earn my merit". You say that because you think I'm withholding something from them. But what you need to understand is that what I'm "withholding" from them wouldn't have existed in the first place if I didn't earn it for myself. And no where would I suggest that the same opportunities shouldn't be open to them.
    These choices are often based on personalities and surely everyone isn't going to have your personality traits so that makes the playing field uneven, imo.

    Huh? Couldn't I claim that my personality then blocks me from having what they have or doing what they do?
    You have the buying power. You have the power to determine what they earn. Or of course go else where, where someone else will also determine it.

    The "buying power" of what? And I have no power to determine what they earn. I don't force anyone to work for me. I don't force anyone to accept the wage I offer. I leave that choice to them, and many have turned me down that I would have liked to have "power" over.
    So what happens when people don't share...you know like it is now most often? You view doesn't say you shouldn't share, just don't force me to share? So, I know I should share the blocks but I decide not to anyways. Where does that leave you? And you think the power hungry are gonna just start sharing under your view OR are they gonna to be more free to be gain MORE power?? When few have power over many...that is not liberty.

    You're again confusing my position. I'm not saying you "shouldn't share". You should share, if that's what you believe is right. And to prescribe sharing or selfishness on another is to decrease liberty, either way.

    Liberty is not a measure of property. Liberty is what makes property possible. When Proudhon tells you "all property is theft", he forgets that theft is impossible without property. Theft cannot disprove property -- it can only exist with it.
    I do and I am of course fine with you doing the same. I just don't care for every thread to be turned into this clash of the same ideals which we never agree on. If you feel you must then fine go ahead, I'm just expressing how I feel about it.

    Me too.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ok. But I'm comparing how things are owned based on blanked statements on how things should be owned. Doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.

    It does to me. And both views require a blanket view. Principles work that way, often.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. I said both approaches are completely valid, based on the person who makes them and the reasons for them.

    I never said you thought one was invalid. You do, however, think one is more deserving because of the chooses he has made.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Often times, yes. Often times, no. You're confusing "choose to be" and "want to be".

    No, I'm not confusing them at all. You're ignoring the 'choose to' be because you know no one wants that but it happens all the time because of circumstances along with choices, perhaps bads ones, perhaps risks that didn't pan out. Your view leaves these people in suffering.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    No one suffers because they don't "earn my merit". You say that because you think I'm withholding something from them. But what you need to understand is that what I'm "withholding" from them wouldn't have existed in the first place if I didn't earn it for myself. And no where would I suggest that the same opportunities shouldn't be open to them.

    What did you earn that they didn't? A position of power. And opportunities are not availiable to all equally.



    farfromglorified wrote:
    Huh? Couldn't I claim that my personality then blocks me from having what they have or doing what they do?

    That's why we work together for one another. Because we are all different in so many ways. To me, it's not right for the path to be much harder for some. I believe very much in common good and cooperation. I see no need to earn a position to own anothers labor for personal gain. When we can all share the load and flourish equally.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    The "buying power" of what? And I have no power to determine what they earn. I don't force anyone to work for me. I don't force anyone to accept the wage I offer. I leave that choice to them, and many have turned me down that I would have liked to have "power" over.

    So you think the working class have all the opportunities just unfolding before their very eyes and they don't have to settle for jobs they hate to put food on the table for children, pay hospital bills etc. Your view leaves no room for the circumstances that are LIFE. It's all based on principle only. Reality shows us millions of people barely getting by here...starving elsewhere.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    You're again confusing my position. I'm not saying you "shouldn't share". You should share, if that's what you believe is right. And to prescribe sharing or selfishness on another is to decrease liberty, either way.

    I didn't say you said shouldn't. Read again. Having no means to equal liberty based on circumstances isn't true liberty, imo.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Liberty is not a measure of property. Liberty is what makes property possible. When Proudhon tells you "all property is theft", he forgets that theft is impossible without property. Theft cannot disprove property -- it can only exist with it.

    If it belongs to all then theft occurs when one decides he has earned the right to it moreso than others. Like with the blocks...they were ours together. I decided I 'earned' the right to them and gained control over them. Now OUR blocks are in my possession. What was once there for us to enjoy and share equally has been taken by me. I call that kid a brat, you call her an entrepreneur.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Me too.

    To clarify, I meant sharing how I felt I about the constant clash in every thread.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    It does to me. And both views require a blanket view. Principles work that way, often.

    Certainly both views require a blanket view. I'm not the one, however, holding a blanket view while at the same time talking about "comparing apples and oranges". You're trying to have it both ways.
    I never said you thought one was invalid. You do, however, think one is more deserving because of the chooses he has made.

    Both are equally deserving of the ends they receive. A person who makes similar choices to mine, whose business fails miserably because the public has no interest in his or her product, deserves exactly what they get: nothing. An entrepeneur, by default, deserves nothing. An employee, by default, deserves nothing. What they deserve is based on who they are, the choices they make, and, most importantly, the judgments of whomever they sell their products to.
    No, I'm not confusing them at all. You're ignoring the 'choose to' be because you know no one wants that but it happens all the time because of circumstances along with choices, perhaps bads ones, perhaps risks that didn't pan out. Your view leaves these people in suffering.

    My view does not "leave them sufferring". My view simply states that they have no right to enslave their neighbors. My view simply states that they cannot proclaim a right to property while also with their mindsets destroying everything the concept of property is based upon.
    What did you earn that they didn't? A position of power. And opportunities are not availiable to all equally.

    You keep suggesting that I am in "a position of power"? How is that? Do you think I have power because I can fire my employees? They also have the power to quit and I cannot stop them. They have the power to strike, and I cannot stop them. They have to power to turn down the salary I offer, or demand I higher one in exchange for their labor. Where is this "power" of mine?
    That's why we work together for one another. Because we are all different in so many ways. To me, it's not right for the path to be much harder for some. I believe very much in common good and cooperation. I see no need to earn a position to own anothers labor for personal gain. When we can all share the load and flourish equally.

    You believe in cooperation? What do you think a business is? My employees would be lost without me, and I would be lost without them. We come together as willing individuals who work together to solve problems, each based upon our own desires and standards. You believe in "common good"? Where do you think the property you're fighting over comes from?

    We cannot "share the load and flourish equally". Because what you're proposing is only the latter, not the former. You're proposing that someone should be able to consume more than they produce, while the producers are
    enslaved by the unproductive.

    Go ahead and start a business. Diversify your labor and then reward everyone the same. See how long it lasts. See how happy your employees are. See what "flourishes".
    So you think the working class have all the opportunities just unfolding before their very eyes and they don't have to settle for jobs they hate to put food on the table for children, pay hospital bills etc. Your view leaves no room for the circumstances that are LIFE. It's all based on principle only. Reality shows us millions of people barely getting by here...starving elsewhere.

    My view accounts for the circumstances that are LIFE -- yours simply pretend that those circumstances do not exist. You ignore that nature has created us to apply our minds and produce, not to simply demand from this Earth or its inhabitants whatever we want regardless of our choices.

    I do not pretend that every person could easily be wealthy. I simply understand that life is a series of choices, and the reverberations of those choices shape our fate. Pretending those choices don't exist will simply perpetuate them, excuse them, and sanction them.
    I didn't say you said shouldn't. Read again. Having no means to equal liberty based on circumstances isn't true liberty, imo.

    The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.
    If it belongs to all then theft occurs when one decides he has earned the right to it moreso than others. Like with the blocks...they were ours together. I decided I 'earned' the right to them and gained control over them. Now OUR blocks are in my possession. What was once there for us to enjoy and share equally has been taken by me. I call that kid a brat, you call her an entrepreneur.

    This completely contradicts what you've said elsewhere because, if the above is negative, why are you proposing it by giving part of society the right to simply demand from another their "earned" property? All you're doing is transferring the brat-ism from one set of people to another.

    An entrepeneur, when successful, is a person who creates wealth, abook. All wealth is the product of the minds of entrepeneurs both great and small. Your analogy above might work if wealth were a static thing. But it is not. Look back through history and ask yourself if there has always been the same amount of wealth as there is today. And at that point I think you'll understand how silly it is to call all entrepeneurs "brats" -- they've given you the value you're now demanding everyone "deserves" as if it is some birthright.
    To clarify, I meant sharing how I felt I about the constant clash in every thread.

    I understand.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/

    I know there are plenty here who will say if you sign up then it's your duty and you have to obey....but I say bullshit! You're always going to be a human before a soldier. Your conscience and your abilty to choose to not participate in something you feel is wrong, unjust or not in your own best interest should always come first. People make bad decisions, are mislead, change their minds after seeing the true nature of a situation and no one should feel locked into participating in actions that they feel are wrong....I don't care how papers they have signed.

    I haven't read your link yet, but I totally support the stance of Lt. Watada, and others like him in the fight against being redeployed/deployed to to Iraq on the gorunds it is an immoral and illegal war. I think Watada is a true soldier.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Certainly both views require a blanket view. I'm not the one, however, holding a blanket view while at the same time talking about "comparing apples and oranges". You're trying to have it both ways.

    Which is perhaps why we have a mix of both principles in our society today.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Both are equally deserving of the ends they receive. A person who makes similar choices to mine, whose business fails miserably because the public has no interest in his or her product, deserves exactly what they get: nothing. An entrepeneur, by default, deserves nothing. An employee, by default, deserves nothing. What they deserve is based on who they are, the choices they make, and, most importantly, the judgments of whomever they sell their products to.

    I think it's wrong to thrive while your fellow man struggles. Humans are deserving of equality because they are human, not because they have an eye for marketing.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    My view does not "leave them sufferring". My view simply states that they have no right to enslave their neighbors. My view simply states that they cannot proclaim a right to property while also with their mindsets destroying everything the concept of property is based upon.

    I don't think sharing resources equally is enslaving anyone. There's plenty for all.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    You keep suggesting that I am in "a position of power"? How is that? Do you think I have power because I can fire my employees? They also have the power to quit and I cannot stop them. They have the power to strike, and I cannot stop them. They have to power to turn down the salary I offer, or demand I higher one in exchange for their labor. Where is this "power" of mine?

    Their choices are limited and you know it. The greed of people sharing your view has given many working class people nowhere to turn. Opportunities are limited. I feel man as my brothers and sisters not as a leech even when they seemingly take more than they give. Because everyone has something to give and given the proper, positive treatment, they might surprise you. Even if they don't, I don't view people as taking what's rightfully mine for simply wanting something better.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    You believe in cooperation? What do you think a business is? My employees would be lost without me, and I would be lost without them. We come together as willing individuals who work together to solve problems, each based upon our own desires and standards. You believe in "common good"? Where do you think the property you're fighting over comes from?

    You need each other, work together...yet it is their labor that creates your wealth and they only see a fraction of it compared to your lion's share.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    We cannot "share the load and flourish equally". Because what you're proposing is only the latter, not the former. You're proposing that someone should be able to consume more than they produce, while the producers are
    enslaved by the unproductive.

    That is such a negative outlook. I will not look at people in that light. You create thieves with your negativity and disrespect. If you treat people like thieves, you better believe that's what they're gonna be. It's the end product of negativity. You would not be enslaved, you just wouldn't be able to capitalize on their labor. Poor guy.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    Go ahead and start a business. Diversify your labor and then reward everyone the same. See how long it lasts. See how happy your employees are. See what "flourishes".

    I guess there's always the brat kid who wants more. We can share the load no one told you to expect more for choosing to work harder. You might gain admiration and respect for it and that's fine. When we cook out and invite the family over, I don't give my brother, who showed up late, a fraction of the food we eat. That's childish. And if my sister decides to do all the dishes. She doesn't come up to me asking for a bigger dish of desert. She'd rather everyone get enough desert instead of her taking twice the amount and leaving someone else without. The dinner is for everyone, regardless. If my nephew helped put everything away, I might choose to reward him with some of my share of the desert but only brats demand it.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    My view accounts for the circumstances that are LIFE -- yours simply pretend that those circumstances do not exist. You ignore that nature has created us to apply our minds and produce, not to simply demand from this Earth or its inhabitants whatever we want regardless of our choices.

    Producing and applying my mind can be used for everyone's benefit not just my own. It makes me feel nice if I make it easier on someone. I don't hold my hand out wanting to rewarded for it. I help someone because they are lacking something they need. I don't ask why. I don't say 'get a job, loser'. People, all people, deserve my compassion. It's only the people who lack this compassion for everyone regardless that I have the difficulty feeling for. They choose to split humanity up into the deserving and the undeserving. Putting a negative connotation on the latter. They just didn't work hard enough to come to the table...perhaps we'll throw them the scraps. All are welcomed to the table out of love not because I logically decided their worth.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I do not pretend that every person could easily be wealthy. I simply understand that life is a series of choices, and the reverberations of those choices shape our fate. Pretending those choices don't exist will simply perpetuate them, excuse them, and sanction them.

    I never said these choices don't exist. I simply choose to be more tolerant.

    farfromglorified wrote:
    The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.

    Not oppress, simply share. You'll be as good off as he. That's a big improvement of living standards overall! Isn't that enough to make you happy with what you've got? No one has to go without.


    farfromglorified wrote:
    This completely contradicts what you've said elsewhere because, if the above is negative, why are you proposing it by giving part of society the right to simply demand from another their "earned" property? All you're doing is transferring the brat-ism from one set of people to another.

    I still believe man is good at heart. ~ Anne Frank

    That's all I need. I'll give tolerance based on that. As long as I'm doing ok, I'm happy to know no children are hungry tonight, no elderly are without proper medical care, no woman is up crying all night wondering how she'll put food on the table next week. That happiness and unity is worth all the wealth in the world.
    farfromglorified wrote:
    An entrepeneur, when successful, is a person who creates wealth, abook. All wealth is the product of the minds of entrepeneurs both great and small. Your analogy above might work if wealth were a static thing. But it is not. Look back through history and ask yourself if there has always been the same amount of wealth as there is today. And at that point I think you'll understand how silly it is to call all entrepeneurs "brats" -- they've given you the value you're now demanding everyone "deserves" as if it is some birthright.

    Wealth is the product of the labor, as well. One needs the other so they can share equality. The great minds don't have to have the bigger share. They can acheive happiness without more wealth but harmony.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:

    The "means to liberty" is the absence of social oppression. The society you're proposing creates unequal liberty since the people who make the worst choices will be allowed to oppress the people who make the best one. The society I'm proposing allows both sets of people to make whatever choices they wish, and to allow everyone to determine the value and worth of those choices while rejecting the right of anyone, rich or poor, to force his neighbor to live for him.

    This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'. I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    baraka wrote:
    This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'. I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?

    he hires them at sub-standard wages.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • my2hands
    my2hands Posts: 17,117
    you have a right not to kill
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    my2hands wrote:
    you have a right not to kill

    damn.

    god bless joe strummer.

    and you.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    This paragraph raised some questions for me. You seem to feel 'the less fortunate' just want to 'oppress' the ones that make 'good choices'.

    No. I'm saying that some of 'the less fortunate', or those that profess to speak for them, want to do that. The reverse is also true -- there are plenty of 'fortunate' who want to oppress the less fortunate. I simply disagree that property itself represents "oppression". The opposite is true. Property, as an accepted social construct, is what prevents oppression.
    I feel this is an egotistical and shallow conclusion. There are folks that are born with disabilities, mental or physical. I think an enlightened society is one that uplifts & protects the disadvantage. This is what separates us from the animals. Certainly there are those that abuse that help, but I don't think this is the rule. What happens to the mentally & physically disabled in your 'ideal' society?

    This is a silly question. I'm not prescribing anything for the "mentally & physically disabled". I'm simply not going to agree with a society wherein the mentally & physically disabled are given license to oppress others because of their "disadvantage", anymore than I would agree with a society wherein the non-disabled are given license to enslave the mentally & physically disabled.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:




    You believe in cooperation? What do you think a business is? My employees would be lost without me, and I would be lost without them. We come together as willing individuals who work together to solve problems, each based upon our own desires and standards. .



    yet, I've seen you define yourself as the corporation itself, simply because it is the business you started. you are not a corporation.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Which is perhaps why we have a mix of both principles in our society today.

    We have a mix of both principles in our society today because people have different moralities, principles and perspectives.
    I think it's wrong to thrive while your fellow man struggles. Humans are deserving of equality because they are human, not because they have an eye for marketing.

    Do you really think that? Do you have air conditioning? How many calories did you eat today? What's your home made of? Do you have a car? How about a television, or a radio? How much money in your pocket?

    If you want to let all of humanity hang on your neck like an albatros, I won't stop you or question your right do to so. I just won't let you hang it on my neck for you.
    I don't think sharing resources equally is enslaving anyone. There's plenty for all.

    Hehe...there is "plenty for all". Always has been. Likely will be for a very long time. But the "resources" you speak of are in part the labor of friends and neighbors. And if you think you can "share" that labor or the products that come of it against their will isn't a form of slavery, then we can go back to the questions about your body and whom you choose to give it to or not to.
    Their choices are limited and you know it.

    Of course! Everyone's choices are limited. Am I oppressed because I'm not Bill Gates? Is he oppressed because he's not God?
    The greed of people sharing your view has given many working class people nowhere to turn.

    Except their own greed, apparently.
    Opportunities are limited.

    Opportunities for what??? Making money? Being happy? Being comfortable? The opportunities for those things are limited only by the capacity of the human mind, abook.
    I feel man as my brothers and sisters not as a leech even when they seemingly take more than they give. Because everyone has something to give and given the proper, positive treatment, they might surprise you. Even if they don't, I don't view people as taking what's rightfully mine for simply wanting something better.

    Help me understand this better. The last sentence doesn't seem to make much sense. You don't view them how?
    You need each other, work together...yet it is their labor that creates your wealth and they only see a fraction of it compared to your lion's share.

    Huh? My labor created it all in the first place. And their labor, absent mine, would be much less valuable. Look -- imagine a car factory. Imagine a guy putting lug nuts on a vehicle. His labor is almost completely worthless on its own. Turning a wrist to tighten a bolt on a car only has worth with the concept of the motive power -- the automobile's purpose. That is where the value lies. Abesnt that principle, achieved by another's mind, the exact same labor would be completely worthless.
    That is such a negative outlook. I will not look at people in that light. You create thieves with your negativity and disrespect. If you treat people like thieves, you better believe that's what they're gonna be. It's the end product of negativity. You would not be enslaved, you just wouldn't be able to capitalize on their labor. Poor guy.

    What do you mean you won't "look at people in that light"? Your ideals require it. They force you to separate men into two factions and forcibly take from one to give to the other.

    You accuse me of "capitalizing on their labor". How is this? Because I make money from their labor? They make money from mine, as well as their own. People have healthcare because of my labor, and because of their own. For all the blustering here about healthcare and labor, I'm actually providing healthcare to people. For all the blustering here about money and labor, I'm
    actually providing it to people.

    Why is it negative that I "capitalize on their labor"???? Why is it negative that they capitalize on mine? That's the essence of cooperation, that word you keep stripping of meaning when you suggest that one party may simply force the other to play along.
    I guess there's always the brat kid who wants more. We can share the load no one told you to expect more for choosing to work harder. You might gain admiration and respect for it and that's fine. When we cook out and invite the family over, I don't give my brother, who showed up late, a fraction of the food we eat. That's childish. And if my sister decides to do all the dishes. She doesn't come up to me asking for a bigger dish of desert. She'd rather everyone get enough desert instead of her taking twice the amount and leaving someone else without. The dinner is for everyone, regardless. If my nephew helped put everything away, I might choose to reward him with some of my share of the desert but only brats demand it.

    I have no problem with this. Why would you think I would?
    Producing and applying my mind can be used for everyone's benefit not just my own.

    Hehe...of course!!! That's the whole point. Do you think my own applications are only for my benefit? Every dollar a customer hands me is a sanction of the benefit I'm providing them. That's the seal of approval upon my mind.
    It makes me feel nice if I make it easier on someone. I don't hold my hand out wanting to rewarded for it.

    Who is telling you that you have to? See, here's the thing -- if you actually want to live by your own standards, then you and I are agreeing. However, if you want me to live by your standards, then I ask you why you think it's wrong that others force you to live by theirs??????
    I help someone because they are lacking something they need. I don't ask why. I don't say 'get a job, loser'. People, all people, deserve my compassion.

    Then give it to them.
    It's only the people who lack this compassion for everyone regardless that I have the difficulty feeling for.

    Hehe...so it's no "all people", huh?
    They choose to split humanity up into the deserving and the undeserving. Putting a negative connotation on the latter. They just didn't work hard enough to come to the table...perhaps we'll throw them the scraps. All are welcomed to the table out of love not because I logically decided their worth.

    If you think it's wrong to split humanity up into the deserving and the undeserving, you've forgotten what makes humanity possible -- production. If, in your mind, the man who grows no food and can provide no value to the farmer "deserving" of food, your system will end up starving just like the many before it.
    I never said these choices don't exist. I simply choose to be more tolerant.

    Cool. Be as tolerant as you wish. But don't pretend that your stomach is "tolerant" of starvation. Don't pretend that your body is "tolerant" of freezing.
    Not oppress, simply share. You'll be as good off as he. That's a big improvement of living standards overall! Isn't that enough to make you happy with what you've got? No one has to go without.[/quiote]

    If you were talking about "sharing", we wouldn't be having this discussion. I have no problem with sharing. I simply have a problem with those who say "sharing" is possible absent the concepts of will or property.
    I still believe man is good at heart. ~ Anne Frank

    That's all I need. I'll give tolerance based on that. As long as I'm doing ok, I'm happy to know no children are hungry tonight, no elderly are without proper medical care, no woman is up crying all night wondering how she'll put food on the table next week. That happiness and unity is worth all the wealth in the world.

    Sigh...yet everything you stand for is what destroys food and medicine, abook. It removes the value from those who create it. Go look at the societies that have survived by your tenants. See how well they eat, how well they live, and at what cost. They simply loot until they destroy all the wealth available to them. And that's what causes misery, abook. The absence of wealth, the absence of property, is what destroys everything you profess to stand for. The defense of these thing is what has made them possible in the first place.
    Wealth is the product of the labor, as well. One needs the other so they can share equality. The great minds don't have to have the bigger share. They can acheive happiness without more wealth but harmony.

    Wealth is not the product of labor. Wealth is the product of the reasoned mind. The exact same labor of a man who builds a skyscraper is worthless absent the man who gives it its purpose. Labor simply has the commodity value of muscle. Minds on the other hand, are what create wealth in the first place.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:
    No. I'm saying that some of 'the less fortunate', or those that profess to speak for them, want to do that. The reverse is also true -- there are plenty of 'fortunate' who want to oppress the less fortunate. I simply disagree that property itself represents "oppression". The opposite is true. Property, as an accepted social construct, is what prevents oppression.



    This is a silly question. I'm not prescribing anything for the "mentally & physically disabled". I'm simply not going to agree with a society wherein the mentally & physically disabled are given license to oppress others because of their "disadvantage", anymore than I would agree with a society wherein the non-disabled are given license to enslave the mentally & physically disabled.

    You myopically focus on the individual and self. Do you deny that society exists at all? The thing is individuals reside in an environment called society, which is composed of other people behaving in ways that affect how the individuals will act. 'The good of society' is not because 'society' receives the benefit. It is because we receive the benefit from living in a society we view as good.

    My question was not silly, but I guess I can see how it might be to an individual without empathy or concern for others. DO you see handicap parking as an oppression? What is the oppression you are talking about? The world we live in depends on the responsible contributions each of us makes. I believe none of us is without obligation to offer our best to our family, friends, or strangers, if our hope is to live in a good world.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    farfromglorified wrote:

    If you want to let all of humanity hang on your neck like an albatros, I won't stop you or question your right do to so. I just won't let you hang it on my neck for you.

    Do you not see the flaw in your logic? You are wanting for yourself the very things you complain about others wanting. You benefit from a society that paves the road for you to drive on, prints the money you use, and protects the freedoms you hold so dearly, yet you don't want to contribute to said society. Sounds like you should apply the above logic to yourself. ;)
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    baraka wrote:
    You myopically focus on the individual and self. Do you deny that society exists at all? The thing is individuals reside in an environment called society, which is composed of other people behaving in ways that affect how the individuals will act. 'The good of society' is not because 'society' receives the benefit. It is because we receive the benefit from living in a society we view as good.

    My question was not silly, but I guess I can see how it might be to an individual without empathy or concern for others. DO you see handicap parking as an oppression? What is the oppression you are talking about? The world we live in depends on the responsible contributions each of us makes. I believe none of us is without obligation to offer our best to our family, friends, or strangers, if our hope is to live in a good world.

    I don't know why you argue with this guy, but you do it so well.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    gue_barium wrote:
    I don't know why you argue with this guy, but you do it so well.

    He is fun to debate with and I learn a lot. And thank you ;)
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    You myopically focus on the individual and self. Do you deny that society exists at all?

    No, I don't deny that society exists. Society is the sum total of the individuals who comprise it.
    The thing is individuals reside in an environment called society, which is composed of other people behaving in ways that affect how the individuals will act. 'The good of society' is not because 'society' receives the benefit. It is because we receive the benefit from living in a society we view as good.

    Exactly, yes. Now, who is "we" again?
    My question was not silly, but I guess I can see how it might be to an individual without empathy or concern for others. DO you see handicap parking as an oppression?

    Oppression of the person who owns the parking lot, yes. But I think you're asking if handicap parking is oppressive to those who are not handicapped? My answer there is no.
    What is the oppression you are talking about?

    The attempted replacement of individual wills with guns, of course.
    The world we live in depends on the responsible contributions each of us makes.

    I agree completely.
    I believe none of us is without obligation to offer our best to our family, friends, or strangers, if our hope is to live in a good world.

    I disagree completely. Your "obligation" is to yourself. And that plays right into your statment preceding this one.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    baraka wrote:
    Do you not see the flaw in your logic? You are wanting for yourself the very things you complain about others wanting. You benefit from a society that paves the road for you to drive on, prints the money you use, and protects the freedoms you hold so dearly, yet you don't want to contribute to said society. Sounds like you should apply the above logic to yourself. ;)

    I do apply that logic to myself. You may remove the roads. You may stop printing money. You may stop "protecting" my freedoms. Do so immediately. I will not complain. I never asked you for those things to begin with.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I do apply that logic to myself. You may remove the roads. You may stop printing money. You may stop "protecting" my freedoms. Do so immediately. I will not complain. I never asked you for those things to begin with.

    Awww. You're a victim. Who'd a thunk it?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • ProvidenceHunter
    ProvidenceHunter Posts: 52
    farfromglorified wrote:
    You accuse me of "capitalizing on their labor". How is this? Because I make money from their labor? They make money from mine, as well as their own. People have healthcare because of my labor, and because of their own. For all the blustering here about healthcare and labor, I'm actually providing healthcare to people. For all the blustering here about money and labor, I'm
    actually providing it to people.

    You just don't get it.

    Stop making jobs for people you are obviously just taking advantage of them.

    It is not enough that you and people like you create jobs and provide benefits that did not exist at all before you came along.

    You have to share the money equally. You will be happier if you do. Listen to me I know better than you what is better for you.

    You owe society more because you have the ability to produce more, but you cannot keep more of what you made because it makes the rest of us look bad...... oops.... wait, I mean good of society and compassion and we are human beings, and power, and oppression, and look global warming.

    You are evil if you want to keep more than others, you are greedy for not wanting to share with me.

    You have to share it equally. Don't worry there is plenty for every one just hurry up and make it for us.
    Peace through superior firepower!

Categories