Income Inequality and Decadence

[Freefall11111]

Uhh... why should people be nailed down by the morals of a religion? That in itself is oppressive. Also, could you describe your definition of "opulent lifestyle"?

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Self-interest.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Self-interest.

And the flip side of that coin: Empathy for others.

[Allanea]

My classification of degeneracy isn't really on-topic for this thread. Decadence and drug use qualifies, of course. Degeneracy hurts society by debilitating costs, causes splintering, leads to crime, and worse, is effectively contagious. Allowing it to exist is only going to cause it to spread and become a more deeply ingrained part of society, which is where the firing squad comes in. Public executions are a good way to demonstrate to the people what degeneracy leads to. A society unified in purpose and fear is a society that isn't going to waste time and effort on non-conformist behaviour.

No, your classification of degeneracy is perfectly on-topic for this thread.

You can't just expect to make a hugely controversial claim - that people who drink alcohol or use drugs or have promiscuous sex are degenerate, and in fact so degenerate they deserve to get killed for it.

This is clearly not something most of society believes - evidently we are not living in a society that executes people for drinking alcohol or being promiscous. So if you are basing your entire argument on the claim that everyone who drinks vodka or does drugs or has lots of sex is a degenerate - something which is clearly deeply controversial - you need to defend this claim.

It is simply not true that society is afflicted with some manner of 'debilitating' costs from people fucking too much or doing too much drugs. To be sure there are costs to this but they're not debilitating. The oppressive majority of drug users - even the oppressive majority of hard drug users - are not in fact stereotypical criminal junkies.

According to the US government there are nearly 25 million people in the US who have used drugs in the past month, and 1.5 million people who have used cocaine in the past months. Do you, looking around yourself, feel that you're surrounded by vast legions of horrible junkies?

[Communist Xomaniax]

Decadence is a good thing. The world would be a better place if people brought a little bit of it into their lives and kept off each other's toes.

[Pandeeria]

What do you think, NSG? I believe in socialism, and ideally, communism, so it may just be my bias, but I want to hear from you guys.

Rarely when I meet someone who claims to be a socialist and communist, are they actually a socialist and communist. But when I do, it makes me just a little bit happier.

Typically I see the term used to describe someone who wants the present status quo of society, and simply just put some more regulations on business and beef up social welfare programs a bit.

[Mattopilos]

To those who want a communist nation, why they don't live in North Korea, China, Vietnam or Cuba which are communist? What's the problem of being rich and being surrounded by pomposity? I think social darwinism is one of the main factors that defines the current the way of capitalism.

That isn't the communism many desire, since the workers don't manage the means of production. There is a difference between a protectionist economy and an overall communist society. North Korea isn't even Democratic in the sense of the word, nor do the workers own most of the power: their dictator does. Same with Vietnam, China (which is a free market state with a 'socialist' ideal set, but still has a supreme ruler), and Cuba (again, power to the few).
The problem is few earn it and keep doing something to KEEP earning it. That, and many also started from the top and stay there: few come from the bottom.
*sigh* Few people advocate social darwinism, because it is a dangerous and narrow-egoist thought process that only helps those who already have power. I think few would have that view if they were at the bottom and not the top.

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

Sex with multiple partners is immoral, if you are married.

Unless all consensually agree...

That's an exception, of course.

[Socialist Tera]

Uhh... why should people be nailed down by the morals of a religion? That in itself is oppressive. Also, could you describe your definition of "opulent lifestyle"?

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Excessive wealth and hedonism.

Cause I enjoy progressing humanity forward and helping people. There is also nothing wrong with a progressive lifestyle and liking sex.

[Wolfmanne2]

What do you think, NSG? I believe in socialism, and ideally, communism, so it may just be my bias, but I want to hear from you guys.

k.

[United Marxist Nations]

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Excessive wealth and hedonism.

You think that divine dictates and a reward/punishment system are the only way to have a moral society?

I think divine command is the only way that morality can even exist, let alone exist in a society.

[Socialist Tera]

You think that divine dictates and a reward/punishment system are the only way to have a moral society?

I think divine command is the only way that morality can even exist, let alone exist in a society.

Many socialist leaders were atheists and moral. Hoxha was a moral man for example.

[Wolfmanne2]

I think divine command is the only way that morality can even exist, let alone exist in a society.

Many socialist leaders were atheists and moral. Hoxha was a moral man for example.

Aside from the all the people who died as a result of the failure of planned economics, whom he had no morality for.

[United Marxist Nations]

I think divine command is the only way that morality can even exist, let alone exist in a society.

Many socialist leaders were atheists and moral. Hoxha was a moral man for example.

I think you misunderstand what I mean. I mean there is no such thing as morality without the divine.

Also, Hoxha was pretty immoral, what with imprisoning hundreds of thousands and killing thousands, while banning religion entirely.

[Conserative Morality]

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Because I choose them.

[Risottia]

:roll:

Many socialist leaders were atheists and moral. Hoxha was a moral man for example.

Aside from the all the people who died as a result of the failure of planned economics, whom he had no morality for.

More like aside from his secret police, torture, and the execution of thousands after drumhead court trials.

Basically, he was the average immoral dictator dude.

[Nochov]

My classification of degeneracy isn't really on-topic for this thread. Decadence and drug use qualifies, of course. Degeneracy hurts society by debilitating costs, causes splintering, leads to crime, and worse, is effectively contagious. Allowing it to exist is only going to cause it to spread and become a more deeply ingrained part of society, which is where the firing squad comes in. Public executions are a good way to demonstrate to the people what degeneracy leads to. A society unified in purpose and fear is a society that isn't going to waste time and effort on non-conformist behaviour.

No, your classification of degeneracy is perfectly on-topic for this thread.

You can't just expect to make a hugely controversial claim - that people who drink alcohol or use drugs or have promiscuous sex are degenerate, and in fact so degenerate they deserve to get killed for it.

This is clearly not something most of society believes - evidently we are not living in a society that executes people for drinking alcohol or being promiscous. So if you are basing your entire argument on the claim that everyone who drinks vodka or does drugs or has lots of sex is a degenerate - something which is clearly deeply controversial - you need to defend this claim.

It is simply not true that society is afflicted with some manner of 'debilitating' costs from people fucking too much or doing too much drugs. To be sure there are costs to this but they're not debilitating. The oppressive majority of drug users - even the oppressive majority of hard drug users - are not in fact stereotypical criminal junkies.

According to the US government there are nearly 25 million people in the US who have used drugs in the past month, and 1.5 million people who have used cocaine in the past months. Do you, looking around yourself, feel that you're surrounded by vast legions of horrible junkies?

I think the problem we're having here is that you see the death penalty as a more severe punishment than I do. Why shouldn't we be purging the undesirable parts of the population? I also think we have different opinions on how much of a cost is debilitating. In my opinion, if drug use costs society x currency units, then that's x currency units too many. If it doesn't directly benefit society, it shouldn't exist. And when we make a distinction between medication and drug use, then it's pretty easy to say that drug use is never beneficial.

I don't live in the USA. But yes, I do acknowledge that I'm surrounded by drug users and alcoholics, and it sickens me.

[The New Sea Territory]

What do you think, NSG? I believe in socialism, and ideally, communism, so it may just be my bias, but I want to hear from you guys.

I think basing communism or socialism on moral judgment will just recreate a similar society to what we have today.

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Because I choose them.

Then your moral judgments aren't a stable basis for political argument.

I think divine command is the only way that morality can even exist, let alone exist in a society.

Many socialist leaders were atheists and moral. Hoxha was a moral man for example.

Many socialist leaders were indeed atheists. They just made "the people" or whatever their new deity, the *sniff* Big Other.

[The New Sea Territory]

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Self-interest.

I don't know about your selfishness, but I don't see how self-interest could be a basis for morality....my self-interest comes into direct conflict with any moral system.

[Arkolon]

Self-interest.

I don't know about your selfishness, but I don't see how self-interest could be a basis for morality....my self-interest comes into direct conflict with any moral system.

Your self-interest is a moral system, since it - your self-interest - determines which of your actions is right (presumably those in your self-interest) and wrong (presumably those that are not in your self-interest).

[The New Sea Territory]

I don't know about your selfishness, but I don't see how self-interest could be a basis for morality....my self-interest comes into direct conflict with any moral system.

Your self-interest is a moral system, since it - your self-interest - determines which of your actions is right (presumably those in your self-interest) and wrong (presumably those that are not in your self-interest).

Your definition of "moral system" is meaninglessly vague, because it encompasses even the most basic and individual tastes. My desire, and following my desire, does not equate to a claim that my desire "ought" to be followed.

[Arkolon]

Your self-interest is a moral system, since it - your self-interest - determines which of your actions is right (presumably those in your self-interest) and wrong (presumably those that are not in your self-interest).

Your definition of "moral system" is meaninglessly vague, because it encompasses even the most basic and individual tastes. My desire, and following my desire, does not equate to a claim that my desire "ought" to be followed.

Well, let me rephrase: in your opinion, should you, personally, do what is in your self-interest?

[Greed and Death]

:roll:
Aside from the all the people who died as a result of the failure of planned economics, whom he had no morality for.

More like aside from his secret police, torture, and the execution of thousands after drumhead court trials.

Basically, he was the average immoral dictator dude.

Morality has really only ever been an excuse to do what you wish and to destroy those who disagree. As such it should be avoided at all cost.

[Conserative Morality]

Then your moral judgments aren't a stable basis for political argument.

My moral judgments are the only stable basis for political argument.

[Salus Maior]

Except enjoyment perhaps; not all rich people live happy lives.

Oh please. They have no reason to suffer. They can get all the food they want, all the education they could ever need, and can support any child they have, among everything else in their comfortable lives. I don't give a shit if that's not enough for them, they don't deserve those luxuries at the expense of people who struggle day to day just to survive.

[The New Sea Territory]

Your definition of "moral system" is meaninglessly vague, because it encompasses even the most basic and individual tastes. My desire, and following my desire, does not equate to a claim that my desire "ought" to be followed.

Well, let me rephrase: in your opinion, should you, personally, do what is in your self-interest?

No. I don't think I "should" do anything.

However, everything I do, and everything everyone else does, is done in out of self-interest. This is because self-interest is subjective, which I hinted at in my initial post you responded to. This makes the question silly; whether I should or not doesn't account for the reality of human interaction.