Income Inequality and Decadence

[Jumhuriyah Hindustan]

Do the rich not deserve money because they do drugs and have sex? Because the poor also do drugs and have sex.

The poor do drugs and have sex too, but they do it to escape from the reality of their miserable lives. The rich have no excuse for their decadent activities.

Why does there need to be an excuse to have sex? Do you believe in some weird religion that makes sex 'bad'?
Why should people not use alcohol? Alcohol is awesome. Karl Marx loved beer, and Lenin loved Vodka, and Stalin loved Georgian wines and brandies. With poor peop
I suppose you can argue that drugs are bad because they're illegal but there's no real inherent moral reason you shouldn't use them.[/quote]

1. I never said sex was bad. You're cherry-picking. I said sex with multiple partners when you're married is bad.
2. Moderation.
3. ^^

[Community Values]

What if the poor people would be just as bad as the rich people if they had money? If everyone is equally shit, why should we shit on the shit that got the power to do shit?

[Mike the Progressive]

There's a common mistake in the mentality of many: Life is fair. It is not. Wealth is earned, saved and spent- who are you to judge what to do with something that is not your own? The strong survive and the weak do not. People will try to tell you otherwise, but that is the world we live in and have always lived in and always will be. Read that last part: Always will be. Millions have died because people thought otherwise to no avail. The sooner you embrace that truth, that reality, the better off you and the world will be.

[Allanea]

The poor do drugs and have sex too, but they do it to escape from the reality of their miserable lives. The rich have no excuse for their decadent activities.

Why does there need to be an excuse to have sex? Do you believe in some weird religion that makes sex 'bad'?
Why should people not use alcohol? Alcohol is awesome. Karl Marx loved beer, and Lenin loved Vodka, and Stalin loved Georgian wines and brandies. With poor peop
I suppose you can argue that drugs are bad because they're illegal but there's no real inherent moral reason you shouldn't use them.

1. I never said sex was bad. You're cherry-picking. I said sex with multiple partners when you're married is bad.
2. Moderation.
3. ^^[/quote]


1. Why is it bad? Isn't it something that's between you and your partner?
2. Yes, and you've not shown that these people are not using it in moderation. Have you actually watched Keeping Up with the Kardashians or any similar show? People on these shows do party regularly but it's not like they're alcoholics or something.

[Arkolon]

But that would fall into a contravention of principles of non-aggression - we're talking about people giving a man a million dollars, not dropping it onto his head from an airplane.

The apple-throwing example was simply the first thing that came to mind. The more general point is, philosophers since Plato and Aristotle have talked about moderation, and have espoused the idea that many things are good in moderation but evil if done in excess. Giving money to a certain individual is one of those things.

Can you tell me when moderation becomes excess, and excess moderation?

If you would contend that the ethical action eventually becomes unethical, a sorites would apply: at what point does it become unethical? At two dollars, at three? Twenty? A thousand? A thousand and a cent?

Are you seriously contending that there is nothing wrong with excess because one cannot always determine the precise boundary between "moderation" and "excess"? So if drinking one glass of wine is good for you, and there is no clear "magic number" at which drinking switches from healthy to unhealthy, then drinking any number of glasses must also be good?

In nature, most phenomena are continuous, not discrete. The absence of a clear cut-off point does not mean that any action which is good if you do it once will also be good if you do it a thousand times. We can say that drinking one glass is healthy and drinking a hundred glasses is unhealthy even if things get murky in the middle between those numbers.

This is easy, since we are talking about something as objective as health - the alcohol is bad for you when it starts damaging your body more than it is helping it. But morality, how can I measure it, and when does repeating a moral action so many times precisely become immoral?

Why is that 'not true'? It doesn't necessarily make the action harmless, mind you, only ethical. Taking a man's stuff is unethical, him giving it to you is ethical - the consent makes all the difference.

No. What makes all the difference is how you obtained his consent. If the man gives you his stuff because you have economic power over him and you demanded his stuff under threat of ruining his life if he doesn't hand it over, then no, it was absolutely not ethical.

Examples of such unethical ways to obtain consent include:

"I have a life-saving drug that you need to stay alive. Hand over your stuff before I give it to you."
"You're fleeing a natural disaster and need a place on my boat? Sure, but first hand over all the stuff you've got left."
"I know you really need this job to pay your college tuition. Take off your clothes and have sex with me, then you can work here."
"I know you're in debt and you need to keep this job to avoid losing your home and ending up on the streets. So you're going to work for a low wage and do whatever I tell you, or else you're fired."

All of these things are, according to Nozick, perfectly ethical. That's why his philosophy is despicable.

Blackmail and its coercive nature are explicitly not voluntary, so says Nozick. Nozick's Entitlement theory has a third principle governing the misuse of its first two: the principle of rectification of injustice, which is basically a principle of compensation. If I stole your motorcycle, the injustice would only be rectified if I left you no worse or better off than you were had I not stolen your motorcycle. For Nozick, blackmail and coercively imposing 'consent' falls foul of his Entitlement theory because the blackmail leaves the victim worse off than if there was no blackmailer (compare to genuine consent in, say, trade, which leaves all parties better off). So these things do not count as justice in the eyes of Nozick and his philosophy.

Plus, there is also the issue of externalities. In real life, an agreement between A and B almost inevitably carries consequences for C, and D, and many other people. Consent cannot be sufficient to make an action ethical because, in practice, most types of actions will also have consequences on third parties who did not give their consent.

But leaving them worse off would be an injustice for Nozick - note that his Entitlement theory is about whether or not the parties in a consensual exchange are entitled to that which they are exchanging (through consent) - if an externality damaged C or D's person or property, this falls foul of Nozick's guiding principles of non-aggression and natural rights.

[Socialist Nordia]

There's a common mistake in the mentality of many: Life is fair. It is not. Wealth is earned, saved and spent- who are you to judge what to do with something that is not your own? The strong survive and the weak do not. People will try to tell you otherwise, but that is the world we live in and have always lived in and always will be. Read that last part: Always will be. Millions have died because people thought otherwise to no avail. The sooner you embrace that truth, that reality, the better off you and the world will be.

But, why is it bad to attempt to try to make life a little more fair?

[Nochov]

Instead of redistributing wealth directly, which tends to be ultimately detrimental to a society, we could (and should) just impose the death penalty on drug use

... This is a joke, right? That is taking things a little far.

Not at all. People are highly replaceable, just execute the ones not fit for society and breed new people.

and have governmental appropriation of all assets owned by the executed person. That way, the wealth gets spent doing something productive, and a very clear message indeed is sent to the addicts, both poor and rich, that degeneracy is not tolerable.

So, what, degeneracy is caused by drug use? What an absurd point to make.

Drug use is a form of degeneracy, rather. There are many forms of degeneracy, some of which can be cured, and some that can't be completely removed. The recourse for the first kind is therapy and/or medication, and the recourse for the second kind is a firing squad.
It's ultimately no less absurd than your idea that a community can share resources among itself without a higher authority making it. People are inherently selfish, and too much selfishness is just yet another breed of degeneracy.

[Community Values]

... This is a joke, right? That is taking things a little far.

Not at all. People are highly replaceable, just execute the ones not fit for society and breed new people.

So, what, degeneracy is caused by drug use? What an absurd point to make.

Drug use is a form of degeneracy, rather. There are many forms of degeneracy, some of which can be cured, and some that can't be completely removed. The recourse for the first kind is therapy and/or medication, and the recourse for the second kind is a firing squad.
It's ultimately no less absurd than your idea that a community can share resources among itself without a higher authority making it. People are inherently selfish, and too much selfishness is just yet another breed of degeneracy.

What classifies as degeneracy? What makes degeneracy wrong? What makes a firing squad justifiable to letting humans become degenerate?

[Mike the Progressive]

There's a common mistake in the mentality of many: Life is fair. It is not. Wealth is earned, saved and spent- who are you to judge what to do with something that is not your own? The strong survive and the weak do not. People will try to tell you otherwise, but that is the world we live in and have always lived in and always will be. Read that last part: Always will be. Millions have died because people thought otherwise to no avail. The sooner you embrace that truth, that reality, the better off you and the world will be.

But, why is it bad to attempt to try to make life a little more fair?

Because the results are more often than not disastrous. Don't get me wrong. We can make life better, but it's incremental. Slowly. Steady.

[Greed and Death]

These days, I often see fashion/reality/news shows and documentaries, where the very rich live such wasteful and opulent lives. They are promiscuous, lazy and are often addicted to either drugs or alcohol. On the other hand, I have seen beggars on the street not getting a piece of food, resorting to stealing, with my own eyes.

In our world, the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 50%. They do not deserve this money- just look at the Kardashians, for example. They are corrupted with money and power, and have no basic morals or empathy to those in need. They are decadent, corrupt and are oppressive. Income inequality is the root of the countless things wrong with our world.

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.

Do the rich not deserve money because they do drugs and have sex? Because the poor also do drugs and have sex.

Maybe the poor should not be allowed to have sex, think of the money the social welfare system could save if they stopped reproducing.

I could get another tax cut that is for sure.

[Nochov]

Not at all. People are highly replaceable, just execute the ones not fit for society and breed new people.

Drug use is a form of degeneracy, rather. There are many forms of degeneracy, some of which can be cured, and some that can't be completely removed. The recourse for the first kind is therapy and/or medication, and the recourse for the second kind is a firing squad.
It's ultimately no less absurd than your idea that a community can share resources among itself without a higher authority making it. People are inherently selfish, and too much selfishness is just yet another breed of degeneracy.

What classifies as degeneracy? What makes degeneracy wrong? What makes a firing squad justifiable to letting humans become degenerate?

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.

[United Marxist Nations]

These days, I often see fashion/reality/news shows and documentaries, where the very rich live such wasteful and opulent lives. They are promiscuous, lazy and are often addicted to either drugs or alcohol. On the other hand, I have seen beggars on the street not getting a piece of food, resorting to stealing, with my own eyes.

In our world, the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 50%. They do not deserve this money- just look at the Kardashians, for example. They are corrupted with money and power, and have no basic morals or empathy to those in need. They are decadent, corrupt and are oppressive. Income inequality is the root of the countless things wrong with our world.

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 have come to a similar conclusion of a theological socialism that would both instill moral values, as well as prevent opulent lifestyle.

[Mattopilos]

I have come to a similar conclusion of a theological socialism that would both instill moral values, as well as prevent opulent lifestyle.

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"?

[Free Rhenish States]

1. I never said sex was bad. You're cherry-picking. I said sex with multiple partners when you're married is bad.

But muh halal harem!

[United Marxist Nations]

I have come to a similar conclusion of a theological socialism that would both instill moral values, as well as prevent opulent lifestyle.

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.

[Mattopilos]

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.

Morals are simply the tools of the state and the religious to control what we should and shouldn't desire - they have no true grounding in reality. The only 'morals' that can be agreed upon are those with a constructive desire between many people in the community, such as don;t kill, don't steal, son't destroy etc.

Define wealth. Do you mean monetary wealth? material wealth? social wealth?
Hedonism isn't bad in and of itself. It is only bad when it comes to the detriment of themselves and society as a whole.

[United Marxist Nations]

If not religious morals, why any morals?

Excessive wealth and hedonism.

Morals are simply the tools of the state and the religious to control what we should and shouldn't desire - they have no true grounding in reality. The only 'morals' that can be agreed upon are those with a constructive desire between many people in the community, such as don;t kill, don't steal, son't destroy etc.

Define wealth. Do you mean monetary wealth? material wealth? social wealth?
Hedonism isn't bad in and of itself. It is only bad when it comes to the detriment of themselves and society as a whole.

Why are those with a constructive desire between many people correct? No, this makes no sense.

Gotta go to bed, will continue this tomorrow.

[Mattopilos]

Why are those with a constructive desire between many people correct? No, this makes no sense.

Gotta go to bed, will continue this tomorrow.

You mean those within a religion are? That a non-materialist, "I said it is bad therefore it is" is correct? You are arguing for an even more perverse set of rules in society. Greed is a sin only to those that want to limit it in others and not themselves.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Why is sex a limit?

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

Unless all consensually agree...

[Mattopilos]

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

Unless all consensually agree...

someone gets it.

[Freefall11111]

Two things. First, relative poverty is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if 1% of the population own 50% of the wealth. What matters is absolute poverty. Second, there's nothing immoral about drugs or sex, they're not "decadent" activity, we're not living in a 9th century Muslim society.

[Cuprum]

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.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There's a common mistake in the mentality of many: Life is fair. It is not. Wealth is earned, saved and spent- who are you to judge what to do with something that is not your own? The strong survive and the weak do not. People will try to tell you otherwise, but that is the world we live in and have always lived in and always will be. Read that last part: Always will be. Millions have died because people thought otherwise to no avail. The sooner you embrace that truth, that reality, the better off you and the world will be.

I essentially agree with you. While I think that there needs to be a baseline that people don't drop under so that they're able to eat, have shelter, and have access to medical care, the fact is that there will be rich and poor, successful people and unsuccessful people, and it's unlikely that it will ever be completely fair. I like equality of opportunity a lot, but I distrust efforts towards equality of outcomes.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

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

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

I'm not a communist, but despite how they describe themselves, the nations you mentioned have not implemented actual communism. Now, I personally think that such a thing would be enormously likely (if not impossible), but you can't blame someone who wants real communism for avoiding the communist-in-name-only nations, just like you couldn't blame someone who wanted to live in a Democratic Republic for avoiding the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.