NationStates

Salus Maior wrote: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.

Unhappiness is a human constant.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:Then your moral judgments aren't a stable basis for political argument.

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

If they are subjective, I can simply say "I disagree", and your entire argument is invalid.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote: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.

Unhappiness is a human constant.

Just how it manifests itself and influences individual action is a product of material conditions.

The New Sea Territory wrote:If they are subjective, I can simply say "I disagree", and your entire argument is invalid.

Only if you assume contested ideas are invalid.

I dont think income inequality is really a bad thing. In a capitalist society, you're paid what you are worth, nothing more and nothing less. If you're the smartest engineer in the world, you get paid like it because it's a reward for your work. Ya some people dont deserve it. But a lot of rich people do, because they contributed to the world in some way through entertainment, technology, etc.

The Intergalactic Universe Corporation wrote:

Yuropah wrote:
I think it is the right of the rich to do these things, if they want to. Sure, what they may be doing is usually immoral, and degenerate, but they should be allowed to do it, if they can pay for it. Stealing people's money, and giving it to the poor just breeds lazy arseholes. It takes away the incentive to work, on both sides. Why work if you don't get to keep your money? Why work if you have money literally given to you?
tl;dr socialism/communism doesn't work, and income inequality is needed

Well said.

It's true. Total income equality destroys the incentive to work. If left wing economics are to work, a certain degree of inequality, although not as extreme as the current situation, is nessecary.

EDIT: Looked in the OOC views spoiler.

The Ukrainian Workers Republic wrote:I dont think income inequality is really a bad thing.

I don't, either. It's not "bad" in a moral sense. One could say it is even historically necessary to build class consciousness and achieve socialism.

In a capitalist society, you're paid what you are worth, nothing more and nothing less.

If that was how capitalism worked, the bosses would never make any money.

In reality, you are paid whatever the boss can get away with paying you, and he takes the rest of the money for himself.

If you're the smartest engineer in the world, you get paid like it because it's a reward for your work. Ya some people dont deserve it. But a lot of rich people do, because they contributed to the world in some way through entertainment, technology, etc.

The majority of the rich just exploited others to get to their position. The few that did actually work for their wealth were exploited by other rich people themselves to get to their position.

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:It's true. Total income equality destroys the incentive to work. If left wing economics are to work, a certain degree of inequality, although not as extreme as the current situation, is nessecary.

I've never seen anyone argue for income equality, though.

In reality, what I've seen many far-leftists argue for is a basic income. The incentive to work still exists, not only because the success of a commune directly affects me and thus it's in my interest to do so, but working can get me things beyond food, water and shelter.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote: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.

Unhappiness is a human constant.

I realize. My point is that their sadness doesn't mean we should sympathize with them as opposed to people who are suffering due to basic needs not being met.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

The Ukrainian Workers Republic wrote:I dont think income inequality is really a bad thing.

I don't, either. It's not "bad" in a moral sense. One could say it is even historically necessary to build class consciousness and achieve socialism.

In a capitalist society, you're paid what you are worth, nothing more and nothing less.

If that was how capitalism worked, the bosses would never make any money.

In reality, you are paid whatever the boss can get away with paying you, and he takes the rest of the money for himself.

If you're the smartest engineer in the world, you get paid like it because it's a reward for your work. Ya some people dont deserve it. But a lot of rich people do, because they contributed to the world in some way through entertainment, technology, etc.

The majority of the rich just exploited others to get to their position. The few that did actually work for their wealth were exploited by other rich people themselves to get to their position.

So you think profit is theft, right?

Yuropah wrote:I think it is the right of the rich to do these things, if they want to.

Lol. Prove your rights exist.

Sure, what they may be doing is usually immoral, and degenerate, but they should be allowed to do it, if they can pay for it.

Well spooked.

Stealing people's money, and giving it to the poor just breeds lazy arseholes. It takes away the incentive to work, on both sides. Why work if you don't get to keep your money? Why work if you have money literally given to you?

This would devastate socialism if socialism meant "high taxes and welfare". Of course, it doesn't. I don't give a shit about the rich and their wealth, I want to take over the means of production and run them democratically, without bosses....also known as socialism.

Under socialism, the incentive to work still exists, because a basic income isn't exactly a fun way to live. As such, enough people would work to keep the economy functioning.

tl;dr socialism/communism doesn't work, and income inequality is needed

*cliche intensifies* But muh incentives!

Salus Maior wrote:I realize. My point is that their sadness doesn't mean we should sympathize with them as opposed to people who are suffering due to basic needs not being met.

As it is a human constant, their sadness is no more or less valid than the sadness of the poor. The material situations of the poor should evoke more sympathy, but emotional pain is emotional pain. I don't sympathize only with poor people who are unhappy, and I don't disdain rich people who spend their days on the building ledge debating whether or not they should just jump already.

The Ukrainian Workers Republic wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:
I don't, either. It's not "bad" in a moral sense. One could say it is even historically necessary to build class consciousness and achieve socialism.



If that was how capitalism worked, the bosses would never make any money.

In reality, you are paid whatever the boss can get away with paying you, and he takes the rest of the money for himself.



The majority of the rich just exploited others to get to their position. The few that did actually work for their wealth were exploited by other rich people themselves to get to their position.

So you think profit is theft, right?

Yep.

The workers create everything, and the boss leeches off their labors.

The New Sea Territory wrote:Lol. Prove your rights exist, or are worth my time.

Problem: that presumes you're worth the time to prove it to.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:Lol. Prove your rights exist, or are worth my time.

Problem: that presumes you're worth the time to prove it to.

You say things like this a lot, but it seems to be something you use to get out of actually having to do the hard part of holding a view, which is debating its merit.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:Lol. Prove your rights exist, or are worth my time.

Problem: that presumes you're worth the time to prove it to.

My point was simple: the burden of proof lies on those who make them claim.

By the way, I saw a unicorn today. Oh wait? You don't believe me?

United Marxist Nations wrote: You say things like this a lot,

Usually only after arguing with someone and realizing that I might as well be shouting at a wall.

but it seems to be something you use to get out of actually having to do the hard part of holding a view, which is debating its merit.

Not really.

The New Sea Territory wrote:My point was simple: the burden of proof lies on those who make them claim.

By the way, I saw a unicorn today. Oh wait? You don't believe me?

Hey, if you make a claim that something needs to be worth your time, your time itself is implicitly being valued just like people who talk about rights in certain ways implicitly treat them as objective concepts inherent in the world.

Conserative Morality wrote:

The New Sea Territory wrote:My point was simple: the burden of proof lies on those who make them claim.

By the way, I saw a unicorn today. Oh wait? You don't believe me?

Hey, if you make a claim that something needs to be worth your time, your time itself is implicitly being valued just like people who talk about rights in certain ways implicitly treat them as objective concepts inherent in the world.

There's a reason I edited that part out, and left the "prove" part there.

Capitalism. Someone might as well be happy, since communism means everyone is equally unhappy.

The New Sea Territory wrote:

Conserative Morality wrote:Problem: that presumes you're worth the time to prove it to.

My point was simple: the burden of proof lies on those who make them claim.

By the way, I saw a unicorn today. Oh wait? You don't believe me?

The burden of proof is a sp00k.

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Capitalism. Someone might as well be happy, since communism means everyone is equally unhappy.

But they are equal.

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Capitalism. Someone might as well be happy, since communism means everyone is equally unhappy.

"Under Communism, everyone is equally unhappy."


What an empty, worthless, cliche comment that does not add anything whatsoever.

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Capitalism. Someone might as well be happy, since communism means everyone is equally unhappy.

Socioeconomic systems aren't to blame for human unhappiness generally; that's a part of human existence. They just influence how unhappiness manifests itself.

Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Capitalism. Someone might as well be happy, since communism means everyone is equally unhappy.

Pointless point is pointless. Someone doesn't get communism and therefore spouts cliches.