Income Inequality and Decadence

[Constantinopolis]

Tell me, how do you know the amount of "acumen and capability" that someone has? Well, you look at their wealth of course: If they have a lot of money that means they had a lot of "acumen and capability".

So in other words, your argument is based on circular logic: "Capitalism gives people money based on their skills, and we measure the level of skill that you have based on how much money you get." Getting rich is your reward for... being able to get rich.

If you can get rich, you are capable, and if you stay poor, something is wrong with the way you do things.

So like I said, circular logic. You can't prove that the poor are doing anything wrong, you just KNOW that they MUST be doing something wrong, because... because... well they MUST be! Surely it can't be the system's fault!

Likewise, you can't prove that the rich are doing anything better, you just know that they MUST be, because you can't admit to yourself that your position in society is largely due to good luck and other external factors.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you are not as good as others, blame yourselves, dont blame the rest for your misery. That is what communists and the poor do, blame everybody but themselves. If you are valued less, improve yourself to be valued more, that way you will be able to improve your lives without needing to rely on anyone other than yourself.

So you're saying that, for instance, Paris Hilton (born into money, gets paid to appear at clubs, and occasionally puts in work as a DJ) is somehow objectively better, than, say, an inner city high school teacher who manages to improve the test scores of their students, but is paid a basic five-figure salary for his or her efforts?

How do you figure?

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

If you are not as good as others, blame yourselves, dont blame the rest for your misery. That is what communists and the poor do, blame everybody but themselves. If you are valued less, improve yourself to be valued more, that way you will be able to improve your lives without needing to rely on anyone other than yourself.

So you're saying that, for instance, Paris Hilton (born into money, gets paid to appear at clubs, and occasionally puts in work as a DJ) is somehow objectively better, than, say, an inner city high school teacher who manages to improve the test scores of their students, but is paid a basic five-figure salary for his or her efforts?

How do you figure?

Well, rich children must learn to work to sustain their income, and the poor must work harder to improve their wage standards and living standards.

[Yuropah]

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.

Oh, yes. Of course.

Sure, the rich are immoral. Sure, they abuse the lower class for their own gain. Sure, they manipulate the government to keep themselves rich. Sure, they're riding society into the ground. Sure, we're all getting butt-fucked for their benefit.

But they're rich, and it's their right to fuck over society because they have money.

Blow me.

How are they "fucking over society", or "abusing the lower class for their own gain"?
what are they doing that makes you think these things?

[Constantinopolis]

You know... If simply having something is enough to show that you must have done something right to deserve it, that means that after we have a communist revolution and confiscate all the property of the rich, we will be able to pat ourselves on the back and talk about how skillful and hard working we are, since we clearly did something right to deserve all those nationalized industries.

Awesome. You can literally justify anything with this philosophy.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

One question, why do you support communism? Did you manage to afford a life with internet and computers with Capitalism or socialism?

Another poor argument. The assumption that said commodities couldn't exist in such a system is going 'ha! gotcha!" without actually making the system look bad. There are not true communist societies, so I couldn't tell you... but neither can you, for that matter. How about asking questions with a clear answer?

Well, why do you support communism if you do benefit from capitalism? Because in a communist society, well, innovation will be lacking for certain, and thus, such technology like phones and computers will not have come into existence, and living standards would have been lower, as communism supports class struggle, and forever will be stuck in a rut where the poor remain poor and the rich get poorer, and everyone gets worse off. Communism will never work as people are naturally greedy, and want to benefit themselves, and they will want leaders, and that already creates a class divide, and the greed will lead to inequality. So Communism can never happen, and it is pointless in arguing that it will work, because it can never work, proven by history, and by understanding how man works.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So you're saying that, for instance, Paris Hilton (born into money, gets paid to appear at clubs, and occasionally puts in work as a DJ) is somehow objectively better, than, say, an inner city high school teacher who manages to improve the test scores of their students, but is paid a basic five-figure salary for his or her efforts?

How do you figure?

Well, rich children must learn to work to sustain their income, and the poor must work harder to improve their wage standards and living standards.

But that's simply not the case. While there are rich children who continue to work (The children of the Presidential candidates of both major parties being good examples of this), there are also any number of wastrels who are able to live quite comfortably off of income from a trust fund, and give nothing back to the world. You seem to have the same romanticized view of the exceptionally wealthy that college reds have of the poor.

[Mattopilos]

Well, why do you support communism if you do benefit from capitalism? Because in a communist society, well, innovation will be lacking for certain, and thus, such technology like phones and computers will not have come into existence

How do you figure?

and living standards would have been lower, as communism supports class struggle, and forever will be stuck in a rut where the poor remain poor and the rich get poorer, and everyone gets worse off.

Again, what are you basing this off?

Communism will never work as people are naturally greedy

Annnnnnnnnd this is where you lose it - capitalism LIMITS greed, as only the rich have it. Also only narrow egoism values wealth in the form of money: communist favour social wealth and don't like capitalism because there isn't enough greed allowed. You are really off base here and you need to look into what you really think communism is.

and want to benefit themselves, and they will want leaders, and that already creates a class divide, and the greed will lead to inequality

Nope, because wealth will not be the focus. Again, you don't understand communism.

So Communism can never happen, and it is pointless in arguing that it will work, because it can never work, proven by history, and by understanding how man works.

History has only proven the transition stage doesn't work, and that DICTATORSHOPS don't work - they aren't communism, because the workers didn't own the means of production, the state did. You are attacking a different system entirely.

[Constantinopolis]

Another poor argument. The assumption that said commodities couldn't exist in such a system is going 'ha! gotcha!" without actually making the system look bad. There are not true communist societies, so I couldn't tell you... but neither can you, for that matter. How about asking questions with a clear answer?

Well, why do you support communism if you do benefit from capitalism?

I do not believe that I benefit from capitalism, but even if I did, I would still support communism, because I care first of all about justice for the working class, and only secondly about myself.

Because in a communist society, well, innovation will be lacking for certain, and thus, such technology like phones and computers will not have come into existence

You sure about that?

It may be argued that the pace of innovation wouldn't be as fast as under capitalism, but communism can innovate just fine.

[Allanea]

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.[/quote]

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.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Well, why do you support communism if you do benefit from capitalism? Because in a communist society, well, innovation will be lacking for certain, and thus, such technology like phones and computers will not have come into existence

How do you figure?

and living standards would have been lower, as communism supports class struggle, and forever will be stuck in a rut where the poor remain poor and the rich get poorer, and everyone gets worse off.

Again, what are you basing this off?

Communism will never work as people are naturally greedy

Annnnnnnnnd this is where you lose it - capitalism LIMITS greed, as only the rich have it. Also only narrow egoism values wealth in the form of money: communist favour social wealth and don't like capitalism because there isn't enough greed allowed. You are really off base here and you need to look into what you really think communism is.

and want to benefit themselves, and they will want leaders, and that already creates a class divide, and the greed will lead to inequality

Nope, because wealth will not be the focus. Again, you don't understand communism.

So Communism can never happen, and it is pointless in arguing that it will work, because it can never work, proven by history, and by understanding how man works.

History has only proven the transition stage doesn't work, and that DICTATORSHOPS don't work - they aren't communism, because the workers didn't own the means of production, the state did. You are attacking a different system entirely.

The reason why communism cannot work is because they always turn into dictatorships.

Also, communism believes in sharing wealth equally and preventing greed, as Marx did say that capitalism is too greed and self focused and communism will make everyone think about equality instead of one above another.

You do not understand communism, communism wants the poor and the rich to be equal, have the same things as each other, share the means of production and hate the "evil" of greed, and to always prevent one class from being higher than the other. However, communism needs leaders too, and this will still create a divide and cannot fulfill the dreams of a classless society.

[Constantinopolis]

Also, communism believes in sharing wealth equally and preventing greed, as Marx did say that capitalism is too greed and self focused and communism will make everyone think about equality instead of one above another.

...no. Marx literally never criticized capitalism or the capitalists for being "greedy".

He criticized capitalism for being an exploitative system that enables the ruling class (the bourgeoisie) to appropriate most of the wealth that is created by the working class and that should rightfully belong to the workers.

This is something that happens as part of the inherent nature of the capitalist system, regardless of whether anyone is greedy or not.

[Mattopilos]

The reason why communism cannot work is because they always turn into dictatorships.

Look up anarcho-communist communities. They weren't large, but they existed without an authority figure. Your point is falsified. Again, the transition step is what allows this to occur.

Also, communism believes in sharing wealth equally and preventing greed, as Marx did say that capitalism is too greed and self focused and communism will make everyone think about equality instead of one above another.

Marx isn't communism. He spoke and theorized communism, but not all thoughts are based on his. Again, you aren't talking about communism, just some narrow-minded version of it. They won't share 'wealth' equally in the way you are thinking it is.
What that means is that everyone has access to what is available, regardless of their monetary gains... because that system won't exist.

ot understand communism, communism wants the poor and the rich to be equal, have the same things as each other, share the means of production and hate the "evil" of greed, and to always prevent one class from being higher than the other. However, communism needs leaders too, and this will still create a divide and cannot fulfill the dreams of a classless society.

Again, you are not attacking communism. You are putting up strawmen to attack to make an easier, yet incorrect, argument. Please educate yourself on anarchco-communism and communism in general, not just what media and your government portrays them as.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How do you figure?

Again, what are you basing this off?

Annnnnnnnnd this is where you lose it - capitalism LIMITS greed, as only the rich have it. Also only narrow egoism values wealth in the form of money: communist favour social wealth and don't like capitalism because there isn't enough greed allowed. You are really off base here and you need to look into what you really think communism is.

Nope, because wealth will not be the focus. Again, you don't understand communism.

History has only proven the transition stage doesn't work, and that DICTATORSHOPS don't work - they aren't communism, because the workers didn't own the means of production, the state did. You are attacking a different system entirely.

The reason why communism cannot work is because they always turn into dictatorships.

Also, communism believes in sharing wealth equally and preventing greed, as Marx did say that capitalism is too greed and self focused and communism will make everyone think about equality instead of one above another.

You do not understand communism, communism wants the poor and the rich to be equal, have the same things as each other, share the means of production and hate the "evil" of greed, and to always prevent one class from being higher than the other. However, communism needs leaders too, and this will still create a divide and cannot fulfill the dreams of a classless society.

I'm not a communist, but you're kind of opening yourself up by misrepresenting communism in one passage, and then starting the next paragraph with "You don't understand communism" to someone who has obviously studied their Marx, Engels, and other communist writers quite closely.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

The reason why communism cannot work is because they always turn into dictatorships.

Also, communism believes in sharing wealth equally and preventing greed, as Marx did say that capitalism is too greed and self focused and communism will make everyone think about equality instead of one above another.

You do not understand communism, communism wants the poor and the rich to be equal, have the same things as each other, share the means of production and hate the "evil" of greed, and to always prevent one class from being higher than the other. However, communism needs leaders too, and this will still create a divide and cannot fulfill the dreams of a classless society.

I'm not a communist, but you're kind of opening yourself up by misrepresenting communism in one passage, and then starting the next paragraph with "You don't understand communism" to someone who has obviously studied their Marx, Engels, and other communist writers quite closely.

But isn't communism focussed on ultimate equality?

[Mattopilos]

But isn't communism focussed on ultimate equality?

Equality? In terms of fulfilling individual desires and greed, yes. Wealth? No, because wealth as we know it wouldn't exist. You are viewing through the eyes of a capitalist and attacking it because it doesn't fit your model, not because it is wrong.

[Constantinopolis]

I'm not a communist, but you're kind of opening yourself up by misrepresenting communism in one passage, and then starting the next paragraph with "You don't understand communism" to someone who has obviously studied their Marx, Engels, and other communist writers quite closely.

But isn't communism focussed on ultimate equality?

In a certain sense, yes. The ultimate goal of communism is the creation of a society that operates by the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and that has abolished money and private property and is at least partially post-scarcity.

In other words, the goal is to have a society where everyone gets everything they need, for free (as there is no money), presumably from some sort of common pool of goods.

It's not "equality" in the sense that "everyone gets the same things as everyone else". It's "equality" in the sense that "there is a common pool of goods and anyone can go to the local distribution center and take what they like, perhaps with certain restrictions".

That's the final goal. Most communists expect it to be achieved in the distant future, with one or more intermediate stages before it. Anarcho-communists believe it can be achieved in the near future.

[Risottia]

Well, why do you support communism if you do benefit from capitalism?

Because I think more people, myself included, would benefit MORE from communism.

Because in a communist society, well, innovation will be lacking for certain,

We don't have a direct experience or historical accounts of communist societies, so you're just guessing.
Taking a leaf from the closest approximation we've seen to a communist society, we've had the Soviet Union pull off quite a lot of innovation, ranging from steel mills to spacecrafts. I would say that your guess is entirely ungrounded.

communism supports class struggle

Wrong. Marxist theory says there IS ALREADY a struggle between different classes, that's why a communist society should be classless.

[Arkolon]

The rich deserving their money is another question - so long as the rich got all their money from voluntary means, why is it immoral? Is it immoral to give a man a dollar; is it immoral if a million people give a single man a dollar each? The man will be rich, and he did or didn't deserve the money, but there's nothing unethical about his wealth if it was acquired ethically.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not a communist, but you're kind of opening yourself up by misrepresenting communism in one passage, and then starting the next paragraph with "You don't understand communism" to someone who has obviously studied their Marx, Engels, and other communist writers quite closely.

But isn't communism focussed on ultimate equality?

It's more the misrepresentation of what Marx actually said, though that's already been covered upthread by someone else.

[Mattopilos]

The rich deserving their money is another question

Not really - them deserving their money is essentially asking is they earned it through fair means and by their own hard work.

so long as the rich got all their money from voluntary means, why is it immoral?

Morals are a meaningless abstract term set by the state and religions. Anyway, define 'voluntary means'.
I

s it immoral to give a man a dollar; is it immoral if a million people give a single man a dollar each? The man will be rich, and he did or didn't deserve the money, but there's nothing unethical about his wealth if it was acquired ethically.

again, ethics are a term defined by the state and religion - they are meaningless if they limit the greed and desire of the individual in the sense of social wealth. So, to put it this way: wealth in the ways of money is 'unfair' if someone has a concentrated amount of it without actually earning it, and is not using it to further society around him. Few do so.

[Constantinopolis]

The rich deserving their money is another question - so long as the rich got all their money from voluntary means, why is it immoral? Is it immoral to give a man a dollar; is it immoral if a million people give a single man a dollar each? The man will be rich, and he did or didn't deserve the money, but there's nothing unethical about his wealth if it was acquired ethically.

Heh. I know whose ideas you're referencing, but Nozick is full of shit. Specifically, there are two reasons why he is full of shit on this topic:

1. An action can be morally neutral (or even good) if done in small amounts and yet immoral if done in large amounts. If I buy you an apple and throw it at you saying "catch!", I'm being friendly. If a million people gather around you and do that at the same time... not so much.

2. It is not true that as long as persons A and B agree to do action X between them, that automatically always means that action X is harmless and ethical. Consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the action to be ethical.

Any philosophy that says "as long as you can get the other guy to agree to your demands, you did nothing wrong" is despicable. And that is precisely what Nozick's philosophy is saying.

[Arkolon]

The rich deserving their money is another question - so long as the rich got all their money from voluntary means, why is it immoral? Is it immoral to give a man a dollar; is it immoral if a million people give a single man a dollar each? The man will be rich, and he did or didn't deserve the money, but there's nothing unethical about his wealth if it was acquired ethically.

Heh. I know whose ideas you're referencing, but Nozick is full of shit. Specifically, there are two reasons why he is full of shit on this topic:

1. An action can be morally neutral (or even good) if done in small amounts and yet immoral if done in large amounts. If I buy you an apple and throw it at you saying "catch!", I'm being friendly. If a million people gather around you and do that at the same time... not so much.

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. 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?

2. It is not true that as long as persons A and B agree to do action X between them, that automatically always means that action X is harmless and ethical. Consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the action to be ethical.

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. You're also necessarily operating on an understanding of what is 'ethical' without outlining what those principles of your ethics are - if the principle of your ethics are that consent is unethical, of course it would be unethical. In this context, for Nozick, consent is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be ethical.

[Constantinopolis]

Heh. I know whose ideas you're referencing, but Nozick is full of shit. Specifically, there are two reasons why he is full of shit on this topic:

1. An action can be morally neutral (or even good) if done in small amounts and yet immoral if done in large amounts. If I buy you an apple and throw it at you saying "catch!", I'm being friendly. If a million people gather around you and do that at the same time... not so much.

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.

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.

2. It is not true that as long as persons A and B agree to do action X between them, that automatically always means that action X is harmless and ethical. Consent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the action to be ethical.

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.

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.

You're also necessarily operating on an understanding of what is 'ethical' without outlining what those principles of your ethics are - if the principle of your ethics are that consent is unethical, of course it would be unethical. In this context, for Nozick, consent is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be ethical.

I don't need to affirm any specific set of ethics for the purpose of this discussion. I am only showing how Nozick's philosophy can be used to justify all sorts of self-evidently evil acts as "ethical", and I am arguing that for this reason his philosophy should be rejected.

Of course, I don't expect to persuade you of this - I expect to persuade anyone else reading these posts.

[Nariterrr]

The rich deserving their money is another question - so long as the rich got all their money from voluntary means, why is it immoral? Is it immoral to give a man a dollar; is it immoral if a million people give a single man a dollar each? The man will be rich, and he did or didn't deserve the money, but there's nothing unethical about his wealth if it was acquired ethically.

If they use such money to plunder themselves and prevent the poor from having the same opportunities by lobbying the Republican party who's sole purpose is to deny people welfare while lining the 1%'s pocket and then they go on TV and tell us how 'discriminated' they are.... yes.