NationStates

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.

The governments no matter what will always be ruled by the rich. Thus it's against their interests to support socialism or communism unless it is to pacify the population like bread and circuses.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote: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.

The first Galactic Republic wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote: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.

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.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

The first Galactic Republic wrote: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.

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

Minzerland wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote: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.

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

Enjoyment has limits.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

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

Enjoyment has limits.

Why is sex a limit?

Minzerland wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:Enjoyment has limits.

Why is sex a limit?

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

I think they're two separate issues to be honest. Painting all rich people as decadent is no less dishonest an argument than saying all poor people deserve to be there.

I'm as disgusted as anyone at the fact that people who contribute nothing to society, like those reality stars, are given a free pass by society, but that's got nothing to do with income inequality - call me old fashioned, but it has more to do with the tears in the moral fabric of society.

I'm a believer in Noblesse Oblige, which is a concept that appears to have been lost in our increasingly self-centred society.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote: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.

Ah, the solution is restriction. Your right, people like the Kardashions and Paris Hilton live extravagant lives while never working a day, while someone like let's say Tesla died broke. The problem is Capitalism itself, the system is broke. Although, so is every other system. No system, political or economic can survive in its purest form. Instead we must learn to adapt, and merge the best perks of each system. For example, Switzerland, and the Nordic countries. They mix everything perfectly. But that still isn't enough...

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

Minzerland wrote:Why is sex a limit?

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

So? Why is it so decadent for the rich to do as you've describe?

Massacre the bourgeoisie!

/thread

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

Minzerland wrote:Why is sex a limit?

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

What if you're married to all of them?

Nothin' wrong with drugs, sex, and alcohol mmmk

Galloism wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:Sex with multiple partners is immoral, if you are married.

What if you're married to all of them?

The US federal government will be wanting to arrest that person.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:These days, I often see fashion/reality/news shows and documentaries, where the very rich live such wasteful and opulent lives.

It is up to your interpretation whether the rich do live wasteful lifestyles, as a so called wasteful lifestyle usually involves spending of some sort, which means they aren't necessarily hoarding their cash. I am also assuming your are speaking about billionaires, not the average millionaire. The average millionaire doesn't live an opulent lifestyle, which is he is rich.

They are promiscuous, lazy and are often addicted to either drugs or alcohol.

Welcome to the state of humanity. This isn't anything new. Rich or poor, people are like that.

On the other hand, I have seen beggars on the street not getting a piece of food, resorting to stealing, with my own eyes.

And what do you propose we do about that? Because stealing from the rich and giving to the poor isn't a smart way of making poor people self sufficient, and is also immoral.

In our world, the richest 1% has more wealth than the poorest 50%. They do not deserve this money

And people who never made the money themselves do deserve it?

- 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.

While I don't speak specifically for the Kardashian's, I assume they pay a higher amount of taxes then your average poor person, which is in turn funding welfare stamps and a host of government services. Other "one percenter's" are involved in large amounts of humanitarian aide/research/donating/charity. They understand as well as anyone that once they die they aren't bringing their dough with them.

They are decadent, corrupt and are oppressive.

Great way to marginalize an entire group of people because of how much fiat currency they own.

Income inequality is the root of the countless things wrong with our world.

I would venture to say income instability is the root of countless things wrong with our world, but not the only thing causing issues. Income inequality is a metric to show how much wealth is concentrated, but actually doesn't drive human actions. People don't wake up and decide they are going to shoot up a mall because Bill Gates has 70 billion dollars. People wake up wondering whether they will be able to get money to feed their family. I don't venture to say it is Bill Gates problem, I don't venture to say it is their problem entirely, I venture to say it is nobody's problem. Doesn't mean we shouldn't help poor people become self sufficient, but it doesn't mean we should steal and give the stolen property to people who did not do anything for it.

We should be focusing on teaching poor people to sustain themselves economically instead of living off of government freebies. We should be educating, providing job opportunities, and creating a secure environment. Frankly, that is where our focus should be.

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.

Your premise that billionaires are exclusively evil is ignorant of the rest of society as a whole. Communism is a failure because it fails to recognize that mankind never has been, is not, and will never be "good" (however you define that).

Minzerland wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:Sex with multiple partners is immoral, if you are married.

So? Why is it so decadent for the rich to do as you've describe?

Marriage is a commitment to someone special to you- if you do it with someone else, you've broken your commitment. I'm not against casual sex- but it's fundamentally wrong when you already have a partner. The rich have power- they are abusing their power when they do these things.

Anyway, back on topic - I believe in wealth redistribution- take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

Minzerland wrote:So? Why is it so decadent for the rich to do as you've describe?

Marriage is a commitment to someone special to you- if you do it with someone else, you've broken your commitment. I'm not against casual sex- but it's fundamentally wrong when you already have a partner. The rich have power- they are abusing their power when they do these things.

Anyway, back on topic - I believe in wealth redistribution- take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

Not all rich people are married. What power are they abusing by enacting sex?

Well, I disagree.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

Minzerland wrote:So? Why is it so decadent for the rich to do as you've describe?

Marriage is a commitment to someone special to you- if you do it with someone else, you've broken your commitment. I'm not against casual sex- but it's fundamentally wrong when you already have a partner. The rich have power- they are abusing their power when they do these things.

Anyway, back on topic - I believe in wealth redistribution- take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

I doubt that that could ever work in places like America. In my opinion, communism seems like it'd be more effective in smaller nations, hence that "commune" part of it. That way, if wealth does get distributed, all of the poor aren't just getting like a penny of the money. The smaller the area, the easier to share.

But, that could just be me.

EDIT: Typos.

Radiatia wrote:I'm a believer in Noblesse Oblige, which is a concept that appears to have been lost in our increasingly self-centred society.

It never existed in the first place.

It is up to your interpretation whether the rich do live wasteful lifestyles, as a so called wasteful lifestyle usually involves spending of some sort, which means they aren't necessarily hoarding their cash. I am also assuming your are speaking about billionaires, not the average millionaire. The average millionaire doesn't live an opulent lifestyle, which is he is rich.

Even if they're not hoarding, they have way more than they need.

Welcome to the state of humanity. This isn't anything new. Rich or poor, people are like that.

Wrong. Not all people are immoral.

And what do you propose we do about that? Because stealing from the rich and giving to the poor isn't a smart way of making poor people self sufficient, and is also immoral.

Why use "stealing"? The rich exploit the poor for money, they are the thieves. For the second point, read more.

And people who never made the money themselves do deserve it?

The poor work much harder than the rich, just look at workers in factories- yet they are severely underpaid. They deserve more for their work.

While I don't speak specifically for the Kardashian's, I assume they pay a higher amount of taxes then your average poor person, which is in turn funding welfare stamps and a host of government services. Other "one percenter's" are involved in large amounts of humanitarian aide/research/donating/charity. They understand as well as anyone that once they die they aren't bringing their dough with them.

If everyone was equal, everyone would contribute equally to humanitarian aide/research/donating/charity. There's no reason to keep the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

Great way to marginalize an entire group of people because of how much fiat currency they own.

It's true. You can see it for yourself.

I would venture to say income instability is the root of countless things wrong with our world, but not the only thing causing issues. Income inequality is a metric to show how much wealth is concentrated, but actually doesn't drive human actions. People don't wake up and decide they are going to shoot up a mall because Bill Gates has 70 billion dollars. People wake up wondering whether they will be able to get money to feed their family. I don't venture to say it is Bill Gates problem, I don't venture to say it is their problem entirely, I venture to say it is nobody's problem. Doesn't mean we shouldn't help poor people become self sufficient, but it doesn't mean we should steal and give the stolen property to people who did not do anything for it.

We should be focusing on teaching poor people to sustain themselves economically instead of living off of government freebies. We should be educating, providing job opportunities, and creating a secure environment. Frankly, that is where our focus should be.

First point? True, I agree, income inequality isn't the only problem, but it's one of the most important. Second- and I'm addressing the second point above, too- to clarify, I believe in redistributing wealth and helping the poor get good jobs, so that eventually, they don't need welfare. Until then, though, welfare is a must.

Your premise that billionaires are exclusively evil is ignorant of the rest of society as a whole. Communism is a failure because it fails to recognize that mankind never has been, is not, and will never be "good" (however you define that).

1. I never said the rich were exclusively evil. You're shoving words down my throat.
2. The rich should use their power for good, not for bad.
3. That is your bias.

Minzerland wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:Marriage is a commitment to someone special to you- if you do it with someone else, you've broken your commitment. I'm not against casual sex- but it's fundamentally wrong when you already have a partner. The rich have power- they are abusing their power when they do these things.

Anyway, back on topic - I believe in wealth redistribution- take money from the rich and give it to the poor.

Not all rich people are married. What power are they abusing by enacting sex?

Well, I disagree.

I'm talking about the rich who are married and have other partners.

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:

Minzerland wrote:Not all rich people are married. What power are they abusing by enacting sex?

Well, I disagree.

I'm talking about the rich who are married and have other partners.

Your OP doesn't mention marriage, you've only brought it into the conversation after my question.

Minzerland wrote:

Jumhuriyah Hindustan wrote:I'm talking about the rich who are married and have other partners.

Your OP doesn't mention marriage, you've only brought it into the conversation after my question.

It's because you're derailing this thread. Why are we talking about marriage?

Even if they're not hoarding, they have way more than they need.

Then how much is enough?

Wrong. Not all people are immoral.

By what standard are we even judging morality?

Why use "stealing"? The rich exploit the poor for money, they are the thieves. For the second point, read more.

Not all of them do, simply saying "The rich exploit the poor for money" is a massive generalization.

The poor work much harder than the rich, just look at workers in factories- yet they are severely underpaid. They deserve more for their work.

I agree working people deserve much more than what they get now.

If everyone was equal, everyone would contribute equally to humanitarian aide/research/donating/charity. There's no reason to keep the wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

Unfortunately I find that to be very unrealistic. But one can always dream.

1. I never said the rich were exclusively evil. You're shoving words down my throat.

While you didn't say the rich were exclusively evil, his point was you're generalizing the rich negatively. Like above when you said "The rich exploit the poor for money", that is generalizing the rich and saying all of them do.

2. The rich should use their power for good, not for bad.

I 100% agree, if only that were the reality.