Another attempt to help the right understand the change in wealth distribution

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Besides, you should count yourself lucky. If we weren't such a "pussies" we'd shoot some assholes like you.

Why? I'm not one of the rich you claim to hate. Hell, you're the big landowner, right? So you're probably richer than I am. So what would you shoot me for? Crimethink?

In the meantime, nature makes us unequal and works to keep us that way. We are so unequal in so many countless ways that to focus solely on the inequalities of material possessions seems to me more than a bit shallow and petty, especially coming from Americans who obviously don't have to worry about their next meal or bed. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his health instead. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his children's love instead. Etc.

Somewhere is he who has died to himself and loves.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
For the record, I've never turned blue in the face while arguing on the interweb...

How vigorously do you want to dispute that?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Besides, you should count yourself lucky. If we weren't such a "pussies" we'd shoot some assholes like you.

Why? I'm not one of the rich you claim to hate. Hell, you're the big landowner, right? So you're probably richer than I am. So what would you shoot me for? Crimethink?

In the meantime, nature makes us unequal and works to keep us that way. We are so unequal in so many countless ways that to focus solely on the inequalities of material possessions seems to me more than a bit shallow and petty, especially coming from Americans who obviously don't have to worry about their next meal or bed. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his health instead. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his children's love instead. Etc.

You call me a pussy, insinuate that I'm making everything up, and now want to have to ask me why I would shoot you?

Well, I wouldn't shoot you, but for all I know someone else might? In all honesty, it wouldn't surprise me. I personally would only shoot someone whom I know is trying to harm me, or perhaps someone who has harmed me previuosly. Rest ssured, you don't have to worry about me.

I would ask though, what is the difference between someone who just walks up and shoots you or someone who knowingly poisons you a little bit every day know that it will eventually kill you? Wouldn't one killing be as serious as the other?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Besides, you should count yourself lucky. If we weren't such a "pussies" we'd shoot some assholes like you.

Why? I'm not one of the rich you claim to hate. Hell, you're the big landowner, right? So you're probably richer than I am. So what would you shoot me for? Crimethink?

In the meantime, nature makes us unequal and works to keep us that way. We are so unequal in so many countless ways that to focus solely on the inequalities of material possessions seems to me more than a bit shallow and petty, especially coming from Americans who obviously don't have to worry about their next meal or bed. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his health instead. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his children's love instead. Etc.

Somewhere is he who has died to himself and loves.

"He" didn't have a lot of money so it doesn't count.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
A hired worker is not a slave. He is a free person in business for himself. I have found that those people who understand this simple concept tend to be more financially successful than those who do not. You have to decide I guess whether you want opportunity or you want security.

We are all slaves to a system of private property where it takes money to live. You have to work to live. You have to waste your life earning money.

Why do we not have a system where every child is given a live where he can do whatever is natural for his interests and abilities? Everybody is equal who does what he loves to do.

That's not any system, Moonie, that's nature. Even monkeys starve if they don't gather enough fruits and nuts for themselves to eat. I'm sure that they too would rather spend their lives swinging through the trees rather than wasting it gathering to eat.
In the meantime, we do have that system where a child can do whatever is natural to his interests and abilities. He simply needs to be given the opportunity to do so without nihilists lying to him that he is slave for the same reason that roosters crack eggs.

A machine intelligence is coming, Vic. What rules will it make.

Have you ever seen a monkey that needed an advanced degree to pick a nut. Have you ever seen a monkey write on a nut, this is private property and belongs to monkey A but not B? Have you ever seen millions of monkeys dying while some monkeys have millions of nuts? Competition is hate. Try to understand that. Competition is hate. It is not the god of efficiency it is pure unadulterated hate. This world we have created is built on survival of the sickest.

What...in...the....h3ll did you smoke? I love the line I bolded...

1984 much?

/scratches head

And here we have it. You do not know that competition is hate because you do not know what you feel. But I know what you feel and so you see me as a threat.

wait what?

if someone has more skill than someone else, he hates?
if someone has a better idea, he hates?

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that you are blind to what you feel, as I already said. Where do you get the absurd notion of better? What makes you compare? The moment you say better you also say worse. The moment worse is created you will be told that is what you are. Better and worse means you have feelings about who you are. Don't you see that my ideas here are better than yours and because you don't want to feel inferior to me you argue? Now if I were like palehorse I would argue with you till I'm blue in the face to push my ideology, but I already know I don't have a chance. Only you can prevent forest fires.

Amazing. Perhaps you live in a world where everyone is identical in every way, but in the world I live in, we all have as many un-equalities as we do similarities. For example, I play golf. Tiger Woods plays golf. Guess what-he is better than I am at golf. I can play basketball. Michael Jordan can also. Guess what? He is better.

Actually at this point I think you are intentionally arguing with me lol I cant imagine ANYONE would actually think this way.

Although you *could* be one of those who think co-ed sports should be played without keeping score...*shrug*

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Besides, you should count yourself lucky. If we weren't such a "pussies" we'd shoot some assholes like you.

Why? I'm not one of the rich you claim to hate. Hell, you're the big landowner, right? So you're probably richer than I am. So what would you shoot me for? Crimethink?

In the meantime, nature makes us unequal and works to keep us that way. We are so unequal in so many countless ways that to focus solely on the inequalities of material possessions seems to me more than a bit shallow and petty, especially coming from Americans who obviously don't have to worry about their next meal or bed. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his health instead. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his children's love instead. Etc.

You call me a pussy, insinuate that I'm making everything up, and now want to have to ask me why I would shoot you?

Well, I wouldn't shoot you, but for all I know someone else might? In all honesty, it wouldn't surprise me. I personally would only shoot someone whom I know is trying to harm me, or perhaps someone who has harmed me previuosly. Rest ssured, you don't have to worry about me.

I would ask though, what is the difference between someone who just walks up and shoots you or someone who knowingly poisons you a little bit every day know that it will eventually kill you? Wouldn't one killing be as serious as the other?

You continue to be more and more irrational in this discussion.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Besides, you should count yourself lucky. If we weren't such a "pussies" we'd shoot some assholes like you.

Why? I'm not one of the rich you claim to hate. Hell, you're the big landowner, right? So you're probably richer than I am. So what would you shoot me for? Crimethink?

In the meantime, nature makes us unequal and works to keep us that way. We are so unequal in so many countless ways that to focus solely on the inequalities of material possessions seems to me more than a bit shallow and petty, especially coming from Americans who obviously don't have to worry about their next meal or bed. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his health instead. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his children's love instead. Etc.

You call me a pussy, insinuate that I'm making everything up, and now want to have to ask me why I would shoot you?

Well, I wouldn't shoot you, but for all I know someone else might? In all honesty, it wouldn't surprise me. I personally would only shoot someone whom I know is trying to harm me, or perhaps someone who has harmed me previuosly. Rest ssured, you don't have to worry about me.

I would ask though, what is the difference between someone who just walks up and shoots you or someone who knowingly poisons you a little bit every day know that it will eventually kill you? Wouldn't one killing be as serious as the other?

You continue to be more and more irrational in this discussion.

I'm not trying to be irrational. I originally asked you to define where the boss's authority ends and the individual workers right's begin and you aswered with your definition of the difference between a worker and a slave.

That doesn't have anything to do with where the boss's rights ends and the workers rights begin. Unless of course you think the workers have no rights, except to quit. If that's what you think, then just lay it out there and tell me.

And I's still curious as to your answer about killing somebody qucikly versus killing poisoning then so slowly they don't notice it happening?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You do not get rich unless you are born that way, or have a windfall.

What utter BS.
Go look at the list of the 10 richest people in the country, everyone of them started with very little, or in the case of the Waltons thier dad started with little.
Steve Jobs started in his garage.
Waren Buffet started working for his dad at the age of 11.
Bill Gates parents had money, but no where near the $56 billion he now has. etc.

The idea that you can only be rich if you start with money is total Bull.
Dave Thomas was a fricken orphan, how much money do orphans start with?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Besides, you should count yourself lucky. If we weren't such a "pussies" we'd shoot some assholes like you.

Why? I'm not one of the rich you claim to hate. Hell, you're the big landowner, right? So you're probably richer than I am. So what would you shoot me for? Crimethink?

In the meantime, nature makes us unequal and works to keep us that way. We are so unequal in so many countless ways that to focus solely on the inequalities of material possessions seems to me more than a bit shallow and petty, especially coming from Americans who obviously don't have to worry about their next meal or bed. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his health instead. Somewhere is a rich man who wishes he had his children's love instead. Etc.

You call me a pussy, insinuate that I'm making everything up, and now want to have to ask me why I would shoot you?

Well, I wouldn't shoot you, but for all I know someone else might? In all honesty, it wouldn't surprise me. I personally would only shoot someone whom I know is trying to harm me, or perhaps someone who has harmed me previuosly. Rest ssured, you don't have to worry about me.

I would ask though, what is the difference between someone who just walks up and shoots you or someone who knowingly poisons you a little bit every day know that it will eventually kill you? Wouldn't one killing be as serious as the other?

You continue to be more and more irrational in this discussion.

I'm not trying to be irrational. I originally asked you to define where the boss's authority ends and the individual workers right's begin and you aswered with your definition of the difference between a worker and a slave.

That doesn't have anything to do with where the boss's rights ends and the workers rights begin. Unless of course you think the workers have no rights, except to quit. If that's what you think, then just lay it out there and tell me.

And I's still curious as to your answer about killing somebody qucikly versus killing poisoning then so slowly they don't notice it happening?

I think workers should have the same rights as employers, and employers the same rights as workers. I've never said nor implied any differently.
That's not killing nor poisoning anyone.

 

[ProfJohn]

Getting back to the topic at hand.....

If the rich have to much and the poor have to little...
How do we solve this problem??

Can anyone give me a solution that would actually work?

BTW you can raise taxes on the rich all you want, that won't help the poor make more money. Unless you plan is to take money from the rich and 'give' it to the poor. But that won't solve the problem either, because the poor will go out and spend the money and end up poor again.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
I think workers should have the same rights as employers, and employers the same rights as workers. I've never said nor implied any differently.

So how does one assure that everybodie's rights are being equally respected?

It seems to me that the worker is at an extreme disadvantage. We live in a country where your rights are determined more by how good of a lawyer you can afford then what the law says. And in right to work states like mine, it's even worse. I don't think the average worker has much of a chance going to court against a large corporation, even if he could afford a good lawyer. If a business doesn't want you anymore they can turn your life into a living hell. That isn't right and that's why I favor strenghtening the unions.

And don't give me some BS about starting your own company. Not everyone has the brains to do that, even if they had the desire and the capital.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW you can raise taxes on the rich all you want, that won't help the poor make more money.

Unless you plan is to take money from the rich and 'give' it to the poor.

But that won't solve the problem either, because the poor will go out and spend the money and end up poor again.

Your hate, distain and discrimination against ordinary non-rich Americans and America truly shows.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You do not get rich unless you are born that way, or have a windfall.

What utter BS.
Go look at the list of the 10 richest people in the country, everyone of them started with very little, or in the case of the Waltons thier dad started with little.
Steve Jobs started in his garage.
Waren Buffet started working for his dad at the age of 11.
Bill Gates parents had money, but no where near the $56 billion he now has. etc.

The idea that you can only be rich if you start with money is total Bull.
Dave Thomas was a fricken orphan, how much money do orphans start with?

And for those few, how many others work just as hard and don't get there?

I'm not bitching, I'm asking you to open up your eyes and see what's right in front of you.

No one creates millions of dollars in real value, with their own hands, in their lifetime. No one.

If something you create is leveraged by countless others, and you receive a great deal of that created wealth because of IP laws, you still haven't 'created' that value, you're just being rewarded for enabling it.

 

[Vic]

Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

But what you neglect is that all they can do is enable - if you create a technology, and put a thousand people to work building it, and the result is a billion dollar industry, who created the industry? Who decides what the labour is worth? Who decides what the inventor is worth, or the capital? The latter two questions depend more on the financial position of the inventor than the value of the invention.

Let's assume for a moment it's the market, with no interference that makes these decisions. The the labour is credited with what they would be credited with elsewhere - there's no relation to the value of what is created; if they require the skill of a janitor, and janitors make $12/hr, that's what the labour gets, and we call that their 'productivity'.

If you've created the idea, it's absolutely true that you should get some benefit from it. But how much? Who decides? The current system seems to be 'wait til someone else figures out the same thing, and uses it, and then sue them and you'll get all of it'.

This can be unfair to the industry as well. Do you think the patent that RIM supposedly violated, and paid millions upon millions to defend and ultimately settle for, would have cost even a fraction of that to circumvent? Of course not.

The special case is of course things like arts where value is not based on productivity; Is Harry Potter 'worth' a billion dollars? Certainly not by any rigorous objective measure, but by sales, yes, he is. And that's really fine. When 200 years from now, copyright has been extended even more, and he is still not in the public domain, and someone is still able to extract profits from ownership, then it will be wrong. But as to exactly when it becomes abusive, I couldn't tell you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

The content of their minds is a total accident. They had the right information at the right time and place with the right associations to use it to their benefit. All that they have they got from other human beings. They are merely manifestations of consciousness subverted into wealth creation instead of the benefit of all human life. They run like rats for worldly rewards because of inner poverty. Imagine a world in which everybody did what they do for love of others. Most of those here would probably die, but the human race would soon reach the stars.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

But what you neglect is that all they can do is enable - if you create a technology, and put a thousand people to work building it, and the result is a billion dollar industry, who created the industry? Who decides what the labour is worth? Who decides what the inventor is worth, or the capital? The latter two questions depend more on the financial position of the inventor than the value of the invention.

Let's assume for a moment it's the market, with no interference that makes these decisions. The the labour is credited with what they would be credited with elsewhere - there's no relation to the value of what is created; if they require the skill of a janitor, and janitors make $12/hr, that's what the labour gets, and we call that their 'productivity'.

If you've created the idea, it's absolutely true that you should get some benefit from it. But how much? Who decides? The current system seems to be 'wait til someone else figures out the same thing, and uses it, and then sue them and you'll get all of it'.

This can be unfair to the industry as well. Do you think the patent that RIM supposedly violated, and paid millions upon millions to defend and ultimately settle for, would have cost even a fraction of that to circumvent? Of course not.

The special case is of course things like arts where value is not based on productivity; Is Harry Potter 'worth' a billion dollars? Certainly not by any rigorous objective measure, but by sales, yes, he is. And that's really fine. When 200 years from now, copyright has been extended even more, and he is still not in the public domain, and someone is still able to extract profits from ownership, then it will be wrong. But as to exactly when it becomes abusive, I couldn't tell you.

Interesting points. Within the first paragraph lies an interesting concept, one that would make for an interesting and potentially revolutionary experiment.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

You mean people like Albert Einstein?

Albert Einstein said "A hundred times a day, I tell myself that my inner and outer life are based on labors of other men, living and dead and I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving."

He also said "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

http://www.hal-pc.org/~wtb/einsteinonwealth.html

Although he died in 1955, most people today have heard of Albert Einstein, the scientific genius who revolutionized physics. The lessons to be learned from Einstein transcend physics. The time is ripe to consider and reflect upon Einstein and his attitude toward wealth. In 1934, he said:

I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure individuals is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse.

Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Gandhi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?

Einstein practiced what he preached. He came to the United States in 1933 to join Princeton University?s Institute for Advanced Study. He bought a modest home in Princeton where he lived until his death. He never owned a car; he walked to work; and he quit wearing socks at an early age because his big toe rubbed a hole in his socks.

In a brief autobiographical essay, Einstein?s sister speaks of his lack of interest in the material things that others prize so highly. She says, "In his youth he often used to say, ?All I?ll want in my dining room is a pine table, a bench, and a few chairs.'" In a 1918 letter to a friend about Einstein?s older son, who was showing a lively interest in engineering and technology, Einstein says:

I, too, was originally supposed to become an engineer. But I found the idea intolerable of having to apply the inventive faculty to matters that make everyday life even more elaborate?and all, just for dreary money-making. Thinking for its own sake, as in music! ? When I have no special problem to occupy my mind, I love to reconstruct proofs of mathematical and physical theorems that have long been known to me. There is no goal in this, merely an opportunity to indulge in the pleasant occupation of thinking (emphasis added).

Princeton?s Institute for Advanced Study was the brainchild of an educational critic named Abraham Flexner. The Institute was conceived as a community of outstanding scholars--well paid and with no formal duties--who could concentrate on science. The setting of Einstein?s initial salary at the Institute illustrates his humility and attitude toward wealth. The negotiations, which occurred in 1932, proceeded as follows:

Flexner invited [Einstein] to name his own salary. A few days later Einstein wrote to suggest what, in view of his needs and his fame, he thought was a reasonable figure. Flexner was dismayed. By American standards it was far too small. He could not possibly recruit outstanding American scholars at such a salary, and to Flexner, though perhaps not to Einstein, it was unthinkable that other scholars at the Institute should outstrip Einstein in salary. This being explained, Einstein reluctantly consented to ? a much higher figure, and he left the detailed negotiations to his wife.

The reasonable figure that Einstein suggested was the modest sum of $3,000 per year ($40,260 in today?s dollars). Flexner upped it to $10,000 ($134,200 in today?s dollars), and offered Einstein an annual pension of $7,500 ($100,650 in today?s dollars), which he refused as "too generous"; so it was reduced to $6,000 ($80,520 in today?s dollars). When the Institute hired a mathematician at an annual salary of $15,000 ($201,300 in today?s dollars) and an annual pension of $8,000 ($107,360 in today?s dollars), Einstein?s compensation was increased to those amounts.

Standing in stark contrast to Einstein (his attitude toward wealth and the trappings of success, his humility, and the way he conducted his life) are many high-level corporate executives whose attitude and behavior reflect little more than arrogance and naked greed. To follow are some examples.......

Now if only the people who think they are so indespensible and are creating such "value" as to be be worth there $400 million dollare retirement pacakges would take his attitude.

God could we use some more genius like Einstein.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
A hired worker is not a slave. He is a free person in business for himself. I have found that those people who understand this simple concept tend to be more financially successful than those who do not. You have to decide I guess whether you want opportunity or you want security.

We are all slaves to a system of private property where it takes money to live. You have to work to live. You have to waste your life earning money.

Why do we not have a system where every child is given a live where he can do whatever is natural for his interests and abilities? Everybody is equal who does what he loves to do.

That's not any system, Moonie, that's nature. Even monkeys starve if they don't gather enough fruits and nuts for themselves to eat. I'm sure that they too would rather spend their lives swinging through the trees rather than wasting it gathering to eat.
In the meantime, we do have that system where a child can do whatever is natural to his interests and abilities. He simply needs to be given the opportunity to do so without nihilists lying to him that he is slave for the same reason that roosters crack eggs.

A machine intelligence is coming, Vic. What rules will it make.

Have you ever seen a monkey that needed an advanced degree to pick a nut. Have you ever seen a monkey write on a nut, this is private property and belongs to monkey A but not B? Have you ever seen millions of monkeys dying while some monkeys have millions of nuts? Competition is hate. Try to understand that. Competition is hate. It is not the god of efficiency it is pure unadulterated hate. This world we have created is built on survival of the sickest.

What...in...the....h3ll did you smoke? I love the line I bolded...

1984 much?

/scratches head

And here we have it. You do not know that competition is hate because you do not know what you feel. But I know what you feel and so you see me as a threat.

wait what?

if someone has more skill than someone else, he hates?
if someone has a better idea, he hates?

What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that you are blind to what you feel, as I already said. Where do you get the absurd notion of better? What makes you compare? The moment you say better you also say worse. The moment worse is created you will be told that is what you are. Better and worse means you have feelings about who you are. Don't you see that my ideas here are better than yours and because you don't want to feel inferior to me you argue? Now if I were like palehorse I would argue with you till I'm blue in the face to push my ideology, but I already know I don't have a chance. Only you can prevent forest fires.

Amazing. Perhaps you live in a world where everyone is identical in every way, but in the world I live in, we all have as many un-equalities as we do similarities. For example, I play golf. Tiger Woods plays golf. Guess what-he is better than I am at golf. I can play basketball. Michael Jordan can also. Guess what? He is better.

Actually at this point I think you are intentionally arguing with me lol I cant imagine ANYONE would actually think this way.

Although you *could* be one of those who think co-ed sports should be played without keeping score...*shrug*

Absolutely. Competition is hostility. Why would you teach kids to hate. I know, you want to provide them with a healthy outlet for aggression. Hehe.

Tiger may be better at golf than you but I doubt he could even hold a candle to me. If I got on a golf course the sun and beauty and all that fresh air and grass would make me think I'd died and gone to heaven. The joy would probably give me a heart attack. I would feel such ecstasy I'd jump out of my skin. I'd be down on the ground kissing the grass. Oh my God the body electric. I'd putt my way around just to make it last.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

Oh please, calling these people Einsteins is real insult to the real Einstein.

Right place and the right time and happens to be right people mainly by luck does not make an Einstein.

Luck is still the "key" element.

 

[ProfJohn]

Charlie you seem to be forgetting that difference between you and the rich is the risk involved.

When you show up at work everyday you expect to be paid a certain amount per hour. You don?t care if the business is doing good or bad, you want your money and if you don?t get it you will leave to find another job.
The person who starts a business doesn?t have the luxury of a steady pay check. If the business is doing bad they may not collect any type of income and many of them end up going broke trying to make their businesses work.
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

The content of their minds is a total accident. They had the right information at the right time and place with the right associations to use it to their benefit. All that they have they got from other human beings. They are merely manifestations of consciousness subverted into wealth creation instead of the benefit of all human life. They run like rats for worldly rewards because of inner poverty. Imagine a world in which everybody did what they do for love of others. Most of those here would probably die, but the human race would soon reach the stars.

Ridiculous. Everything around you was created with the power of the human mind. Even the money and property you so desperately want control over is nothing but an abstract creation of the human mind. And if we do reach the stars, it will be the human mind that makes it possible. There is no accident in that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Not with their hands, Charlie, but certainly with their minds.

Oh please, calling these people Einsteins is real insult to the real Einstein.

Right place and the right time and happens to be right people mainly by luck does not make an Einstein.

Luck is still the "key" element.

Wow... sour grapes much? It doesn't take an Einstein to use your mind for creative purposes, or to benefit others.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Charlie you seem to be forgetting that difference between you and the rich is the risk involved.

When you show up at work everyday you expect to be paid a certain amount per hour. You don?t care if the business is doing good or bad, you want your money and if you don?t get it you will leave to find another job.
The person who starts a business doesn?t have the luxury of a steady pay check. If the business is doing bad they may not collect any type of income and many of them end up going broke trying to make their businesses work.
For every Dave Thomas who turned his business into a multi-million dollar business there are probably a dozen dmcowen674?s who lost everything.

Now the reason that most of us will never be rich is that most of us will never take that risk and put everything on the line for an idea.

Nope, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

I fully understand what it takes to start your own business, and I'm even willing to concede that virtually anyone can generate the startup capital to go into business for themself, in at least some fields.

The entire moral claim of capitlalism - the entire justification of protecting private property rights, and (in it's purest form) no other rights (unless you separate physical assault), is that everyone in a free market earns exactly what they get, and vice versa.

There are numerous reasons that this is not true, and in fact there are cases where what is even meant by such a concept becomes undefined (I just gave one). I'm not against capitalism, or free commerce, but it is not a magic bullet, and it doesn't carry a strong moral imperative (a weak one, perhaps, but not a strong one).

 

[Vic]

Why is it that ideologues lamenting the loss of individual rights to collective rights push for more collectivization and hence the loss of even more individual rights? Are you really that blind? How many more times must history prove you wrong? How many millions more must die on the altars of your egos?

The entire moral claim of capitalism is that it protects the rights of the individual, each and every one of them. Otherwise, NO economic theory answers questions like people earning what they get, blah blah blah etc. You want to get into that, we certainly could go into the ugly cynical hypocrisy of communism and other such collective systems that pretend that make people economically equal while they are in actual practice used as means to control, murder, steal, imprison, and starve, all because they have no regard whatsoever for the sanctity of the individual human life.