Is it bad to be "rich"?

[sandorski]

I don't think you know what "justify" means. But since you aren't up to the challenge of understanding that, I suppose we're at an impasse.

There's an Impasse alright, but I don't think you truly comprehend what it is.

 

[nobodyknows]

To answer the OP, there is nothing wrong with wealth per se. There is much wrong with greed, and everything wrong with exploiting others to obtain wealth.

Well put. +1

 

[nobodyknows]

Is it bad to be "rich"?

Cetainly not for the "rich".

 

[KlokWyze]

Any person who has learned to or always has provided for themselves and/or others will usually be @ least slightly to moderately annoyed to see a smug 16 year old driving around a Porsche Cayenne.

Conversely a person who earned their "rich" status themselves is almost certainly to be intelligent and hard working. I think the majority of wealthy people are generally pretty damn smart, but a lot of the bad apples can stick out and be offensive to "financially normal" people. Inheritance of huge amounts of wealth definitely has problems, but I couldn't ever really think of a reasonable alternative.

Demonizing anyone based on some prejudice is logically wrong regardless.

 

[nonlnear]

To answer the OP, there is nothing wrong with wealth per se. There is much wrong with greed, and everything wrong with exploiting others to obtain wealth.

If by greed you mean unapologetic self-interest, then could you explain what is wrong with greed is it does not exploit in order to achieve its goals? Where is the "much wrong" with greed if a greedy person goes through life seeking to further his goals by reaching mutually beneficial agreements with those he encounters? The world would be a better place for it for each person who transacts with the greedy person would be happier than before they did.

I submit that greed only takes on the color of evil when it is coupled with force and/or deception.

Also note that is greed is defined as simply an unapologetic devotion to one's interests and desires, that it does not necessarily preclude generosity either. Then again that is counter to some people's definition of the term, so establishing definitions would be useful. A legitimate and common definition is the devotion to accumulating wealth. That could be argued to preclude generosity, but even then only if the sole purpose of acquiring the wealth is the wealth itself. If the greedy person is acquiring the wealth in order to achieve some purpose, then that purpose could be "generous". i.e. Bill Gates is devoted to acquiring wealth (please allow me to ignore questions of force or deception as my point here is a simple one) and does so shamelessly (greedily?), but he chooses to use that wealth to pursue what many would say are charitable goals.

 

[Soltis]

This convo is somewhat derailing the thread but since my original question has been answered very well(as far as I was looking for anyway) i'll say this; The constitution justifies itself in the sense that what is listed on it is expected to be the inalienable rights of Americans(and mankind in general AFAIK), so asking for that to be justified is kinda moot, "I think, therefore I am" in a sense. There may come a day when its nothing but a piece of paper as far as those in power are concerned, but really you have to have a serious majority of complete idiots and literally everyone has to not care at all for that to come to pass.

 

[CycloWizard]

By anyone else you mean the society I live in that gave me the freedom and opportunity to become wealthy?

Freedom (or, at least, liberty) is an individual right - not the product of some social contract. Society can grant opportunities by bringing individuals and groups together, but it is never the source of opportunity or rights.

 

[theeedude]

I dunno, I am not rich, so I wouldn't know if it's good or bad. I know being in the middle class is better than being poor, so I can extrapolate that being rich is not too bad either. Maybe some rich people can weigh in.

 

[desy]

Cause Ants have chosen the dictatorship model which parallels the human experience of being the inferior system as oppsed to democracy

 

[CycloWizard]

This convo is somewhat derailing the thread but since my original question has been answered very well(as far as I was looking for anyway) i'll say this; The constitution justifies itself in the sense that what is listed on it is expected to be the inalienable rights of Americans(and mankind in general AFAIK), so asking for that to be justified is kinda moot, "I think, therefore I am" in a sense. There may come a day when its nothing but a piece of paper as far as those in power are concerned, but really you have to have a serious majority of complete idiots and literally everyone has to not care at all for that to come to pass.

The Declaration of Independence might be what you're thinking of here as a justification for the Constitution. The Constitution itself doesn't say WHY we have rights, only what those rights are. The Declaration is, then, effectively the argument for a Constitution of that form. It states the axioms:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Based on these axioms, the rights in the Constitution should naturally follow.

 

[CycloWizard]

Cause Ants have chosen the dictatorship model which parallels the human experience of being the inferior system as oppsed to democracy

So if ants held a revolution and became a democracy, they would take over the world? Call me skeptical, but I think there are probably a few other factors involved here.

 

[desy]

I for one welcome our Ant overlords

 

[nonlnear]

Based on these axioms, the rights in the Constitution should naturally follow.

Except that the consent of the governed is a flimsy premise. Consent cannot be inherited, and it cannot be understood to be implied prior to the terms of said consent being defined.

It can be set down in a much more consistent and defensible manner, but neither the DoI nor the Constitution do so in a manner that is even remotely complete. Tragically for statists, deriving a government by consent which is logically consistent requires a very narrow jurisdiction for the enforceable law. After all, law is the removal of consent. It seems like a paradox is inevitable, but it can be avoided with care...

 

[RearAdmiral]

Rich no. Greedy, possibly.

Just don't be an a-hole about it. I want to be rich so I can do fun things with my family/community. I don't know many rich/wealthy people that just swim around in their money all day, they usually possess above average generosity, at least in my experience.

 

[nobodyknows]

If by greed you mean unapologetic self-interest, then could you explain what is wrong with greed is it does not exploit in order to achieve its goals? Where is the "much wrong" with greed if a greedy person goes through life seeking to further his goals by reaching mutually beneficial agreements with those he encounters? The world would be a better place for it for each person who transacts with the greedy person would be happier than before they did.

I submit that greed only takes on the color of evil when it is coupled with force and/or deception.

Also note that is greed is defined as simply an unapologetic devotion to one's interests and desires, that it does not necessarily preclude generosity either. Then again that is counter to some people's definition of the term, so establishing definitions would be useful. A legitimate and common definition is the devotion to accumulating wealth. That could be argued to preclude generosity, but even then only if the sole purpose of acquiring the wealth is the wealth itself. If the greedy person is acquiring the wealth in order to achieve some purpose, then that purpose could be "generous". i.e. Bill Gates is devoted to acquiring wealth (please allow me to ignore questions of force or deception as my point here is a simple one) and does so shamelessly (greedily?), but he chooses to use that wealth to pursue what many would say are charitable goals.

If greed only takes on the "color" of evil when force or deception is used then why your deception of the definition of greed?

Greed (also called avarice) in psychology is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

Bill Gates doens't have to spend one red cent of his money on charitable goals if he doesn't want to, but he does and that is admirable. If he spent even more money that would be even more admirable, but he doesn't... does he. I guess he's still a bit on the greedy side.

LOL, it seems I recall seeing him interviewed and he said he didn't like being the richest man in the world. I guess it made him feel greedy??

 

[nonlnear]

If greed only takes on the "color" of evil when force or deception is used then why your deception of the definition of greed?

Please explain. I was up front about how I was interpreting it, and acknowledged that it may be used for other meanings.

Bill Gates doens't have to spend one red cent of his money on charitable goals if he doesn't want to, but he does and that is admirable.

Exactly.

If he spent even more money that would be even more admirable, but he doesn't... does he.

Here again, I'm with you. The term "admirable" requires some shading to be precise, but it's not a big deal. There could be an issue if you mean to imply that there is some "obligation" that he is not fulfilling by not being generous enough for you - but I'm not sure if you meant it that way or not.

I guess he's still a bit on the greedy side.

And there is nothing wrong with that. I have no claim over his fortune to the extent that it was earned by the consent of those with whom he does business.

 

[nobodyknows]

Please explain. I was up front about how I was interpreting it, and acknowledged that it may be used for other meanings.

You may think you're being smart by clipping the definition of the word "greed" so as to not encompass all that it means and then attempting to make an argument that greed is nothing to be ashamed of. You're not fooling anyone except perhaps youself with your attempted double talk. Greed is nothing but wanting in excess one's need.

Everybody suffers from it, but in varying degrees.

 

[CycloWizard]

Except that the consent of the governed is a flimsy premise. Consent cannot be inherited, and it cannot be understood to be implied prior to the terms of said consent being defined.

It can be set down in a much more consistent and defensible manner, but neither the DoI nor the Constitution do so in a manner that is even remotely complete. Tragically for statists, deriving a government by consent which is logically consistent requires a very narrow jurisdiction for the enforceable law. After all, law is the removal of consent. It seems like a paradox is inevitable, but it can be avoided with care...

I said "should follow," not that it does. Sandorski couldn't even make it to the upper levels of the discussion, so I wasn't yet worried about the lower level considerations.

 

[sandorski]

You may think you're being smart by clipping the definition of the word "greed" so as to not encompass all that it means and then attempting to make an argument that greed is nothing to be ashamed of. You're not fooling anyone except perhaps youself with your attempted double talk. Greed is nothing but wanting in excess one's need.

Everybody suffers from it, but in varying degrees.

That damned movie mainstreamed the term and now it has lost its' meaning. :twisted:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

LOL, those with the gold rule, so who do you blame? The poor? If they were so smart as to be able to "expolit" the middle class the why don't they exploit the rich also?

I think they're smart enough to vote. No? Entitlements are not a free lunch and taxing the rich to pay for them comes up short compared to the amount of money needed to fund them. The middle class is where the real money is at. Granted...wealth distribution is out of whack...but this isn't really about the rich now is it...this is about the middle class. They are the new "rich"....the new oppressors of the poor.

 

[shira]

Rich people are the best and most good of all. They provide JOBS to other people so that they too can be rich someday if they work hard enough. They also pay almost every penny of the tax revenue, they should be applauded and held in high regard, not demonized.

"Good" is an "absolute term" when used as an adjective. It doesn't take a comparative modifier such as "most."

Furthermore, "best" is the superlative form of "good." So that even if "most good" were grammatical, it would be entirely redundant with "best."

I should also add that your bad grammar was the highlight of your post.

 

[nonlnear]

You may think you're being smart by clipping the definition of the word "greed" so as to not encompass all that it means and then attempting to make an argument that greed is nothing to be ashamed of. You're not fooling anyone except perhaps youself with your attempted double talk.

Since when does greed necessarily encompass deceit and/or forcible coercion? Giving you the benefit of the doubt I looked up a few dictionaries and I just don't see it anywhere. Can you enlighten me please?

Greed is nothing but wanting in excess one's need.

And what, pray tell, is a need? You claim to be the king of untwisted definitions, so this ought to be very enlightening.

The only difference between your definition and mine is that I abstain from the inherently problematically pejorative value judgment "in excess of one's need". (That necessarily makes the definition entirely socially determined rather than simply being contingent on the person or entity being described.) Both of our definitions focus on desire for property, only mine is more precise.

 

[Bowfinger]

If by greed you mean unapologetic self-interest, then could you explain what is wrong with greed is it does not exploit in order to achieve its goals? Where is the "much wrong" with greed if a greedy person goes through life seeking to further his goals by reaching mutually beneficial agreements with those he encounters? The world would be a better place for it for each person who transacts with the greedy person would be happier than before they did.

I submit that greed only takes on the color of evil when it is coupled with force and/or deception. ...

Note I said there is "much" wrong with greed, not everything wrong with it. Greed can be good when it is a motivator to be innovative and enterprising. The problems begin when one's greed begins to taint one's values, for example maintaining balanced priorities with family and community. Greed becomes destructive when one begins compromising integrity and morality, deceiving and exploiting others in a lust for wealth and power. Sadly, that's exactly what we're seeing in America, where a large and morally bankrupt slice of Americans have come to believe that personal gain is more important than anything else.

 

[dmcowen674]

Is it bad to be "rich"?

Greed kills

The rich value amassing more money over life.

Do you believe that to be an American ideal?

 

[wirelessenabled]

Why? What claim would anyone else have to your money? Why do some here think that this claim is a right?

No problem.

Don't use the tax supported:

Public roads.
Defense from foreign enemies.
Protection from widespread diseases without vaccination, TB, measles, mumps, etc.
Protection from diseases caused by inadequate sanitation, cholera, typhoid, scabies etc.
Police protection from malcontents.
School systems.
Fire protection systems.
Water systems.
Transportation system.

No problem. Go it alone out in the brush somewhere.

It'll be great!! Just like living in the 1700's.

I would say write us how you're doing but of course that won't be available either.