Do you think there could be a second Great Depression?

[Pompidou]

No, that's absolutely wrong. There was one rather famous case where a writer managed to end up with a tax rate over 100% in the seventies or early eighties, but we had a completely different tax system in place then that by that time had become so patched up that peculiar and unintended effects cropped up. Our tax system was completely redone in the early '90s and right now around 50% is the most anyone pays as an income tax for any part of their income. I specialised in tax law in law school, so I'm pretty familiar with our system even if I don't work with it anymore.

And I do not recall saying that I think Sweden should pay for all the poor in the world. I said that I think that it is all our responsibility to do so, and that your attempt to somehow export the problem to the UN (or me, or Sweden or Sheeplady) is nothing but a lame excuse that--in my eyes--does not free you from moral responsibility for the suffering in the world.



Really, when you do this--basically calling me and Sheeplady names--what exactly in your conduct do you find becoming a gentleman? One can disagree with someone without resorting to that kind of rather weak attempt at bullyism.

You are not coming across in a very flattering light, dear man.

It's impossible to come across as flattering with a premise that the poor should starve to death. I've never really considered myself a gentleman, and I suppose I shouldn't, what with having compassion and all. A heart is unbecoming of a man with any class.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

A new low in reasoning.

You're right of course, that no-one, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, "deserves" anything. But we're not talking in abstracts. The discussion here is about realities. People are starving … not abstract, skinny or pot-bellied Africans, people in your country, in mine, in the country in which I currently reside (honestly, a ridiculous number, given the wealth of this place). There is a real danger in taking what you learned in John Stuart Mill 101, and applying it to the real world.

It's commonly accepted that, though these tendencies are not absent in "lower" animals, the enhanced development of the frontal lobes in primates have led (perhaps as a consequence to the increase in problem solving abilities also occasioned) to the development of what we call "emotions". One of these has been termed "compassion". It's development is one of the major reasons we tend to believe, for example, that a runt or unwanted should not be left on a hillside ("exposed") to die, and that if such a thing is done, that we feel very bad about it. Why is it, you think, that most people watching the play root for Oedipus, at least 'til he marries his Ma?

While there is no evidence that true altruism exists in any animal society (the "selfish gene" puts paid to that!), and while I have ambivalent feelings about the notion of "society" as commonly construed and especially as construed by the established major religious groups, and while I certainly think many efforts to help the poor are misguided (my view: teach a man to fish/help himself - and want to fish/help himself! -, rather than simply giving him fish), I don't think I could ever get to the point where my reasoned publicly stated position was "f*ck it; let them starve".

Furthermore, people here promote the idea that human beings have a right to be nourished-- that it is morally irresponsible to let people go hungry. Huh? Come again? Why? Can anyone explain how this makes sense in the real world? While Flicka is willing to be a sap, is everyone here willing to be a sap? (See Flicka's post where s/he says that s/he says is willing to pay more for people to receive food and if there is corruption then, oh well.)

 

[vitanola]

I don't think I could ever get to the point where my reasoned publicly stated position was "f*ck it; let them starve".

That, my dear Baron, is because you did not read a sufficient number of pages of Ayn Rand's groundbreaking work when you were in seventh grade.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I have, unfortunately, read far too much Ayn Rand … There is not enough bleach in the world to purge that garbage from my brain.

bk

 

[William Stratford]

We are though also creatures of the local and the personal (which is why I feed my cat over a human 4000 miles away, and why I would pull my friend from a fire in preference to a stranger I've never met). The danger in all this is finding a rationalised excuse for a global structure – as if, just because we are creatures of compassion, we should then bind the world into a global structure (in the hubristic notion that people cannot help themselves unless wonderful wise us go in and correct them).

Every attempt at a global vision for the brotherhood of humanity has failed through staggering evil because we are local creatures who need to work locally. Think of the French, Russian and Maoist revolutions, all supposedly in the cause of brotherhood and equality, and all slaughtering or oppressing millions in their drive. Further, globalisation also results in homogenisation as efficiency becomes idolised (in order to “best” meet people's needs) and diversity is less efficient than homogeneity (as Mr Ford illustrated with his production line)....so you can kiss goodbye to your local culture and identity.

The only thing that these people in other countries need from us is for us to:
1, get off of their back, by no longer treating them as an outsourced resource
2, stop arming the people in their country who are starving them

The rest is down to them.

This is not though the pattern for our local neighbourhood – there we most certainly are personally involved, and there we most certainly do have a duty to our neighbour (so long as they do what they can in their responsibility to themselves and to us).

Which, as in so much in my life, makes me a target for rock throwing from both “left” and “right”. *sigh*

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I think you're right, William Stratford. I think any rational Brit (I am one) can only be too aware of the evils of our interventionist follies, past and present, though I am no ally of the "charity begins at home" mindset that too often is underpinned by no charity actually being offered at home! (at least where/when I grew up.).

I was goaded into response to this thread by the general principle being put forward that one shouldn't give a damn about anyone else, anywhere, at any time.

bk

 

[Flicka]

Just to clarify; I don't really advocate 'charity' on a global scale. I do, however, advocate international aid aimed at giving countries and individuals the means to be self-supporting. I advocate that approach in regards to local aid as well, which is why jobs and education matter very much. I also find abusing the system loathsome; it's tantamount to taking bread from those who really need it.

But to pretend that we 'owe them nothing', that I do not agree with at all. They are humans and we are humans and that links us all together. Like John Donne wrote:

Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

In my view, every other human is my neighbour, not just those living next door. Does that make me a sappy idealist? Possibly. Does that bother me? No. Not one iota, actually.

 

[William Stratford]

Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Interesting, isnt it, how Dunne starts with "me" (refering to himself) and then sneaks it to "thee" (meaning you the listener). Sorry, no, the bell does not toll for me when someone dies 4000 miles away. If it did, my ears would never stop ringing and I would not be able to hear anything else. We have a responsibility to use our strength to help those who have none, but that is not a responsibility without limit nor is it a mandate to make sure everyone in the world is fed. That way lies global government and all the ills such brings!

Not that I expect you to agree, being as you are a proponent of the EU.

 

[William Stratford]

I have, unfortunately, read far too much Ayn Rand … There is not enough bleach in the world to purge that garbage from my brain.

bk

Lol, yes, Ms Rand was indeed cake of the fruit variety

 

[Edward]

That, my dear Baron, is because you did not read a sufficient number of pages of Ayn Rand's groundbreaking work when you were in seventh grade.

Ah, yes.... Ayn Rand: the ultimate exercise in intellectualising selfishness.

 

[Flicka]

Not that I expect you to agree, being as you are a proponent of the EU.

Which is not the cause but the result of the above, yes.

 

[sheeplady]

I was willing to let bygones be bygones; however, your self-righteous attitude was to dismiss my idea that people bilk the system. I come from an area where the land is rife with corruption. But my experiences aren't good enough for you and your high horse. Instead of accepting the idea that people should be cautious with thinking with their hearts instead of their minds, you went on and on about how heartless it is for me to let any person go hungry. Then you claim these people cannot purchase ANY food for their children. An absurd proposition. Furthermore, people here promote the idea that human beings have a right to be nourished-- that it is morally irresponsible to let people go hungry. Huh? Come again? Why? Can anyone explain how this makes sense in the real world? While Flicka is willing to be a sap, is everyone here willing to be a sap? (See Flicka's post where s/he says that s/he says is willing to pay more for people to receive food and if there is corruption then, oh well.)

While it is noble to feed everyone, I can only think of the saying "that the path to hell is paved with good intentions."

Here is my advice to you, Sheeplady. You obviously feel very strongly about hunger in your area. So start a non-profit in your area to feed the poor. Since you are dealing with a unique rural problem, I'm sure you can handle it. You are very passionate about it and I believe you can do a lot of good.

I never suggested that people could not buy *any* food for their children. I suggested that children were hungry. Please go back and read what I wrote, and I never suggested that people "can't buy any food for their kids" or anything of the sort. I did suggest that kids often get scant or no meals outside of school, or that families can't buy enough food. You were the one showing disbelief that anyone is ever hungry in the U.S., in fact, you had to clarify that I was even speaking about the U.S.

Yes, I am on a high horse, I'm on the horse that suggests that allowing individuals to go hungry because their are liars, creeps, and thiefs is wrong. Would you seriously take something away from somone because someone else stole, rather than punishing the thief? How does that solve corruption?

I said myself several pages that, yes, there is abuse, you seem to have forgotten that. And I believe that should be criminally prosecuted with extremely severe puishments. I strongly suggest that you fight the corruption if you are not already, I try to fight corruption in the system whenever I see it. I am not beyond reporting someone to the county agency that administers benefits if I believe they are misusing their benefits (such as selling their benefit card). I've reported individuals that have resulted in investigations, and I am glad that they did. The worse kind of thief is the one who steals from others generosity. Thank you for calling me self-rightous, I'm glad that I see hunger as a problem.

I work extensively with local food pantries and have been for most of my life including before I could hold a driver's license legally where I live. I never would have thought of it on my own to do so if you hadn't suggested it.

 

[vitanola]

I have, unfortunately, read far too much Ayn Rand … There is not enough bleach in the world to purge that garbage from my brain.

bk

Ah! But the majesty of her prose!

Who else would ever risk writing a novel of over a thousand pages, 650,000 words, a quararter of which comprise monologues?
The utter mastery of that greatest Author Filibuster, John Galt's sixty some page soliliquy, is matched only by the Master's (well, Mistress') utter moral perfection.


BTW, fuming hydrofluoric acid works wonders.

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Who is John Galt?

Atlas Shrugged (at 1,069 pages) ranks right up there with such literary classics as L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics in terms of its ponderous opacity. lol
That's snooze factor for those of you in Rio Linda, CA

 

[LizzieMaine]

Hey, I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and I've always found it extremely useful. It's just the right size to prop up the broken leg on the corner of my bureau.

 

[Undertow]

It's quite difficult to avoid politics when discussing the economy/economic theory, isn't it? I suppose that is a major pillar of politics, after all. :whistle:

I already give to charities, I already give money to the homeless, the destitute, and even to "free-loaders" just looking for a $1 to buy beer. I donate clothing and appliances to charities across town. I "donate" my time to people who need help; whether it's moving a car out of the road, or breaking up a fist fight, or moving to another apartment; or whether that's making candles for them, or reloading bullets, or cooking a meal. My time is valuable, but it's free to anyone who needs it.

If there were a way to effectively and efficiently disburse funds to those in need, I would be happy to surrender an additional 5% or 10% tax of my income. Yet, as soon as any government or regional institution requests/requires I apply this tax, I would refuse. I don't trust people with my money. I believe there is, and always will be, entirely too much corruption in the taking or surrendering of resources (including one's currency).

I apply this principle to everyone, including companies. I don't think a prosperous and just system can include Entity A forcing Entity B to spend their money in any particular way. For example, I personally don't agree that the US Government should take my money in taxes to build a bomb that they subsequently use to kill 23 people in Afghanistan. I also don't think it's just that the US Government can take $2million from Acme and use it to subsidize refugee immigrants lifestyles (i.e. we have a problem in IA with certain immigrants receiving allowances for new cars, food, clothes etc. and they purchase Mercedes, Prada and lobster, yes I've witnessed this). Unfortunately, such is the system we have.

I guess I'm trying to say I absolutely believe we, as an entire society, have a fundamental obligation to care for our poor, our sick, or handicapped, our elderly, and everyone in between. The problem lies in the application - there is no effective way to do this. We can blame whomever we like - whether it's fat billionaires on Wall St. or big government socailists; in any case, there is currently no just way to receive and apply funds.

Too many people are dishonest, greedy and evil.
And thus, we end up staring over the precipice of a Great Depression cliff.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Too many people are dishonest, greedy and evil.

Are they born that way? Or are they made that way by the society they're born into?

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

if there were a way to effectively and efficiently disburse funds to those in need, I would be happy to surrender an additional 5% or 10% tax of my income. Yet, as soon as any government or regional institution requests/requires I apply this tax, I would refuse. I don't trust people with my money. I believe there is, and always will be, entirely too much corruption in the taking or surrendering of resources (including one's currency).

Government is the only entity I can think of who can actually turn failure into a demand for even MORE tax dollars. "We failed because we didn't spend ENOUGH money, so fork it over!"

 

[vitanola]

Hey, I have a copy of Atlas Shrugged, and I've always found it extremely useful. It's just the right size to prop up the broken leg on the corner of my bureau.

The bureau should support itself.

It is immoral to force one entity to support another.

When this is universally understood and applied we will finally be on the path to Arcady.




Originally Posted by Undertow
"Too many people are dishonest, greedy and evil."

You obviously did not get the memo. GREED IS GOOD! Self-interest is the highest calling.

The only evil is compulsion, unless it be economic compulsion. Liberty must be absolute, unless wealth or the position that wealth provides is is used to limit the liberty of a lesser individual, in which case God is in his heaven and all is right with the world.

 

[Undertow]

Are they born that way? Or are they made that way by the society they're born into?

I'm not sure we know yet. We can certainly guess and provide some sort of anectdotal evidence, but I'm begining to wonder if we're not evolving into sociopaths with each generation. Little by little, this society chips away at our humanity until we become a biological clockwork of calculating callousness. We are what we eat, so to speak.

It's a chicken and egg question and unfortunately we can't exactly point to any specific generation or group. It's even difficult to point to history, because we know history is written by the conquerors.

Take ancient Rome - there was a period of industriousness, law, order, greatness; followed by decadence, madness and collapse. Same applies to the Mongols - a great, industrious, clever bunch who eventually strayed from their initial simplicity and fairness into decadence and waste. We can blame leaders, we can blame citizens, we can blame the environment, but the pattern seems to be a natural rise and fall.

Does a civilization have an expiration date? Must it be born of greatness only to decay into a cesspool? As above, so below - it would seem if people can change, so to may their organic inventions. Perhaps we, as Westerners, are staring down our expiration dates as we inevitably race towards the end.

One last thing I've been pondering - Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi have both separately said something to the effect that, "One's greatest Strength is essentially one's greatest Weakness," and vice versa. America's greatest strengths were never military, or population, or ideology - those things have been replicated and surpassed throughout history. However, America has always held an iron grip on Resources, Economy, Adaptability and Diplomacy.

As we have all seen, America's greatest strengths are decaying into naked weaknesses. Perhaps America, and much of the "West", needs to completely reimagine its purpose on this Earth in order to stymie the inevitable fall.