|
| Thread: Confessions of an Economic Hitman |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted December 12, 2008 11:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Seriously, though, the problem with your analogy is that there is no way it could happen in real life. You can't have two identical people doing the same identical thing. Thus, since capitalism is a real-world system, you can't apply your unreal analogy to it in such a way.
Well that's a very clever trick the capitalists always use: the fact that this is just (what physicists call) a thought experiment, much like most Quantum Mechanical 'experiments'. These 'experiments' are pretty valid, and if you consider them ridiculous it's only because you try to avoid any kind of thinking about it.
If we start and say "people are different so it's impossible to know" then that's it, end of discussion. However we MUST break it up into pieces to examine it, in a thought experiment like I said. That is, to analyze the 'fairness' factor, we imagine two identical people. We look and see if they both can be successful, starting with extremely different conditions. Notice that this doesn't prove the 'average' but the 'extreme', but it doesn't matter since we're only interested in a yes/no factor (i.e we are not interested HOW unfair it is, but whether it IS). We also accept a margin of error but it goes way beyond that trust me.
So yes, 'ridiculous' analogies are pretty valid even in physics. Those that wish to avoid the analysis say they are ridiculous without even TRYING to imagine how it would be.
and like I said before, either A or B can be successful, but not BOTH. That is why it's unfair, provided they are identical.
Quote:
Then I ask, "Is it cheaper to get them there?", and, if the answer is "Yes", then I say, "GO AND DO IT THEN!"
I think he was referring to the fact that you "take" (aka claim) from others. or maybe I'm totally off the track here. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 12:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If you have nothing constructive to add then don't post. Besides, 'unrealistic' is a very good excuse to ignore the inevitable. Physicists use 'theories' all the time -- they wouldn't get ANYWHERE with all the noise in the world, you need to separate the problem into pieces.
You really need to stop talking out of your ass. You think you are the big expert on physics? If not then don't make stupid arguements like this.
And this cloning thing is stupid. Your analogy of a capitolist market having thugs where as the socialist one doesn't is nothing but a straw man fallacy.
You are making assumptions that this man won't succeed in a capitolist environment without being dishonest and assuming that he'll succeed in a socialist one.
And for christ sake, you always condescend people. It's pissing me off. Even in threads where people are just joking around. You STILL talk down to people.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 12:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You really need to stop talking out of your ass. You think you are the big expert on physics? If not then don't make stupid arguements like this.
Pray tell, ever heard about "frictionless" physics? Maybe while you were in school? You used general relativity in all simple calculations? You added friction everywhere? Is that it?
Why do physicists constantly 'isolate' parts of the problem, such as assuming no friction in theories, etc...?? because that's how things get done, you can't solve anything if you don't FOCUS on a particular thing and ISOLATE the 'background noise' or stuff like that. In my example, I isolated the "skill" difference and the "mentality" difference between the people because well... that was something which was pointless in my 'example' where I wanted to show you that being successful comes NOT from those things. So we have the simplest possible analogy: identical people, but in different situations, one having an advantage over the other. Is that fair? I don't think so, since it happened WITHOUT their will (aka: skill/mentality/whatever). It's like being born with a disability or something.
You should take a look at your post and see how constructive it was compared to my "nonsense", at least I even detailed why I said so. Why do I always have to detail everything I say? I can't believe you can't just figure out what I mean -- either that or you want to argue pointlessly.
Quote:
And this cloning thing is stupid. Your analogy of a capitolist market having thugs where as the socialist one doesn't is nothing but a straw man fallacy.
You are making assumptions that this man won't succeed in a capitolist environment without being dishonest and assuming that he'll succeed in a socialist one.
Proves you didn't even read what I said. I didn't say anything about dishonesty (although I do think that but I didn't post it in my 'analogies). I said that it is unfair -- to succeed in business you don't have to "work hard", but just have a certain situational advantage. That was my "point" and obviously much more detailed than this but what the hell, you are completely off the track.
So yeah nice off post.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 12:54 AM |
|
|
Yeah, but that's all they are: thought experiments. So we can say that if there was no friction, we could do x. But there is friction, so we can't do x. If two identical people acted the same identical way, then, to answer your thought experiment, each would get more than half as rich as they would if the other didn't exist. To answer your question, both A and B would be successful, though not as successful as they'd be if the other didn't exist. But the thing is, there are no identical situations in real life.
And, I repeat, there's nothing unfair if you can satisfy demand better than somebody else.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 01:13 PM |
|
Edited by Totoro at 13:56, 13 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Except that statement isn't true. First a company starts doing poorly, then its stock start falling. Not the other way around.
Exactly what I meant. The stock holders don't help the company or are productive for anyone except for themselves. They just take the profits what the company whose stock they hold yield. If they don't see them bringing any profit for them anymore they just sell these stocks. I don't see anything productive in that.
Quote:
Yes. I'm proud of that. I'm proud that people are rewarded according to how productive they are (more or less). Certainly more can be done in some areas (such as education), but I am proud to be a supporter of this system as a whole.
It's unfair. Some people manage alot easier while some people not regardless they wanted it or not. If something can be done about it it's not legitimate to say that "life is unfair."
Quote:
Then I ask, "Is it cheaper to get them there?", and, if the answer is "Yes", then I say, "GO AND DO IT THEN!"
You're disgusting. Did you watch the videos? Do you understand that these corporations exploit those poor South-American countries against their will? It's not like the USA has a right to go everywhere in the world and take whatever they want while getting rid of all resistance with the power of guns or money.
Quote:
Let's take a Pizza delivery guy who goes with his bike to deliver pizza and gets some money for this. Do you think that if he decides to just walk instead of using the bike, he will have to get payed more? Why? The end result is the same, it doesn't matter that he 'worked' more by walking, why should you pay him more for that?
I understand, of course one should use every possible way to raise the productivity of one's work without causing harm or more work to anyone else.
But think it like this: There are two pizza delivery guys, one of them has a bike and the other can't afford to have one (well, it's not hard to find a bike dumped in some ditch but if they were truck drivers and the other wouldn't have a truck, for example) but that's why he is slower and gets paid less even though he does more work. I think that's unfair. And that's why society should help every pizza delivery boy to relatively same level depending on their usefulness.
e.g. one delivery boy delivers in pizza in area where lives 100 citizens and the other one in an area with 10. Now, all these people should get their pizza with equal speed.
Either with methods offered for the other delivery guy to deliver pizzas 10 times faster without raising his work rate at the same time.
Or his work rate should be multiplied by 10. And correspondingly his payment should be multiplied by 10.
Or 9 more delivery boy's should be hired. Or just 8 if one of the delivery boy's does double the work that others do. But then he should be payed double amount.
____________
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 03:49 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 15:50, 13 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Yes. I'm proud of that. I'm proud that people are rewarded according to how productive they are (more or less). Certainly more can be done in some areas (such as education), but I am proud to be a supporter of this system as a whole.
Oh that's nice. Then how do you explain companies going to third world countries to let children and poor people do the same task for about 10+ times less the wage? Surely they aren't 10+ times less productive.
Heck, moreover, who can honestly determine which kind of work is more important than another? That completely ignores the fact we are ALL dependant on EACH OTHER. One cannot be a surgeon without someone else producing the food to keep him alive. One cannot be a pilot without someone else building his house. Specialization came with more dependance on one another. There is no individualism. And I think it's wrong to claim one job is more important than another, or "more productive". It's a VERY loose term for that matter.
Quote:
and, if the answer is "Yes", then I say, "GO AND DO IT THEN!"
Have you actually bothered to watch the three videos in the opening post?
Who the HELL gives you the right to CLAIM another COUNTRY'S recources?? Just because they are forced to sell it cheaper that doesn't justify it. You are justifying a fricking system of exploitation. And the sole reason we can live in luxury is because people in Africa live in poverty, and are deliberately KEPT in poverty.
Seriously, don't start your 'fair trade' bullcrap or how it is actually helping the third world. If it actually DID help, they wouldn't have been in the same state they have been in for over hundreds of years.
Get some snowing conscience - GROW UP already!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 04:36 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:43, 13 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Yeah, but that's all they are: thought experiments. So we can say that if there was no friction, we could do x. But there is friction, so we can't do x.
I think the theories are pretty valid, but of course skeptics will have to wait 100 years until they are 'proven' later, in short avoiding the inevitable.
Quote:
If two identical people acted the same identical way, then, to answer your thought experiment, each would get more than half as rich as they would if the other didn't exist. To answer your question, both A and B would be successful, though not as successful as they'd be if the other didn't exist.
Even if I take what you said (i.e both successful) into consideration, it's still not quite because that would assume that people would buy equally from each of them, but what if they don't?
But it doesn't even happen that way because they won't be both successful, since they have different situations. For example, one is brought into a rich family and he has access to many computers, the other doesn't, so you can be pretty sure which one will be more successful in his computer business (let's assume something like Bill Gates for example).
It would be even more unfair if the poor guy actually had MORE skills and MORE dedication of that but was brought up in very poor conditions -- consequently, he will have to 'work' for the other guy and earn much less. Can't you just see how unfair it is?
It happened OUTSIDE his will. What's a better definition of unfairness?
Now imagine if EVERYONE was identical -- you surely can't have 6 billion Microsoft Corporations can you? So who gets it? Randomly picked by situation? Is that fair?
Quote:
But the thing is, there are no identical situations in real life.
And that's why we have to eliminate the noise to examine WHY it is unfair. In real life, someone can be even better than another but still not be as successful, because of this unfairness and what I call "situational advantage".
Quote:
But think it like this: There are two pizza delivery guys, one of them has a bike and the other can't afford to have one (well, it's not hard to find a bike dumped in some ditch but if they were truck drivers and the other wouldn't have a truck, for example) but that's why he is slower and gets paid less even though he does more work. I think that's unfair. And that's why society should help every pizza delivery boy to relatively same level depending on their usefulness.
Exactly, that's what I called 'situational advantage'.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 04:57 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
Oh that's nice. Then how do you explain companies going to third world countries to let children and poor people do the same task for about 10+ times less the wage? Surely they aren't 10+ times less productive.
No, of course not. The companies can just get a better deal there. Previously, the slightly more productive 1st-worlders were paid more than they would be if they had to compete with more people. But now they do. When these 3rd-worlders entered the job market, the productivity-to-pay ratio changed. It's still dependent on productivity, though.
Quote:
Heck, moreover, who can honestly determine which kind of work is more important than another?
Do I have to repeat myself? No individual can. But through the actions, preferences, and needs of numerous individuals, some jobs are in higher demand than others, and are thus paid more.
Quote:
Just because they are forced to sell it cheaper that doesn't justify it. You are justifying a fricking system of exploitation. And the sole reason we can live in luxury is because people in Africa live in poverty, and are deliberately KEPT in poverty.
Wrong. Sometimes certainly countries are forced to sell their resources at gunpoint. But that's not what I'm advocating. Africa isn't deliberately kept in poverty - at least, not by 1st-world nations. It's kept in poverty by internal corruption, religious and ethnic wars, and socialist government policies. If Africa stopped fighting and abolished socialistic policies, it would do much better.
Quote:
Seriously, don't start your 'fair trade' bullcrap or how it is actually helping the third world. If it actually DID help, they wouldn't have been in the same state they have been in for over hundreds of years.
It did help. Look at the many countries that it has helped. China, for instance. I'm not saying that China is a great place, but it is leaps and bounds better than it was 50 years ago. Or look at Japan and the Asian tigers. Or Ireland. The same thing can happen to Africa.
And it is because I have a conscience that I advocate capitalism. A system that raises people's living standards is infinitely more moral than a system that oppresses and restricts people.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Even if I take what you said (i.e both successful) into consideration, it's still not quite because that would assume that people would buy equally from each of them, but what if they don't?
If you operate under the unrealistic assumption that they would do exactly the same thing, then people would buy equally from each of them.
CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T MATTER. Productivity does. The more productive deserve more. Period. I don't care what their background is, and neither do the customers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T MATTER. Productivity does. The more productive deserve more. Period. I don't care what their background is, and neither do the customers.
So? That doesn't address the fact that it is unfair
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 06:36 PM |
|
|
It's unfair to punish people who are more productive. Regardless of circumstances, they do fulfill demand better.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 06:39 PM |
|
|
What about hitmen or thieves? What if someone steals something from someone who doesn't want to use it -- does the fact that he is more productive then (since he uses it not let it rust) justify that it's ok?
What if actually said action was legal -- with expensive lawyers in a trial on the side of the capitalist?
You say it's not fair to punish the successful people right? Well I would say that it's not fair for them to BE SUCCESSFUL any more than someone else who, supposedly, had the same dedication/skills/whatever (or even better!). Therefore, you don't punish them, you just take what they should have never had
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 06:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong. Sometimes certainly countries are forced to sell their resources at gunpoint. But that's not what I'm advocating. Africa isn't deliberately kept in poverty - at least, not by 1st-world nations. It's kept in poverty by internal corruption, religious and ethnic wars, and socialist government policies. If Africa stopped fighting and abolished socialistic policies, it would do much better.
Africa won't stop fight just like that. If we want it to stop fighting we would have to take more radical actions. But we won't, because 1st world countries get cheap stuff from there.
Quote:
It did help. Look at the many countries that it has helped. China, for instance. I'm not saying that China is a great place, but it is leaps and bounds better than it was 50 years ago. Or look at Japan and the Asian tigers. Or Ireland. The same thing can happen to Africa.
I think they developed because no one were stealing their natural resources.
Quote:
CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T MATTER. Productivity does. The more productive deserve more. Period. I don't care what their background is, and neither do the customers.
Then I must come up with a conclusion that you have no morale.
____________
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 07:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, but that's all they are: thought experiments. So we can say that if there was no friction, we could do x. But there is friction, so we can't do x. If two identical people acted the same identical way, then, to answer your thought experiment, each would get more than half as rich as they would if the other didn't exist. To answer your question, both A and B would be successful, though not as successful as they'd be if the other didn't exist. But the thing is, there are no identical situations in real life.
I got a question out of the ranomness, why do we bother to teach people math at school? Its 100% bound to constant laws.
Quote:
TheDeath:
Your analogy is ridiculous. Thanks for playing.
Seriously, though, the problem with your analogy is that there is no way it could happen in real life. You can't have two identical people doing the same identical thing. Thus, since capitalism is a real-world system, you can't apply your unreal analogy to it in such a way.
Quote:
I'm not going to bother this argument with you, TheDeath. Your arguments are unrealistic and just extreme. You can't just use assumptions with these things. So let's stop it here because you are the one that doesn't understand. Hopefully this topic can go back on track since it was good before these back and forth pointless arguments with you started. 
Excuse me, but why are you stopping at the door and refuse to enter the house? The chance of 2 people with equal skill and determition is high enogh.
And does anybody here read fiction? Teories? Etc???? Accourding to your statements it sounds like you consider those a "big bad sin"?
An example:
If guy A and guy B each made a OS, both of them works good.
Nowl ets say guy B stumbles into a guy who is in charge of computer production and tests the OS of guy B and likes it. Then its a contract on the way and OS og guy B becomes a succes.
OS for guy B become a succes because the "chance" happened. Further events is also a bit chance controlled.
Guy B now got a company because of this.
What is the difference betwhen this and clone thingy? I do not think its a difference. Guy A and B both are enginers creating an OS in a imagenery world, and that is the only known factor.
I think i can this draw one out bit more:
Lets say they both attack at the same time, why does one win?
Quote:
Quote:
It did help. Look at the many countries that it has helped. China, for instance. I'm not saying that China is a great place, but it is leaps and bounds better than it was 50 years ago. Or look at Japan and the Asian tigers. Or Ireland. The same thing can happen to Africa.
I think they developed because no one were stealing their natural resources.
This is in fact true. Just compare Japan and China.
Or any country where a water-selling company got a well to get water from and export, is an example.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 07:11 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:13, 13 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Excuse me, but why are you stopping at the door and refuse to enter the house? The chance of 2 people with equal skill and determition is high enogh.
And does anybody here read fiction? Teories? Etc???? Accourding to your statements it sounds like you consider those a "big bad sin"?
Well it is remarkable how some people try to avoid the situation, sometimes inevitable. And make up stuff like "that's not real" -- well 'statistics' aren't real either but we use them don't we?
Physics theories aren't real either. The current model of the atoms isn't real either, but we use it. Nothing is real, we just have models, approximations that fit observation. So we can go into theories too. In fact, that's exactly what planning is about: Imagine scenarios and plan for them etc...
So yeah like what del_diablo said: why stop at the door without entering the house?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 07:55 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Hit men and thieves perform aggression, which is counterproductive - worse than just unproductive.
Totoro:
It'd be great to stop all the wars in Africa, but we can't get cheap stuff from there - because they're fighting! If there was more economic interdependence among them, then they'd stop fighting.
Quote:
I think they developed because no one were stealing their natural resources.
Well, Japan isn't exactly known for its great abundance of natural resources, so that can't be it. And many countries developed earlier with capitalism. And force is never a good thing. But voluntary exchange is.
Quote:
Then I must come up with a conclusion that you have no morale.
I have morals. It is moral to support the productive, as increased productivity improves general welfare.
del_diablo:
Quote:
I got a question out of the ranomness, why do we bother to teach people math at school? Its 100% bound to constant laws.
Because math is usable in real life.
Quote:
Lets say they both attack at the same time, why does one win?
Actually, if you've played HoMM IV, they both lose.
As for your example, so? Guy B becomes more productive. It doesn't matter why.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 08:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Hit men and thieves perform aggression, which is counterproductive - worse than just unproductive.
Please, tell that to billionaires who hire that so they don't run out of business. Why do you think hitmen are employed for? I mean professional ones, not the kind of 'revenge' from anger. Because it is profitable for the capitalist to kill that person (and of course not get caught).
Quote:
Actually, if you've played HoMM IV, they both lose.
As for your example, so? Guy B becomes more productive. It doesn't matter why.
What do you mean it doesn't matter why? That's exactly the question that we need to analyze to see if it's unfair or not. And I've explained why it's unfair.
It's like you saying "It doesn't matter whether it's unfair, it only matters that Guy B becomes more productive" -- but then why argue with me when I say that it's unfair? Are we discussing on the same frequency here?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please, tell that to billionaires who hire that so they don't run out of business. Why do you think hitmen are employed for?
While it may generate temporary profits for the billionaire, it is harmful in general, because if everyone hired hitmen, then there would be a major decrease in productivity. And hiring hitmen and then not getting caught makes others think that they can do the same.
And regarding the "unfair" issue, I'm saying that it's more unfair to make people less productive (and thus make everybody worse off) than to try to do what you advocate.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 08:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
While it may generate temporary profits for the billionaire, it is harmful in general, because if everyone hired hitmen, then there would be a major decrease in productivity.
Wow you just proved my point -- if everyone hired hitmen, it means everyone was a billionaire, and would be a major decrease regardless of assassinations of not. But since it is impossible for everyone to be billionaires, for reason which I stated unfair, then it's also impossible for everyone to hire hitmen.
(of course, not only billionaires hire hitmen, millionaires can too, but let's keep it at that).
Quote:
And hiring hitmen and then not getting caught makes others think that they can do the same.
That sounds so weird.
and it is somewhat irrelevant, too idealistic, and abusive. "If we can smash objects, why can't we smash people too, which are objects?" (depending on definition of object; of course there's police etc, but I'm talking about where law is on that side).
Quote:
And regarding the "unfair" issue, I'm saying that it's more unfair to make people less productive (and thus make everybody worse off) than to try to do what you advocate.
Why would that be unfair? I mean it may be "less benefit" for a select few (capitalists) but that doesn't mean unfair. You're saying of course, some people, since the average would be somewhat similar.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 09:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wow you just proved my point -- if everyone hired hitmen, it means everyone was a billionaire, and would be a major decrease regardless of assassinations of not.
Obviously, those too poor to hire hit men could just try and do it by themselves. But that's besides the point. While killing somebody may benefit the killer in the short run, it sets a bad precedent if the killer isn't punished (not to mention that it hurts society), and if everyone started killing and stealing, then there would be a massive drop in productivity. If you're standing next to your car with a gun all day to make sure that it isn't stolen, you're not being as productive as you could be if you didn't have to worry about that.
Quote:
Why would that be unfair? I mean it may be "less benefit" for a select few (capitalists) but that doesn't mean unfair. You're saying of course, some people, since the average would be somewhat similar.
Ah, but here's the thing: it would be "less benefit" for almost everybody. The average would decrease.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 13, 2008 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Obviously, those too poor to hire hit men could just try and do it by themselves. But that's besides the point. While killing somebody may benefit the killer in the short run, it sets a bad precedent if the killer isn't punished (not to mention that it hurts society), and if everyone started killing and stealing, then there would be a massive drop in productivity.
And what's your point? People don't care about the overall productivity anyway, and capitalism is an example -- since capitalism strives for one's own profit, not the profit of the whole nation as a whole!
What do you actually suggest? An authoritarian system in which the government does everything -- since it's better "for the nation" in the end, much more than a few people wanting profits for themselves. (not even I advocate such a thing!)
Quote:
Ah, but here's the thing: it would be "less benefit" for almost everybody. The average would decrease.
You're either too idealistic or naive. Do you know how many people die every day? Do you think a billionaire cares? It's not like he's worse off, in fact, if he were to donate he would be worse off! Humans are conflicting as well -- what if you were to assassinate someone like Hitler? How can that be less productive for you, as a billionaire? How are you worse off for killing an average joe? It's just another insignificant figure...
or the government with "secret services".. EVEN THE GOVERNMENT which is usually concerned with the "average good" rather than individual good hires such hitmen (depending on government).
another example: what if you are doing dirty business and you kill someone because he had proof of that and you were going to jail? How can you possibly be worse off without killing him? (assuming you don't get caught).
I think you're being overly simplistic, idealistic and perhaps naive on the matter.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
