|
| Thread: Monetary Moral |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted December 27, 2008 08:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, without army there is no country - this is absolutely nesecarry minimum. If there would be one nation without wars then of course military tax wouldn't be nesecarry.
Country is a couple of people with a leader (king, government whatever) on territory which they can defend. Without army there is no such term as country, but couple of people that is awaiting to be ruled. You understannd?
Well let's take a much simpler scenario: there are three farmers in the middle of nowhere, and they don't belong to any 'country'.
Now, someone comes along and wants to establish here at the farmers' place and kick the farmers out. Two of the farmers don't want to accept it and will defend their land, while the third one doesn't want.
So, the other two say to the third: "Hey, if you don't want to defend this land when there's trouble, we'll kick you out by force!" - isn't this the same as saying: "Hey, if you don't want to help us when we're sick (health care tax analogy), we'll kick you out by force!"
Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary, but when there's an argument that we should be free to spend our money then that implies no taxes at all, not some taxes that you consider (subjectively) necessary and the others not, if you get what I mean 
____________
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 08:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, without army there is no country - this is absolutely nesecarry minimum. If there would be one nation without wars then of course military tax wouldn't be nesecarry.
Country is a couple of people with a leader (king, government whatever) on territory which they can defend. Without army there is no such term as country, but couple of people that is awaiting to be ruled. You understannd?
Well let's take a much simpler scenario: there are three farmers in the middle of nowhere, and they don't belong to any 'country'.
Now, someone comes along and wants to establish here at the farmers' place and kick the farmers out. Two of the farmers don't want to accept it and will defend their land, while the third one doesn't want.
So, the other two say to the third: "Hey, if you don't want to defend this land when there's trouble, we'll kick you out by force!" - isn't this the same as saying: "Hey, if you don't want to help us when we're sick (health care tax analogy), we'll kick you out by force!"
Don't get me wrong, taxes are necessary, but when there's an argument that we should be free to spend our money then that implies no taxes at all, not some taxes that you consider (subjectively) necessary and the others not, if you get what I mean
It is not the same thing.
Farmer have his own ground which don't belong to any country. The good comparison is when one farmer let his three friends live on his farm if they would pay him for ammunition to defend the farm. One of them say "I don't care about ammunition" and angry farmer would kick his off the farm.
Now, if farmer is socialist he would say also "you all have to give me 75% of your monthly earnings, I will keep 40% of what I get as a rent for being good daddy and rest I will give to most needing of you, because you don't want what is good for you and I need to provide you this. If you don't want to pay, I will imprison you in the barn."
See the diffrence?
____________
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 08:37 PM |
|
Edited by veco at 20:38, 27 Dec 2008.
|
just this quote for a starter:
Quote:
PS. You polish really have a ****ty society, start a revolution or something.
Don't worry we're gradually getting out of it, better to do it slowly than rush with changes. Also switching to democracy could've been handled better, now 75% politicians want to execute judgment on the old leaders after 20 years. Give'em a break imo.
Ziel - When I started reading this thread (and the other one about socialism) I was unsure where to stand my point, but now I pretty much made up my mind. I had a similar outlook on this some time ago but now as I read your posts it looks as if you treat the government as a kind of institution that is robbing you from your money for things completely irrelevant for you. But it's also 'robbing' money from others to give you stuff like half-price bus tickets, educational system etc which is completely nonprofitable for others. Not to mention tons of community services which you don't even notice.
From this point of view you're saying you don't want anything from them, but you are constantly taking things you consider 'given'. Maybe you really should go on a desolated island 
Some people are born in a worse situation than others and they can't fully profit from government 'given' services. You can not label them as 'lazy', they need first to recieve help so they can contribute to the whole later. It was the same for you and your parents (maternity abscence, reduced transport tickets). This is how the world progresses now, at a rate never experienced before! You can't compare todays economical growth to the medieval ones, from todays perspective it would seem as the medieval growth chart is standing still.
You can't progress while keeping everything to yourself, it's impossible. You could try to decide on your own who to give your money too, but it would take a lot of your time and it would be very small scale. The majority agreed on paying taxes for the government to distribute them and that's the best system we've come up with. And if we don't like what we do we can elect another one. Democracy is a poorly designed system when the dumb majority gets the final say but it's the best there is (except the Greek one) and history has proven it.
As the old saying goes
Kto za młodu nie był socjalistą, ten na starość będzie świnią.
which roughly translates into:
Who was not a socialist when young will be a swine when old
I know it's a horrible translation, please forgive me.
Cheer up Ziela, there are much more important things to care about and just live with the system unless you're planning on changing it 
If you do, let me know. I wanna be in the first line of action, hehe
____________
none of my business.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 08:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well, without army there is no country
Tell that to multi-national companies
The way I see it: You want to FORCE everyone to be a PATRIOT and pay for the army. How is that different than medical tax where you force everyone to be KIND instead of PATRIOT?
It's not like your preference is superior or something, and it's used for something called war, which isn't really caring for "human rights" you know?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 09:37 PM |
|
|
If something's fascist here it's Zielevitz' point of view.
I don't think he grasped the basic idea behind the word society. Or government. Especially democratic government.
Remember, the government is elected to act in the best interest of all of society. A ruthless society, in which everyone is left to care about oneself, even under the worst circumstances, will lead to an ever increasing crime rate - which will in turn lead to ever increasing tax rates for an ever increasing police force. It's a sure way into a police state.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 09:58 PM |
|
|
"If you are not a socialist by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by the time you are 35, you have no brain." I like that quote. I think it's very true. I suppose it means I have no heart, but be that as it may.
As for the discussion at hand, I think Ziel is mostly right, but there are a few things he could articulate better.
JJ:
You do realize, don't you, that there's a difference between being nice and generous and being a socialist thief?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 10:15 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:17, 27 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
"If you are not a socialist by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist by the time you are 35, you have no brain." I like that quote. I think it's very true. I suppose it means I have no heart, but be that as it may.
I suppose it was written by someone, ahem, after 35 years? That is, a capitalist?
here's why you don't hear of "poor" capitalists: they don't bother, they struggle to survive. Capitalism is like a system, where it SEEMS good, because it HIDES those poor. Of course, if at an inspection, you only send your healthy for 'view' then it will "look" like the society is 100% healthy (because you 'hide' the poor out of the media).
Doesn't mean it actually IS though.
Quote:
As for the discussion at hand, I think Ziel is mostly right, but there are a few things he could articulate better.
about the military being a necessity to force everyone but not for medical care? That it?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Anka
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 11:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If something's fascist here it's Zielevitz' point of view.
Funny... freedom is fascism?? If you want to be free from taxes it's fascism? Wow, long live Marx, thanks to him we're free after thousands of years of fascism!
Quote:
I don't think he grasped the basic idea behind the word society. Or government. Especially democratic government.
Remember, the government is elected to act in the best interest of all of society. A ruthless society, in which everyone is left to care about oneself, even under the worst circumstances, will lead to an ever increasing crime rate - which will in turn lead to ever increasing tax rates for an ever increasing police force. It's a sure way into a police state.
Government defends the country, not the society. HELLO! World and life ARE ruthless! They've always been! It's full of diseases, wars, crimes, unhapiness and famine. Government stealing hard-earned average person's money will not change it- lefty governments proved many times, that national money is nobody's money, so they can take it!
I think, that my coutry should't protect me from myself, but ONLY from crimes and other counties' armies. That's all- I don't want to pay for 50 visit for a month in hospital of a hipochondric granny, which thinks if it's free, she can go as many times as she wants to. That's ridiculous, especially, if I've been one time in my life in hospital, where wasn't not only MRI, but also thermometres... If the health service was private, we would pay fo OURSELVES to ONE hospital, which would decide, how much insurance you pay for them to get everything, that is needed for you to become healthy if you're sick. Too much payment, and you don't like this hospital? You change it. That's all.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 12:05 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:09, 28 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
Funny... freedom is fascism?? If you want to be free from taxes it's fascism?
except military tax or "whatever I say is more important" tax...
also, fascism is closer to capitalism than to socialism. at the very least, it is non-marxist so your text is simply out of point
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Anka
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 02:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Funny... freedom is fascism?? If you want to be free from taxes it's fascism?
except military tax or "whatever I say is more important" tax...
also, fascism is closer to capitalism than to socialism. at the very least, it is non-marxist so your text is simply out of point
It's like a rent. You want a home? So buy yourself one, pay rent or get the hell out of here. You can't buy your country, I'm sorry. So... pay the rent. Or get out. But if someone makes you pay MUCH more than only a rent, because he wants to help another people from one of his houses it pretty s*cks, huh? Why do you have to pay for guy that is too lazy to get a job, or even is smart enough, to deceive house owner, to have a bit money because of his stupidity? It just makes you want to change the house... If you're kind- be kind. You can even buy a red hat and be a Santa Claus. I don't want to be kind, my money is my money. Also, if I don't want to pay med. insurance, I won't go to any hospital, I'm practically scr*wed. That's my problem, not governments problem.
And... freedom from taxes- nationalistic dictature...? Wooow, that's a huge discovery... I would NEVER think about that... Really. Forcing me to pay for something I do not use or do not want to has more to dictature, than to freedom... World is NOT only black and white, fascism and communism are NOT opposite- they even have many common features. The fact, that communists always fought with fascists and fascists with communists does NOT change it.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 10:52 AM |
|
|
I wonder, how many of the "free-from-taxes" people here have been warm and comfy under mon's and dad's table for how many years...
GO GET WORK when you are 6! Up to that point M&D did enough for you. They want to be free from paying for the brats as well, won't they.
I think, quite a few people here have not the slightest idea how it comes they can advocate this freedom from taxes nonsense.
Moreover, a global economic system that results in auch a high percentage of starving and poor and so big differences in rich and poor is just bad. At least in the way it was handled. Period. Without the governments mellowing things would just be a jungle.
And for those who say the world is ruthless. Nope. It's not. At this stage the world is whichever way we make them.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 01:10 PM |
|
|
Hey, do you people know what it is called when members of a society aren't forced to pay taxes, work for or give something away for other members of society or for the whole society itself?
It is called anarchy. Now, do you advocate that?
Also, I think you overrate freedom and liberty; if there were to exist absolute freedom in society, society would not manage. Because we all know that humans cannot be given a freedom to do anything they will.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 03:30 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:30, 28 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
It's like a rent. You want a home? So buy yourself one, pay rent or get the hell out of here. You can't buy your country, I'm sorry. So... pay the rent. Or get out. But if someone makes you pay MUCH more than only a rent, because he wants to help another people from one of his houses it pretty s*cks, huh? Why do you have to pay for guy that is too lazy to get a job, or even is smart enough, to deceive house owner, to have a bit money because of his stupidity? It just makes you want to change the house... If you're kind- be kind. You can even buy a red hat and be a Santa Claus. I don't want to be kind, my money is my money. Also, if I don't want to pay med. insurance, I won't go to any hospital, I'm practically scr*wed. That's my problem, not governments problem.
And? If I have to pay for the military to stay in there for "renting" in the country, what makes it different than being forced to pay for medical taxes or just about anything else?
I want to rent that country, not pay for something I don't want. Right?
What? I have to get out? Well you have to get out if you don't pay medical taxes too, not much of a difference except preference.
And yeah I agree with what JJ said. You all think you're so great and can do so much on your own (aka without society), then move to an island alone and start fresh, and see how much worse off you are and HOW MUCH YOU INHERITED. You inherited from what others did. So you reap that.
Why don't you sow for others as well in return?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Anka
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 03:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wonder, how many of the "free-from-taxes" people here have been warm and comfy under mon's and dad's table for how many years...
GO GET WORK when you are 6! Up to that point M&D did enough for you. They want to be free from paying for the brats as well, won't they.
I think, quite a few people here have not the slightest idea how it comes they can advocate this freedom from taxes nonsense.
Moreover, a global economic system that results in auch a high percentage of starving and poor and so big differences in rich and poor is just bad. At least in the way it was handled. Period. Without the governments mellowing things would just be a jungle.
And for those who say the world is ruthless. Nope. It's not. At this stage the world is whichever way we make them.
If you pay less taxes- you have more money, so you are more comfy! And... what work has to do with it? I work, I get more salary, because my boss doesn't pay tax from his firm, I pay only that "rent", so I have even more money! I'm even comfier Oh yeah, taxes makes us better. Especially, when government forces you to give them half of your earnings, which is not going for things you need- it goes to poor, homeless, unemployed, hipochondric grannies and thieves sitting in jail and doing nothing. If someone is starving- it's not my problem. I'm a selfish a*s, and I don't want to pay for entire society.
Yeah, tell about beauty of the world to the war victims, starving people, dying children or good people, which were honest and legitimate, but politics, diseases, et cetera, et cetera, made their lives miserable. The world IS ruthless. Some people are good, some are a*sholes, but world has always been cruel.
Quote:
Hey, do you people know what it is called when members of a society aren't forced to pay taxes, work for or give something away for other members of society or for the whole society itself?
It is called anarchy. Now, do you advocate that?
Also, I think you overrate freedom and liberty; if there were to exist absolute freedom in society, society would not manage. Because we all know that humans cannot be given a freedom to do anything they will.
did I scream "no government! long live the anarchy, let's come back to the jungle, and do whichever crime we want!"? No, I just say "keep your dirty, greedy hands out of my money. Want some? Then earn some!"
My freedom ends, where freedom of another person starts. Get it? I can't steal, kill, rape, etc. We are still animals, but intelligent animals, which would not survive with no society. I'd like to live in a normal society, in contry, in which government does ot take my money for their corruption, people too lazy to get a job or crappy health service. Is that an anarchy? No, it's just freedom from taxes.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 03:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
did I scream "no government! long live the anarchy, let's come back to the jungle, and do whichever crime we want!"? No, I just say "keep your dirty, greedy hands out of my money. Want some? Then earn some!"
This includes the military.
And yeah you earn money... because you INHERITED and were brought up in this society. If you want to earn everything by yourself, go into a cave and become a caveman. I'm tired of spoiled brats who think that no one deserves to take their 'productivity' when their productivity is USING WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE and he inherited it.
Yes you could use different arguments against taxes, and I have a few (which I use, since I'm not into too many taxes either), but not that argument.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 05:06 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 17:17, 28 Dec 2008.
|
I used to be VERY individualistic and much like Mvass actually when I was around his age (Here's the good news Mvass: You might turn out just like me!).
Kind of changed though when I became 20+.
My opinion on this subject is based on how I think a society should be, and personally I like to think of it as a living body. Although granted there should obviously be personal freedom, no one can afford to look after only him or herself.
Take a look at your body. It is made up of cells that work together in order to prosper. If cells began to think "Hey you know what? snow the Liver cells, I am so much better! I'm not delivering oxygen to them anymore!" well, the entire body would malfunction and grow VERY ill.
A body is only healthy because every single cell within does its task. And this can go very far. Cells even have self-destruction meganisms that make them destroy themselves if something is wrong with them. Why? For the better of the whole body.
In a way, you can regard human beings as cells, and the society as a whole as the body. People have specialized in small fields in order to increase productivity, and as such, people, like cells, are dependant on one another. Societies as a whole would collapse if every person only thought about him or herself. It's the same with life in general actually, you're very much dependant on everything. You may think you can wander freely, but that's not true. Take the oxygen away, you die. Take the plants away that create oxygen, you die. Take the sun away that provides the plants with energy, we all die.
NOTHING in this world is individualistic, EVERYTHING is dependant on one another. Simple example is bees and flowers. Humans are a little different in that they are sentient and can actually persue personal desires and goals. In my opinion, that DOESN'T, however, mean they are suddenly independant.
When it comes to societies, I like to see the government as a representation of the people (it's quiet interesting to note that the larger a society is and the further the government is away from the people, the more corrupt it is, ALWAYS). In any case, in an ideal world so far I think the government has 3 or 4 main tasks :
1. Provide protection, obviously. Keeping order, providing police to ensure the safety of all its inhabitants.
2. Providing a minimum BASIS of primal needs to ensure survivability at a minimum to ALL members of society. This INCLUDES food for those that cannot afford it, as well medical care.
Why ? Because people that do not have that will starve and wither, and are unable to crawl out of that downward spiral if there is no safety net. If there IS a safety net, the peron has a solid fundament from which it can rise up again.
Although admitted, I'm still debating with myself about this soft approach as I ALSO am pro survival-of-the-fittest. But I try to believe every single human being has at least one good and valuable quality.
3. Providing educational service. People are not swines that just laze in front of the TV and swallow up subsidy. Those people are miserable and unhappy. Educate a person properly, ensure the person will discover his or her interests, and the person will be self-motivated to educate himself, do research, and prosper in his or her fields of interest. Like Einstein; he enjoyed science.
Point is education needs to be provided by the state; PROPER education. This includes philosophy to ensure a sound rational mind in every human being, one that can actually interact nicely with others. As well morals, norms and values.
4. Fund technical developments that are for the better of the whole society - and the world. This means focussing on technological development that aids in making the lives of every single human being more comfortable and pleasant, rather than miserable (weapon development).
It also means forcing the autoindustry to start producing electrical cars and raising a harsh middle finger to the big oil companies that have for too long halted this development. Electrical cars need to be viewed as a technical development that is for the better of the whole society - actually the whole world - and as such the government needs to have the power to FORCE such developments to be put into practise.
That's only one example. Point is the government needs to have the authority to push through such developments that benefit the world. This, obviously, requires a non-corrupt government.
5. Population control. Sorry, but there's too many of us
Granted, this suggestion favours a society in which all human beings are regarded as equals and treated as equals. The question is: Do we WANT that? Personally, I think there will always be class differences. It's just a matter how you deal with those. But saying the poor can go snow themselves and die if they can't afford medical care, and the wealthy can keep it all to themselves, is just plain stupid. Not only stupid, it's unethical. ^ Body example.
The main argument I hear against social care is "I don't want to pay and help a lazy bum that sleeps on his couch and watches TV all day".
Personally, I think it's also unethical and stupid to generalize all people that can't afford medical care and need it as "lazy couchbums".
But for the ACTUAL lazy couchbums that just drink subsidy and do nothing all day, I think it would be interesting if we take another look at the body how it deals with such situations. The generally accepted treatment of cancercells, is by removing them from the body. So one could argue the same could be applied to societies: remove and destroy the cancercells. Elders obviously excepted
Quote:
It is not the same thing.
Farmer have his own ground which don't belong to any country. The good comparison is when one farmer let his three friends live on his farm if they would pay him for ammunition to defend the farm. One of them say "I don't care about ammunition" and angry farmer would kick his off the farm.
Now, if farmer is socialist he would say also "you all have to give me 75% of your monthly earnings, I will keep 40% of what I get as a rent for being good daddy and rest I will give to most needing of you, because you don't want what is good for you and I need to provide you this. If you don't want to pay, I will imprison you in the barn."
See the diffrence?
You're not making any sense whatsoever.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 05:48 PM |
|
|
There's a flaw in your analogy, Moonlith. No cell of the human body could survive on its own (or even in a small group) - they need all the others to survive. Whereas humans aren't so dependent on each other for survival.
The problem with safety nets isn't that people fall on them and then go back up, but stay on them. It's more of a safety hammock than anything else, when what we need a safety trampoline.
As for education, I agree with you there. But how exactly should it be done? I don't think I've heard you talk about education in any specifics yet. As for philosophy, morals, etc - isn't there a real risk of indoctrination?
How would population control work, exactly? One-child-only policies? Death squads?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 06:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's a flaw in your analogy, Moonlith. No cell of the human body could survive on its own (or even in a small group) - they need all the others to survive. Whereas humans aren't so dependent on each other for survival.
Yes, they are Take out the food producers and you'd die.
Quote:
The problem with safety nets isn't that people fall on them and then go back up, but stay on them. It's more of a safety hammock than anything else, when what we need a safety trampoline.
I've never advocated to be pro-people-that-stay-on-such-nets. Personally I don't believe in it either, as the conditions are minimal and hardly provide a pleasant life. But in general I think it's bad to generalize ALL people as lazy bums that just want to remain hanging there. People are not like that, only some are.
In the long run, however, I do think science and technology should aim to create the technology needed to provide ALL basic needs for ALL people for free. Because A) It wouldn't matter then if people slacked, because there would be nothing wasted since it is produced automaticly and abundantly, like air. And B) Not all people are lazy bums; most will persue their own interests IF properly educated.
Quote:
As for education, I agree with you there. But how exactly should it be done? I don't think I've heard you talk about education in any specifics yet. As for philosophy, morals, etc - isn't there a real risk of indoctrination?
I think there's always indoctrination But a MAIN focus of education should be to develop a person's mental abilities and makes him capable of logical deduction, reason, rationalism, etc. That in general actually is what philosophy classes teach; they do not propose one idealogy is the best, instead they teach about various idealogies and about their merits and flaws. No idealogy is perfect. In that sense, I don't think there is indoctrination about what is "right" or "good", there is only a broadening of perspective. And THAT is very much needed I think, and what is very much lacking in education.
Morals and ethics is a bit more difficult. Whenever you see a 12 year old vandalising a bushalt you are tempted to think "Geez, doesn't that person know ethics?" but when you enforce ethics on a person in education, it becomes indoctrination. It's the responsibility of the parents really, and as a society you would want to ensure parents are capable of teaching their kids proper ethics and morals. But that leads into the discussion about what are good ethics and morals. Touchy subject
Quote:
How would population control work, exactly? One-child-only policies? Death squads?
I've heard that if the entire world were to live at the same consumer standards as my country or the USA would, we'd need a second planet to provide the recources. That's about 17% of the world consuming 33% of the world's recources. That leads me to conclude it is impossible to have a high living standard for all people on this world, with so many people. Unless technological developments aid in becoming more recource efficient.
You know I'm against the principle of "growth" in a finite environment Keeping population between 3 - 5 billion would, so far, seem favourable to me.
Overpopulation inevitably leads to a shortage of recources and space. I'm not sure about you, but if there was technology to let us live in luxury and without labour, I'd rather live with only 1 billion people and have all the free space and peace I'd like, rather than with 12 billion and growl at the lack of it.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
|
The thing with lazyness is COMPLETELY ridiculous. Are you seriously telling me that the beggars you see want to be that way because they want to be lazy? Or all unemployed people, do you truly think they do not want to be in a better situation because they like it to be lazy?
Please...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2008 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Take out the food producers and you'd die.
Take out the food producers and my family would have to do it themselves - certainly not an optimal use of our efforts, but we wouldn't die.
Quote:
But in general I think it's bad to generalize ALL people as lazy bums that just want to remain hanging there. People are not like that, only some are.
Maybe it's different in the Netherlands. But it's largely that way in the US. People on food stamps buy expensive handbags. People on disability buy big-screen TVs. And so on.
Quote:
In the long run, however, I do think science and technology should aim to create the technology needed to provide ALL basic needs for ALL people for free.
Nothing can be free. There is no real way to eliminate scarcity permanently.
Quote:
Unless technological developments aid in becoming more recource efficient.
Which is what I'm advocating. But you didn't answer my question. How would you keep the human population from growing, in practice?
And, see, now you're being much more agreeable. You're not as crazy as you sound, once you get down to it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
