tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If the recipient of your giving has done something to earn what you give than giving is not as virtuous as would be giving to someone who has done nothing to deserve what he receives. By the standard of Altruism it is even more virtuous to give to someone who has done something not to deserve the gift!Everyone deserves a chance to live a productive, happy life. Until that actually happens then we will always have the situation where we will have those who need help. You can call it whatever you want but it doesn't change the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 If the recipient of your giving has done something to earn what you give than giving is not as virtuous as would be giving to someone who has done nothing to deserve what he receives. By the standard of Altruism it is even more virtuous to give to someone who has done something not to deserve the gift!Everyone deserves a chance to live a productive, happy life. Until that actually happens then we will always have the situation where we will have those who need help. You can call it whatever you want but it doesn't change the situation.Deserving a chance does not translate into an absolute demand for the help, wealth and resources of others. There should be no legal or social impediment for people in need to ask of others what they cannot themselves provide. What we don't need are laws requiring the productive to give help to the helpless. The helpless will just have to ask and hope that those who can help them will be generous. The helpless do not have right to time and assets of others. It is not their property. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Deserving a chance does not translate into an absolute demand for the help, wealth and resources of others. There should be no legal or social impediment for people in need to ask of others what they cannot themselves provide. What we don't need are laws requiring the productive to give help to the helpless. The helpless will just have to ask and hope that those who can help them will be generous. The helpless do not have right to time and assets of others. It is not their property.I suppose you believe in a birth right as well? So if your father was very successful and left you millions of dollars what have you done to deserve that? What if that money was made on the backs of slaves? Maybe if we all started on equal footing I might agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I suppose you believe in a birth right as well? So if your father was very successful and left you millions of dollars what have you done to deserve that? What if that money was made on the backs of slaves? Maybe if we all started on equal footing I might agree with you.Not a damned thing. The money (in this hypothetical) belonged to Dad and he a right to give it to whomsoever it pleased him to give. That is one of the fundamentals of property. If something is your property you can keep it, sell it, toss it away or give it as a gift. Your property, your choice. On the receiving end, deserving has nothing to do with it. If you get a gift, lucky you. If not, that is the way it goes.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Not a damned thing. The money (in this hypothetical) belonged to Dad and he a right to give it to whomsoever it pleased him to give. That is one of the fundamentals of property. If something is your property you can keep it, sell it, toss it away or give it as a gift. Your property, your choice. On the receiving end, deserving has nothing to do with it. If you get a gift, lucky you. If not, that is the way it goes.Ba'al ChatzafYep, it's all in the luck of the draw. Easy come easy go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I have a theory about why it seems countries in northern climates are more socialistic. I think it because existence is so much harder and so societies evolve with more of social welfare attitude out of necessity. The US has some very cold states - I wonder if they are more socialistic than the warmer ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yep, it's all in the luck of the draw. Easy come easy go.Or if one is thrifty and prudent, easy come hard go.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I have a theory about why it seems countries in northern climates are more socialistic. I think it because existence is so much harder and so societies evolve with more of social welfare attitude out of necessity. The US has some very cold states - I wonder if they are more socialistic than the warmer ones?Now that I think of it, the northern states wanted to end slavery and the southern ones didn't. The evidence is mounting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) G.S. Oh no! Some of the Chicago like precincts are reporting in!Almost all of Africa - Madagascar, Mozambique, Ivory Coast, Swaziland, the old Congo, Libya, Morocco and more all socialist.Columbia, Cuba. Spain, Vietnam. Cambodia, Thailand and more.I think your premise, even in jest fails, lol.Adam Edited March 25, 2009 by Selene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Not a damned thing. The money (in this hypothetical) belonged to Dad and he a right to give it to whomsoever it pleased him to give. That is one of the fundamentals of property. If something is your property you can keep it, sell it, toss it away or give it as a gift. Your property, your choice. On the receiving end, deserving has nothing to do with it. If you get a gift, lucky you. If not, that is the way it goes.Ba'al ChatzafYep, it's all in the luck of the draw. Easy come easy go.This implicitly ignores the creation of wealth in the first place through productive activity.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 G.S. Oh no! Some of the Chicago like precincts are reporting in!Almost all of Africa - Madagascar, Mozambique, Ivory Coast, Swaziland, the old Congo, Libya, Morocco and more all socialist.Columbia, Cuba. Spain, Vietnam. Cambodia, Thailand and more.I think your premise, even in jest fails, lol.AdamYeah, so much for that theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This implicitly ignores the creation of wealth in the first place through productive activity.--BrantYeah, like the CEO who "creates wealth" by working the ass off the employees and then lays them off when times get tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This implicitly ignores the creation of wealth in the first place through productive activity.--BrantYeah, like the CEO who "creates wealth" by working the ass off the employees and then lays them off when times get tough.You are not addressing what I said with this silliness.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Agreed - put the straw man in the field to scare the crows.Red herrings do not work.Now a nosh on some creamed herring, maybe.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjohnson Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 G.S. Oh no! Some of the Chicago like precincts are reporting in!Almost all of Africa - Madagascar, Mozambique, Ivory Coast, Swaziland, the old Congo, Libya, Morocco and more all socialist.Columbia, Cuba. Spain, Vietnam. Cambodia, Thailand and more.I think your premise, even in jest fails, lol.AdamI had another thought, did socialism evolve in these "hot" countries or was it imported or installed by foreigners? It seems like it evolved in the north. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) G.S. Oh no! Some of the Chicago like precincts are reporting in!Almost all of Africa - Madagascar, Mozambique, Ivory Coast, Swaziland, the old Congo, Libya, Morocco and more all socialist.Columbia, Cuba. Spain, Vietnam. Cambodia, Thailand and more.I think your premise, even in jest fails, lol.AdamI had another thought, did socialism evolve in these "hot" countries or was it imported or installed by foreigners? It seems like it evolved in the north.Imported. Great Britain left mess after mess behind it, the worst being India. GB also coerced white-ruled Rhodesia to give way to the Marxist Mugabe. The Europeans completely fucked up Africa. Today the US practices de facto genocide there and elsewhere in its war against DDT = millions of babies dying of malaria plus 1/2 billion people afflicted. 40 years ago malaria was all but wiped out as a human scourge because of the generous use DDT.--Brant Edited March 26, 2009 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 This is an old debate retort ..."I had another thought..." did it die of loneliness?Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now