Should there be limits to an individual's property in society?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not getting how you figure envy becomes a virtue when we do it, and it's a vice when anybody does it to you.

Since you refuse to take my words at face value. I see no further reason to continue the discussion.

I think you mean, "Since you refuse to accept my view without questioning," not "take my words at face value." But questioning is what we do here, Gary. And if you view doesn't stand up to a simple question, how good can it be?

Let me make this simple.

Gary has $20, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $1. That's a vice.

But if Gary has $1 million, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $50 thousand, that's a virtue?

Explain that to me.

[Gary Childress]

I'm not getting how you figure envy becomes a virtue when we do it, and it's a vice when anybody does it to you.

Since you refuse to take my words at face value. I see no further reason to continue the discussion.

I think you mean, "Since you refuse to accept my view without questioning," not "take my words at face value." But questioning is what we do here, Gary. And if you view doesn't stand up to a simple question, how good can it be?

Let me make this simple.

Gary has $20, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $1. That's a vice.

But if Gary has $1 million, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $50 thousand, that's a virtue?

Explain that to me.

Maybe you can explain to me where I said I hate the ultra wealthy because they have more than me. Apparently, I don't know my own motives. Maybe you can explain them better to me, something that will conveniently fit your narrative that some people apparently ought to have more power in society than others. Silly me. I thought one person, one vote. I guess that's not the way you see it.

[Immanuel Can]

Since you refuse to take my words at face value. I see no further reason to continue the discussion.

I think you mean, "Since you refuse to accept my view without questioning," not "take my words at face value." But questioning is what we do here, Gary. And if you view doesn't stand up to a simple question, how good can it be?

Let me make this simple.

Gary has $20, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $1. That's a vice.

But if Gary has $1 million, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $50 thousand, that's a virtue?

Explain that to me.

Maybe you can explain to me where I said I hate the ultra wealthy because they have more than me.

I was just giving you a hypothetical, Gary, not accusing you of anything. And if you are paying attention, you'll notice that in my hypothetical, it was to myself I was attributing the action of "hating," not you. But I wasn't actually hating anybody or anything of course.

But you're right about this much: I should have used the proper word, which would be "envy." So just sub that in. I'm sure you can.

It's a question of ethics. I'm asking you for a judgment about what makes the same action right or wrong in cases with merely different number values.

What's the answer? Why is envy in the first case unvirtuous, but virtuous in the second?

[Gary Childress]

I think you mean, "Since you refuse to accept my view without questioning," not "take my words at face value." But questioning is what we do here, Gary. And if you view doesn't stand up to a simple question, how good can it be?

Let me make this simple.

Gary has $20, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $1. That's a vice.

But if Gary has $1 million, and IC hates him for it, because IC has only $50 thousand, that's a virtue?

Explain that to me.

Maybe you can explain to me where I said I hate the ultra wealthy because they have more than me.

I was just giving you a hypothetical, Gary, not accusing you of anything. And if you are paying attention, you'll notice that in my hypothetical, it was to myself I was attributing the action of "hating," not you. But I wasn't actually hating anybody or anything of course.

But you're right about this much: I should have used the proper word, which would be "envy." So just sub that in. I'm sure you can.

It's a question of ethics. I'm asking you for a judgment about what makes the same action right or wrong in cases with merely different number values.

What's the answer? Why is envy in the first case unvirtuous, but virtuous in the second?

Who is saying that envy is virtuous in some cases but not others, other than it's utterly absurd for someone with greater means to "envy" those who don't have it. I have no idea what you are talking about other than stuff your mind creates. But, I forgot, you never put words in anyone's mouth or ideas in their head that aren't theirs. I remember you saying that and accusing others of doing it to you. To which I pointed out that you do the same thing, which you of course evoked you to ask me to go back and weed through all your posts to show me where you did it.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe you can explain to me where I said I hate the ultra wealthy because they have more than me.

I was just giving you a hypothetical, Gary, not accusing you of anything. And if you are paying attention, you'll notice that in my hypothetical, it was to myself I was attributing the action of "hating," not you. But I wasn't actually hating anybody or anything of course.

But you're right about this much: I should have used the proper word, which would be "envy." So just sub that in. I'm sure you can.

It's a question of ethics. I'm asking you for a judgment about what makes the same action right or wrong in cases with merely different number values.

What's the answer? Why is envy in the first case unvirtuous, but virtuous in the second?

Who is saying that envy is virtuous in some cases but not others,

Socialists. They think that just because a person has X amount of money, and somebody else has less than X, that the second person is justified in being envious of the first...and even in taking away from him what he has. (It's called "redistribution," as you'll recall. We used to have a simpler word for it: theft.)

Now, you were using the example of Elon Musk. So let me put it pointedly: what would make it right for us to envy Elon Musk and "redistribute" what he has, whereas if somebody from the Developing World, say somebody who lives on less than a dollar a day, were to become envious of Gary and demand to "redistribute" what Gary has, that would be unfair?

How does that work?

[Gary Childress]

I was just giving you a hypothetical, Gary, not accusing you of anything. And if you are paying attention, you'll notice that in my hypothetical, it was to myself I was attributing the action of "hating," not you. But I wasn't actually hating anybody or anything of course.

But you're right about this much: I should have used the proper word, which would be "envy." So just sub that in. I'm sure you can.

It's a question of ethics. I'm asking you for a judgment about what makes the same action right or wrong in cases with merely different number values.

What's the answer? Why is envy in the first case unvirtuous, but virtuous in the second?

Who is saying that envy is virtuous in some cases but not others,

Socialists. They think that just because a person has X amount of money, and somebody else has less than X, that the second person is justified in being envious of the first...and even in taking away from him what he has. (It's called "redistribution," as you'll recall. We used to have a simpler word for it: theft.)

Now, you were using the example of Elon Musk. So let me put it pointedly: what would make it right for us to envy Elon Musk and "redistribute" what he has, whereas if somebody from the Developing World, say somebody who lives on less than a dollar a day, were to become envious of Gary and demand to "redistribute" what Gary has, that would be unfair?

How does that work?

How does it work where it's fine for some to own the places where everyone else works, and others are not? The owner calls the shots and makes the final decisions, not the workers. The ordinary workers have no say unless they form a union in order to invoke collective bargaining. Or am I mistaken and you are pro-unions?

How does it work that the top 1% get to get bailed out when the economy goes sour but the 99% have to deal with bankruptcy and homelessness instead. How is that fair? Because if you think it's OK for the few to own most everything, then that is what you are approving of.

[Immanuel Can]

Who is saying that envy is virtuous in some cases but not others,

Socialists. They think that just because a person has X amount of money, and somebody else has less than X, that the second person is justified in being envious of the first...and even in taking away from him what he has. (It's called "redistribution," as you'll recall. We used to have a simpler word for it: theft.)

Now, you were using the example of Elon Musk. So let me put it pointedly: what would make it right for us to envy Elon Musk and "redistribute" what he has, whereas if somebody from the Developing World, say somebody who lives on less than a dollar a day, were to become envious of Gary and demand to "redistribute" what Gary has, that would be unfair?

How does that work?

How does it work where it's fine for some to own the places where everyone else works, and others are not?

It makes perfect sense. There's a world of difference between being hired for a job and being the person who has to take all the risks to make the business exist at all. The workers have zero exposure, zero personal risk. They get a regular wage, and it's never in jeopardy. And they do so by volunteering to do it, and they're free to leave the minute the deal no longer suits them. There are no slaves.

How does it work that the top 1% get to get bailed out when the economy goes sour but the 99% have to deal with bankruptcy and homelessness instead.

Well, you're talking about political corruption, there...not about "capitalism" or business. And that's as good a reason as you're going to find never to favour any one-government system, such as Socialism.

But you never answered my question. Are you going to?

How do you justify envy...no matter who practices it? And don't you realize that there are lterally billions of people in the world who have less than you have, and could thus look at you with envy? Why is what's wrong for them okay for you?

[Gary Childress]

Socialists. They think that just because a person has X amount of money, and somebody else has less than X, that the second person is justified in being envious of the first...and even in taking away from him what he has. (It's called "redistribution," as you'll recall. We used to have a simpler word for it: theft.)

Now, you were using the example of Elon Musk. So let me put it pointedly: what would make it right for us to envy Elon Musk and "redistribute" what he has, whereas if somebody from the Developing World, say somebody who lives on less than a dollar a day, were to become envious of Gary and demand to "redistribute" what Gary has, that would be unfair?

How does that work?

How does it work where it's fine for some to own the places where everyone else works, and others are not?

It makes perfect sense. There's a world of difference between being hired for a job and being the person who has to take all the risks to make the business exist at all. The workers have zero exposure, zero personal risk. They get a regular wage, and it's never in jeopardy. And they do so by volunteering to do it, and they're free to leave the minute the deal no longer suits them. There are no slaves.

How does it work that the top 1% get to get bailed out when the economy goes sour but the 99% have to deal with bankruptcy and homelessness instead.

Well, you're talking about political corruption, there...not about "capitalism" or business. And that's as good a reason as you're going to find never to favour any one-government system, such as Socialism.

But you never answered my question. Are you going to?

How do you justify envy...no matter who practices it? And don't you realize that there are lterally billions of people in the world who have less than you have, and could thus look at you with envy? Why is what's wrong for them okay for you?

I don't knock anyone in the third world for envying me. Why should I? It seems perfectly fair to me.

[Gary Childress]

How does it work that the top 1% get to get bailed out when the economy goes sour but the 99% have to deal with bankruptcy and homelessness instead.

Well, you're talking about political corruption, there...not about "capitalism" or business. And that's as good a reason as you're going to find never to favour any one-government system, such as Socialism.

I will gladly favor any government that doesn't bail out the wealthiest while leaving the poorest to sink or swim. Don't look to private property owners to bail anyone else out. They will more gladly let others bail them out. Do you think that all governments MUST bail out the wealthiest? Is that what you think? Solcialism doens't favor "private" property owners (a.k.a. the top 1%). I'm not sure how you are going to save the poor by favoring governments that don't limit the top 1%. Can you explain how that works? Or at least explain how bailing out the top 1% would be part of the "definition" of "socialism". You seem to have it backwards.

[Immanuel Can]

How does it work that the top 1% get to get bailed out when the economy goes sour but the 99% have to deal with bankruptcy and homelessness instead.

Well, you're talking about political corruption, there...not about "capitalism" or business. And that's as good a reason as you're going to find never to favour any one-government system, such as Socialism.

I will gladly favor any government that doesn't bail out the wealthiest while leaving the poorest to sink or swim.

Well, it was both Bush and Obama who bailed out the American banks, so I don't know which of your parties that would be.

But bailing out banks, in any form, is government corruption. And why would you look to the same entity that does the corruption to solve the problem of corruption?

Solcialism doens't favor "private" property owners (a.k.a. the top 1%).

Right. It favours the elite members of the Party. That's what it has done in every case.

Now, when are you going to answer the question about envy? Probably never, right? Because you can see that envy cannot be virtuous, no matter which numbers you substitute in.

You call them "the 1%". Are you ashamed of being in the world's 10% yourself?

You see, Gary, if you use your own status as baseline, and assume that anybody significantly richer than you is bad, you're ignoring the fact that you are yourself among the world's greatly privileged. Not only is this ungrateful, it's avaricious and spiteful, as well. And it's the road to misery, because there will always be somebody better off than you are...and billions who are poorer than you are. But instead of seeing what you've already got, you can only think about what you don't yet have, haven't earned, and, so far as you know, probably don't deserve to get.

You're dooming yourself to perpetual misery: to staring at the one "missing ceiling tile." You're not seeing your own situation: that others could stare at you, and do exactly the same sort of calculation -- probably with much more justification than you, too, since you don't lack the basic means of survival, but they do.

You have more in common with Elon Musk than you have with the people in the Developing World...if only you knew what gratitude is.

[Gary Childress]

Well, you're talking about political corruption, there...not about "capitalism" or business. And that's as good a reason as you're going to find never to favour any one-government system, such as Socialism.

I will gladly favor any government that doesn't bail out the wealthiest while leaving the poorest to sink or swim.

Well, it was both Bush and Obama who bailed out the American banks, so I don't know which of your parties that would be.

But bailing out banks, in any form, is government corruption. And why would you look to the same entity that does the corruption to solve the problem of corruption?

Solcialism doens't favor "private" property owners (a.k.a. the top 1%).

Right. It favours the elite members of the Party. That's what it has done in every case.

Now, when are you going to answer the question about envy? Probably never, right? Because you can see that envy cannot be virtuous, no matter which numbers you substitute in.

You call them "the 1%". Are you ashamed of being in the world's 10% yourself?

You see, Gary, if you use your own status as baseline, and assume that anybody significantly richer than you is bad, you're ignoring the fact that you are yourself among the world's greatly privileged. Not only is this ungrateful, it's avaricious and spiteful, as well. And it's the road to misery, because there will always be somebody better off than you are...and billions who are poorer than you are. But instead of seeing what you've already got, you can only think about what you don't yet have, haven't earned, and, so far as you know, probably don't deserve to get.

You're dooming yourself to perpetual misery: to staring at the one "missing ceiling tile." You're not seeing your own situation: that others could stare at you, and do exactly the same sort of calculation -- probably with much more justification than you, too, since you don't lack the basic means of survival, but they do.

You have more in common with Elon Musk than you have with the people in the Developing World...if only you knew what gratitude is.

As I've already stated, I don't think it's wrong for someone in the third world to envy me. Do you think it's wrong for someone in the third world to envy you? Do you think it's immoral for someone to envy someone else?

Second issue, I've already told you that "envy" is not the reason for limiting property. There is also the issue of fairness. Do you think it's fair for someone to own the workplace where everyone else works? Does that NOT give the owner an unfair advantage over all those who work for him? Like me you complain about bailouts but you blame government and not the fact that in order to save a business where people work, society must save the owner of the workplace but not necessarily the workers there. It's a matter of fairness in society, not a matter of corrupt government. Businesses are bailed out because not bailing them out would be even worse for society, however, everyone else is left to sink or swim. That's because ownership INHERENTLY comes with unfair privileges.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think it's immoral for someone to envy someone else?

I don't have to "think" this or that. I know. It's covered in the 10th Commandment, you'll recall.

There is also the issue of fairness.

Do you think it's "fair" that you enjoy privileges far above those most people in the world enjoy?

But what is this "fairness" thing? You don't believe in God, you say...so who says "fairness" is even a thing?

Do you think it's fair for someone to own the workplace where everyone else works?

I answered that: absolutely, yes. So long as the owner owns honestly, it's the only way things can be.

How are you going to get a "workplace" if nobody creates one for you?

Like me you complain about bailouts but you blame government...

Well, it wasn't private citizens that bailed out the banks. It was your own governments.

...ownership INHERENTLY comes with unfair privileges.

Now you sound lunatic, as well as envious. What's "unfair" about somebody starting a business and then employing people in it?

Ceiling tiles, Gary. You only ever see one.

[Gary Childress]

Do you think it's immoral for someone to envy someone else?

I don't have to "think" this or that. I know. It's covered in the 10th Commandment, you'll recall.

There is also the issue of fairness.

Do you think it's "fair" that you enjoy privileges far above those most people in the world enjoy?

No I don't think it's fair that I enjoy privileges that most people don't have. Do you think it's fair that you enjoy privileges that others don't have?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think it's immoral for someone to envy someone else?

I don't have to "think" this or that. I know. It's covered in the 10th Commandment, you'll recall.

There is also the issue of fairness.

Do you think it's "fair" that you enjoy privileges far above those most people in the world enjoy?

No I don't think it's fair that I enjoy privileges that most people don't have. Do you think it's fair that you enjoy privileges that others don't have?

Well, I believe in God, so I can believe that "fairness" is a real thing, and that justice can require it. But you don't believe in God...so why do you believe "fairness" even exists? Who promised you that you had a right to "fairness," or said what it would consist of?

Now you're just making stuff up. You have to believe that no "fairness" exists, or was ever promised to you. There's no justice, and no standard by which justice could even be known.

So nothing has ever been "unfair" to you, or to anybody else. That's what you'd have to believe: that there's no such concept.

[Gary Childress]

I don't have to "think" this or that. I know. It's covered in the 10th Commandment, you'll recall.

Do you think it's "fair" that you enjoy privileges far above those most people in the world enjoy?

No I don't think it's fair that I enjoy privileges that most people don't have. Do you think it's fair that you enjoy privileges that others don't have?

Well, I believe in God, so I can believe that "fairness" is a real thing, and that justice can require it. But you don't believe in God...so why do you believe "fairness" even exists? Who promised you that you had a right to "fairness," or said what it would consist of?

Now you're just making stuff up. You have to believe that no "fairness" exists, or was ever promised to you. There's no justice, and no standard by which justice could even be known.

So nothing has ever been "unfair" to you, or to anybody else. That's what you'd have to believe: that there's no such concept.

Fairness is a real thing whether a person believes in God or not. Try not to be a bigoted p**** against atheists for once.