The Philosophy Discussion Forum

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:00 pm

I meant viable choice at the presidential level, which was the context of the discussion.

Walker wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:45 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 3:00 pm

I meant viable choice at the presidential level, which was the context of the discussion.

Because in the US we do not vote DIRECTLY for a presidential candidate, yes, you are limited to candidates who in effect have an elector slate (you never see who exactly) pledged to vote for the candidatet. I put it that way, because the framers of our Constitution did not assume that the electors would be able to settle on a majority choice on a single ballot. Perhaps some "horse trading" (as in 1876 Tilden vs Hayes, the Republicans traded allowing "Jim Crow" in exchange for the presidency)

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the NEW House gets to choose president from among the top three getting one vote PER STATE (like in the Articles of Confederation days while the NEW Senate choose the Vice President one vote pere Senator.

When I was young, we still had contentious party conventions, where who the candidate would be fought out openly on the floor as well as secretly in back rooms. NEVER a decision on the first ballot. Essentially TV put an end to that because too visible to the public, presumed not up to see how the sausage was made. So nowadays wrapped up by the end of primary season. Carefully managed conventions to display party unity (though that might be far from reality). Thus were 2016 election like the old days, we would have seen a colorful floor fight at the Democratic Convention.

HOWEVER -- even though in this case a "write in" could not win, that protest vote still counted. You see that mainly in a state where the outcome not in doubt, so no "lesser evil" vote is necessary and can afford to show displeasure with the choices offered.

Of course there should be limits to an individual's property in society. It should be limited to what he's earned.

Thank you very much. I'm here all week.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 5:43 pm Of course there should be limits to an individual's property in society. It should be limited to what he's earned.

However, stating a limit like that is not the same as saying the sole limit. Might be others. The maximum amount would be the least of all these limit rules/

Example suppose there WERE (note subjunctive) another limit rule, "not over a million". BOTH could be in play, with the limit now "a million, or what was earned, whichever is less". << notice "what was earned" could either be more or less than a million >>

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 9:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 5:43 pm Of course there should be limits to an individual's property in society. It should be limited to what he's earned.

However, stating a limit like that is not the same as saying the sole limit. Might be others.

There really isn't.

But let's turn it around, and ask the right question: by what rationale or justification would you deprive a person who's earned something from what he's earned?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 9:06 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 9:02 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 5:43 pm Of course there should be limits to an individual's property in society. It should be limited to what he's earned.

However, stating a limit like that is not the same as saying the sole limit. Might be others.

There really isn't.

But let's turn it around, and ask the right question: by what rationale or justification would you deprive a person who's earned something from what he's earned?

So Elon Musk may be on the way to becoming a trillionaire. How does a single human do a trillion dollars of work, while the engineers who design his cars and the workers working the assembly lines, etc. Are making infinitely less. Who is doing more work? Is Elon Musk, who is making more income than a thousand assembly line workers, doing more work than thousands of assembly line workers? Or how does one "earn" a trillion dollars?

My point is that you thinking that Musk "earned" a trillion dollars is based on no other criteria than he was able to get it under the current rules and regulations of society.

That's the way society is structured.

And no changes are allowed?

Well some are. The ones that make the wealthy wealthier.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 9:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 9:06 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 9:02 pm
However, stating a limit like that is not the same as saying the sole limit. Might be others.

There really isn't.

But let's turn it around, and ask the right question: by what rationale or justification would you deprive a person who's earned something from what he's earned?

So Elon Musk may be on the way to becoming a trillionaire.

If he earned a trillion, why not?

How does a single human do a trillion dollars of work, while the engineers who design his cars and the workers working the assembly lines, etc. Are making infinitely less.

Well, you have to be smarter than Marx, and understand that "work" comes in many forms. So does value. And what people can earn is a relation between all that they do and what the world will pay for them to do it.

People buy Musk's products. People like Musk's products. They like his services, too. And they like his technologies, which they find solve problems that they have. And of their own free will, they only give away as much of their money as they think those things merit. Nobody made them pay Musk a cent. But they did. They wanted to. They got the products they desired in return. Why are you insulting them for spending their own means voluntarily?

As for the workers, If they made the wage they contracted for, who got hurt? Musk took all the risks. Musk put his money on the line. Musk had the vision. Musk was the manager. Musk paid the bills. Musk invented the products. Musk wrote the paychecks. Musk is the entity that made the whole effort possible. And everybody who touched what he did got money, according to what they were willing to contract. Some did more and got more. Some did less and got less. He probably didn't pay his CEOs or his chief engineers the same as he paid his plumbers or his coffee boys. But (unless you have some proof that somebody was ripped off, of which I'm unaware) everybody got what they came for. Everybody got a job. Nobody was a slave. Nobody was beaten or robbed.

And now, so long as he behaved ethically, the world is also richer and more advanced because of Musk. There's a link "in the stars" because of Musk. There are electric cars which green weenies love to buy. There's a platform people love to use to "twitter" on. And who knows what else?

I'm looking for the crime that you think took place, and I'm not seeing it. Point it out.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 10:05 pm That's the way society is structured.

And no changes are allowed?

Well some are. The ones that make the wealthy wealthier.

And the ones that make the poor wealthier...which they were becoming, prior to COVID, when a Leftist scam shut down the world economy for a bit.

Some changes aren't so good.

he earned more stuff than me

let's kill him and steal his stuff

we'll call it revolution and redistribution when it is envy, murder and theft

but god is dead, and those "morals" don't apply

who is next on the list?

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 11:57 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 10:05 pm That's the way society is structured.

And no changes are allowed?

Well some are. The ones that make the wealthy wealthier.

And the ones that make the poor wealthier...which they were becoming, prior to COVID, when a Leftist scam shut down the world economy for a bit.

Some changes aren't so good.

IC's got us. We're finished. He's right. The CDC should never have put the COVID restrictions into effect. They were clearly trying to destroy the world. Thank God for anti-vaxers and COVID protestors! We on the left will stop at nothing to do dastardly things for no gain to anyone including ourselves! It's just in our evil nature.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 11:57 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 10:05 pm That's the way society is structured.

And no changes are allowed?

Well some are. The ones that make the wealthy wealthier.

And the ones that make the poor wealthier...which they were becoming, prior to COVID, when a Leftist scam shut down the world economy for a bit.

Some changes aren't so good.

IC's got us. We're finished. He's right. The CDC should never have put the COVID restrictions into effect. They were clearly trying to destroy the world. Thank God for anti-vaxers and COVID protestors! We on the left will stop at nothing to do dastardly things for no gain to anyone including ourselves! It's just in our evil nature.

And yet...where are the COVID measures today? COVID is still with us...so why no masks, no lockdowns, no painted lines to follow in grocery stores, no rationing, no closed schools, no shuttered churches, no social distancing, no COVID ID cards, no travel bans, no forced vaccinations...if it was all essential, where did all this essential stuff go?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 23, 2026 11:57 pm
And the ones that make the poor wealthier...which they were becoming, prior to COVID, when a Leftist scam shut down the world economy for a bit.

Some changes aren't so good.

IC's got us. We're finished. He's right. The CDC should never have put the COVID restrictions into effect. They were clearly trying to destroy the world. Thank God for anti-vaxers and COVID protestors! We on the left will stop at nothing to do dastardly things for no gain to anyone including ourselves! It's just in our evil nature.

And yet...where are the COVID measures today? COVID is still with us...so why no masks, no lockdowns, no painted lines to follow in grocery stores, no rationing, no closed schools, no shuttered churches, no social distancing, no COVID ID cards, no travel bans, no forced vaccinations...if it was all essential, where did all this essential stuff go?

I don't know. Maybe it was all an over-reaction. Or maybe we've had time to achieve herd immunity since then.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:24 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:11 am

IC's got us. We're finished. He's right. The CDC should never have put the COVID restrictions into effect. They were clearly trying to destroy the world. Thank God for anti-vaxers and COVID protestors! We on the left will stop at nothing to do dastardly things for no gain to anyone including ourselves! It's just in our evil nature.

And yet...where are the COVID measures today? COVID is still with us...so why no masks, no lockdowns, no painted lines to follow in grocery stores, no rationing, no closed schools, no shuttered churches, no social distancing, no COVID ID cards, no travel bans, no forced vaccinations...if it was all essential, where did all this essential stuff go?

I don't know. Maybe it was all an over-reaction. Or maybe we've had time to achieve herd immunity since then.

You're right...you don't know.

But one thing for sure: COVID is still around, and continually mutating, as such viruses do. And yet everything -- everything -- those idiots told us to do turned out to be unnecessary.

How blatant does a failure have to be before you see it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:40 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:30 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 24, 2026 1:24 am
And yet...where are the COVID measures today? COVID is still with us...so why no masks, no lockdowns, no painted lines to follow in grocery stores, no rationing, no closed schools, no shuttered churches, no social distancing, no COVID ID cards, no travel bans, no forced vaccinations...if it was all essential, where did all this essential stuff go?

I don't know. Maybe it was all an over-reaction. Or maybe we've had time to achieve herd immunity since then.

You're right...you don't know.

But one thing for sure: COVID is still around, and continually mutating, as such viruses do. And yet everything -- everything -- those idiots told us to do turned out to be unnecessary.

How blatant does a failure have to be before you see it?

To be fair, many governments carried out a drastic emergency program with unbelievable efficiency in an unbelievably short period of time (something humans have only ever accomplished before during all out war mobilization). Private industries would never be able to do that, nor do they have the legitimate authority to do anything like that. Only governments serving the citizens have that authority, the ones you would like reduced and minimalized.

If the day ever comes that something like the Black Death returns, we should all hope that our governments will be organized enough to mount a similar response in a similar short period of time. Maybe we should be thankful that our governments were able to achieve incredible things in the name of saving us all (albeit, a false alarm), instead of imagining all manner of sinister ulterior motivations for it.