Philosophy Now Forum

[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=477700 time=1604015545 user_id=11118]
[quote=RCSaunders post_id=476483 time=1603312374 user_id=16196]
[quote="Scott Mayers" post_id=476225 time=1603151761 user_id=11118]

If all people got paid AS they were actually worth, then you can have something to say. The reality is that IF you lack initial power in terms of the advantages that come with [u]some[/u] form of inheritance, the one without is forced to labor (be a relative 'slave') to whomever they are supposedly so 'lucky' to work for. In a capitalist society, the vast majority who hire those on the bottom are right-wing businesses who believe intrinsically in EXPLOITING those with a relative disadvantage.

Note that if all people had no debt, there would be no money. Profit then requires exploiting means to make some indebted over others. And if you begin with nothing,...as someone 'poor' would entail, they are expected to bend over backwards for every dollar.
[/quote]

You do know that most millionaires were born into poor families and received no inheritance at all don't you? From, "[url=viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30365][b]The Privileged[/b][/url]:"

[quote]Most millionaires are self-made. "The overwhelming majority (79%) of millionaires in the U.S. did not receive any inheritance at all from their parents or other family members. While one in five millionaires (21%) received some inheritance, only 3% received an inheritance of $1 million or more."

"The majority of millionaires didn't even grow up around a lot of money. Eight out of 10 millionaires come from families at or below middle-income level."[/quote]

...and since you have no idea what money is: "[url=https://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand ... peech.html][b]Money[/b].[/url]"

Whatever you have, and whatever you enjoy, if there were no millionaires you would have less and so would everyone else. Is that what you really want for everyone, to have less than they do now?

The poor are poor because they are bums who believe they deserve more just because they were born and do not have to work and produce anything of value and are jealous of all those who do the work of producing all the things the poor want. The ultimate law of justice is, "produce or die." Every human being living in this world who is not supporting himself by his own productive effort is a parasite sucking the life out of all those you despise, those who actually do something of value.
[/quote]
Stating declared statistics won't help. Your assumption that most wealth is 'earned' requires also the proof that the same wealth is both LOST of those same Millionaires AND to the failure of inheritance (including 'heritage') to be lost where UNEARNED. If this doesn't occur, we'd all be identically wealthy (and powerful) by now!

But you miss the same point about how wealth is ACCELERATIVE, not merely tit-for-tat fair trades. So, if you want to debate this further, can you express whether you agree or disagree with this fact? That is, is it true that one who has MORE inherent OR earned power has EASIER capacity to make even MORE wealth?
[/quote]

That's the point no libertarian dares face - the accelerating unfairness that "open" markets inevitably breed, and the problems that come with it.

That's the point no libertarian dares face - the accelerating unfairness that "open" markets inevitably breed, and the problems that come with it.

life is unfair, sweetheart

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=477714 time=1604023131 user_id=472]
[b]That's the point no libertarian dares face - the accelerating unfairness that "open" markets inevitably breed, and the problems that come with it.[/B]

[i]life[/i] is unfair, sweetheart
[/quote]

That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness. You must have been missing in Civics & Government Essentials 101.

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:52 am Your assumption that most wealth is 'earned' requires also the proof that the same wealth is both LOST of those same Millionaires AND to the failure of inheritance (including 'heritage') to be lost where UNEARNED. If this doesn't occur, we'd all be identically wealthy (and powerful) by now!

This much is certain. If anyone with your misunderstanding of the nature of wealth where handed a million dollars tomorrow, they would be impoverished within a year. All the money in the world will not make the indolent and ignorant successful, it only hastens their self-destruction.

That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness.

really?

I thought societies form so that shamans and kings and warlords would have an easier time scarin', soakin' and enslavin' folks

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=477746 time=1604062326 user_id=472]
[b]That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness.[/b]

really?

I thought societies form so that shamans and kings and warlords would have an easier time scarin', soakin' and enslavin' folks
[/quote]

You imagine that people wouldn't form societies if they weren't being scammed? How quaint. That there will always be bad actors had nothing to say about the purpose or potential of society, or of a particular political ideology.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:52 pm That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness.

really?

I thought societies form so that shamans and kings and warlords would have an easier time scarin', soakin' and enslavin' folks

You imagine that people wouldn't form societies if they weren't being scammed? How quaint. That there will always be bad actors had nothing to say about the purpose of potential off society, or of a particular political ideology.

I think folks align and organize for all manner of reasons

I think societies form mostly so someone can put a leash on somebody ekse

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:52 pm That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness.

really?

I thought societies form so that shamans and kings and warlords would have an easier time scarin', soakin' and enslavin' folks

That pretty much illustrates populism.

Donald Trump supports populism because he claims he is the Hero Man Who can liberate the folks from control by the evil state.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:52 pm That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness.

really?

I thought societies form so that shamans and kings and warlords would have an easier time scarin', soakin' and enslavin' folks

That pretty much illustrates populism.

Donald Trump supports populism because he claims he is the Hero Man Who can liberate the folks from control by the evil state.

nah...ORANGE MAN ain't scarin' anyone 'cept the left, ain't soakin' anyone, ain't enslavin' anyone

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:11 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:52 pm That's explicitly why we form societies, to balance that unfairness.

really?

I thought societies form so that shamans and kings and warlords would have an easier time scarin', soakin' and enslavin' folks

That pretty much illustrates populism.

Donald Trump supports populism because he claims he is the Hero Man Who can liberate the folks from control by the evil state.

nah...ORANGE MAN ain't scarin' anyone 'cept the left, ain't soakin' anyone, ain't enslavin' anyone

He is not scaring or enslaving you he is seducing you.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:23 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:10 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:11 pm

That pretty much illustrates populism.

Donald Trump supports populism because he claims he is the Hero Man Who can liberate the folks from control by the evil state.

nah...ORANGE MAN ain't scarin' anyone 'cept the left, ain't soakin' anyone, ain't enslavin' anyone

He is not scaring or enslaving you he is seducing you.

if you knew why I voted for, and will vote for, ORANGE MAN, you'd realize why that is one of the more ridiculous things to dribble offa the tips of your fingers

[quote="henry quirk" post_id=477819 time=1604095982 user_id=472]
[quote=Belinda post_id=477795 time=1604082204 user_id=12709]
[quote="henry quirk" post_id=477780 time=1604074204 user_id=472]


nah...ORANGE MAN ain't scarin' anyone 'cept the left, ain't soakin' anyone, ain't enslavin' anyone
[/quote]
He is not scaring or enslaving you he is seducing you.
[/quote]

if you knew why I voted for, and will vote for, ORANGE MAN, you'd realize why that is one of the more ridiculous things to dribble offa the tips of your fingers
[/quote]

If you voted believing there's a chance it would affect change, you don't understand the American way at all.

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:31 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:13 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:23 pm
He is not scaring or enslaving you he is seducing you.

if you knew why I voted for, and will vote for, ORANGE MAN, you'd realize why that is one of the more ridiculous things to dribble offa the tips of your fingers

If you voted believing there's a chance it would affect change, you don't understand the American way at all.

nope...I didn't vote for him to change anything or save anyone...didn't vote for him to guide anyone or act as a role model

I hired him to blow shit up

as for understandin' 'murica (what it is, what it's turnin' into, what it could be): I'm one of the few who do understand

Every time you pay rent, someone else benefits more than you because they're building equity with your money.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:56 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 12:52 am Your assumption that most wealth is 'earned' requires also the proof that the same wealth is both LOST of those same Millionaires AND to the failure of inheritance (including 'heritage') to be lost where UNEARNED. If this doesn't occur, we'd all be identically wealthy (and powerful) by now!

This much is certain. If anyone with your misunderstanding of the nature of wealth where handed a million dollars tomorrow, they would be impoverished within a year. All the money in the world will not make the indolent and ignorant successful, it only hastens their self-destruction.

I think that you are ignoring the reality of people's conditions and lack the social psychology to understand how and why people behave the way they do. If we are to be fair to your belief, we'd require overthrowing you by working as hard as you claim to do to keep your own wealth. If you reduce the majority of the poor to all being stupid monkeys, then you have nothing to complain about when they start throwing shit at your face. If you won't be respectful of the fact that for anyone with relatively more wealth/power is only due to how many of those poor beneath you to be indebted to your success, you should have nothing to complain about if they should try to be just like you by demanding a right to inherit the Earth beneath their feet.

Poor people are 'floaters' in a world claimed up by pre-existing fortunes of others. You trivialize the collective concern of the masses as though they are merely straws without recognizing that there IS a real point at which even a straw will suffice to break the donkey's back. Furthermore, you ignore that you GAIN your fortune and powers if wealthier by declaring ownership rights to the same trivial parts of each straw. While you then may think that only .001 of some percent is what you might take of each person is 'trivial', it is still theft when you collect this from millions of people simply because your parents had some legal right to pass this credit on to you whether you earn it or not.


As an atheist, I recognize that reality is unfair. But should I adopt the mentality of the conservative, I'd require to begin from poverty by LYING and CHEATING enough to get to a 'safe' level whereby you fit into the present legal standards.

Here is one of those 'trivial' factors that when added up demonstrate the bias: Notice that the business communities today think it is alright to lie because it is not deemed illegal. [...something that Trump blames the Democrats as ignoring literally.] A common lie accepted as 'fair' is that "BOGO" universal add that originally stood for "Buy one, get one free", which, by nonlying terms simply means, "50% off on condition that you buy two." In actuality, the technique is to price the normal product at twice the normal basis so that it merely APPEARS as though you are offering a deal. This insincerity is more compromised today now that it has evolved to the literal meaning of "Buy one, (then) get one..." unqualified. Now this lying technique being normalized in society gets used to actually mean, "Buy one, get one HALF OFF", which then just means you get (at most) 25% off.

Furthermore, the lying is 'asterisked' [how do those car advertisers get away with printing these in writing that would require a 100in screen paused at the right moment to be able to read?]. The most common lie is to redefining 'free'. But to keep to the example, the business that exploits their POWER to lie on the buy-one-get-one-(half-off), adds that the second product has to be less expensive of the two if they are different prices.

The point of this example is to show how the POWER of the laws to favor the wealthier (as here are due to corporate advertising techniques), an advantage that somebody who is poor by contrast cannot get away with of similar behaviors. For instance, let us say that given a poor person doesn't own anything to trade but their labor, imagine that they lie trivially to get a job. [In fact, this is actually expected and applauded by those who are already successful who admit to using such tactics as the above 'trivial' example of abuse.]

Let's say that the guy hired lied by some rhetorical 'selling point' for a McJob (minimum wage desperate job that usually gets offerred to rich parents' kids with priority as one of those 'benefits' of inheritance of position.) Let's say that the lie regarded being employed for an implied length at some place they worked at for merely a week. The lie might have been something like specifying a story about a particular long day of 10 hours twice during that week. So the guy lies by how he sells it. When asked about that particular job experience, he might express that he "once worked 10 hours days at various times." The technical aspect of the expression is intentionally hiding the literal two days as 'variable' with the hope of the potential boss interpreting this as though it were a routine behavior.

Furthermore, let us assume that given the guy is just starting work from poverty, that he stinks. Perhaps he is homeless or only has one pair of clothes that he can't afford to wash(?) The boss opts to fire the worker for creating discomfort after a short time. But he may lack the 'official' means to fire. He then looks back to his references to check on his background claims and discovers he lied in the interview. Thus, he has his justifcation to fire and does so.

Though this example is 'trivial', if you imagine only even a couple of such failures, this guy might be forced to require further lying upon attempting a new job with an inability to hide the fact that he has not officially kept a job long enough to be hired otherwise. It would only take a few such incidences to permanently lock out this person's capacity to get a good entry-level job (without better lying credibility, of course). That is, if he were truthful, he would not ever get hired at most entry-level jobs and even relatively tries would permanently harm his capacity beyond repair.

This would not be so for say a kid who was just working while living at home (another 'trivial' example of benefit unnoticed by those who easily get past such experiences unscathed.)

I urge others reading this to make up other scenarios as 'trivial' comparisons. I hope this at least gives an example with better detail about my point: the apparently trivial aspects of evolving to be successful differs by ones' pre-existing position of wealth. Those with wealth can have MORE failures without relative risk while even a trivial few experiences of one who is poor can utterly destroy their capacity to succeed permanently.