Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Wealth Abandonment Options · View
Monocle
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 3:57:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:

But aren't the societies laws the codification of their morality? What would be the point of making something illegal to do, if it was not considered immoral to do it?


To the first, not uniquely. To the second, there are many obvious answers. I don't believe a critical thinker like you can't think of any.
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 4:27:00 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,343
This has probably reinforced the belief of some people that marine salvage, by definition, is the recovery of sunken treasure. Actually, of course, that is only a small component of marine salvage. The law of salvage applies to treasure and artifact salvage just as it does to traditional salvage of ships and cargoes. The threshold requirements for both are that the subject property be exposed to a marine peril from which it is successfully rescued by someone not obligated to do so. Which applies to your post. The 1989 Salvage Convention does not distinguish treasure or artifact salvage (hereinafter referred to together or separately as "treasure salvage") although it does permit signatory states to reserve the right not to apply the convention to maritime cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological, or historic interest. Still, there are nuances based upon national law or judicial precedent applicable in treasure salvage cases that are rarely if ever applied in traditional salvage cases. These may vary among nations. In the United States there may even be variations among the judicial districts or appellate circuits.

Law of Salvage or Law of Finds
One such distinction is the American law of finds, pursuant to which the salvor is presumed to be the owner by right of property he recovers that has been abandoned. That is, the salvor has full title to that property However, if a putative owner satisfies the court that the property was not truly abandoned, thereby rebutting the presumption of abandonment, the salvor will be entitled only to a lien against the property for the amount of his salvage award. But since your eccentric character has voluntarily gave away his rights the salvor then has full title to the salvage WEALTH. The constituent facts that a court may typically look at in order to determine "abandonment" is high since the amount of the salvage is significant. The law does not dictate or limit the extremities to which the salvage operation should be done. It is a high risk operation that may cause lives and property. Morality not withstanding, everything will be based on facts. The recovered wealth was given voluntarily and in gratuity therefore Morality be damned!
Wilful
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 5:09:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2013
Posts: 674
Location: Digging a hole on the beach, Australia
1ball wrote:
I don't subscribe to the philosophy that doing as you please with your wealth makes someone a cocksucker. That seems like nothing more than greedy and selfish desire to control what isn't yours.

I actually agree with you on that, well at least the first part. My admittedly harsh judgement of your guy goes to the Obscene extravagance of his actions.

As far as my "greedy and selfish desire to control what isn't" mine, I think you might have gone a little offroad there. I don't want to control his wealth, or believe anyone else should do so. I'm merely suggesting that he tap into some sense of humanity or community and do something more Philanthropic. Granted, I did make a flippant comment earlier that he drop a few mill my way, but I hardly think proposing he give it to charity is greedy and selfish. Perhaps self-righteous is the adjective you're looking for.

1ball also wrote:
You're welcome to start your own thread about efficient wealth distribution, but by what right is anybody entitled to efficient distribution of somebody else's money? Were these crews entitled to a simple handout or was requiring them to either strive for it (or do without) a better way of selecting who deserves it?

Again, I'm talking about community. It might be a foolish ideal on my part, but I think we all have a responsibility to make the world around us a better place. There are far better uses for that money, than making a bunch of maritime explorers and their deck hands dance for it.

As you say, it's a matter of degree, with handouts at one end and cocksuckers dumping gold in the ocean at the other. You don't think your rich guy should find some middle ground?

Please check out my latest story, Girls Night.
1ball
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:44:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


To the first, not uniquely.


Please explain.

Quote:
To the second, there are many obvious answers.


Let's see 'em.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:05:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Wilful wrote:
I actually agree with you on that, well at least the first part. My admittedly harsh judgement of your guy goes to the Obscene extravagance of his actions.


Who gets to define what obscene means in this context? By what right can somebody impose their definition of obscene on another?

Quote:
As far as my "greedy and selfish desire to control what isn't" mine, I think you might have gone a little offroad there. I don't want to control his wealth, or believe anyone else should do so. I'm merely suggesting that he tap into some sense of humanity or community and do something more Philanthropic. Granted, I did make a flippant comment earlier that he drop a few mill my way, but I hardly think proposing he give it to charity is greedy and selfish. Perhaps self-righteous is the adjective you're looking for.


Don't you mean that you want him to adopt your definitions of obscene, a sense of humanity or community, or more philanthropic? Why shouldn't you adopt his? By what right do judge his actions?

Quote:
Again, I'm talking about community. It might be a foolish ideal on my part, but I think we all have a responsibility to make the world around us a better place. There are far better uses for that money, than making a bunch of maritime explorers and their deck hands dance for it.


Who gets to define better?

Quote:
As you say, it's a matter of degree, with handouts at one end and cocksuckers dumping gold in the ocean at the other. You don't think your rich guy should find some middle ground?


It's his money. I think he should spend it or not as he pleases. Charity has a nasty habit of creating an entitlement mindset. A whole bunch of seamounts got explored as a result of his method. The successful partners and crews will shovel their gains back into the economy one way or another. I see nothing wrong with his choice and everything wrong with your belief that you can define what's better for someone else to do with his wealth. That kind of belief leads to stupid voting with drastic consequences.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:06:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:
But aren't the societies laws the codification of their morality?

Some laws are, some are not. Some laws are purely procedural and regulatory, to make affairs run smoothly, rather than delineate right or wrong. And some laws are pretty darn arbitrary. And some serve the self interests of the government at large, or factions, or individuals within the government or who have influence within the government.

1ball wrote:

Let's see 'em.


That's plain intellectual laziness on your part.
City ordinances limiting the maximum height of buildings to preserve sight lines.
Innumerable safety laws, from seatbelts to fireworks. e.g. It's not immoral to drive without a seatbelt - it's risky.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 3:55:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
Some laws are purely procedural and regulatory, to make affairs run smoothly, rather than delineate right or wrong.


Doesn't that indicate that the society believes it's wrong for the society to run roughly?

Quote:
And some laws are pretty darn arbitrary. And some serve the self interests of the government at large, or factions, or individuals within the government or who have influence within the government.


Aren't those examples of the might makes right morality?

Quote:
City ordinances limiting the maximum height of buildings to preserve sight lines.


Doesn't that indicate a belief that it is right to preserve sight lines?

Quote:
Innumerable safety laws, from seatbelts to fireworks. e.g. It's not immoral to drive without a seatbelt - it's risky.


Doesn't that indicate the society believes it's immoral to risk injury by not wearing a seatbelt?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 4:31:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:

Doesn't that indicate that the society believes it's wrong for the society to run roughly?

Not necessarily. Certainly not true of America today.

1ball wrote:

Aren't those examples of the might makes right morality?

Not necessarily. Some folks will just do whatever they can get away with whether they, or anyone else thinks it's 'moral'.

1ball wrote:

Doesn't that indicate a belief that it is right to preserve sight lines?

Ha! Man, what planet are you from?

1ball wrote:

Doesn't that indicate the society believes it's immoral to risk injury by not wearing a seatbelt?

Not necessarily. Certainly not true of America today.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:35:20 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,658
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


But aren't the societies laws the codification of their morality? What would be the point of making something illegal to do, if it was not considered immoral to do it?


No, not every law reflects some societal idea about morality. Monocle gave good examples, in my opinion. To try to shoehorn morality into zoning laws, moving violations, and regulatory statutes seems like an awkward reach. Why the fixation?

Wilful
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:45:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2013
Posts: 674
Location: Digging a hole on the beach, Australia
And now we're off at the races...

"Who gets to define what obscene means in this context? By what right can somebody impose their definition of obscene on another?"

Obscene: offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty. As far as accepted standards, I'm sure you won't need a statistically significant sample of people to agree that dumping a couple of billion into the ocean for kicks is obscene. But if you'd like to conduct a poll, by all means, fill your boots.

"Don't you mean that you want him to adopt your definitions of obscene, a sense of humanity or community, or more philanthropic? Why shouldn't you adopt his? By what right do judge his actions?"

You're right, I should pump the brakes on the judgement, as it's not a particularly constructive behaviour. Nonetheless, I disagree with his actions, strongly for the reasons I've already mentioned. As the citizen of a free society, I have the right to criticise the actions of others, and even pass judgement, regardless of how constructive that might be.

I think you've gone offroad again. I'm not trying to impose my standards onto anyone. I'm merely expressing mine, as I was asked. Just so we're clear, I'm not saying your rich guy can't dump his fortune into the ocean, I'm just saying he's a cocksucker for doing so. I'm open to changing my mind, but you'll need to convince me.

"Who gets to define better?"

That'd be that community I mentioned. You know, accepted standards and all that? People will debate the issues (much as we are heere), and some will think pissing away a few billion is okay, while others will prefer it's used to ensure everyone has access to food, clean water, shelter and other essentials. The pendulum will swing back and forth with the discussion, but ultimately the society as a whole will decide. Now what's that called? Oh yeah, that's right, democracy. Sometimes in a democracy, the other guy wins, much as your rich guy has in your scenario.

"It's his money. I think he should spend it or not as he pleases. Charity has a nasty habit of creating an entitlement mindset. A whole bunch of seamounts got explored as a result of his method. The successful partners and crews will shovel their gains back into the economy one way or another. I see nothing wrong with his choice and everything wrong with your belief that you can define what's better for someone else to do with his wealth. That kind of belief leads to stupid voting with drastic consequences."

A Republican voter are we? Perhaps the Tea Party? I'll overlook your judgement of my "wrong belief", remind you again that I'm not trying to impose anything on anybody, and just speak to your statement about charity.

Some charities do enable the very dependence they're trying to break, while others are extremely effective at empowering those they've set out to help. Another issue of degree. To say nothing of the complexity of crisis management. Looking at the world as black and white is actually what leads to stupid voting and drastic consequences. Thinking in those absolutes is a psychological distortion and an indicator of mental illness.

You can pay a penny of prevention now to ensure those without have enough, or you can spend a fortune of cure tomorrow to protect yourself against them. I know how I'll be casting my vote next week.

Your turn, Monocle. Good luck.

Please check out my latest story, Girls Night.
1ball
Posted: Saturday, August 31, 2013 11:19:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


No, not every law reflects some societal idea about morality. Monocle gave good examples, in my opinion. To try to shoehorn morality into zoning laws, moving violations, and regulatory statutes seems like an awkward reach. Why the fixation?


Because there is an underlying morality behind every law. Laws are about control and control is either right or wrong.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:10:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Wilful wrote:
And now we're off at the races...

"Who gets to define what obscene means in this context? By what right can somebody impose their definition of obscene on another?"

Obscene: offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.


Accepted by who? A majority? Don't majorities ever make mistakes?

Quote:
You're right, I should pump the brakes on the judgement, as it's not a particularly constructive behaviour. Nonetheless, I disagree with his actions, strongly for the reasons I've already mentioned. As the citizen of a free society, I have the right to criticise the actions of others, and even pass judgement, regardless of how constructive that might be.


Sure you have the right, but others have the right to believe you're obscene for thinking other people should be concerned with the things you're concerned with.

"Who gets to define better?"

Quote:
That'd be that community I mentioned. You know, accepted standards and all that? People will debate the issues (much as we are heere), and some will think pissing away a few billion is okay, while others will prefer it's used to ensure everyone has access to food, clean water, shelter and other essentials. The pendulum will swing back and forth with the discussion, but ultimately the society as a whole will decide. Now what's that called? Oh yeah, that's right, democracy. Sometimes in a democracy, the other guy wins, much as your rich guy has in your scenario.


So you do mean a majority? The bigger gang rules? Who's going to protect unpopular minorities from the decisions of these majorities? How are you going to keep people who disagree from ignoring you or abandoning you?

"It's his money. I think he should spend it or not as he pleases. Charity has a nasty habit of creating an entitlement mindset. A whole bunch of seamounts got explored as a result of his method. The successful partners and crews will shovel their gains back into the economy one way or another. I see nothing wrong with his choice and everything wrong with your belief that you can define what's better for someone else to do with his wealth. That kind of belief leads to stupid voting with drastic consequences."

Quote:
A Republican voter are we? Perhaps the Tea Party?


I vote against anti-Capitalism. That usually puts me against the same people that Republicans and the Tea Party are against because they are anti-Capitalism.

Quote:
I'll overlook your judgement of my "wrong belief", remind you again that I'm not trying to impose anything on anybody, and just speak to your statement about charity.


You don't vote in favor of wealth redistribution according to the dictates of democracy? or you just don't recognize that as trying to impose anything on anybody?

Quote:
Some charities do enable the very dependence they're trying to break, while others are extremely effective at empowering those they've set out to help. Another issue of degree. To say nothing of the complexity of crisis management. Looking at the world as black and white is actually what leads to stupid voting and drastic consequences. Thinking in those absolutes is a psychological distortion and an indicator of mental illness.


It seems to me that your thinking about the spending of this mythical wealthy person is very black and white. In your mind, he's not just a non-conformist (a neutral term), he's a cocksucker (a negative term). Charity is either voluntary or it's not really charity. Coerced charity is theft to satisfy your desires for some euphemism like "a sense of humanity."

Quote:
You can pay a penny of prevention now to ensure those without have enough, or you can spend a fortune of cure tomorrow to protect yourself against them. I know how I'll be casting my vote next week.


It seems there's never an end to the selfish justifications for turning somebody's need into somebody else's responsibility to satisfy your own greed. You say you're not trying to impose anything on anybody, but using your vote to coerce sacrifice is attempting to impose your will on unpopular minorities. Do you feel proud of that?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Wilful
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 3:14:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2013
Posts: 674
Location: Digging a hole on the beach, Australia
1ball wrote:
Accepted by who? A majority? Don't majorities ever make mistakes?

Yes and yes. That'd be those shades of grey I was talking about. But if we make sure the entire population is well educated, there'll be fewer of those mistakes.

"Sure you have the right, but others have the right to believe you're obscene for thinking other people should be concerned with the things you're concerned with."

As troubling as it is that people would believe I'm obscene for thinking everyone should be concerned with what is in the best interests of the community and the people within it, yes, they nonetheless have that right.

"So you do mean a majority? The bigger gang rules? Who's going to protect unpopular minorities from the decisions of these majorities? How are you going to keep people who disagree from ignoring you or abandoning you?"

Thin ice, dude. Equating democracy to gang, or mob rule is a principle put forward down here by Pauline Hanson and the brains trust of her One Nation Party. Take a tour through Google and tell me if you seriously want to be associating yourself with that sort of ignorance.

As for protecting minorities within a democracy, it seems to me that it's the parties on the left that actually do that, as opposed to the right who tend to marginalise them.

"I vote against anti-Capitalism. That usually puts me against the same people that Republicans and the Tea Party are against because they are anti-Capitalism."

You know, capitalism is about engaging in activities that produce a profit? By suffering a cost to dump his wealth, and imposing further costs to recover that wealth, your guy is engaging in anti-capitalist behaviours. Sure, the crews are profit-seeking capitalists, but your guy and the scenario in its entirety is not. Just saying.

"You don't vote in favor of wealth redistribution according to the dictates of democracy? or you just don't recognize that as trying to impose anything on anybody?"

You know what? I think you got me there, champ. Democracy does impose the will of the many on the whole. Sometimes you don't get your way. Oh, wait a minute, that's what I said earlier. What I also said, and what you know I meant, was that I wasn't trying to impose my views on anyone. Your rich guy can think and do what he wants within the limits of the law (I'll leave that to Monocle and LadyX to beat their heads against a brick wall). As I've said, I think it's a shame that he's made the decision he has, and I've told you why I think that.

"It seems to me that your thinking about the spending of this mythical wealthy person is very black and white. In your mind, he's not just a non-conformist (a neutral term), he's a cocksucker (a negative term). Charity is either voluntary or it's not really charity. Coerced charity is theft to satisfy your desires for some euphemism like "a sense of humanity.""

Black and white is about thinking in absolutes, not just positive and negative. I think he's a cocksucker for dumping it in the ocean. I'd think he was a motherfucker for shooting it off into space, and I'd think him an absolute cunt for dropping it out of a plane onto an orphanage. There's at least 3 shades there.

Again, I'm not suggesting he be forced to give his wealth to charity. I'm saying I think it's a shame he didn't choose to do so. By the way, coerced charity isn't theft, it's taxation.

"It seems there's never an end to the selfish justifications for turning somebody's need into somebody else's responsibility to satisfy your own greed. You say you're not trying to impose anything on anybody, but using your vote to coerce sacrifice is attempting to impose your will on unpopular minorities. Do you feel proud of that?"

Wow, that's quite the brain shart.

I obviously can't convince you that we should all pull together to help each other out. Or even that me having such a view is reasonable and something that should be respected.

And I can't for the life of me understand how you think that your rich guy giving money to charity equates to me being greedy and selfish. I'm not even in that equation.

I am extremely proud of my vote, and I take it very seriously. People elsewhere in the world don't have that same right, and some of them literally die for it. But whatever, right? Have you ever been to some of these places? I have.

But my favourite part is where you suggest the rich are an unpopular minority that requires some sort of protection. Bahahaha! Whoever will help the rich? Please, won't somebody help them?

Please check out my latest story, Girls Night.
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 8:29:59 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:

Because there is an underlying morality behind every law. Laws are about control and control is either right or wrong.


Now we get to a bit of the core of your own belief. From previous threads you know we disagree about the first statement. We also disagree about the second. Law is about order, not control. The order imposed by law is the opposite of chaos, not the opposite of wrong. Sometimes law is used and abused for control. Sometimes law is used to claim right and wrong. But law is fundamentally neutral.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 9:52:56 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Wilful wrote:
"So you do mean a majority? The bigger gang rules? Who's going to protect unpopular minorities from the decisions of these majorities? How are you going to keep people who disagree from ignoring you or abandoning you?"

Thin ice, dude. Equating democracy to gang, or mob rule is a principle put forward down here by Pauline Hanson and the brains trust of her One Nation Party. Take a tour through Google and tell me if you seriously want to be associating yourself with that sort of ignorance.


How about you take a tour through history and look at all the failures of Democracy.

Quote:
As for protecting minorities within a democracy, it seems to me that it's the parties on the left that actually do that, as opposed to the right who tend to marginalise them.


That's hilarious. It's whichever party does the most to protect the rights of individuals that protect the minorities within a democracy. The left has abandoned protection of the rights of individuals far more than the right.

"I vote against anti-Capitalism. That usually puts me against the same people that Republicans and the Tea Party are against because they are anti-Capitalism."

Quote:
You know, capitalism is about engaging in activities that produce a profit?


Capitalism is about mutually voluntary and beneficial exchanges rather than one-sided imposed exchanges.

Quote:
By suffering a cost to dump his wealth, and imposing further costs to recover that wealth, your guy is engaging in anti-capitalist behaviours. Sure, the crews are profit-seeking capitalists, but your guy and the scenario in its entirety is not. Just saying.


He doesn't agree. And as the requirements include "voluntary", it's his opinion that matters.

"You don't vote in favor of wealth redistribution according to the dictates of democracy? or you just don't recognize that as trying to impose anything on anybody?"

Quote:
You know what? I think you got me there, champ. Democracy does impose the will of the many on the whole.


No, Democracy imposes the will of the many on the few, the unpopular minorities. It's only when democracy is constrained by recognition of the sovereignity of the individual that it doesn't become mob rule.

"It seems to me that your thinking about the spending of this mythical wealthy person is very black and white. In your mind, he's not just a non-conformist (a neutral term), he's a cocksucker (a negative term). Charity is either voluntary or it's not really charity. Coerced charity is theft to satisfy your desires for some euphemism like "a sense of humanity.""

Quote:
By the way, coerced charity isn't theft, it's taxation.


Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. It's the opinion of the victim that matters.

"It seems there's never an end to the selfish justifications for turning somebody's need into somebody else's responsibility to satisfy your own greed. You say you're not trying to impose anything on anybody, but using your vote to coerce sacrifice is attempting to impose your will on unpopular minorities. Do you feel proud of that?"

Quote:
Wow, that's quite the brain shart.


Reread your comment without the filter of sanctimony. It says, "If we don't take from the haves and give to the have-nots, the have-nots might rise up and take from us." If that isn't selfish, what is it? If that isn't greed for security at the expense of the haves, what is it?

Quote:
Have you ever been to some of these places?


Does Tijuana count? How about Canada? Where we've been is irrelevant. Look at how Europe solved its problem with a cycle of warfare between socialist states. It put a government over them that allows people and capital to abandon states where individuals, the smallest minorities, get punished for being productive.

Quote:
But my favourite part is where you suggest the rich are an unpopular minority that requires some sort of protection. Bahahaha! Whoever will help the rich? Please, won't somebody help them?


They will help themselves, by leaving and taking their wealth with them. They are welcome in other societies. They have the ability to reward societies that have the most respect for individual rights. Think your society can have a middle class without them? Still a fan of mob rule?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 10:31:15 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:

They will help themselves, by leaving and taking their wealth with them. They are welcome in other societies.


Which is why we see all the millionaires and billionaires going Galt. Objectivist fantasy.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:04:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


Now we get to a bit of the core of your own belief. From previous threads you know we disagree about the first statement.


Yes, we disagree and you are wrong.

Quote:
Law is about order, not control.


No, law is about control. To govern is to control. The philosophical differences between systems of government are about how to control, when to control, and why to control. Hopefully, the overwhelming amount of control will be applied to prevent the violation of individual rights with a minimal amount of violation of individual rights. This has proven to produce the most competitive societies. A society that is not competitive fails to be worth supporting and loses the people it needs the most.



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:07:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


Which is why we see all the millionaires and billionaires going Galt.


We see their capital being invested elsewhere, and not invested for the long term here. We see them refusing to drink the socialist Kool Aid. We see them refusing to succumb to the belief that a majority knows best.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 11:31:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:


We see their capital being invested elsewhere, and not invested for the long term here. We see them refusing to drink the socialist Kool Aid. We see them refusing to succumb to the belief that a majority knows best.


Man, your true colors are ugly, 1ball. "Socialist Kool Aid" sloganeering from a self-described critical thinker? Your intellectual dishonesty gets riper by the post.
1ball
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:19:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


Man, your true colors are ugly, 1ball. "Socialist Kool Aid" sloganeering from a self-described critical thinker? Your intellectual dishonesty gets riper by the post.


Why would being a critical thinker preclude a true understanding of the nature of an irrational statist dogma?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Sunday, September 01, 2013 12:26:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
1ball wrote:

Why would being a critical thinker preclude a true understanding of the nature of an irrational statist dogma?


It wouldn't. You're exemplifying neither critical thinking nor understanding the nature of anything.
Wilful
Posted: Monday, September 02, 2013 4:47:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2013
Posts: 674
Location: Digging a hole on the beach, Australia
1ball wrote:
"How about you take a tour through history and look at all the failures of Democracy."

Yeah, I get it, you're against democracy. It must be a real pain in the ass to have to constantly brainwash the masses with your fear and propaganda, and then have your lobbies pay off the politicians to get what you want. Much easier to just do away with the whole thing.

"That's hilarious. It's whichever party does the most to protect the rights of individuals that protect the minorities within a democracy. The left has abandoned protection of the rights of individuals far more than the right."

Actually, no. It's the privatised, user pays, fuck the poor philosophy of the right that leaves behind those individuals who cannot afford the services they need. It's the left that strives, admittedly with varying degrees of success, to ensure every individual has access to basic services.

"Capitalism is about mutually voluntary and beneficial exchanges rather than one-sided imposed exchanges."

Actually, capitalism is an economic system in which capital assets are privately owned and goods and services are produced for profit in a market economy. The key phrase being, "produced for profit". You're going to have a lot to answer for at the next Tea Party meeting.

"No, Democracy imposes the will of the many on the few, the unpopular minorities. It's only when democracy is constrained by recognition of the sovereignity of the individual that it doesn't become mob rule."

Yes, a liberal democracy does try to find the balance between the needs of the community and the rights of the individual. I'm in favour of that. I never claimed otherwise.

"Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe. It's the opinion of the victim that matters."

Oh, your poor, super rich victims. How awful it must be for them to be expected to pay taxes. At least they have an elitist Latin phrase that declares their opinion to be the only one that matters.

"Reread your comment without the filter of sanctimony. It says, "If we don't take from the haves and give to the have-nots, the have-nots might rise up and take from us." If that isn't selfish, what is it? If that isn't greed for security at the expense of the haves, what is it?"

The wealthy will have security regardless, and they will pay for it either way. The difference is that my way, the have nots have access to basic services, and your way, they get violently oppressed at twice the price.

I still love how you think charity is greedy and selfish though. You must get a lot of Republican pussy with that line.

"Does Tijuana count? How about Canada? Where we've been is irrelevant. Look at how Europe solved its problem with a cycle of warfare between socialist states. It put a government over them that allows people and capital to abandon states where individuals, the smallest minorities, get punished for being productive."

No, party boy, Tijuana doesn't count. Did you enjoy the donkey show though? Pick yourself up some affordable medication? I'm talking about Africa, the Middle East and some of the shitty parts of Asia. It is relevant, because if you were a little more worldly wise and had an understanding about how other people live outside your exclusive country clubs, you wouldn't have such a narrow-minded outlook.

To try and wrestle this train wreck back onto the tracks, I think it's a brilliant thing that your rich guy has abandoned his wealth. Because the one thing you have convinced me of, is the less wealth people like that control, the better.

Please check out my latest story, Girls Night.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 8:13:41 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,588
Location: Burrowed, Norway
1ball wrote:


But it isn't immoral to break the laws?


In answer to this; it all depends on whose side you're looking at and what moral law they broke. Woman is forced into a marriage and can't by law get out of the marriage. Her husband beats her and abuses her in all kinds of ways. She flees the country and has thus by definition broken the law of her country. From her husbands and the local views she has acted immoral, but from a western point of view she has broken a inhuman law and is thus not immoral. You seek for a simplistic answer in a place there is none.

As for your scenario, there are no moral obligations for anyone considering our point of view, but maybe if he has a relative that have helped him out with different necessary tasks and helped him build up his empire it could be immoral to throw out a good portion of his inheritance into the sea.

To me it more seems like he's doing what you do a lot of the time; trolling clown

As for laws an morality in general, it seems to me you're saying that without morality there would be no laws. That's wrong. Without morality there would be pragmatism, you'd have a completely neutral view on what makes the society run smoothest and will benefit most if not everyone. Let's remove morality out of the equation and throw out the law against stealing as well. It becomes easier to break a window and get what you want than it is to actually go to work and earn what you need to buy the ware. Society will if not stagnate then at least slow down due to there not being anyone buying or producing things, but they're instead stealing it. Even societies that have had no problems with blood vengance due to deaths have had secondary solutions simply because it doesn't benefit society that people go on killing each other.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:06:24 AM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,658
Location: United States
1ball wrote:


Because there is an underlying morality behind every law. Laws are about control and control is either right or wrong.


According to who? We all feel differently about morals, and about right and wrong, all of which are relative and biased terms which float in a sea of gray area. I realize you're intending to provide litmus testing for how each of us feels about morality, etc., but the premise that laws are based on morality is flawed, in my opinion. Laws are laws, applied (ideally) universally. Some laws are for safety, some are for protection (where the two differ), all are considered to be 'for the common good'. "Who gets to decide what constitutes the common good" you ask? Voters, elected officials, judges, and jurors.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and while I can't speak for anyone else, the idea of declaring something moral or immoral on behalf of greater society makes me uncomfortable. Who would be so arrogant as to do so, and to what greater gain do they do it?
Monocle
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 5:03:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 286
By the way:
1ball wrote:

Yes, we disagree and you are wrong.

Proof by blatant assertion is all you have. That's less than nothing.

1ball wrote:

No, law is about control.

Proof by repetition is no better than proof by blatant assertion.

Control is a subset of order, but not a necessary form of law.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 10:30:52 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 470,343
elitfromnorth wrote:
To me it more seems like he's doing what you do a lot of the time; trolling clown


The problem with 1 Ball is he truly believes trolling is critical thinking. LMAO.
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:26:35 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 13,623
Location: My Tower, United States
LadyX wrote:


According to who? We all feel differently about morals, and about right and wrong, all of which are relative and biased terms which float in a sea of gray area. I realize you're intending to provide litmus testing for how each of us feels about morality, etc., but the premise that laws are based on morality is flawed, in my opinion. Laws are laws, applied (ideally) universally. Some laws are for safety, some are for protection (where the two differ), all are considered to be 'for the common good'. "Who gets to decide what constitutes the common good" you ask? Voters, elected officials, judges, and jurors.

Morality is in the eye of the beholder, and while I can't speak for anyone else, the idea of declaring something moral or immoral on behalf of greater society makes me uncomfortable. Who would be so arrogant as to do so, and to what greater gain do they do it?


please stop making sense. it had no place here.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.