Socialism Fails Everytime ...

#876
#876
luthervol said:
That's because few thing are black and white. A bunch of you guys tend to try and see everything as black or white, in two-dimensions.
I realized early on in the political form the concept of continuums needed to be driven home.....because therein lies most everything.

It's like this, is it wrong for an older guy to have sexual relations with a younger woman?
65 and 50?
50 and 40?
40 and 30?
30 and 20?
30 and 18?
30 and 15?
18 and 17?
18 and 16?
18 and 14?
14 and 13?
14 and 12?
It's not wrong until it is, and the gap between right and wrong is full of shades of grey.
Click to expand...

So now you have reached the core of the problem - gray vs black and white. We can agree except for extenuating circumstances it's wrong to take the life of another person - fairly black and white. Now the issue of motivation/incentive/greed is a gray area. This is where the "definers" of "acceptable" social behavior step in - whether those definers be totalitarians, elected legislators, non elected regulators, religious leaders, community organizers, or others seeking to control your behaviors. Those "norms" are always based on some form of need to control, and they generally work only once a pattern of acceptance to control as by law or by guilt have been established. Guilt is generally the methodology of religion and those not in positions of established control or leadership.

Legitimate control might be the imposition of property rights or something as obvious as defining traffic rules ... like which side of the road we drive. The remaining stuff is invariably based in a desire to gain power and wealth - whether it be individuals, groups, religions, or civil authority. The easiest way is education/reeducation aimed at teaching someone that a behavior is wrong and the way to atone is penance or more preferably the transfer of wealth to make a transgression go away. The nonsense about compensation to descendants of slaves by people who never engaged in slavery is simply one example of politically twisted minds seeking to implant guilt in others for suffering one group never felt and acts that the other group never perpetrated. Religions today don't seem as inclined to require "donations" to make "sins" go away as often, but they play on greed and conscience as much as ever.

Does that make me a cynic or simply someone who doesn't buy a party line - maybe just resistant/rebellious to people with a cause? I feel guilt if I take advantage of someone and make it a point not to do so. But I'm not about to buy a guilt trip someone is trying to sell me for the power and/or wealth they would gain from it. If I don't feel your guilt, then perhaps I simply didn't buy a BS party line you did. I think a lot of corporate compensation is reprehensible and way over the top; further, I believe the way it's done doesn't make a CEO either a credible leader or steward, but that's simply based on my own ethical creed, and it puts me in absolutely no position to judge other than being personally offended by a behavior. I'll say what I think about something such as that, but I won't seek to convert you. If you accept my viewpoint, fine; if not, that's your choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol and McDad
#882
#882
85SugarVol said:
Indeed.

If I can drag more food back to the cave than my family needs to eat - what can I do with that excess? 🤔
Click to expand...

Obviously beyond being just greedy with that extra haul, you can be a glutton and check another box. It that makes you fat and lazy, you could check off sloth, too. But who gets to decide if you stepped over the line since it's all a matter of perception. See you might preserve that extra food and have it available for hard times, and that would make you wise one would think.
 
#884
#884
Vol8188 said:
Content vs need are two different standards. Most of us have more than enoguh to meet our needs and yet are still not content
Click to expand...

If you stop at content, are you then guilty then of not attempting to improve yourself? That's a sin according to a lot of people, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#885
#885
1. Faulty premise.
2. Unilateral judgment on the self-created Continuum.
3. Faulty premise where one has ability to discern intent.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

luthervol said:
There is plenty there that should be easy to understand.
Capitalism thrives on greed.
Therefore, there has been an unfortunately all to successful effort to frame greed as a good, or at least acceptable, quality.
Greed is a natural tendency in all humans, but all do not react the same - continuums
The very essence of greed is rooted in intent.

For the life of me I can't see why so many struggle with the concepts.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, hog88 and Vol8188
#886
#886
luthervol said:
There is plenty there that should be easy to understand.
Capitalism thrives on greed.
Therefore, there has been an unfortunately all to successful effort to frame greed as a good, or at least acceptable, quality.
Greed is a natural tendency in all humans, but all do not react the same - continuums
The very essence of greed is rooted in intent.

For the life of me I can't see why so many struggle with the concepts.
Click to expand...

This has to be false because it doesn’t meet your own definition. You’ve attempted to paint greed as negative, taking advantage of others, and taking more that you should.

If so, how could capitalism “thrive” off of this?

Yes, greed is about intent. The intent to obtain more. Which we all have and which drives everyone. It’s why you get out of bed every day
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#887
#887
hog88 said:
In no way does that mean all greed is bad.
Click to expand...
It does. The result of the greedy action may not always be negative, but the mere fact that the action was taken without regard to others makes it bad.


Sort of like shooting into a crowd or driving drunk. It's wrong whether or not you hit someone.
 
#889
#889
luthervol said:
It does. The result of the greedy action may not always be negative, but the mere fact that the action was taken without regard to others makes it bad.


Sort of like shooting into a crowd or driving drunk. It's wrong whether or not you hit someone.
Click to expand...

Is that how define good? Can an action only be good if done with others in mind?
 
#890
#890
luthervol said:
For those few who can only grasp the concrete..............

A line worker goes up to Henry Ford and says "there's a problem with the steering wheels we are installing today, I'm afraid many will break and lead to accidents."
Ford says "keep quite and go back to work, we can't lose the money, but I'll look into it later"................greedy.
Ford says "keep quite and keep working, I'll look into it now"..........still greedy, but not as much.
Ford says "halt production and lets look into it".......not greedy.
Click to expand...

Henry Ford is also the guy who believed that if you paid a worker decently and kept the cost of your cars reasonable, then his workers could buy the cars they made. He saw the link between enabling the worker to become the consumers who grew his market. Whether or not you consider that a tale of managing income/greed, there's a lot of wisdom in it that seems to be missing in the world today.
 
#892
#892
luthervol said:
It does. The result of the greedy action may not always be negative, but the mere fact that the action was taken without regard to others makes it bad.


Sort of like shooting into a crowd or driving drunk. It's wrong whether or not you hit someone.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Knowingly taking the action will have adverse affects others is the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#895
#895
AM64 said:
Henry Ford is also the guy who believed that if you paid a worker decently and kept the cost of your cars reasonable, then his workers could buy the cars they made. He saw the link between enabling the worker to become the consumers who grew his market. Whether or not you consider that a tale of managing income/greed, there's a lot of wisdom in it that seems to be missing in the world today.
Click to expand...
Seems very wise and the opposite of greed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#897
#897
luthervol said:
By definition it is negative......if it's not negative, it is not greed.
Click to expand...

Then why not define simply where motivation or incentive to improve or progress become the sin of greed? I don't think you can for any number of reasons. Simple example: times are good and you are making well above the normal expected returns on investment of labor, materials, fuel, etc to produce your product. Let's say you "hoard" some of that "excessive" profit, and a few years later that excess becomes the thing that keeps the company going and workers employed. Perhaps something happened that affected the supply and therefore cost of fuel, and you used used the saved income to keep prices in line and thereby grew market share. Greedy or smart business?
 
#898
#898
luthervol said:
Seems very wise and the opposite of greed.
Click to expand...

But Henry Ford was a very wealthy man, and earned well more than others and well more than what he "needed". Was his desire to become a larger producer and sell more cars while becoming "excessively" wealthy motivation and reward or greed and privilege? More importantly who is fit to judge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#899
#899
hog88 said:
No it doesn't. Knowingly taking the action will have adverse affects others is the problem.
Click to expand...
The point is you take the action without regard. You didn't even stop to think if it would have an adverse affect....therein lies the problem.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top