tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5750447014852467834..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Do the Wealthy Create Jobs?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11868462499148585832011-05-25T04:59:27.320-07:002011-05-25T04:59:27.320-07:00a seriously foolinh person: "I do not know wh...<b>a seriously foolinh person:</b> "<i>I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell ...</i>"<br /><br />This amusing response is even better than I could have hoped for. Now, if only I can make the time to give it the adequate mocking it deserves.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2438676836497018512011-05-25T04:56:51.609-07:002011-05-25T04:56:51.609-07:00Crude: "Well, what's wrong with his prote...<b>Crude:</b> "<i>Well, what's wrong with his protectionism?</i>"<br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Crude:</b> "<i>And a demand to halt illegal immigration or set and enforce legal immigration limits is a similar demand, regardless of who citizens wish to hire.</i>"<br /><br />Really? <br /><br />So, there is no substantive difference between -- <br />"<i>No, you may not (or, you do not have the moral right to) use the fruit of your own labor/efforts to hire foreigners in the own lands -- and take upon yourself the risk so entailed -- to do the work that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to pay your fellow-citizens to do</i>," on the one hand, <br /><br />and -- <br />"<i>No, you may not (or, you do not have the moral right to) import foreigners into the midst of our society -- and impose upon us the risk so entailed -- to do the work that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to pay your fellow-citizens to do</i>," on the other? <br /><br />How curious!<br /><br /><br />The (moral) businessman or entrepreneur who invests in a foreign land, rather than hiring his fellow citizens to do the work he wishes done, does not do an injustice to his fellow citizens. For, among other things, he does not *owe* anyone a job. Further, at his own risk, he generally does a benefit to those foreigners he hires -- unlike the oh-so-caring "liberals" whose "help," in the long term, is always indistinguishable from deliberate malice.<br /><br />The (immoral) businessman wanting more employees, or the rich "liberal" wanting servants, who imports foreigners rather than hiring his or her fellow citizens to do the work he or he wishes done, does indeed commit injustice against his or her fellow citizens, on multiple levels, including: <br />1) the foreigners, even in low numbers, are a disruption to the society; and, they may well turn out to be worse than a mere "disruption;"<br />2) this businessman or rich "liberal" *dumps* the social costs of those foreigners onto his or her fellow citizens;<br />2a) then, when he or she is done with the foreigners and "lets them go," the society is stuck with even more monetary costs due to their presence;<br />3) this (immoral) businessman or rich "liberal" is not taking upon himself or herself the costs and risks (for instance, a dicey legal system) of hiring the foreigners in their own lands, but rather, wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of *this* society (for instance, law and order), while pushing all the cost of his or her choice onto this society.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60805212002024141982011-05-23T19:04:39.688-07:002011-05-23T19:04:39.688-07:00Great stuff on your experience in the Army, B Prok...Great stuff on your experience in the Army, B Prokop. You might like Wayne Martin's take on things as in this video <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2011/may/16/decision-making-mental-health" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />Anonymous also has made some very interesting points about disparities in wealth in a finite economy. Considering one extreme, where all wealth and power belongs to one individual, the welfare of the populace will depend almost completely on his character. Is there a lesson there? I think so.Blue Devil Knighthttp://chessconfessions.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33582064665972277752011-05-23T18:59:34.778-07:002011-05-23T18:59:34.778-07:00Bilbo,
They can be. For example, on Friday everyo...Bilbo,<br /><br /><i>They can be. For example, on Friday everyone's needs are met, but by Monday only one person can afford to meet their needs, because only one person had enough money to last the weekend (even though all of them were equally frugal). The disparity is why no one else could meet their needs on Monday.</i><br /><br />And maybe they were frugal on Friday but a spendthrift last week. And maybe they were spendthrifts that day.<br /><br />You have to take a look at the actual causes, because simply assigning it to 'wealth disparity' doesn't wash.<br /><br /><i>Perhaps. It depends on what is needed. Do we need higher tariffs to protect our shrinking manufacturing base? The government is the best option for that. </i><br /><br />I was speaking in terms of charity - law enforcement is another question. And even there, I think personally persuading people, even businessmen, to freely spend their money in adequate ways is superior to any law. I just recognize, pragmatically and very hesitantly, that there are cases where some limited intervention can be justified.<br /><br /><i>You mean there's no sense in becoming a doctor?</i><br /><br />You mean there's sense in becoming an english major? <br /><br />(Sorry, english majors, but if it makes you feel any better, I'll leave a nice tip after my meal's over.)<br /><br /><i>Why? Isn't a healthy person more likely to succeed in making a living than a sick person?</i><br /><br />Better keep yourself healthy then if you can, eh?<br /><br /><i>Yes, and I think Paul's, "Those who don't work, don't eat," pretty much sums it up.</i><br /><br />Then you too have a disagreement. And Bob's highlighted my problem with the modern conversation on this topic. Some kind of fetishism of the poor.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3072055338875691662011-05-23T16:49:16.881-07:002011-05-23T16:49:16.881-07:00Matt 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier fo...Matt 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."<br /><br />So a society of a few rich andmany poor is ideal, right? If everyone was comfortable it would be harder for them to enter heaven. Poverty is a blessing in many ways.<br /><br />B. Prokop said: "Our requirement as human beings to the poor is in no way contingent upon their response."<br /><br />This is plain nutty. If throwing welfare benefits at some guy is just going to make him fat and lazy, then of course you don't do it. You make him feel some fear over his situation, which will hopefully goad him into working.<br /><br />Your attempt to infer it from Matt 25 is also crazy. You are simply taken the behaviour enjoined as to be followed without exception. But that is always a bad hermeneetic.Rufflenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73821458973294471522011-05-23T16:49:13.780-07:002011-05-23T16:49:13.780-07:00Bob,
I never said the poor have no duties. In fac...Bob,<br /><br /><i>I never said the poor have no duties. In fact, I specifically asserted the contrary.</i><br /><br />You answered me with a Dostoevsky parable, I asked you for a direct answer, you gave me another parable. You listed none, zero, nyet, no "duties" the poor have, unless you think that the poor literally are the saviors of our souls and have a duty to do that.<br /><br />Bilbo says "those who don't work, don't eat". What say you, Bob?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39780695078975945792011-05-23T16:01:07.968-07:002011-05-23T16:01:07.968-07:00Crude: You can't tell just from that informati...Crude: <i>You can't tell just from that information that the wealthy or the wealth disparity was the cause, because wealth disparities aren't 'causes' in that sense.</i><br /><br />They can be. For example, on Friday everyone's needs are met, but by Monday only one person can afford to meet their needs, because only one person had enough money to last the weekend (even though all of them were equally frugal). The disparity is why no one else could meet their needs on Monday. <br /><br />By the way, I think Anonymous explained excellently why wealth disparity causes poverty. <br /><br />Bilbo: "Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?"<br /><br />Crude: <i>Given what? Christianity?</i><br /><br />Given Bob's excellent explanation of what it means to be human. <br /><br /><i>Even if that were the case - I doubt it, at least in the US, in terms of raw material capability - I think private organizations are leaps and bounds better than governmental ones for similar reasons. The government is the worst option.</i><br /><br />Perhaps. It depends on what is needed. Do we need higher tariffs to protect our shrinking manufacturing base? The government is the best option for that. <br /><br /><i>Not at all - there are diminishing returns, and it's becoming clear that a post-K-12 formal education is largely a waste. Make use of the libraries and the internet.</i><br /><br />You mean there's no sense in becoming a doctor?<br /><br /><i>Limited. Budgeted. "Enough so that charity would still be required, particularly in the case of major illness and otherwise." "Health care for the poor should be worse than for the middle class, before private charity is factored in."</i><br /><br />Why? Isn't a healthy person more likely to succeed in making a living than a sick person? <br /><br /><i>Do you see what I mean about the "duties"? </i><br /><br />Yes, and I think Paul's, "Those who don't work, don't eat," pretty much sums it up.Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10835204982377592402011-05-23T11:40:30.954-07:002011-05-23T11:40:30.954-07:00"Crude",
I never said the poor have no ..."Crude",<br /><br />I never said the poor have no duties. In fact, I specifically asserted the contrary.<br /><br />But that has no bearing on OUR duty to the poor. Our requirement as human beings to the poor is in no way contingent upon their response.<br /><br />And yes, I am completely unashamed about arguing from scripture. I see nothing wrong with doing so. I only pray (literally) that, when I do so, my interpretation is correct.<br /><br />One thing I am fairly certain of however, is that on That Great and Awful Day, the Maker of all things visible and invisible, and the Judge of the living and the dead, is NOT going to ask me what were the "duties of the poor". He's going to ask me what I did for the least of my fellow human beings.<br /><br />And He's going to ask you the same thing.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30312313070924304252011-05-23T10:51:01.089-07:002011-05-23T10:51:01.089-07:00Anon,
The reality is, the rich do not create jobs...Anon,<br /><br /><i>The reality is, the rich do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs.</i><br /><br />You realize that people can also create demand, right? Including the wealthy? And when there's demand, the wealthy can and in many cases certainly do fill it - by creating jobs?<br /><br /><i>Your ascribing this not to the disparity but to the behavior of the rich and poor omits the fact that the disparity causes the behavior.</i><br /><br />You're thinking of the wealthy as nothing but consumers, when they are also often providers of jobs. You are ignoring the fact that the man with the wealth can spread the wealth around by investment, and what investment really adds up to at the end of the day.<br /><br />I won't deny that if you have a miser situation - someone who has all the wealth and does nothing with it - you could have a problem. But that just backs up what I said: It's not the disparity, it's the action.<br /><br /><i>Look, if you were right, if wealth disparity had no causal relation to poverty, then wealth disparity wouldn't be a good predictor of poverty. But it is.</i><br /><br />Correlation ain't causation. I'm saying you have to look at the actual causes, the actual issues in the particular society. Trying to put it all on the back of the disparity is more an ideological move than anything else, and talking about 'the rich' without appreciating the role wealthy people play in terms of investment and job creation is crazy.<br /><br />The causes in the concrete matter, a lot.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72430943325716848052011-05-23T10:41:28.079-07:002011-05-23T10:41:28.079-07:00Bilbo,
Do you see what I mean about the "dut...Bilbo,<br /><br />Do you see what I mean about the "duties"? I ask Bob, and his reply is basically an unqualified "nothing". No responsibility. No commitment. Not even gratitude. 'The poor get money and assistance without question or standard, because Bibleverse. We're done here.' One gets the impression it's insulting to even bring this up this question.<br /><br />Sorry, I don't think it's that easy. Nor do I think it's wise or even moral to avoid such a question, even in the context of Christianity. The poor do have duties, and the duty to the poor goes far beyond throwing money their way and talking about how moral it is to do so.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89143864545897427822011-05-23T10:30:44.707-07:002011-05-23T10:30:44.707-07:00Crude, I can't really think of a simpler way t...Crude, I can't really think of a simpler way to describe this. The reality is, the rich do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Where there is great demand for a product, jobs will be created. In order for there to be great demand for a product, there has to be a lot of people making enough money to buy the product. If the society has a handful of rich people and oceans of rich people, there will never be a demand for a large number of products. Your ascribing this not to the disparity but to the behavior of the rich and poor omits the fact that the disparity causes the behavior. People with very little money buy very little not because of their mindset but because they don't have the money. Rich people buy a great deal, but even if they make as much money as a thousand poor people combined, they won't consume as much as that thousand people would, nor would they support as many industries. And that's a rational decision on their part. We can assume every one of those thousand middle class persons would have a TV, a car, etc, but very few rich people own 1000 cars or 1000 television sets. So it's better for the economy at large if instead of that money being consolidated into the hands of one person that it's spread over that 1000. That will allow for the creation of more jobs, and thus will eliminate more poverty.<br /><br />Look, if you were right, if wealth disparity had no causal relation to poverty, then wealth disparity wouldn't be a good predictor of poverty. But it is. Every society with a large wealth disparity has higher levels of poverty than societies with a more equitable wealth disparity. This is the history of the world. From the time of Moses to today, there have always been societies with a few super rich people and oceans of poor people. In those societies, the poor can never advance, because neither they nor the rich put enough money into the economy to create enough jobs to create a middle class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81450851663965588832011-05-23T10:24:52.642-07:002011-05-23T10:24:52.642-07:00"Crude",
I had sworn off such IM-style ..."Crude",<br /><br />I had sworn off such IM-style posting, but this is too serious a matter. Thus Christ:<br /><br />For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we [do such things]?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' <br /><br />I do not see Christ putting "conditions" on our charity. The beggar woman (the poor) in Dostoevsky's story takes an onion from us, and in return provides us a pathway out of Hell. A fair trade, I'd say.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47394131708775845042011-05-23T10:08:31.560-07:002011-05-23T10:08:31.560-07:00Bob,
Dostoevsky's nice, but I'd rather a ...Bob,<br /><br />Dostoevsky's nice, but I'd rather a more direct answer - because as I told Bilbo, this seems like a question a lot of people refuse to answer or dwell on.<br /><br />What are the duties of the poor? Do they have any aside from "try not to kill anyone"?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48944316624280950732011-05-23T10:05:02.509-07:002011-05-23T10:05:02.509-07:00It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, t...<i>It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, the very fact of the disparity would create poverty.</i><br /><br />No, I'm pretty sure 'what caused the disparity' actually does matter. To use an extreme example, if a wealthy person gives a poor person 50k, and the poor person promptly consumes it in a week on cocaine and gambling, going on about how the wealth disparity is to blame for the poverty is foolish.<br /><br /><i>The reason is simple: neither the rich nor the poor spend enough to keep a large modern economy afloat.</i><br /><br />And your example dictates that how? It wouldn't be the disparity itself, it would be actions on the part of the rich and poor alike.<br /><br />At the end of the day, you're going to have to deal with the more direct causes of problems other than simply alluding to the "wealth disparity". And frankly, so long as the four necessities I mentioned are met, the government's duty to the poor ends in my eyes. From that point on it's charity.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55027647380035851812011-05-23T09:57:21.562-07:002011-05-23T09:57:21.562-07:00What duties do the poor have? I think I can best a...What duties do the poor have? I think I can best answer that question by quoting this parable from Dostoevsky:<br /><br />Once upon a time there was a peasant woman and a very wicked woman she was. And she died and did not leave a single good deed behind. The devils caught her and plunged her into the lake of fire. So her guardian angel stood and wondered what good deed of hers he could remember to tell to God; 'She once pulled up an onion in her garden,' said he, 'and gave it to a beggar woman.' And God answered: 'You take that onion then, hold it out to her in the lake, and let her take hold and be pulled out. And if you can pull her out of the lake, let her come to Paradise, but if the onion breaks, then the woman must stay where she is.' The angel ran to the woman and held out the onion to her. 'Come,' said he, 'catch hold and I'll pull you out.' he began cautiously pulling her out. He had just about pulled her right out, when the other sinners in the lake, seeing how she was being drawn out, began catching hold of her so as to be pulled out with her. But she was a very wicked woman and she began kicking them. 'I'm to be pulled out, not you. It's my onion, not yours.' As soon as she said that, the onion broke. And the woman fell into the lake and she is burning there to this day. So the angel wept and went away.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32272050905074214162011-05-23T09:53:06.019-07:002011-05-23T09:53:06.019-07:00Crude: Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the &#...Crude: Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the 'wealth disparity' doing it. It's the business decisions you're mentioning. The mere fact that that guy over there has 2 billion and that guy over there has 1 dollar doesn't add up to "well, clearly the wealth disparity is the cause here".<br /><br />Me: It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, the very fact of the disparity would create poverty. <br /><br />Take two nations, each with an equal GDP. In one nation, the top 1% owns 90% of the wealth, in the other country, the top 1% owns 30% of the wealth. All things being equal, there will be more poverty in the first nation than in the second as an inevitable result of such a wealth disparity. The reason is simple: neither the rich nor the poor spend enough to keep a large modern economy afloat. A modern economy depends on a large middle class. There is such a thing as a money supply, and it is not infinite. Only if it was infinite could wealth disparity not contribute to poverty. Since there is a finite supply of money and wealth, the more one person has, the less that is available for others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83550376141541943672011-05-23T09:11:44.494-07:002011-05-23T09:11:44.494-07:00Bob,
Everyone has duties.
Alright. What are the ...Bob,<br /><br /><i>Everyone has duties.</i><br /><br />Alright. What are the duties of the poorCrudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75411011259663636162011-05-23T08:51:47.659-07:002011-05-23T08:51:47.659-07:00I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is ...I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell. It is, in fact, that place's governing constitution. Let me explain:<br /><br />I am forever amazed by how much my entire subsequent life has been influenced by the relatively short time I spent in the Army (1975-1979). I truly believe that I learned and grew more in those four years than in any other comparable length of time. From insignificant mannerisms (how I stand, what I do with my hands while walking, the fact that I always start off on the left foot) to fundamental ways I view the world, I keep finding bits and pieces of my Army experience down there in my subconscious, nudging (or pushing) me in one direction or another. <br /><br />One really good example is foxholes. One of the first things we learned in Basic Training at good old Fort Ord, California, was the correct (that is, the Army’s) way to dig one. And if you have some picture in your mind taken from a host of cheesy WWII movies (hole in the ground, head and rifle sticking out) – get rid of it now. What we were taught was the DuPuy foxhole, named after the Marine general who invented it. DuPuy had studied the carnage of Vietnam (remember, I enlisted only about 3 months after the fall of Saigon), and realized that everyone had been doing it all wrong ever since, well… ever since ever. The problem with firing out of a hole in the ground was that an advancing foe could fire right back at you. Thus the high casualty rate on both sides in a defensive battle. <br /><br />What DuPuy came up with was a system of mutually supporting two-man foxholes. “Buddy Teams” of two soldiers would each dig their own pit, piling all the excavated dirt directly in front of the hole, completely blocking one’s view straight ahead. When you were finished, you could fire diagonally to the left or to the right, but immediately in front of you was this great earthen berm, higher than your head. The end result was that, in a line of these DuPuy “Defensive Fire Pits” (to use the official term), each buddy team was responsible for protecting the team to either side of them, while their own defense was left in turn to those teams. To work, the system required complete trust between the teams. You yourself could do absolutely nothing to protect yourself, and concentrated all your attention and efforts on defending your neighbors.<br /><br />Think about this for a moment. There is a really profound principle at work here. One that I think goes to the very core and fundament of our being - of the universe itself. It is the indispensable principle behind How We Must Live. As the poet Charles Williams so beautifully put it: <br /><br />This abides – that the everlasting house the soul discovers <br />is always another’s; we must lose our own ends; <br />we must always live in the habitation of our lovers, <br />my friend’s shelter for me, mine for him. <br /><br />The consequence of ignoring this is not just selfishness. It is not just missed opportunity or a life sadly lacking in color or meaning – it is a violation of the very nature of reality. To attempt to live for one’s self is an exercise in futility – you will fail. <br /><br />One of my favorite passages in the New Testament occurs near the end of Mark. Christ has been crucified, and various passersby taunt him, asking why He doesn’t “save yourself and come down from the cross”. They conclude with the scoffing remark, “He saved others, himself he cannot save”.<br /> <br />Wow. Read that again. What was meant as a contemptuous dismissal, as a cynical comment on apparent failure, turns out to be the very key to The Meaning of Life itself. We cannot save ourselves – we must rely on others. And it is up to us to save them in turn. This is what it means to be a Human Being. When we fall short of this principle, we fall short of, and even deny altogether, our very Humanity.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37635617365670815172011-05-23T08:24:59.978-07:002011-05-23T08:24:59.978-07:00To Crude:
Everyone has duties.To Crude:<br /><br />Everyone has duties.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4721050289266314762011-05-23T08:16:52.148-07:002011-05-23T08:16:52.148-07:00Ilion,
Ultimately, a demand for commercial protec...Ilion,<br /><br /><i>Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.</i><br /><br />And a demand to halt illegal immigration or set and enforce legal immigration limits is a similar demand, regardless of who citizens wish to hire. Which I'm fine with.<br /><br />Really, I understand exactly what it means to get the government involved. But I think safeguarding the economic and industrial interests of the state isn't as clear a case of immorality as you're making it out to be. But if your view it's "It's immoral, period, end of discussion", then that's that.<br /><br />And Bob Prokop,<br /><br />Do the poor have any duties? Bilbo thinks so.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8032100809951208472011-05-23T06:19:46.209-07:002011-05-23T06:19:46.209-07:00I'm going to break one of my post-lenten resol...I'm going to break one of my post-lenten resolutions, and respond to Ilion's questions, one by one:<br /><br />But, seriously -- do human societies have any rights comparable to the rights of individuals? YES<br /><br />Are societies even real? YES<br /><br />Do human societies have the right to have expectations and make demands? YES<br /><br />Do human societies have the right to define what they are and what they are not? YES<br /><br />Do they have the right to change or to not change as they see fit? (Not sure what this question means)<br /><br />Do human societies have the right to define what behavior they will and will not accept or countenance? YES<br /><br />Do human societies have the right to accept or reject outsiders into their fold, for any reason they wish (or even for no reason but that they wish not)? NO<br /><br />Do human societies have the right to try to perpetuate themselves? YES<br /><br />Do human societies have the right to reject that which works counter to their own perpetuation? SOMETIMES<br /><br />When a human society is a territorial-based people, in contrast to, say, a chess club, and specifically, when it is not subject to any other people-group, does it own the government which rules its territory, or does that government own it? IT OWNS THE GOVT<br /><br />Does any government have the right to, in Bertholt Brecht's phrasing, "elect a new people"? NO<br /><br />Does a business have greater rights than the society? NO<br /><br />Do human persons have greater moral responsibilities to their own families and to their own societies, and the individuals thereof, than they do to individuals who are not members of their families nor their societies? YES<br /><br />Do human persons have a moral obligation to make themselves poor (or, risk making themselves poor) merely because, someone, somewhere lives in poverty? YES<br /><br />Do human persons have a moral obligation to import strangers into their society -- and risk the dissolution of that society -- merely because those outsiders "want a better life"? SOMETIMES (This one needs to be answered on a case by case basis.)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7439918689812295642011-05-23T03:59:38.117-07:002011-05-23T03:59:38.117-07:00Crude: "Well, what's wrong with his prote...<b>Crude:</b> "<i>Well, what's wrong with his protectionism?</i>"<br /><br />Should this not be obvious whom what I have already said: it's immoral. Protectionism is but another form of demand for subsidation of one's life at the involuntary expense of one's fellows.<br /><br />Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.<br /><br /><br /><b>Crude:</b> "<i>It's not some crazy new idea. According to Pat, America was built on the practice.</i>"<br /><br />Then he would be wrong ... or dishonest. America was built on work and investment (initially, foreign), on the generaton of wealth and the creation of material value. America was built by offering other human beings (both fellow Americans and foreigners) goods and services they wanted to buy at prices they were willing to freely pay.<br /><br />But yes, the desire to live off one's fellows, the desire to shelter oneself from the need <i>convince</i> others to trade their labor for one's own, is not a new idea.<br /><br /><br /><b>Crude:</b> "<i>And apparently, China has been as well.</i>"<br /><br />China also murders its subjects. Still, it's not <i>protection</i> that is going to make China rich.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76912321228743038492011-05-23T03:36:14.736-07:002011-05-23T03:36:14.736-07:00Crude: "Ilion, I'm real curious of this o...<b>Crude:</b> "<i>Ilion, I'm real curious of this one: What's your stance on illegal immigration? Or immigration, period?</i>"<br /><br />Well, I wouldn't even be here if not for all the unregulated immigration of Europeans to these shores 300-400 years ago, and the subsequent displacement and/or destruction of the societies which already existed here. So, clearly, I'm all for open borders and the subsequent destruction of the society which has developed here over the past 400 years. :o<br /><br />But, seriously -- do human societies have any rights comparable to the rights of individuals or do they no rights; are societies even real? <br /><br />Do human societies have the right to have expectations and make demands? Do human societies have the right to define what they are and what they are not; do they have the right to change or to not change as they see fit? Do human societies have the right to define what behavior they will and will not accept or countenance? Do human societies have the right to accept or reject outsiders into their fold, for any reason they wish (or even for no reason but that they wish not)? Do human societies have the right to try to perpetuate themselves? Do human societies have the right to reject that which works counter to their own perpetuation?<br /><br />When a human society is a territorial-based <i>people</i>, in contrast to, say, a chess club, and specifically, when it is not subject to any other people-group, does it own the government which rules its territory, or does that government own it? Does any government have the right to, in Bertholt Brecht's phrasing, "elect a new people"?<br /><br /><br /><b>Crude:</b> "<i>Would denying a business the right to import as much labor as it wants from wherever it wishes be more slavery?</i>" <br /><br />Does a business -- a "person" by legal fiction -- have greater rights than the society -- an abstraction of actual persons -- by which its fictional existence is defined and protected?<br /><br /><b>Crude:</b> "<i>Would refusing immigrants partly on the grounds of what it would do to the job market be immoral?</i>"<br /><br />Do human persons have greater moral responsibilities to their own families and to their own societies, and the individuals thereof, than they do to individuals who are not members of their families nor their societies? Do human persons have a moral obligation to make themselves poor (or, risk making themselves poor) merely because, someone, somewhere lives in poverty? Do human persons have a moral obligation to import strangers into their society -- and risk the dissolution of that society -- merely becasue those outsiders "want a better life"?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12744301638223267902011-05-22T22:19:37.370-07:002011-05-22T22:19:37.370-07:00So if a wealth disparity is created by the busines...<i>So if a wealth disparity is created by the business owners freezing wages, or by a radical shift in the tax burden away from progressive taxation, then that absolutely could create poverty.</i><br /><br />Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the 'wealth disparity' doing it. It's the business decisions you're mentioning. The mere fact that that guy over there has 2 billion and that guy over there has 1 dollar doesn't add up to "well, clearly the wealth disparity is the cause here".<br /><br />Do universities cause poverty? I mean, you can find a number of people who are saddled with horrible college debt. I'm not a fan of student loans or universities, but I don't think "a university education causes poverty" would be the right way to put it.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26320719062235879812011-05-22T20:48:01.335-07:002011-05-22T20:48:01.335-07:00I'm no economist, but I'm thinking if one ...I'm no economist, but I'm thinking if one were to come upon this conversation, he'd take issue with the assumption that wealth disparities do not cause poverty. A large economy like ours only works with a sizeable middle class with a good deal of disposable income. If the middle class shrinks because their wages become stagnant and their jobs get outsourced to cheaper labor sources elsewhere, there's less disposable income. If there's less disposable income, there's of a demand for goods and services, which in turn creates a lack of jobs. Very wealthy people do create jobs by investing, but I don't believe the create anything like the number of jobs created by the normal consuming habits of middle-class Americans. So if a wealth disparity is created by the business owners freezing wages, or by a radical shift in the tax burden away from progressive taxation, then that absolutely could create poverty. If there was an infinite money supply that could somehow magically keep its worth despite there being an endless supply of it, then sure, wealth disparity and poverty could be totally unrelated. But I don't think that's the world we live in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com