Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Oct '12 22:39
    http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/2012/10/america-divided/
  2. 28 Oct '12 10:20
    Originally posted by moon1969
    http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/2012/10/america-divided/
    brilliant.
  3. 28 Oct '12 12:01
    Originally posted by moon1969
    http://blog.chron.com/nickanderson/2012/10/america-divided/
    Do you see wealth as immoral or just unconstitutional or a combination thereof?
  4. 28 Oct '12 12:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    Do you see wealth as immoral or just unconstitutional or a combination thereof?
    wealth of course is not the problem, its the immorality of those who control it, credit
    crunch, financial crisis ringing any bells?
  5. 28 Oct '12 12:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    wealth of course is not the problem, its the immorality of those who control it, credit
    crunch, financial crisis ringing any bells?
    But I think it is the problem. The left keeps referring to the 1%. They make no distinction as to those who are "moral" with their money, whatever that means.

    In fact, who did Obama imprison for the credit crisis?

    Hmmm?
  6. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    28 Oct '12 14:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    But I think it is the problem. The left keeps referring to the 1%. They make no distinction as to those who are "moral" with their money, whatever that means.

    In fact, who did Obama imprison for the credit crisis?

    Hmmm?
    Any system which allows starvation to co-exist with opulence is an immoral one, which, in turn, provides great incentives for people to behave immorally. There are systemic causes which generally prevent great disparities of wealth and morality from co-existing. The 1% may not be intrinsically immoral, but there are enormous systemic incentives for them to behave so in practice.
  7. 28 Oct '12 14:44
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Any system which allows starvation to co-exist with opulence is an immoral one, which, in turn, provides great incentives for people to behave immorally. There are systemic causes which generally prevent great disparities of wealth and morality from co-existing. The 1% may not be intrinsically immoral, but there are enormous systemic incentives for them to behave so in practice.
    Are you talking about within each country or on a global scale?

    In other words, should the "poor" in American, who would be considered rich in Haiti, be taxed by the UN to feed those in Haiti, or are we just talking about taking from the "rich" in the US to give to the "poor" in the US?
  8. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    28 Oct '12 15:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Any system which allows starvation to co-exist with opulence is an immoral one, which, in turn, provides great incentives for people to behave immorally. There are systemic causes which generally prevent great disparities of wealth and morality from co-existing. The 1% may not be intrinsically immoral, but there are enormous systemic incentives for them to behave so in practice.
    I would revise your statement to read, "Any system that compels the redistribution of private wealth destroys the human spirit and initiative, both in the person whose wealth was taken, and in the beneficiary of that wealth transfer, and is thus immoral".

    I admire the idealism of you folks, as naive as it may be. But you need to realize that it's not my fault when someone makes bad life choices. Nor is it my duty to shield people from the consequences of their bad choices. And I possess a humility that says, as many terrible situations as there are in the world, I do not have the ability to fix all of them.

    So no, I am not signing up for Barack Obama's and George Sorosis' idiotic plan to tax the United States and other wealthy nations to have my money sent to despotic regimes and failed states. The United States has given the world many great gifts, but none larger than the example of what a stable form of government and peace at home can bring in terms of economic prosperity.

    And one more thing: my wife and I happen to be enjoying the fruits of our labor at the moment. We've done well. When I think about the amount we pay in taxes, I challenge anyone to tell us we're not doing our fair share. For you to call me immoral, when you don't know me, and have no idea how I live my life - you don't know what you're talking about.
  9. 28 Oct '12 15:28
    Originally posted by whodey
    But I think it is the problem. The left keeps referring to the 1%. They make no distinction as to those who are "moral" with their money, whatever that means.

    In fact, who did Obama imprison for the credit crisis?

    Hmmm?
    what you think is to all intents and purposes irrelevant. Norway is a wealthy nation, it
    just so happens to have probably the highest standard of living on the planet primarily
    because they have a social conscience and realise that wealth is not to be tyrannised
    over by individuals, but is to be used for benefit the nation.
  10. 28 Oct '12 15:29
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I would revise your statement to read, "Any system that compels the redistribution of private wealth destroys the human spirit and initiative, both in the person whose wealth was taken, and in the beneficiary of that wealth transfer, and is thus immoral".

    I admire the idealism of you folks, as naive as it may be. But you need to realize that it's no ...[text shortened]... ow me, and have no idea how I live my life - you don't know what you're talking about.
    all impoverished persons are impoverished because of having made bad life choices,
    do you have any empirical data to back this ludicrous assertion up?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    28 Oct '12 15:53
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    I would revise your statement to read, "Any system that compels the redistribution of private wealth destroys the human spirit and initiative, both in the person whose wealth was taken, and in the beneficiary of that wealth transfer, and is thus immoral".

    I admire the idealism of you folks, as naive as it may be. But you need to realize that it's no ...[text shortened]... ow me, and have no idea how I live my life - you don't know what you're talking about.
    Did you feel the same way about taxes destroying "human spirit and initiative" when the taxpayers were paying your salary? For the maintenance of an organization that is obsolete (we really don't need well-directed musket fire from the riggings of our ships during naval battles anymore) and redundant (the Marines do nothing that the US Army can't)?
  12. 28 Oct '12 16:03
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    wealth of course is not the problem, its the immorality of those who control it, credit
    crunch, financial crisis ringing any bells?
    Do you have any evidence that the wealthy are less moral than the poor? My own observatiioins, totally unscientific, are that wealth and morality are separate and unrelated.
  13. 28 Oct '12 16:05
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Any system which allows starvation to co-exist with opulence is an immoral one, which, in turn, provides great incentives for people to behave immorally. There are systemic causes which generally prevent great disparities of wealth and morality from co-existing. The 1% may not be intrinsically immoral, but there are enormous systemic incentives for them to behave so in practice.
    Who is immoral in such a system? I hear PSAs daily saying that 1 in 4 children go to bed hungry. Who is responsible for feeding them?
  14. 28 Oct '12 16:07
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what you think is to all intents and purposes irrelevant. Norway is a wealthy nation, it
    just so happens to have probably the highest standard of living on the planet primarily
    because they have a social conscience and realise that wealth is not to be tyrannised
    over by individuals, but is to be used for benefit the nation.
    Today Norway, yesterday Finland. What is the future of the USA as a socialist paradise? Norway? Finland? UK? Greece? The USSR?
  15. 28 Oct '12 16:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    all impoverished persons are impoverished because of having made bad life choices,
    do you have any empirical data to back this ludicrous assertion up?
    It doesn't have to be all or none. Better individual choices lead to better results, all other things being equal, and moral choices tend to produce better results than criminal ones.