3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWell, you tell me. Who would be justified in criticizing him?
Because there are disparities in wealth everywhere in the world, no one is allowed to criticize someone who is worth $48 billion unless they make less than humanity's median amount of wealth? Is that what you're saying?
Somebody worth $47 million? You'd probably say no.
Somebody worth $46 million? You'd probably say no.
Somebody worth $45 million? You'd probably say no.
And so on down the line until we start to approach your wealth,
and somwhere around there, you say, yeah, that person would
have a reasonable criticism.
The point I'm making is that to the majority of the world,
you are not seen as being any less wealthy than Bill Gates. We're
all rich Americans, even the poorest citizens among us, compared
to most of the world. In the eyes of a third-world citizen,
your criticism of Gates's wealth and simultaneous justification of
your own is just as absurd as the $47 million dollar man criticizing
the $48 million dollar man.
Dr. S
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettOK, so you say it is just to sac Gates. Then what? Move to the next wealthiest guy and sac him? And so on down the line until we get to you? When it's your turn to lose your head, will you be just as willing to get sacrificed as you were to drop the blade on Gates?
According to Forbes, Bill Gates is the wealthiest man in the world. So I use him as my example of obscene wealth in action.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think the math skills of third world citizens is far better than you give them credit for. The average per capita income in Sierra Leone is $130. The most I have ever made in one year was $40,000. So the income from my very best year was 308 times that of the average person in Sierra Leone.
Well, you tell me. Who would be justified in criticizing him?
Somebody worth $47 million? You'd probably say no.
Somebody worth $46 million? You'd probably say no.
Somebody worth $45 million? You'd probably say no.
And so on down the line until we start to approach your wealth,
and somwhere around there, you say, yeah, that person wou ...[text shortened]... st as absurd as the $47 million dollar man criticizing
the $48 million dollar man.
Dr. S
I don't know how much Bill Gates makes per year, but his $48 billion is 1.2 million times more than my 40k per year.
It doesn't take a math genius to see where the greater discrepancy lies.
I actually was not starting out to endorse an egalitarian system. I had listed $48 million as being a justifiable amount of wealth. So yes, I would say that someone worth $47, $46, or $45 million would be perfectly justified in criticizing Bill Gates.
If your entire point consists of saying that someone who makes more money than someone somewhere else has no right to criticize the system, then don't waste my time.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSo what is your point here, Dr. Scribbles? To demonstrate that lopping off people's heads is too extreme, or that the present system of iniquities is perfectly justified?
OK, so you say it is just to sac Gates. Then what? Move to the next wealthiest guy and sac him? And so on down the line until we get to you? When it's your turn to lose your head, will you be just as willing to get sacrificed as you were to drop the blade on Gates?
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettTo demonstrate that your proposed method of making the wealthiest man sacrifice his riches leads to an absurdity via induction. What happens after you apply it all the way down the line and every person in the world only has, say, $2000 a year to live on. What if somebody then wants more, like $3000? Is he going to put forth the effort to produce anything? Of course not, because that would put him at the head of the queue for the guillotine and he'd be immediately reduced back down to $2000 + one-five-billionth of what he produced. Who is going to work on terms that only give you one-five-billionth of your investment back?
So what is your point here, Dr. Scribbles? To demonstrate that lopping off people's heads is too extreme, or that the present system of iniquities is perfectly justified?
Your proposed solution is well-meaning (provided you would apply it all the way down the line and not stop it arbitrarily somewhere before it gets to you) but leaves us worse off than before, since we would all logically have to stop producing anything at all.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDid it ever occur to you that I am no Robspierre* and that my call for Bill Gates' head was merely an overdramatization of my disgust with the capitalist system run amok? I would be perfectly happy with a more egalitarian system, rather than a completely egalitarian system. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to watch people win lots of money on Jeopardy.
To demonstrate that your proposed method of making the wealthiest man sacrifice his riches leads to an absurdity via induction. What happens after you apply it all the way down the line and every person in the world only has, say, $2000 a year to live on. What if somebody then wants more, like $3000? Is he going to put forth the effort to produce ...[text shortened]... s us worse off than before, since we would all logically have to stop producing anything at all.
*Rob, but not Robspierre. There's a difference.
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettHerein lies the flaw. Your notion of more egalitarian, if it exists at all, only exists as a completely biased and arbitrary system. If it wasn't biased and arbitrary, then there would be guiding principles justifying it. But for any guiding principle you can put forth, I can use that same principle to reduce your proposed system to a completely egalitarian one. The only way to get some sort of quasi-egalitarian system is to make arbitrary or biased decisions which you may be in favor of but others will see as unjust - those who you sacrifice, and those below you who don't see you undergoing that same sacrifice.
I would be perfectly happy with a [b]more egalitarian system, rather than a completely egalitarian system. [/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettFrankly, if he wants to buy the world's gratitude that's fine by me. It's hardly a bargain price, 28 billion dollars, is it? If only the rest of the world's multibillionaires were prepared to pay that sort of money to have people like them a little more then we might not have quite so many starving or dying of malaria.
It doesn't matter. The site (http://www.forbes.com/personalfinance/philanthropy/2004/09/23/cz_dw_0923philan_rl04.html%20[Preview%20This%20Site]%204.) lists his total donated wealth as being $28,291,699,101 and his current net worth as $48 ...[text shortened]... its very core. No amount of philanthropy can obfuscate that fact.
At least he's putting his cash where it's actually needed, rather than all those ridiculous celebs who paid out millions to the ghetto orphans of Sept 11. And actually, I have a hunch he may just be doing it to be nice. Even if he isn't, he might just make generosity fashionable again.
Rich.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou begin to tire me, Dr. Scribbles. Are you out to merely contradict everything I say? Whatever reform I suggest is going to anger somebody somewhere, so your suggestion is to do nothing at all? Is that it?
Herein lies the flaw. Your notion of more egalitarian, if it exists at all, only exists as a completely biased and arbitrary system. If it wasn't biased and arbitrary, then there would be guiding principles justifying it. But for any guiding principle you can put forth, I can use that same principle to reduce your proposed system to a [i]c ...[text shortened]... e who you sacrifice, and those below you who don't see you undergoing that same sacrifice.
There are three possible positions as far as I can see:
1. The system is fine as it is.
2. The system is flawed, but it cannot be made better.
3. The system is flawed and it could be made better.
Are you espousing any one of these? Or is it merely the case that I have replaced Ivanhoe as your favorite forum whipping boy?
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettNo, I don't want a whipping boy. Plus, I don't need to contradict the things you say if they already contradict themselves.
You begin to tire me, Dr. Scribbles. Are you out to merely contradict everything I say? Whatever reform I suggest is going to anger somebody somewhere, so your suggestion is to do nothing at all? Is that it?
There are three possible pos ...[text shortened]... that I have replaced Ivanhoe as your favorite forum whipping boy?
I guess (1) and (2) mean roughly the same thing to me, so you can associate my view with either of those until such time as you care to engage in a discussion of the sort that Nemesio has termed 'debate' in the preaching thread, at which time we might mutually uncover some of the subtle differences between them and between those views and mine.
Long live laissez-faire capitalism!
Your favorite corporate mogul,
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesExplain to me why a more egalitarian system necessarily leads to an absolute egalitarian system. I don't see the connection.
No, I don't want a whipping boy. Plus, I don't need to contradict the things you say if they already contradict themselves.
I guess (1) and (2) mean roughly the same thing to me, so you can associate my view with either of those until such time as you care to engage in a discussion of the sort that Nemesio has termed 'debate' in the preaching ...[text shortened]... iews and mine.
Long live laissez-faire capitalism!
Your favorite corporate mogul,
Dr. S
1 edit
Of course the implementation of any system would not be as dramatic as I had indicated. It could be gradually phased in through a series of progressive taxation or some similar measure. A gradual redistribution of the wealth as opposed to a dramatic coup de grace. But I get the impression that you're really not interested in any idea I may put forward.
Originally posted by rwingettAs I said before, you first have to name the principle upon which you base your justification for putting Bill to the guillotine. You explicitly stated that he should be because he was the richest man. It obviously follows that if the richest man is always put to the guillotine - which of course is a metaphor for having his surplus assests divided among the world's inhabitants - then sooner or later, everybody will have to undergo the guillotine, because with each sacrifice, there is always a second-richest man who thereby gets promoted to the richest. The chain of sacrifice can never stop until there is no second-richest man - that is, when absolute egalitarianism is achieved.
Explain to me why a more egalitarian system necessarily leads to an absolute egalitarian system. I don't see the connection.
Now, you'll note that that analysis was based on the existence of a general principle taken as justifying the actions - namely, sacrifice the richest man.
I only claimed that I could reduce a quasi-egalitarian system to an absolute one provided it was founded on such a principle. By contrast, if you say, everybody who has more than $1 million dollars gets sacrificed, I can't do the same reduction. But I don't claim to be able to. As I noted before, that is merely an arbitrary and biased rule, not one based on any general principle.
To reiterate my claim, you can either have a just and absolute egalitarian system, or an unjust and quasi-egalitarian system, but no hybrid. Anytime you try to achieve some compromise, the arbitrary rule that you base it on introduces injustice.
Dr. S