Originally posted by sasquatch672OMG!!! I don't hope your older than 12😕
This will be my last post in this thread, as it's devolved into an unintelligent string of posts on everyone's part. But just to recap: Bill Gates is a great guy, Darvlay and Rwingett are absurd little pissants who want to criticize someone for doing more to help people in one day than they ever will in their lives, and I won and you two poster children for retroactive abortion lost our friendly debate.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Go stamp your feet and cry about how you "won" somewhere else. Nobody's interested.
This will be my last post in this thread, as it's devolved into an unintelligent string of posts on everyone's part. But just to recap: Bill Gates is a great guy, Darvlay and Rwingett are absurd little pissants who want to criticize someone for doing more to help people in one day than they ever will in their lives, and I won and you two poster children for retroactive abortion lost our friendly debate.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhat makes you think they would want to take your blood money?
The secondary reason for this reign of terror is to alleviate poverty in third world countries.
Would you accept a lavish gift if you knew it was stolen Robin Hood style? I'm not sure that I would. But to those people for whom every last dollar is important for their mere survival, I would think that they would have an even higher contempt for the idea that you would take somebody's earned money from him, and thus they would be even less likely than me to accept your stolen goods as alms.
Dr. S
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIf every last dollar was important for your mere survival, I tend to think you would take it. But that's neither here nor there.
What makes you think they would want to take your blood money?
If we could back to the original theme, we should ask ourselves how we define philanthropy and how we measure its greatness. Is it merely the monetary value which you donate or is it much more than that? Should we consider that the amount of money he's donated is a mere drop in his ocean of wealth? Should we consider that the money he has made was due to an unethical monopoly? Is a man who donates considerably less money than what Bill Gates has, but donates a much more considerable fraction of what he owns entirely a greater philanthropist than Bill Gates? Of course he is.
Let's consider the quality of life. Bill Gates has a higher quality of life than anyone else in the world. A man with a much, much lower quality of life (which could still be comparably high) who donates the same fraction (amount donated/net worth) of what Bill Gates has should be considered a greater philanthropist by the difference in the two quality of lives.
3 edits
Originally posted by darvlayYou must have a grim view of humanity if you think that poverty tends to corrupt one's moral aversion to theft. I think this view is not only grim but also inaccurate. I think that the less money one has, the more respect one tends to have for money. The more respect one has for money, the more repulsion he will have at the idea of being an accomplice in theft and receiving the benefit that somebody else has worked to produce.
If every last dollar was important for your mere survival, I tend to think you would take it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDo you think Rwingett would be willing to give Definace, Inc. some of their clan earnings as to help level the playing field?
You must have a grim view of humanity if you think that poverty tends to corrupt one's moral aversion to theft. I think this view is not only grim but also inaccurate. I think that the less money one has, the more respect one tends to have for money. The more respect one has for money, the more repulsion he will have at the idea of being an accomplice in theft and receiving the benefit that somebody else has worked to produce.
Originally posted by kirksey957This is an excellent observation! What say you, Robwin Hood? Will you pass out your clan points among the rest of us third-rate clans like a benevolent grandfather feeding ducks at the pond? Will you apply your own principles if they work out to your detriment? Why shouldn't all clans have the same number of points?
Do you think Rwingett would be willing to give Definace, Inc. some of their clan earnings as to help level the playing field?
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWe come to the question of what does it mean to "earn" money in a system that is seriously flawed. Bill Gates amassed his wealth in accordance with the rules of the current system. But if that system is flawed so that it inherently favors a huge disparity in wealth, then can we say that he has "rightfully" earned that money? The plantation owners in the ante-bellum south earned their money with the contrubution of slave labor. In that case did their fortunes rightfully belong to them?
What makes you think they would want to take your blood money?
Would you accept a lavish gift if you knew it was stolen Robin Hood style? I'm not sure that I would. But to those people for whom every last dollar is important f ...[text shortened]... less likely than me to accept your stolen goods as alms.
Dr. S
So we can ask, "what entitles someone to whatever wealth they may have?" Is it hard work? Some may claim that Bill Gates worked hard to earn his vast fortune and that it therefore rightfully belongs to him. But let's contrast that with someone who works in a steel mill their entire life. They're working at least as hard as Bill Gates did. It's a very strenuous and demanding job. But a steel worker will never see but a tiny fraction of Bill Gates' wealth. So we can see that hard work is not the answer.
Is it education? If you got a doctorate in some field, would that entitle you to a fortune of Bill Gates' magnitude? It has been pointed out that Bill Gates was a high school dropout. So, while a doctorate may make you a fairly nice living in academia somewhere, you'll never see but a tiny fraction of Bill Gates' wealth. So we can see that education is not the answer.
Is it innovation? Jonas Saulk developed the polio vaccine and Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, both of which greatly benefitted mankind, but neither had the vast fortune of Bill Gates. Many other inventors have died penniless. So we can see that innovation is not the answer.
What has Bill Gates done to deserve a $48 billion horde? He developed the PC, yes. A wonderful invention to be sure. For that he deserves to be rich. But does that entitle him to $48 billion? How can anything justify that that obscene level of wealth?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesClan points do not contribute to your survival. Nor do they enhance your quality of life, except in a very frivolous way. So, no, I will not be sharing my points.
This is an excellent observation! What say you, Robwin Hood? Will you pass out your clan points among the rest of us third-rate clans like a benevolent grandfather feeding ducks at the pond? Will you apply your own principles if they work out to your detriment? Why shouldn't all clans have the same number of points?
Originally posted by rwingettSpeak for yourself. They would certainly enhance my quality of life. You are enforcing your own value system when you describe it as frivolous. Why not just say "Let Defiance, Inc. eat cake"?
Clan points do not contribute to your survival. Nor do they enhance your quality of life, except in a very frivolous way. So, no, I will not be sharing my points.
The Properity Preacha
Originally posted by rwingettNo, nothing entitled him to amass $48 billion. He didn't just announce one day that he holds a claim on $48 billion of the rest of the world's money.
He developed the PC, yes. A wonderful invention to be sure. For that he deserves to be rich. But does that entitle him to $48 billion?
We gave it to him! If anybody's head should be severed based on the assumption that nobody should accumulate $48 billion, it should be those people who bought his products, not Gates who offered them, because but for our purchasing of them, he could offer them all he wants and still be broke. He doesn't amass the wealth until we the people give it to him.
Just like you're not entitled to have somebody pay you a $40,000 salary, but you have come to a voluntary agreement to exchange your labor for that amount. What if your neighbor who works just as hard as you, but only earns $20,000, knocks on your door and asks you to justify your salary discrepency?
What do you do? Tell him he's right and give him a check for $10,000 to make up the difference?
1 edit
Surely what Gates does with the bulk of his wealth after he shuffles off this world will determine how great a philanthropist he is recorded as being?
The name escapes me right now but there was that dude who had something to do with Oil and made loads of $'s (name begins what...?!) and he set-up the foundation that is really famous (sheesh what is it - Rockefeller or something like that?) if Gates does something similar with his legacy that could mean that all his wealth does eventually reach good causes... would he be such a bad guy then?
Edit - both Rockefeller and Carnegie?