Benevolence: Moral Obligations of the Rich

[Christien Chalfant]

The Herald of Death

Why would you trust in the discretion of the rich instead? That's just stupid.

Would you rather trust in the discretion of the government instead? Because they are the rich as well, except they have no money of their own.
But of course the government is of the noblest of people who know exactly where people's money should go, where it shouldn't go, despite the people even knowing half of what their money goes towards.

[Michael Noire]

Government is more corrupt that the Rich, corporations are more corrupt than government. The rich take things personally and fund things on a personal level. The government interprets things bureaucratically and funds things by the ruling laws and lobbyists. Corporations only act on primal instincts like locusts and amoebas, satisfying hunger by consuming everything around them.

[Project 429]

Michael Noire

Project 429

The sad thing is this isn't even good ethics from an objectivist viewpoint.

Rich people are just as retarded as poor people.

While it is true that initially the intelligence of the rich is the same as the poor, as evidenced by the idiots in the documentary Queen of Versailles, it is also true that the rich as a privileged class have access to information not available to the general public. For example, they have more immediate capabilities with regard to insider trading, military industrial complex back deals, and the inside on why politicians are making some of the decisions they do. Just like the office of president. See, the president could be a moron, but you trust that at least some of their decisions are more informed and their decisions are based on information the public does not, or cannot have for security reasons.

What this means is rich people may on average make better decisions. Your father might own a coal mine and plan on shutting it down because a politician wants to increase taxes next year but hasn't announced it and by way of friends and bribes, your father finds out early and tells you 'the mine is shutting down, don't buy any more real-estate in that area" He might not even tell you not to buy real estate, but simply mention the mine over dinner, and then you could infer it was a bad idea to keep investing in property for a community that is about to migrate.Same principles apply to things like pharmaceutical industries, new medicines, the stock market, and even new technologies. These rich people may not be smarter, but their access to information is greater. For a limited time, the internet started mimicking that behavior, but then more recently there began a lock down and dilution of publicly available information, and in some cases, direct assaults, criminalization followed by raids and abductions, and so on. Out of all of that things like Anonymous came out, but the point is information for the wealthy is again much more available than for the poor, who now have watered down versions and difficulty perceiving the differences between real, conspiracy, and satire news sources.

Having more information doesn't mean you're going to use it intelligently.

[Limonchiki]

I agree 100% that private giving is better than paying a ton of income tax for the government to spend "for our benefit".

I would also say, though, that I feel everyone has the same obligation to do what good they can, "widow's mite" and all that.

[Darth Acheron]

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best he said
''To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'' -Thomas Jefferson

Who exactly put these 'moral obligations' on the rich. And what happens if they don't comply

[ScumOfTheEarth]

SlipperyFrog

The idea of disproportionally taxing the rich to provide to everyone else is unfair, economically dangerous, as well as horribly close to communism (again economically dangerous). Asking a few to pick up the slack for the many is unfair, and unsound. Government spending will change to accommodate the extra funds being taken in (in the form of more spending), thus permanently changing the revenue and spending practices of countless government departments. While this is all good and reasonable up to this point, the current financial plans for many government departments are designed in such a way it is near impossible to revert back once changes have been made, and in the currant geo-political, and socio-economic environment of the modern business market, the possible collapse of a single one of these large business owners (rich folk) would have a potentially crippling effect on government funding as a whole, with such a large portion of revenue coming from a single source.

In my opinion a far more viable solution would be to create tax incentives (or other programs) for these larger companies, to encourage them stop outsourcing to foreign nations, and instead operate entirely domestic, creating millions of new jobs, and the need for expanded infrastructure (again more jobs) reducing the unemployment percentage of the nation, and allowing many people to come off wellfare, freeing up still more resources, and subsidies to be poured back into the nation as a whole. If this where to then also be coupled with a balancing of the government budget, it could lead to rapid economic reform, thus potentially ending the currant economic recession.

SlipperyFrog for president!

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Matter of perspective. I strongly disagree with yours. It's as simple as that.

how is putting a wage cap on personal income at ~10million ******** someone over?

Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.

why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with?

the safety net/bottom doesn't even make as much sense as a cap to 'success' money. this is because we can never know how many people will be on this world and how much resources it is going to take to ensure that all of them get minimum wage. however the cap makes sense because then no one can take too much (aka hoard) and so at least we know not one person is taking everything and resources have to be spread around some. that is why a cap makes even more sense than a safety net.

however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net. i think that would be easily attained and it's only right considering we can all afford it easily and it's important...etc

Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.

first of all, i agree with capping assistance as well as "success" money. after everyone in the world has food and education and the other most basic needs (not really sure what else though) then all the resources should go to rebuilding the rain forest.
who said i didn't want to cap assistance?
secondly, you need to prove that what you are saying is true. you need to prove that people are starving and uneducated because they don't work hard enough.
thirdly, your logic doesn't even follow. it is possible to cap success money and cap assistance as well. if money is capped then what proof do you have that people will stop working? that is not even logically sound.

Show me where I said they are starving and uneducated because they didn't work hard enough. I didn't. I said people are inherently lazy ********, we all tend to be. That is NOT saying they don't work hard enough.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Limonchiki

I agree 100% that private giving is better than paying a ton of income tax for the government to spend "for our benefit".

I would also say, though, that I feel everyone has the same obligation to do what good they can, "widow's mite" and all that.

Yes, let's trust people who got what they have by taking it from others to give away their loot.

[low iq 111]

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.

why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with?

the safety net/bottom doesn't even make as much sense as a cap to 'success' money. this is because we can never know how many people will be on this world and how much resources it is going to take to ensure that all of them get minimum wage. however the cap makes sense because then no one can take too much (aka hoard) and so at least we know not one person is taking everything and resources have to be spread around some. that is why a cap makes even more sense than a safety net.

however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net. i think that would be easily attained and it's only right considering we can all afford it easily and it's important...etc

Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.

first of all, i agree with capping assistance as well as "success" money. after everyone in the world has food and education and the other most basic needs (not really sure what else though) then all the resources should go to rebuilding the rain forest.
who said i didn't want to cap assistance?
secondly, you need to prove that what you are saying is true. you need to prove that people are starving and uneducated because they don't work hard enough.
thirdly, your logic doesn't even follow. it is possible to cap success money and cap assistance as well. if money is capped then what proof do you have that people will stop working? that is not even logically sound.

Show me where I said they are starving and uneducated because they didn't work hard enough. I didn't. I said people are inherently lazy ********, we all tend to be. That is NOT saying they don't work hard enough.

me: why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with? ...however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net.

you: "nope. The more you give people, the less they work for."

seriously are you retarded? i think you maybe retarded.

[low iq 111]

Darth Acheron

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best he said
''To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'' -Thomas Jefferson

Who exactly put these 'moral obligations' on the rich. And what happens if they don't comply

the government which should be run by everyone....the collective

that quote would make sense except that people don't acquire wealth through industry and skill anymore. the rich are usually rich because they inherited something or were/are greedy. just look at jobs in the world as they are. chinese and indian children slave away in sweatshops while americans are lucky enough to have an education given to them so where they can get jobs and buy things made by the children in sweatshops. a lot of what happens to a person, financially is about pure luck.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Because that flies in the face of personal freedom and the ability to succeed to as high a level as one is possible to achieve. We have a bottom, which is the safety net. There is no justification for capping success.

why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with?

the safety net/bottom doesn't even make as much sense as a cap to 'success' money. this is because we can never know how many people will be on this world and how much resources it is going to take to ensure that all of them get minimum wage. however the cap makes sense because then no one can take too much (aka hoard) and so at least we know not one person is taking everything and resources have to be spread around some. that is why a cap makes even more sense than a safety net.

however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net. i think that would be easily attained and it's only right considering we can all afford it easily and it's important...etc

Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.

first of all, i agree with capping assistance as well as "success" money. after everyone in the world has food and education and the other most basic needs (not really sure what else though) then all the resources should go to rebuilding the rain forest.
who said i didn't want to cap assistance?
secondly, you need to prove that what you are saying is true. you need to prove that people are starving and uneducated because they don't work hard enough.
thirdly, your logic doesn't even follow. it is possible to cap success money and cap assistance as well. if money is capped then what proof do you have that people will stop working? that is not even logically sound.

Show me where I said they are starving and uneducated because they didn't work hard enough. I didn't. I said people are inherently lazy ********, we all tend to be. That is NOT saying they don't work hard enough.

me: why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with? ...however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net.

you: "nope. The more you give people, the less they work for."

seriously are you retarded? i think you maybe retarded.

Only retard here is you. Personal freedom DOES trump mob rule. Food and education ARE in the safety net. Are just that stupid, or do you really think everything should be paid for by some magic formula?
And yeah, you can give people enough to the point where they see no reason to try harder.

[low iq 111]

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.

first of all, i agree with capping assistance as well as "success" money. after everyone in the world has food and education and the other most basic needs (not really sure what else though) then all the resources should go to rebuilding the rain forest.
who said i didn't want to cap assistance?
secondly, you need to prove that what you are saying is true. you need to prove that people are starving and uneducated because they don't work hard enough.
thirdly, your logic doesn't even follow. it is possible to cap success money and cap assistance as well. if money is capped then what proof do you have that people will stop working? that is not even logically sound.

Show me where I said they are starving and uneducated because they didn't work hard enough. I didn't. I said people are inherently lazy ********, we all tend to be. That is NOT saying they don't work hard enough.

me: why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with? ...however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net.

you: "nope. The more you give people, the less they work for."

seriously are you retarded? i think you maybe retarded.

Only retard here is you. Personal freedom DOES trump mob rule. Food and education ARE in the safety net. Are just that stupid, or do you really think everything should be paid for by some magic formula?
And yeah, you can give people enough to the point where they see no reason to try harder.

by that logic it's okay to murder people because it's personal freedom and who cares if most people are against it?

but i know that's not what you mean, even though that's exactly what you said. morals/any law is subjective. the point is, you can't even begin to make generalized statements like that without providing more explanation.

i'll go ahead and explain my opinions on laws/morals. i think people should be studied and surveyed regularly to simply try to explain what humans generally like/prefer. the 'best morals' would be the ones most people "like" or the ones most people are inclined toward.
we don't have much to go off of, at this point, because no one has really thought to do anything like this. but i'm just explaining to you how i see.

secondly, food is not in the safety net. one has to apply for food stamps. also i don't view these things as something only for americans. i think these things we should try to spread around to as many people as possible. thus food and education is not in the safety net for most people, actually.

"everything should be paid for by some magic formula" why do you consistently generalize everything this way? you can't even argue my points nor can you make any logical points yourself. it's like you're a broken record of the same 10 lines repeating over and over. not everything can be answered in this post with 2 lines of that bull s**t. answer my questions or stfu.

" And yeah, you can give people enough to the point where they see no reason to try harder." okay this has nothing to do with what i've said for the last several posts. i consistently bring up food and education, and after that rebuild rain forests. you are continually ignoring all of this to repeat your mantra which doesn't apply. can you read? are you reading this now? please reply to my points and not whatever your mind thinks i'm typing.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Darth Acheron

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best he said
''To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'' -Thomas Jefferson

Who exactly put these 'moral obligations' on the rich. And what happens if they don't comply

Thomas Jefferson did not live in a world where the average CEO makes 400 times the average salary, where 0.4% of corporations control 40% of the economy, or where our ability to produce and consume could actually render our species extinct.

[Je Nique vos Merdiers]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Only retard here is you. Personal freedom DOES trump mob rule.

I'm guessing by "mob rule" you mean any sort of collective benefit, and by "personal freedom" you mean "the right to be a selfish doucheface and tell yourself you're not hurting anyone in doing so".

Spoilers: There is no way to reconcile the "personal freedom" of yourself with the "personal freedom" of others. All of your actions impact others, and you started with a disproportionate advantage compared to the vast majority of humans. In fact, the type of society where you imagine "personal freedom" is maximized is ironically the one where personal success has the most negative impact on the personal freedom of others.

Quote:

Food and education ARE in the safety net.

Except that poor people have far worse education, and obesity and diabetes are poverty-related illnesses in the US.

Quote:

And yeah, you can give people enough to the point where they see no reason to try harder.

Source?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

low iq 111

Old Blue Collar Joe

Nope. The more you give people, the less they work for. It's been verified and studied, and we are, by and large, lazy ********. Thus, you don't cap success, you cap assistance.

first of all, i agree with capping assistance as well as "success" money. after everyone in the world has food and education and the other most basic needs (not really sure what else though) then all the resources should go to rebuilding the rain forest.
who said i didn't want to cap assistance?
secondly, you need to prove that what you are saying is true. you need to prove that people are starving and uneducated because they don't work hard enough.
thirdly, your logic doesn't even follow. it is possible to cap success money and cap assistance as well. if money is capped then what proof do you have that people will stop working? that is not even logically sound.

Show me where I said they are starving and uneducated because they didn't work hard enough. I didn't. I said people are inherently lazy ********, we all tend to be. That is NOT saying they don't work hard enough.

me: why is "personal freedom" more important than feeding starving people or saving the world etc even when that person will still have plenty of money to do "whatever" with? ...however, at this point in time i would say food and education should be the only things in the safety net.

you: "nope. The more you give people, the less they work for."

seriously are you retarded? i think you maybe retarded.

Only retard here is you. Personal freedom DOES trump mob rule. Food and education ARE in the safety net. Are just that stupid, or do you really think everything should be paid for by some magic formula?
And yeah, you can give people enough to the point where they see no reason to try harder.

by that logic it's okay to murder people because it's personal freedom and who cares if most people are against it?

but i know that's not what you mean, even though that's exactly what you said. morals/any law is subjective. the point is, you can't even begin to make generalized statements like that without providing more explanation.

i'll go ahead and explain my opinions on laws/morals. i think people should be studied and surveyed regularly to simply try to explain what humans generally like/prefer. the 'best morals' would be the ones most people "like" or the ones most people are inclined toward.
we don't have much to go off of, at this point, because no one has really thought to do anything like this. but i'm just explaining to you how i see.

secondly, food is not in the safety net. one has to apply for food stamps. also i don't view these things as something only for americans. i think these things we should try to spread around to as many people as possible. thus food and education is not in the safety net for most people, actually.

"everything should be paid for by some magic formula" why do you consistently generalize everything this way? you can't even argue my points nor can you make any logical points yourself. it's like you're a broken record of the same 10 lines repeating over and over. not everything can be answered in this post with 2 lines of that bull s**t. answer my questions or stfu.

" And yeah, you can give people enough to the point where they see no reason to try harder." okay this has nothing to do with what i've said for the last several posts. i consistently bring up food and education, and after that rebuild rain forests. you are continually ignoring all of this to repeat your mantra which doesn't apply. can you read? are you reading this now? please reply to my points and not whatever your mind thinks i'm typing.

Stopped after the first line because the utter ignorance and extremism displayed in it prove you're nothing but another far sider who lives with mommy and daddy and have no clue.
Someone deciding to keep what is theirs has no relation to murder whatsoever.