Video Flagged Dead

Democracy and Ethics of Force

Is it right to steal from the rich to help the poor? What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? [youtube]
acesulfameablesays...

This is utter nonsense. Democracy is not the simple will of the majority. Mob rule by consensus is not a form of organized government. Not even the Greeks defined democracy this way. Ugh. There is more to philosophy than the american experience.

highdileehosays...

I can't agree with the deduction that goverment regulations on social reform policies is no different than a theif taking money, and redistributing the wealth. In order to get a true sense of the issues, you need to include all the convoluted nuances that coalesce in wealth distribution. it's not so black and white, which is why philisophical constructs like this one, distort the reality of the political climate.

Think about road ways, think about schools, the police, the military, libraries, the fire department, state universities, social security. All of those are a redistribution of weath, the people who have less would benifit more because a smaller percentage of taxation would be taken. There is no protest about that issue, because there is an understanding that those things are for the good of the entire country, and are essental to have a better quality of life. the problem is that people have been decieved into believing that american social medicine would reduce the quality of life. nonsense. It is a scary issue though, because we can see just how the distribution of missinformation and propaganda has percolated into the opinions of people in this country.

NetRunnersays...

My favorite part of these kinds of things is how they say there's an individual obligation for the wealthy to help the poor, but laws that enforce that are the same as armed robbery.

To any libertarian out there, I'd like for you to answer me a basic question about the meaning of the word obligation.

Obligations are:


  1. Things you don't have to do if you don't feel like it
  2. Things you have to do, whether you like it or not

Just curious, because it seems like libertarians don't understand this word.

None of you really believe that there's an obligation for the rich to help the poor. In fact, all of your arguments boil down to denying that any such obligation exists, nor should such an obligation be enforced on anyone who didn't individually agree to it first.

Also, if 60% of the populace truly wants the other 40% exterminated, it won't matter anymore what laws or the Constitution has to say about it, people are just going to go out and make it happen.

rougysays...

Green was a white boy, born into a white-boy world; finding jobs was easy for him, like a square peg finding square holes.

Blue was a round peg, and had trouble fitting into the square-hole world.

Red is the embodiment of the putrid imagination of Green.

Consider the fact that Green has lots of money to spare: big surprise, since Green is living in a world that caters to him...only a fuckup could be Green in a Green world and not make money.

Yes, let's remember that there is no reason to threaten Green's life just because Blue is starving to death. The two are totally unrelated.

Oh, yes, let's create a "program" to help people like Blue, because we all know that in the USA it is the poor and the weak who control our government.

Aggressive acts...redistribution...never would occur if the blues were organized. Unionized. Had they formed "Guilds." Because there are at least two factors to capitalism: those who have capital, and those who don't (labor).

Transfer of wealth? Working for minimum wage while somebody else makes enough to live on Malibu Beach, that's not a transfer of wealth to start with?

"The main problem with this system is the unrepresented blues and greens that object to the will of the masses." You're joking, right?

"The reason we do not have a democracy is to prevent the whim of the majority from dictating peoples lives." Oh, that's a riot. Yeah, that's why. Has nothing to do with GE, Lockheed, Boeing, KBR, and certain families that I dare not mention for fear of reprisal.

Wake the fuck up, Blankie.

Stop being a boy crying about the nickels you lost from your pocket.

Wake the fuck up, man.

I can't even watch the rest of this shit. You will know in about 20 years just how valuable you are.

rougysays...

You know...it's just....

You think you're the only one paying taxes!

You think that you're being robbed.

You think you're a big fish, but you're not, you're a minnow like the rest of us.

You think that if everybody could go nuts in the jungle of modern civilization, that all will be well.

But it won't. Nothing fixes itself in a short period of time, a human period of time.

We are living in a system of our own making, yet the system we created now controls us.

You are advocating a return to jungle rules, but we can never go back to the jungle again.


NetRunnersays...

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, you think of "obligation" as it pertains to law, which is an absolute requirement. The non-legal definition of obligation can mean a moral requirement or the act of being accommodating.


Not to be more snarky than usual, but I'm thinking of obligation as it pertains to the English language.

Sometime you and I need to come to agreement on a dictionary.

Here's Merriam Webster:


obligation
1 : the action of obligating oneself to a course of action (as by a promise or vow)
2 a : something (as a formal contract, a promise, or the demands of conscience or custom) that obligates one to a course of action b : a debt security (as a mortgage or corporate bond) c : a commitment (as by a government) to pay a particular sum of money; also : an amount owed under such an obligation <unable to meet its obligations, the company went into bankruptcy>
3 a : a condition or feeling of being obligated b : a debt of gratitude
4 : something one is bound to do : duty, responsibility


So let's see, #1 uses the words promise and vow, #2 uses the words debt, contract, and commitment, #3 also uses the word debt, #4 uses the words bound and duty. Doesn't sound particularly optional to me.

Now obviously a debt of gratitude isn't enforceable by legal means, but when someone says "After what my friend did for me years ago, I felt obligated to help him now", you don't get the impression that they're talking about having made the choice to help because of their generous or charitable nature, so much as seeing it as something they don't have any choice about because they owe a debt or feel a sense of duty.

This is my point. If you're obligated to help the poor, there's no particular reason not to make it a legal arrangement by which you literally owe a debt to the poor, and failure to pay that debt makes the evil red men with guns come for you.

If you want to imply that helping the poor is a nice, but optional thing (like helping old ladies across the street) you can just say "the rich should help the poor because it's what good people do, but they shouldn't feel obligated to do so."

That's what they're really saying anyways. Not that the rich are obligated help the poor, but that they're not and furthermore that no one should try to impose such an obligation on them because it'll make Ayn Rand cry.

gharksays...

in regards to the first part, it's not a valid example of wealth redistribution - the guy on the left would have grown up receiving handouts from the govt - family assistance, public transport subsidies etc so if he had half a brain he would know that he'd at some point need to give some back to keep the wheel turning.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More