Is the economic disparity in the US that great?

[Al B. Sure!]

Black Dragon:

Actually my economic status improved greatly when my mother divorced and re-married which happened when I was 12... we got a computer with internet access so that is why I came here a year later.

It's amazing how far two working parents can go to improve your economics, especially as my step-father was working a double shift. I still got treated like **** but my economic status was a lot better...

before that, we lived in a one bed-room apartment that didn't have reliable heat and no air conditioning. we ended up even putting up quilts over the window to try to keep out the cold air in winter... I am not bull****ing you.

and I said this to you before and i'll say it again... what i was complaining about that time was about Mayor Street's Operation Safe Streets which is basically a war on drugs centered in North Philly... The problem was that the drug dealers confronted with cops on every corner in North were moving down into my neighbourhood which is slightly better than the horrible ghetto of North Philly... the new infusion of drug dealers was causing and still is causing a lot of problems in the Frankford, Olney, Kensington area and the West Oak Lane, Germantown area on the other side of North. Look it up in Philadelphia Inquirer articles if you don't believe me


thanks

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm simply asking why anyone should care how rich anyone else is

Because I want the money, dammit.

[Al B. Sure!]

also BD, I posted pictures of my neighbourhood before... search for them on this site. All the rowhomes are made out of brick

[David Floyd]

cyclotron,

Because I want the money, dammit.

All joking aside, that's pretty much what it comes down to for most people.

[Al B. Sure!]

Cyclotron:

you want that money? Then earn in... bill gates having it now is not stopping you from earning your own money...

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Albert Speer

Monkspider:

also growing up under similiar circumstances, it wasn't that bad for me largely because i didnt know better existed... you don't complain about the summertime heat when you never saw an air conditioner before, know what i mean?

although if my father hadnt been a dead beat, i'd have been living in a lot better circumstances... once again, immorality is the cause of economic problems

Right, I totally understand what you are saying. I feel the same way about many things. I'm sorry about your dad, I on the other hand grew up with only a dad. Fortunately, he is a really good guy.
I would agree that immorality is the cause of a lot of economic problems. But it is because capitalism creates immorality. Without greed, violence, exploitation, and so on, capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. Immorality is something systemtic to capitalism. So in a way, capitalism creates a society in it's own image. That may not have been the immorality that you meant in your post, but if you really think about it, I think that you will agree with me.

[Shi Huangdi]

Err... Albert that wasn't what you had been talking about if my memory serves me. What your post was about was there was some sort of thing going on for Halloween, and a bunch of kids from poorer neighberhoods were shipped in for something, and you were complaining about how those poor people were behaving...

[David Floyd]

But it is because capitalism creates immorality.

Whoa, sorry. Immorality is more a result of original sin and the sin nature, at least according to the Bible, wouldn't you say? I mean, come on - are you trying to say that communism/socialism/fascism/whatever doesn't create immorality?

Without greed, violence, exploitation, and so on, capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency.

True capitalism, and the related political system - laissez faire libertarianism - has nothing to do with either violence or exploitation. You can still say that people are greedy, but that is true of all people in all systems, to some extent.

Immorality is something systemtic to capitalism.

Right, so what Hitler or Stalin or Mao-type characters were spawned by capitalism, again? And no, I'm not arguing that Mao or Stalin exercised "true communism/socialism", I'm simply arguing that they considered themselves to be communists/socialists, and thus it can easily be said that communism/socialism created the situation - or at least, I can make that argument if you can make the capitalism one.

But the point is, don't blame capitalism for immorality - blame individuals.

[Japher]

David Floyd

Unless, however, they are CEO of a publicly held corporation... of course.

Speers - I think you would benefit from reading books suchs as; The Millonare Next Door and The Millionare Mind by Stanley, and anything by O'Shaughnessy.

Learn the difference between wealth and income, and the answer to your question.

Ppl are poor, rich, immoral, amoral, what-have-you all by choice. They complain/whine about things because they made the wrong choices and choose to live life through others by doing so... This is why they read fantasy novels and are son interested in what movie stars are upto, or royalty... They escape their problems by idolizing those that don't have the same problems.

I think you (Speers) are a smart young man, and have just as much of a chance as everyone else. You show promise by asking the questions you do, and analyzing them as far removed from them as you can. Continue to do so, not only here but elsewhere. Set you goals, and start discipling yourself now... you won't regret it.

the change in income disparity is ridiculously in favour of the rich and the wealth disparity is unbelievable huge... any reason why the income disparity would be so relatively small compared to income growth and wealth?

AH, the secret of compound interest... There is a difference between earning a dollar and making a dollar. There is a difference between being rich and being wealthy. There is a difference between being an investor and being a gambler. There are those who work for wealth and those who work for money... which do you want to be?

Define those words and their differences and you will have your answer

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Whoa, sorry. Immorality is more a result of original sin and the sin nature, at least according to the Bible, wouldn't you say? I mean, come on - are you trying to say that communism/socialism/fascism/whatever doesn't create immorality?

We haven't had a debate in a while Dave, you're actually one of my favorite people here to debate. Well, anyway, I don't take the the "original sin"/Adam and Eve part of the bible literally. Sin has been around before man, and will continue to be around long after man as well. I have no problem if you do though. So let's run with it. If Adam and Eve were the original creators of sin, they are not the sole creators. Adam and Eve, if the story is to be taken literally, introduced sin in the world, but they can't be held responsible for every sin ever, except maybe in an abstract or indirect way.
As for whether or not X government creates immorality. Nearly all governments do, to some degree, even if they do not intend to. The one type of government that would not would be a socialist government that is built around philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus or Ghandi. But by then, humanity would have reached such a stage of evolution that any "government" would virtually cease to exist. There's true freedom for you Dave.

True capitalism, and the related political system - laissez faire libertarianism - has nothing to do with either violence or exploitation. You can still say that people are greedy, but that is true of all people in all systems, to some extent.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here old friend. This would spawn a massive debate that I think neither of us would care to engage in.

Right, so what Hitler or Stalin or Mao-type characters were spawned by capitalism, again? And no, I'm not arguing that Mao or Stalin exercised "true communism/socialism", I'm simply arguing that they considered themselves to be communists/socialists, and thus it can easily be said that communism/socialism created the situation - or at least, I can make that argument if you can make the capitalism one.

Hitler, Stalin, and all the other bad guys are cut from the same cloth as capitalism. When you break things down, there are really only two schools of thought out there. Humanist and Egoist. Either All-Oriented or Self-Oriented. Capitalism, fascism, socialism, libertarianism, and so on are just silly labels.

But the point is, don't blame capitalism for immorality - blame individuals.

I think blame can be placed on both the system, for manufacturing immorality, and individuals, for becoming part of the system.

Why I like debating with you Dave is that you are a bright person, who is genuinely good at heart. Despite your strong convictions, I always believe that I can turn you over because of this.

[Japher]

[troll]monkspider, you nuts! I totally disagree with you, but I will let you debate with Dave because I suk[/troll]

Have a nice debate.

[Ned]

Well, if the socialists got their way, the .5% of the ruling elite would control 99.99% of the wealth - and call it equality.

[David Floyd]

Sin has been around before man,

True enough - Romans 5:13

and will continue to be around long after man as well.

Define "after man". If you are saying that sin will be in hell, well, I suppose so, that's a no brainer.

If Adam and Eve were the original creators of sin, they are not the sole creators. Adam and Eve, if the story is to be taken literally, introduced sin in the world, but they can't be held responsible for every sin ever, except maybe in an abstract or indirect way.

Certainly not, but the fact is that their original sin caused everyone to have a sin nature (Rom 5:12, 15; 1 Cor 15:22), and sin was present at conception (Ps 51:5).

Therefore it can be said that original sin is the cause of sin today. Sin, we can both agree, is an immoral personal act (although we would disagree in my position that protecting people's freedom to sin is indeed the only moral position).

As for whether or not X government creates immorality. Nearly all governments do, to some degree, even if they do not intend to.

Hang on a second. First of all, let's make the distinction between creating immorality and allowing immorality. Creating immorality is passing a law, for example, that allows the government to take immoral actions in violation of freedom. Allowing immorality is not passing any law, and allowing people to be as immoral as they want, so long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others.

From this context, it can be said that communist/socialist governments CREATE immorality, while capitalist systems and Libertarian governments ALLOW what you or I would consider to be immoral personal acts.

Saying that a government that is primarily concerned with protecting freedom creates immorality is not valid, because it takes away personal responsibility for one's own actions (which is also Biblical, by the way, and also a major facet of Libertarianism) and places it in the hands of others. This is impossible. Agathon and I recently had a debate about personal responsibility and the like - did you follow that one?

The one type of government that would not would be a socialist government that is built around philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus or Ghandi. But by then, humanity would have reached such a stage of evolution that any "government" would virtually cease to exist. There's true freedom for you Dave

Again, I totally disagree. A government based on Biblical law would be completely immoral, from the context that restricting individual liberty is immoral. This isn't to say that we shouldn't follow Biblical law voluntarily, on our own - quite the opposite, in fact. The point, though, is that forcing everyone to follow Biblical law is wrong - and, in my opinion, unbiblical, in that man has been given free will by God.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here old friend. This would spawn a massive debate that I think neither of us would care to engage in.

Again, wait a second. True laissez-faire capitalism/libertarianism is about FREEDOM. Freedom is the logical opposite of coercion.

Hitler, Stalin, and all the other bad guys are cut from the same cloth as capitalism.

Again, incorrect. True capitalism is about freedom. Communism, even true communism, is about limiting freedom and concentrating power with the state. Same with fascism.

When you break things down, there are really only two schools of thought out there. Humanist and Egoist. Either All-Oriented or Self-Oriented. Capitalism, fascism, socialism, libertarianism, and so on are just silly labels.

I will say that you are the first person to equate communism with capitalism. Again, this is logically impossible. You might say that certain communists are immoral, and certain capitalists are also immoral - and I would agree. But this does not mean that both systems are the same, or even that both systems are immoral.

I think blame can be placed on both the system, for manufacturing immorality,

Immorality can be "manufactured" by passing immoral laws. In this sense, again, communism is immoral, because it passes laws that limit freedom. Limiting freedom is immoral, because freedom is a logical extension of God-given free will (and you can also make a good natural rights argument, as well).

and individuals, for becoming part of the system.

Here we have it. Finally you are admitting that individuals are at least somewhat to blame for their own actions. If a person acts immorally, blame that person.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Hang on a second. First of all, let's make the distinction between creating immorality and allowing immorality. Creating immorality is passing a law, for example, that allows the government to take immoral actions in violation of freedom. Allowing immorality is not passing any law, and allowing people to be as immoral as they want, so long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others.

From this context, it can be said that communist/socialist governments CREATE immorality, while capitalist systems and Libertarian governments ALLOW what you or I would consider to be immoral personal acts.

Saying that a government that is primarily concerned with protecting freedom creates immorality is not valid, because it takes away personal responsibility for one's own actions (which is also Biblical, by the way, and also a major facet of Libertarianism) and places it in the hands of others. This is impossible. Agathon and I recently had a debate about personal responsibility and the like - did you follow that one?

Alas, I think that I missed the debate that Ag and you had. I think we basically reach an impasse in regards to natural rights and so forth. Naturally you are a strong supporter of them, I am not so much.

I understand your arguements regarding allowing and creating immorality and I can see where you are coming from. But consider this, capitalism necessitates greed, surely we are in agreement there. I think we would even both agree that, by capitalism's nature, it creates greed as well. Capitalism molds a society into it's own image, people who live and grow up in a capitalist society begin to apply the cold logic of capitalism to other areas of life. In perhaps subtle ways. often times, but it undoubtedly does occur. For example, cutting off someone on the highway is very likely a result of learning capitalism's lessons and applying them to every day life. In a society that was all-oriented, rather than self-oriented, that same person who would have cut someone off in a capitalist society would perhaps learned lessons that would taught him to act in such a manner. In this way, capitalism creates immorality in perhaps subtle ways. Of course, greed by can create immorality in more obvious ways, in fact, greed by it's very nature, is intrinsically immoral. But there is no need to go over that in depth. You could maybe say that a Marxist society creates immorality as well, I don't disagree. I have thrown Marx out the window.

Believe it or not, future communism will not trample on your natural rights anyway. Essentially you have always maintained that property is a sacred right that must be upheld at any cost. Taxation, even if for the good of the whole, so you say, is absolutely immoral. You will be pleased to know that there will be no taxation required or no strong central apparatus in the future state. Everything will be given willingly, no coercian necessary. From a certain point of view, this state will be libertarian and communist at the same time.

Future communism requires evolution, an evolution that awaken's man's divine nature. A nature obsecured by centuries of warfare, capitalism, genocide, and so on. When this evolution occurs, mankind will realize what it should be doing, and that it should behave in a more god-like manner. When it does this, the inevitable result will be a society that resembles communism (or perhaps libertarianism from your point of view).

Again, I totally disagree. A government based on Biblical law would be completely immoral, from the context that restricting individual liberty is immoral. This isn't to say that we shouldn't follow Biblical law voluntarily, on our own - quite the opposite, in fact. The point, though, is that forcing everyone to follow Biblical law is wrong - and, in my opinion, unbiblical, in that man has been given free will by God.

Of course, no worries here. I agree with you completely. I would never dare try to enforce a certain set of morals on anyone. SUch a thing would be supremely immoral. The thing is, people will finally realize what they should be doing and live out the philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus, Ghandhi, Buddha, and so on. There will be no need for some sort of fundamentalist society.

Again, wait a second. True laissez-faire capitalism/libertarianism is about FREEDOM. Freedom is the logical opposite of coercion.

I have touched on this in a past thread, so I might as well explain a bit more in detail. What you call freedom is what holds you in chains. The freedom you espouse may allow you freedom from taxation, or what have you. But the freedom you want ultimately holds you back from attaining a higher level of spiritual enlightenment, which is our whole purpose here anyway. So in that way, it truly is a set of chains on you. As long as you seek a philosophy that is self-oriented, you will be held back from reaching true freedom. There is freedom that can be found that is much greater than any freedom Ayn Rand can tell you about.

But you will find this out yourself someday soon. Don't take my word for it. Just wait a few years. I promise you that capitalism will be over with within twenty years, maybe as few as 8 or 9 if we are lucky. I know that you probably don't believe me, and I can't blame you. But if you take anything away from our debates here at Apolyton, just take this one thing "the freedom you seek is what holds you in chains". You don't have to agree with it, but just remember it. You will understand completely one day soon.


Take care, Dave.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

- Jesus

Jesus came onto Earth to show us how to live and to save us from our sins, not to tell us how our government should be. Stop using Christianity as a pretext for setting up a government, either socialistic or anarchistic.

"The thing is, people will finally realize what they should be doing and live out the philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus, Ghandhi, Buddha, and so on. "

If you are a Christian, why do you put Jesus the son of God right alongside two pagan men?