Barack Huessin Obama's terrorist friends?

Page 3 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    How can a modern day government govern while keeping out of the way?

    Do you have any examples of a government that gets out of the way?

    Some definitions of government:

    - The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation

    - The mode of governing; the system of polity in a state; the established form of law.

    - The right or power of governing; authority.

    - The person or persons authorized to administer the laws; the ruling power; the administration.

    The ideals of government were meant for the people and to serve the people but is that happening in reality?

    Give me a government that stays out of the way and i'm there.
    Here is one example.

    Stop creating and/or amending laws that force banks to lend to lower income people or people with bad credit in the effort to prop them up or be "more fair".

    If they didn't do that, you wouldn't have the economic crisis we have nor the environment in which it gets exploited.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    Here is one example.

    Stop creating and/or amending laws that force banks to lend to lower income people or people with bad credit in the effort to prop them up or be "more fair".

    If they didn't do that, you wouldn't have the economic crisis we have nor the environment in which it gets exploited.
    Poor people cause the collapse of the worlds economies.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Turd View Post
    Poor people cause the collapse of the worlds economies.




    When all those bad mortgages are bought and sold and pushed from a government run agency, Fannie and Freddie (because they make money flipping that debt to private companies), then yes....bad debt and bad mortgages causes a cancer in the system. It was government run policies to prop up the poor that caused it. It forced banks to lend to these people to maintain their ratings for interbank lending.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  4. I think he might have been confused Kruger (sorry I was ready to call you JP, and the rest ofthe Seinfeld cast).

    It is not the people that caused it, you are right it was the government and its agencies. I liken it to this analogy "give a gun to a chimp and the chimp shoots someone, you dont blame the chimp"
    Mr. Supps Board Rep

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    This shows just how clueless you are on the current situation.


    When all those bad mortgages are bought and sold and pushed from a government run agency, Fannie and Freddie (because they make money flipping that debt to private companies), then yes....bad debt and bad mortgages causes a cancer in the system. It was government run policies to prop up the poor that caused it. IT forced banks to lend to these people to maintain their ratings for interbank lending. Do you need a picture with crayons?
    who benefitted the most $$$ from this government initiative?

    certainly not the poor, they are worst off now than ever before.

    IMHO the ideals of govt are to serve the people however in reality they serve first the big businesses that "contributed" the most to their campaign funds for office, so who benefitted the most from the government initiative to give poor people an "opportunity" to own their own home.

    also the poor IMHO fell over from the increased high interest rates, who raised the rates and why?

    the economic crisis is affecting a lot of europe, the uk and most of the western world not just the USA, too much credit, banks were handing out credit cards like candy, finance institutions were giving money away to anyone who could sign a form, it all comes down to greed IMHO, people want big screen tv's, big cars, big houses, fancy clothes, how is a good majority paid for it? CREDIT.

    this is just my humble opinion and just my take on things, govt, banks, big business and a good majority of the population have contributed to the crisis in some way or another.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    who benefitted the most $$$ from this government initiative?

    certainly not the poor, they are worst off now than ever before.

    They did in the beginning. Making 50k but being able to get a mortgage for 300k+ homes? You think its rich people defaulting on their mortgages? You find homes now abandoned and the people just left. Why? They had bad credit to begin with..what do they care if they default on the loan. Come on down to SWFL...you can see neighborhoods abandoned with spec houses everywhere.


    Contrary to popular belief, the poor are not worse off. They are still poor but are getting help for the government to stay in that house. Guess from who....those who pay taxes.

    IMHO the ideals of govt are to serve the people however in reality they serve first the big businesses that "contributed" the most to their campaign funds for office, so who benefitted the most from the government initiative to give poor people an "opportunity" to own their own home.
    Fannie and Freddie are government run entities. If you asked every banker in 1995 if he wanted to give out these loans, the answer would be no. The majority of banks that failed are investment banks that bought pools of these mortgages from Fannie and Freddie and vice/versa...why? They could borrow with little collateral, buy mortgage pools, flip them to someone else for more money...other banks..other countries banks...other countries sovereign funds, etc.... Were they told to stop? Hell no....they were told to do more from your government.

    That was started in 95 (first investment Bank was Bear Sterns in 97) and spread in the next 8 years.

    When the bubble started to take off, everyone invested in real estate. Peoples houses appreciated by 2 or 3x...Those people took out home equity to tap it. People bought land like crazy. I flipped lots for over year and never looked at one...I bought them looking at statellite views and knowing where they were. I bought them one minute and sold them in 10 minutes for 30-40% profit. It was crazy how much money was being funneled into real estate all based on the perception that prices would keep going higher. Now, the market crashes...people start defualting on loans...property values start to fall...people owe more on their house than its worth. They can't sell..they can't move....you have gridlock.....all because the government was backing all these loans and propping up prices.

    When government intervenes, Wall Street and investors lick their chops because they know they are smarter than the people making the rules. They get in, make their money, they get out.

    also the poor IMHO fell over from the increased high interest rates, who raised the rates and why?
    ARM's readjust. You know that when you sit down and sign. Subprime loans...NODOC loans, NIV loans, etc...were created by our government.



    the economic crisis is affecting a lot of europe, the uk and most of the western world not just the USA, too much credit, banks were handing out credit cards like candy, finance institutions were giving money away to anyone who could sign a form, it all comes down to greed IMHO, people want big screen tv's, big cars, big houses, fancy clothes, how is a good majority paid for it? CREDIT.
    Which was enabled by what? THe lowering of the amount of collateral these banks needed to lend money. College campus's weren't flooded with credit card companies handing out cards like candy until when...the 90's. Why? Easy credit.


    this is just my humble opinion and just my take on things, govt, banks, big business and a good majority of the population have contributed to the crisis in some way or another.

    You want to kill business and keep this bubble/burst scenario in play? Have the government keep backing mortgages, banks, business.....if there is no risk to the downside, why would you and everyone else not invest in them? By the time these defaults start effecting something, the ones who made a killing are out anyway. They don't care. They made their money. Funnel money, create a another bubble, cash out, move on. Thats what the market will do. Tech bubble, housing bubble, commodity bubble...its one after another.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  7. That is true but i don't say kill big business, i say they have some of them have to be held accountable just as those who took what they couldn't afford.

    basically my take on it is GREED has caused it, GREED from all concerned, and yes, it's the people who take responsibility for their finances that are left to get screwed in the ass once again.

  8. Holy crap.

    I write to have government cut taxes and get out of the way,
    Don't check the computer for a day,
    I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

    Dude. Morpheus. What are you talking about?

    Government staying out of the economy as much as possible is called Capitalism.

    Socialism's central belief is of government managing the economy.

    Wow.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by b unit View Post
    That is true but i don't say kill big business, i say they have some of them have to be held accountable just as those who took what they couldn't afford.

    basically my take on it is GREED has caused it, GREED from all concerned, and yes, it's the people who take responsibility for their finances that are left to get screwed in the ass once again.
    I understand what you're saying B, but the fact of the matter is, banks have been around for hundreds of years NOT giving out bad loans to unqualified people. Believe it or not they've been greedy the whole time....thats how capitalism works. Government getting involved in the loan market through Fannie and Freddie fundamentally changed the attitude in the business world.

    Look at it this way, if you were a bank, could give out as many bad loans as you want, making a profit for each one, then turn around and sell each loan to the government and taking no risk on the risky loans......wouldn't you?

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Fastone View Post
    Rob, contrary to what you might think, the government has never been out of the way. btw, how much have your taxes been cut in the last 8 years.

    :bruce3:
    Government has never stayed out of the economy? I agree to an extent, however, virtually every economic intervention that the American government has ever attempted has had negative unintended consequences to the economy.

    As for the taxes, I don't know, but they haven't been cut enough.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I understand what you're saying B, but the fact of the matter is, banks have been around for hundreds of years NOT giving out bad loans to unqualified people. Believe it or not they've been greedy the whole time....thats how capitalism works. Government getting involved in the loan market through Fannie and Freddie fundamentally changed the attitude in the business world.

    Look at it this way, if you were a bank, could give out as many bad loans as you want, making a profit for each one, then turn around and sell each loan to the government and taking no risk on the risky loans......wouldn't you?
    not me bro but it's a crazy world dude, some people gotta get what they can for as less as they can

    personally, i don't buy what i can't afford, don't borrow whay i can't pay back and i don't lend out what i can't afford to lose.


  12. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Holy crap.

    I write to have government cut taxes and get out of the way,
    Don't check the computer for a day,
    I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

    Dude. Morpheus. What are you talking about?

    Government staying out of the economy as much as possible is called Capitalism.

    Socialism's central belief is of government managing the economy.

    Wow.
    Quit acting coy.

    Me saying that you put forth a theory that is borderline socialism is far from calling you a socialist;however, your mistake is understandable seeing as how you have no clue what socialism is.

    Contrary to the folk wisdom you have decided to regurgitate, a true socialist economy is people run, as there is no centralized "government" at all. Employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market.

    It's the capitalist economies that are dependent upon government regulation. It's the reason you have never seen a free market in your lifetime. Psychologically people trend toward depletion of resources, which is only encouraged by a system based upon getting as much as one can for ones own self.

    Eventually you get what you have today, wherein Ownership and control of the financial levers of economic life remain entirely in the private hands of the richest people in the country.
    Last edited by mmorpheuss; 10-16-2008 at 07:24 AM.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    Quit acting coy.

    Me saying that you put forth a theory that is borderline socialism is far from calling you a socialist;however, your mistake is understandable seeing as how you have no clue what socialism is.

    Contrary to the folk wisdom you have decided to regurgitate, a true socialist economy is people run, as there is no centralized "government" at all. Employee-owned firms would compete or cooperate on the free market.

    It's the capitalist economies that are dependent upon government regulation. It's the reason you have never seen a free market in your lifetime. Psychologically people trend toward depletion of resources, which is only encouraged by a system based upon getting as much as one can for ones own self.

    Eventually you get what you have today, wherein Ownership and control of the financial levers of economic life remain entirely in the private hands of the richest people in the country.
    I'm not acting coy. You're just totally wrong.

    Here's the definition I pulled from wikipedia, if you have a better one, by all means, post it.

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

    Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.


    I assume what you're referring to is Libertarian Socialism. I assure you, when I said government staying out of the economy, I was not advocating union ownership of business.

    Compare that to the Wiki definition of capitalism:

    Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market[2], rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money provided by central banks, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.[2] In theory, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation,[3] with state action confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.[5] Classic unrestrained capitalism is confined mostly to theory today, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies" with interventionist state regulation, social programs[6] and state ownership of some sectors.

    What I advocate is "classic unrestrained capitalism". I think "government cutting taxes and getting out of the way" definitely fall in line with that economic theory.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I'm not acting coy. You're just totally wrong.

    Here's the definition I pulled from wikipedia, if you have a better one, by all means, post it.

    Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

    Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.


    I assume what you're referring to is Libertarian Socialism. I assure you, when I said government staying out of the economy, I was not advocating union ownership of business.

    Compare that to the Wiki definition of capitalism:

    Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market[2], rather than by central economic planning. Capitalism is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and corporations to trade, incorporate, employ workers, and use money provided by central banks, in goods, services (including finance), labor and land.[2] In theory, production and distribution in a capitalist system are governed by the free market rather than state regulation,[3] with state action confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market[4] though the state may provide a few basic public goods and infrastructure.[5] Classic unrestrained capitalism is confined mostly to theory today, as "all of the capitalistic societies of the West have mixed economies" with interventionist state regulation, social programs[6] and state ownership of some sectors.

    What I advocate is "classic unrestrained capitalism". I think "government cutting taxes and getting out of the way" definitely fall in line with that economic theory.



    So does the fairy tale of a capitalist "free market". You still haven't addressed this issue. You have never seen a free market, and for some reason you fail to understand that the reason behind it isn't an issue with governmental regulation, it is an issue with human nature.




    I understand what you are basing your ideas on,unfortunately, "getting out of the way" is in direct opposition to what capitalism creates and mandates long term. Either a ruling class is established, or regulations are implemented ( by the ruling class, ironically) to keep things from getting out of control.



    "True Socialism" would seem to cover things better than what you have listed. It is not union ownership, it is each individual worker owning their own means of production. i.e employee ownership.

    Based on your comments about Obama and socialism, it seems that you may be of the opinion that the bailout was a socialist move.

    Socialism vs. the government bailout of capitalism

    As stated previously, my comments were not accusing you of being a socialist, but simply to point out that the line of what you are asking for is quite thin as far as the differing sides asking for the same thing are concerned.

    In terms of anarcho-capitalism, (or classic unrestrained if that sounds better) it ignores feasibility while disregarding the fact that there is a reason for regulation of a young economic system that has yet to see anything but regulation since it's inception.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

    You know you are.....stop trying to deny it.

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  16. As an aside, I find it painfully ironic that the same pundits who openly chide Senator Obama's perceived (the dreaded) Socialized Medicine, are the same who are resoundingly supporting the strict Socialization of the Economy.

    Interestingly enough, the 'Bail Out', 'Buy Out', or whatever ambiguous monicker one imparts on this financial crisis, is Socialism 'reversed' - so to speak: Privatizing public funds to dictate market behavior. In the classical sense, private capital is rebuked in favor of public capital.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    As an aside, I find it painfully ironic that the same pundits who openly chide Senator Obama's perceived (the dreaded) Socialized Medicine, are the same who are resoundingly supporting the strict Socialization of the Economy.

    Interestingly enough, the 'Bail Out', 'Buy Out', or whatever ambiguous monicker one imparts on this financial crisis, is Socialism 'reversed' - so to speak: Privatizing public funds to dictate market behavior. In the classical sense, private capital is rebuked in favor of public capital.

    Who?

    "You must name names!"
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Kruger View Post
    Who?

    "You must name names!"
    It is the McCarthy Trials all over again!

    I will check my PVR, as I recall recording several interviews with financial 'experts', and 'talking heads', and was quite interested in the colorful language through which they characterized clear Socialist tendencies as 'Market-driven'.

    This is not to say I agree or disagree with the decision; or further, I am not commenting on whether action was or was not necessary! Just that I find it funny that certain individuals who avoid 'Socialized Medicine' as if it is the Bubonic Plague are somewhat lauding this move.

    (Obama is much more of a Keynesian Welfare Politician rather than a Socialist; you know this, B).

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    It is the McCarthy Trials all over again!

    I will check my PVR, as I recall recording several interviews with financial 'experts', and 'talking heads', and was quite interested in the colorful language through which they characterized clear Socialist tendencies as 'Market-driven'.

    This is not to say I agree or disagree with the decision; or further, I am not commenting on whether action was or was not necessary! Just that I find it funny that certain individuals who avoid 'Socialized Medicine' as if it is the Bubonic Plague are somewhat lauding this move.

    (Obama is much more of a Keynesian Welfare Politician rather than a Socialist; you know this, B).

    Yeah, I could see that.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    So does the fairy tale of a capitalist "free market". You still haven't addressed this issue. You have never seen a free market, and for some reason you fail to understand that the reason behind it isn't an issue with governmental regulation, it is an issue with human nature.
    I disagree. I think human nature is harnessed to its full potential in laissez-faire, free market capitalism. Human nature is to be greedy. If you're not being greedy, you're denying any living things natural instinct to survive and thrive. What is really scary is a system like socialism that tries to "overcome" this inherent greed and institute "fairness". What usually ends up happening is that whoever is doing the instituting, namely government, unfairly steals wealth from one who earns their keep and gives it to another who does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    I understand what you are basing your ideas on,unfortunately, "getting out of the way" is in direct opposition to what capitalism creates and mandates long term. Either a ruling class is established, or regulations are implemented ( by the ruling class, ironically) to keep things from getting out of control.
    True capitalism doesn't create and mandate any policy. Supply and demand dictate policy.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "getting out of control"....do you mean coercive monopolies? Coercive monopolies are a myth and crock of sh!t. The only time a coercive monopoly can exist is with the help of the government as they are the only entity that can legally use force and thus have an advantage over their competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    "True Socialism" would seem to cover things better than what you have listed. It is not union ownership, it is each individual worker owning their own means of production. i.e employee ownership.
    What this theory discounts is that the worker only achieved their own "means of production" on the back of the individual who created it. Do you give credit to the assembly line to Henry Ford or his employees? Don't you think Henry Ford, the man whose brain gave people the opportunity to make money, should make more than the people he pays to do what he says?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    Based on your comments about Obama and socialism, it seems that you may be of the opinion that the bailout was a socialist move.

    Socialism vs. the government bailout of capitalism
    I agree completely. The bailout, the nationalization of banks, the "economic stimulus package" are all socialist policies and I disagree with each one (even if I did make a cool $1200 on the stimulus ).l

    Quote Originally Posted by mmorpheuss View Post
    As stated previously, my comments were not accusing you of being a socialist, but simply to point out that the line of what you are asking for is quite thin as far as the differing sides asking for the same thing are concerned.

    In terms of anarcho-capitalism, (or classic unrestrained if that sounds better) it ignores feasibility while disregarding the fact that there is a reason for regulation of a young economic system that has yet to see anything but regulation since it's inception.
    I'll agree that regulation has existed on the economy since the creation of the United States, insofar as tariffs and other minor inconveniences. However, the past 100 years have seen exponential growth in size and role of government, mainly through economic programs, such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Welfare, Farm Subsidies, the FDA, the Fed, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and many other expensive programs. Most of these programs simply do not work.

    I believe regulation should exist in the United States, but only to the extent to uphold the law and ensure the sanctity of contracts between individuals.



  21. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I disagree. I think human nature is harnessed to its full potential in laissez-faire, free market capitalism. Human nature is to be greedy. If you're not being greedy, you're denying any living things natural instinct to survive and thrive. What is really scary is a system like socialism that tries to "overcome" this inherent greed and institute "fairness". What usually ends up happening is that whoever is doing the instituting, namely government, unfairly steals wealth from one who earns their keep and gives it to another who does not.
    Natural inclinations - obviously speaking in a strictly naturalistic, material sense extending to other species - has nothing to do with "greed", as it were; as in laissez-fair capitalism, the necessity for accumulation is predicated upon survival: a bear accumulates food over a period in order to subsist; an early agricultural society harvests and stores to subsist over winter, and compliments that with hunting and so forth.

    I am trying to drive at the fundamental of Capital markets here: Scarcity. Reacting to scarcity in any system is natural - "greed" is not. 'Greed' and 'survival' are also fundamentally different concepts; 'greed' implies morality, while survival implies only sustenance.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Natural inclinations - obviously speaking in a strictly naturalistic, material sense extending to other species - has nothing to do with "greed", as it were; as in laissez-fair capitalism, the necessity for accumulation is predicated upon survival: a bear accumulates food over a period in order to subsist; an early agricultural society harvests and stores to subsist over winter, and compliments that with hunting and so forth.

    I am trying to drive at the fundamental of Capital markets here: Scarcity. Reacting to scarcity in any system is natural - "greed" is not. 'Greed' and 'survival' are also fundamentally different concepts; 'greed' implies morality, while survival implies only sustenance.
    Scarcity and Supply and Demand are pretty much synonymous, so I really can't take issue on that.

    Survival should be the ultimate moral imperative for all species, and is an end in itself. However, I disagree that survival implies only sustenance. Yes, you can get by eating once a month, but doesn't it make sense to eat more often, get stronger, thus making you more capable of getting food in the future? To thrive. Making more money, by the same token gives you ability to survive and thrive in the future.

    Greed and survival grow from the same tree, survival being the roots and greed being the trunk.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Scarcity and Supply and Demand are pretty much synonymous, so I really can't take issue on that.

    Survival should be the ultimate moral imperative for all species, and is an end in itself. However, I disagree that survival implies only sustenance. Yes, you can get by eating once a month, but doesn't it make sense to eat more often, get stronger, thus making you more capable of getting food in the future? To thrive. Making more money, by the same token gives you ability to survive and thrive in the future.

    Greed and survival grow from the same tree, survival being the roots and greed being the trunk.
    Your flaw is this: You are ascribing a moral character to survival; however, survival has nothing to do with morality. Survival is merely subsistence by function and definition - it is not a 'moral imperative' but a physical one. One survives to further life; one attempts to 'thrive' as a possible moral function. However, let us not confuse our terms here.

    To use your analogy, Survival is the entire tree itself, and greed is the parasitic organism growing upon it: Removing sustenance from the entire sum in order to further its gain (at the explicit and direct expense of another organism).

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Your flaw is this: You are ascribing a moral character to survival; however, survival has nothing to do with morality. Survival is merely subsistence by function and definition - it is not a 'moral imperative' but a physical one. One survives to further life; one attempts to 'thrive' as a possible moral function. However, let us not confuse our terms here.

    To use your analogy, Survival is the entire tree itself, and greed is the parasitic organism growing upon it: Removing sustenance from the entire sum in order to further its gain (at the explicit and direct expense of another organism).
    Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

    Why can't survival be morality? Religions such as Christianity hold self-sacrifice to be the ultimate ideal, which is the opposite of survival. People commit suicide all the team. People eat, smoke, and drink themselves to death all the time. Why isn't it moral to do what's best for your own survival?

    By the way, I'd love to claim this line of thinking for myself, but I stole this from Ayn Rand. She claimed in objectivism that anything that helps to perpetuate life is good, while anything that hinders life is bad.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. Morals are created by and define society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

    Why can't survival be morality? Religions such as Christianity hold self-sacrifice to be the ultimate ideal, which is the opposite of survival. People commit suicide all the team. People eat, smoke, and drink themselves to death all the time. Why isn't it moral to do what's best for your own survival?
    I find your last point the most thought-provoking, but allow me to respond to each comment in kind; beginning with the above quotes.

    Firstly, I do not subscribe to moral positivism, but rather a hybrid of moral skepticism/relativism - that is, I do not believe subscriptions to ideal behaviours are 'true' (in the most obvious, colloquial sense). This implies - and therein directly contradicts your position - that morality is not truthful, is not objective; therefore, imparting binary labels such as 'good' and 'bad' to morality are misnomers.

    Following this logic, survival is not a matter of 'good vs evil', or 'right vs., wrong' which are moral pragmatics, but rather of 'life over death'. As I said, survival is a physical concern, predicated most immediately on material objects, while greed is a moral concern: knowing that your accumulation is contingent upon a lack of accumulation by others. Greed is equatable with morality; survival and greed are not synonymous; therefore neither are morality and survival.

    By the way, I'd love to claim this line of thinking for myself, but I stole this from Ayn Rand. She claimed in objectivism that anything that helps to perpetuate life is good, while anything that hinders life is bad.
    Again, I do not believe in moral objectivism, and especially not as it pertains to issues of survival. Ascribing 'good and bad' to survival is a human projection, rather than being part of the Object (philosophical sense) itself.

    The bird does not eat the fly fully cognizant of the morality of death, or life, and so forth; the bird eats the fly as a manner of subsistence, who in turn ate the bacteria and so forth; morality is not innately tied in with processes of survival.

    One survive because of one's own attachment to life; one accumulates more than is necessary because of moral entitlement.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Is Barack Obama really a socialist?
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 11-06-2008, 07:30 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-2008, 10:41 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2008, 10:18 PM
  4. New Slogans For Barack Obama
    By bpmartyr in forum Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2008, 10:17 PM
  5. Barack Obama - still smokin'???
    By anabolicrhino in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-08-2007, 06:49 AM
Log in
Log in