Barack Huessin Obama's terrorist friends?

[Dwight Schrute]

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.

 

[Turd]

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.:toofunny:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Poor people cause the collapse of the worlds economies.:toofunny:

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.

 

[AE14]

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"

 

[b unit]

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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.

 

[b unit]

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.

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

 

[RobInKuwait]

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?

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

 

[b unit]

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[mmorpheuss]

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.

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

 

[mmorpheuss]

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.

Invalid Link Removed

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I come back to find me getting accused of being a SOCIALIST?!?

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

:toofunny:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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!"

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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).

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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.

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

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.

"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?

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

Invalid Link Removed

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

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.


Invalid Link Removed

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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).

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

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.

 

[RobInKuwait]

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.

This explains our inherent conflict. I most definitely am not a moral elativist. I do think if you base moral imperatives on life and death, its difficult to disprove, as there's not much more absolute than life and death.

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.

I didn't realize that greed is predicated by a lack of accumulation by others. Based upon that definition I'd say that greed and capitalism don't necessarily go hand in hand. I always thought greed meant, doing what's best for ones self, ie Rational Self-Interest.

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.

I'd disagree. Animals are programmed to do what they think is good for survival. What makes us human is that for the most part we are not programmed. We use knowledge, intelligence and learning to achieve what is programmed in animals. The downside is that we also have to learn to do what is right for life. We have to create the moral code that is already ingrained in animal in order to survive.

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

One survives because he eats, drinks, and defends himself from predators. One thrives because he finds that it makes things easier in eating, drinking, and defending himself from predators.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

This explains our inherent conflict. I most definitely am not a moral elativist. I do think if you base moral imperatives on life and death, its difficult to disprove, as there's not much more absolute than life and death.

I am unsure, but I believe you are mischaracterizing moral relativism/skepticism. Most simply, these two adjunct epistemologies are the lack of moral absolutes; as opposed to subscription to moral absolutes (moral skeptics are agnostics/deists).

I was stating that morality (as a function of intellectualism, emotion, normative behavior and so forth) necessarily cannot be ascribed to survival: A pragmatic, physical concern. I believe there was a touch of misunderstanding on your part there.

I didn't realize that greed is predicated by a lack of accumulation by others. Based upon that definition I'd say that greed and capitalism don't necessarily go hand in hand. I always thought greed meant, doing what's best for ones self, ie Rational Self-Interest.

Rational Self-Interest and Greed are not corollaries; however, greed must be present in Capitalism.

Let us say, for example, that at any given point (X) in an economic system, there is a fixed, average value (Y) to be spread upon a large mass of individuals (GDP/GNP and so forth are not fixed, but just imagine for a very momentary period). As you know, new value cannot simply be created (Mr.Paulson believes so) or the proportionate, relation value of all Capital suffers; as a result, any one agent's accumulation of capital (larger piece of Y) must come at the expense of some other agent's accumulation of capital (smaller piece of Y); as opposed to the production of new capital - i.e., in order to increase one's own value, a proportionate amount of Y must be taken from another party.

Rational Self-Interest is merely doing what one needs to subsist; greed, on the other hand, is a complete exaggeration of self interest: Excess. It is Capitalism.

I'd disagree. Animals are programmed to do what they think is good for survival. What makes us human is that for the most part we are not programmed. We use knowledge, intelligence and learning to achieve what is programmed in animals. The downside is that we also have to learn to do what is right for life. We have to create the moral code that is already ingrained in animal in order to survive.

Here, again though, you are terribly convoluting and misrepresenting morality as a function of subsistence; it is not. Animals do not have a sense of what we would deem, 'morality'. While, obviously, humans have the fortunate (unfortunate?) trait of morality, it still does not directly relate to survival.

One survives because he eats, drinks, and defends himself from predators. One thrives because he finds that it makes things easier in eating, drinking, and defending himself from predators.

At the cost of whom, though? Even in the earliest societies where gradients of social classes existed, the prosperity of some must necessarily come at the expense of others. Any one society can only produce a finite amount of socially necessary goods; goods which must be spread about that particular population. As a result, and as shown above with value creation, this dictates that in order for Person A to garner more of 'Y' (average sum value), Person B must garner less (literally, this is Capitalism).

 

[RobInKuwait]

I am unsure, but I believe you are mischaracterizing moral relativism/skepticism. Most simply, these two adjunct epistemologies are the lack of moral absolutes; as opposed to subscription to moral absolutes (moral skeptics are agnostics/deists).

I was stating that morality (as a function of intellectualism, emotion, normative behavior and so forth) necessarily cannot be ascribed to survival: A pragmatic, physical concern. I believe there was a touch of misunderstanding on your part there.

I fail to understand why survival and morality are mutually exclusive. I showed before there are moralities of self-sacrifice (Christianity), why can't there be an opposing morality of survival?

Rational Self-Interest and Greed are not corollaries; however, greed must be present in Capitalism.

Let us say, for example, that at any given point (X) in an economic system, there is a fixed, average value (Y) to be spread upon a large mass of individuals (GDP/GNP and so forth are not fixed, but just imagine for a very momentary period). As you know, new value cannot simply be created (Mr.Paulson believes so) or the proportionate, relation value of all Capital suffers; as a result, any one agent's accumulation of capital (larger piece of Y) must come at the expense of some other agent's accumulation of capital (smaller piece of Y); as opposed to the production of new capital - i.e., in order to increase one's own value, a proportionate amount of Y must be taken from another party.

I understand what you're saying now. To clarify, if Henry Ford creates the assembly line and puts out thousands of Model Ts, he's hurting the horse and buggy market, even as he's making cars available to people who couldn't otherwise afford them. I think it is a flaw to assume that hurting someone else's business is a drain on the economy as a whole. Obviously Ford helped improve the average person's life in addition to opening many new jobs that were not previously there when there were just horse and buggies.

Rational Self-Interest is merely doing what one needs to subsist; greed, on the other hand, is a complete exaggeration of self interest: Excess. It is Capitalism.

Doing what one needs to do to subsist is fine for capitalism. Who's to say what the individual needs to subsist other than the individual. If you own a small business you're trading a good for currency which you can use to purchase other goods which will hopefully improve your chances of survival and thriving.

Here, again though, you are terribly convoluting and misrepresenting morality as a function of subsistence; it is not. Animals do not have a sense of what we would deem, 'morality'. While, obviously, humans have the fortunate (unfortunate?) trait of morality, it still does not directly relate to survival.

Why not? I would argue that animals are programed with a morality aka code of behavior that dictates their actions. Yes, humans have to decide on their morality, but that doesn't mean that survival can not be in their code of behavior or even be that code of behavior. Like I said, there are moralities that are self-sacrificing which is in essence anti-survival, so the flipside of that is survival.

At the cost of whom, though? Even in the earliest societies where gradients of social classes existed, the prosperity of some must necessarily come at the expense of others. Any one society can only produce a finite amount of socially necessary goods; goods which must be spread about that particular population. As a result, and as shown above with value creation, this dictates that in order for Person A to garner more of 'Y' (average sum value), Person B must garner less (literally, this is Capitalism).

I agree, but I think this is misleading. The more parties present in the economy, the stronger the economy, as there are more options to the consumers and more goods available. Yes, the weaker competition with substandard goods or non-competative pricing will be put out of business by superior competition, but its ultimately for betterment of all involved.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I fail to understand why survival and morality are mutually exclusive. I showed before there are moralities of self-sacrifice (Christianity), why can't there be an opposing morality of survival?

Have you, though? You have shown that one religion in particular forbids any entity aside from 'God' from causing the transition between one state of being, to another; what does that have to do with the morality of survival?

Life and Death are states of being; survival is a material process. Stating that one religion in particular forbade the auto-transition of being does not equate to its moral position on survival; nor, even if that were the case, would that imply an objective standard of morality applied to all natural organisms in particular instances.

I understand what you're saying now. To clarify, if Henry Ford creates the assembly line and puts out thousands of Model Ts, he's hurting the horse and buggy market, even as he's making cars available to people who couldn't otherwise afford them. I think it is a flaw to assume that hurting someone else's business is a drain on the economy as a whole. Obviously Ford helped improve the average person's life in addition to opening many new jobs that were not previously there when there were just horse and buggies.

Where did I say it was a drain on the economy as a whole? In fact, I said that it was the necessary condition for the function of Capital - i.e., some must profit at the expense of others in order for Capitalism to be a stage of development; if you do not have that precondition, you have some other exchange based economic system.

Consider it in this manner:

The total sum of exchange values and produced values in our economy is represented by the number "1, 000, 000, 000"; now, as value cannot be instantaneously created (we agree, here) it must be exchanged between parties. So, let us assume I have an average value of 10, 000, and you an average value of 20, 000 and you want to increase your value. As one cannot instantaneously create new value with inflating market prices, you and I must exchange values; in order for one of us to 'thrive', it must come at the expense of the other.

So, let us postulate that you create some new form of technology that allows you to produce twice the goods as myself in the same timeframe - this addition thereby increases your capacity for value, by taking away from mine: My value drops to 5, 000 and yours to 25, 000; in this respect, the total sum of values is unchanged, but the chasm between agents has - literally, in a very strict sense, this is Capitalism.

Doing what one needs to do to subsist is fine for capitalism. Who's to say what the individual needs to subsist other than the individual. If you own a small business you're trading a good for currency which you can use to purchase other goods which will hopefully improve your chances of survival and thriving.

No, no it is definitely not! The bolded portion, very, very closely is a line from one of Marx's work, though commune of the proletariat proceeds as opposed to Capitalism. In classically defined senses, 'Socialist' or 'Commune' societies are the basic production of socially necessary goods, at a rate at which the newly produced value only replaces the consumed values of production i.e., what you make replaces what you consumed to make it: Subsistence.

Why not? I would argue that animals are programed with a morality aka code of behavior that dictates their actions. Yes, humans have to decide on their morality, but that doesn't mean that survival can not be in their code of behavior or even be that code of behavior. Like I said, there are moralities that are self-sacrificing which is in essence anti-survival, so the flipside of that is survival.

Morality is a social, metaphysical and psychological construct. Do you truly believe a lion, for example, is aware of the 'morality' of his decisions in killing a gazelle? He merely kills the gazelle because he needs to - and, herein, we separate man from animal; an animal (aside from glutenous domesticated ones) will not eat beyond what they need.

I agree, but I think this is misleading. The more parties present in the economy, the stronger the economy, as there are more options to the consumers and more goods available. Yes, the weaker competition with substandard goods or non-competative pricing will be put out of business by superior competition, but its ultimately for betterment of all involved.

Closed economic systems can only produce and consume so much in finite markets - that is, increasing parties dictates increasing markets; as we have shown above, closed markets have relatively static values at point 'X'. As such, the need for new markets arises so that Capitalists (not being derogatory with this) can garner more Capital. There is only a finite amount of Capital in any one system.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Damn, I love having these exchanges with you, but I always get picked apart like a vulture in the end

Have you, though? You have shown that one religion in particular forbids any entity aside from 'God' from causing the transition between one state of being, to another; what does that have to do with the morality of survival?

Life and Death are states of being; survival is a material process. Stating that one religion in particular forbade the auto-transition of being does not equate to its moral position on survival; nor, even if that were the case, would that imply an objective standard of morality applied to all natural organisms in particular instances.

That's not what I was referring to when I said Christianity preaches self-sacrifice. I meant that altruism is an important moral principle in the religion, ultimately manifested when Jesus gave his life to save everybody elses. Altruism is the moral imperative that one selflessly cares for others. Altruism is the moral opposite of Selfishness. Just as the ultimate expression of Altruism is sacrificing one's self for others, the ultimate expression of Selfishness is surviving and thriving, which I view as one in the same. I'm sticking to the tree metaphor dammit!

Where did I say it was a drain on the economy as a whole? In fact, I said that it was the necessary condition for the function of Capital - i.e., some must profit at the expense of others in order for Capitalism to be a stage of development; if you do not have that precondition, you have some other exchange based economic system.

Consider it in this manner:

The total sum of exchange values and produced values in our economy is represented by the number "1, 000, 000, 000"; now, as value cannot be instantaneously created (we agree, here) it must be exchanged between parties. So, let us assume I have an average value of 10, 000, and you an average value of 20, 000 and you want to increase your value. As one cannot instantaneously create new value with inflating market prices, you and I must exchange values; in order for one of us to 'thrive', it must come at the expense of the other.

So, let us postulate that you create some new form of technology that allows you to produce twice the goods as myself in the same timeframe - this addition thereby increases your capacity for value, by taking away from mine: My value drops to 5, 000 and yours to 25, 000; in this respect, the total sum of values is unchanged, but the chasm between agents has - literally, in a very strict sense, this is Capitalism.

If I understand what you are saying, basically in capitalism individuals hurt each other on a micro level but at a macro level they help the economy overall. Is that correct?

No, no it is definitely not! The bolded portion, very, very closely is a line from one of Marx's work, though commune of the proletariat proceeds as opposed to Capitalism. In classically defined senses, 'Socialist' or 'Commune' societies are the basic production of socially necessary goods, at a rate at which the newly produced value only replaces the consumed values of production i.e., what you make replaces what you consumed to make it: Subsistence.

I see what you are saying, but you're taking that line out of context. I said in the next line that the individual determines what is necessary for subsistence. Nobody is making anyone make money in capitalism, it is completely up to the individual to determine how much is "enough". That's why you have Bill Gates happy with 57 Billion, and the homeless guy on E. Fayette happy with essentially nothing.

Morality is a social, metaphysical and psychological construct. Do you truly believe a lion, for example, is aware of the 'morality' of his decisions in killing a gazelle? He merely kills the gazelle because he needs to - and, herein, we separate man from animal; an animal (aside from glutenous domesticated ones) will not eat beyond what they need.

Well, with that definition, then obviously there is no morality in animals. I was going under the assumption that morality is merely a code of behavior that governs action.

Closed economic systems can only produce and consume so much in finite markets - that is, increasing parties dictates increasing markets; as we have shown above, closed markets have relatively static values at point 'X'. As such, the need for new markets arises so that Capitalists (not being derogatory with this) can garner more Capital. There is only a finite amount of Capital in any one system.

Word.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Damn, I love having these exchanges with you, but I always get picked apart like a vulture in the end

Hah! You are most definitely a formidable and respectful opponent, though! Much respect and credit due to you on that end.

That's not what I was referring to when I said Christianity preaches self-sacrifice. I meant that altruism is an important moral principle in the religion, ultimately manifested when Jesus gave his life to save everybody elses. Altruism is the moral imperative that one selflessly cares for others. Altruism is the moral opposite of Selfishness. Just as the ultimate expression of Altruism is sacrificing one's self for others, the ultimate expression of Selfishness is surviving and thriving, which I view as one in the same. I'm sticking to the tree metaphor dammit!

The negation of Selflessness would most definitely be Selfishness; however, we have a word which succinctly encapsulates that very concept: Greed! As I have said, 'greed' and 'survival' are necessarily not synonymous, as they imply gradients of accumulation:

Greed is over-accumulation

Survival is merely accumulating what one needs to survive.

Ah, though altruism is an interesting concept to bring up in respects to comparative behavioural psychology! While animals may not have cognitive constructs such as 'emotion' or 'morality' - though, biologically they may experience similar neurohormonal reactions to stimuli as a human - they most definitely are 'altruistic'! That being said, altruism does not mean complete lack of regard for self; but rather, the willingness to perform potentially self-inflicting acts at the expense of the furtherance of society, or member groups.

At any rate, this does nothing to further our discussion at hand; merely thought it was interesting!

(Egoism would probably be the most direct negation of altruism).

If I understand what you are saying, basically in capitalism individuals hurt each other on a micro level but at a macro level they help the economy overall. Is that correct?

Exactly; such is a very succinct explanation of Capitalism. Now, whether you agree with this fundamental premise is a moral concern!

I see what you are saying, but you're taking that line out of context. I said in the next line that the individual determines what is necessary for subsistence. Nobody is making anyone make money in capitalism, it is completely up to the individual to determine how much is "enough". That's why you have Bill Gates happy with 57 Billion, and the homeless guy on E. Fayette happy with essentially nothing.

I would not relatively define subsistence, and neither would a dictionary!

minimal (or marginal) resources for subsisting; "social security provided only a bare subsistence"
a means of surviving; "farming is a hard means of subsistence"
the state of existing in reality; having substance

Subsisting and being elite-wealthy could not be more opposing terms! This is why minimum wage is often referred to as 'subsistence wage': The bare minimum wage one would need to provide for themselves.

Well, with that definition, then obviously there is no morality in animals. I was going under the assumption that morality is merely a code of behavior that governs action.

Morality is an ideal that an individual subscribes to, and at the point of subscription assuming that this compounded value has some authority beyond him/herself; morality does not govern behavior, one governs their behavior in terms of their own perceptions of morality. Obviously, this implies dictation, causality, purposefulness, rationality and so forth; obviously, these are not characteristics we apply to animals; obviously, animals are not moral!

The code of behavior which most animals subscribe to is evolutionary-biological, as opposed to psychological, or social, or metaphysical in origin. In a sense, morality is innately tied to epistemology.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Hah! You are most definitely a formidable and respectful opponent, though! Much respect and credit due to you on that end.

You too....I'm going to try to stay above water with you a little more as I think I have a point you may find interesting.

The negation of Selflessness would most definitely be Selfishness; however, we have a word which succinctly encapsulates that very concept: Greed! As I have said, 'greed' and 'survival' are necessarily not synonymous, as they imply gradients of accumulation:

Greed is over-accumulation

Survival is merely accumulating what one needs to survive.

Ah, though altruism is an interesting concept to bring up in respects to comparative behavioural psychology! While animals may not have cognitive constructs such as 'emotion' or 'morality' - though, biologically they may experience similar neurohormonal reactions to stimuli as a human - they most definitely are 'altruistic'! That being said, altruism does not mean complete lack of regard for self; but rather, the willingness to perform potentially self-inflicting acts at the expense of the furtherance of society, or member groups.

At any rate, this does nothing to further our discussion at hand; merely thought it was interesting!


(Egoism would probably be the most direct negation of altruism).

Animals altruistic. Interesting. By who's standard is over-accumulation decided? I talk about this more below.

Exactly; such is a very succinct explanation of Capitalism. Now, whether you agree with this fundamental premise is a moral concern!

Thanks! In my eyes capitalism is the only moral economic system.

I would not relatively define subsistence, and neither would a dictionary!

Subsisting and being elite-wealthy could not be more opposing terms! This is why minimum wage is often referred to as 'subsistence wage': The bare minimum wage one would need to provide for themselves.

As meatheads we know that everybody has a different number of maintenance calories to maintain their size. That extends to survival as well, certain people can sustain themselves on less calories for longer people than others. In this respect, sustenance is most definitely relative.

If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of need, the bottom of the pyramid is what you "need", but to do better than "survive" you have to meet your needs higher on the pyramid. Self-actualization is not greed, I'd say its rational self-interest. Keep in mind, Maslow's hierarchy was primarily to show how survival and thriving come out of the same origin. Come to think of it, Maslow's hierarchy matches my tree in that respect. I'm obsessed with the tree metaphor!

Morality is an ideal that an individual subscribes to, and at the point of subscription assuming that this compounded value has some authority beyond him/herself; morality does not govern behavior, one governs their behavior in terms of their own perceptions of morality. Obviously, this implies dictation, causality, purposefulness, rationality and so forth; obviously, these are not characteristics we apply to animals; obviously, animals are not moral!

The code of behavior which most animals subscribe to is evolutionary-biological, as opposed to psychological, or social, or metaphysical in origin. In a sense, morality is innately tied to epistemology.

So by definition Atheists cannot have morals? I disagree with that definition.

 

[Urban Monk]

Not to throw a wrench in a great debate, but Maslow's hierarchy of needs is rather outdated and has been replaced in most academic contexts. Daniel Kahneman for example shows how choices, values, and frameworks are a more appropriate measure of understanding one's actions and choices in a context of moral relativism.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Not to throw a wrench in a great debate, but Maslow's hierarchy of needs is rather outdated and has been replaced in most academic contexts. Daniel Kahneman for example shows how choices, values, and frameworks are a more appropriate measure of understanding one's actions and choices in a context of moral relativism.

I've had Psych 101 and thats it....Maslow was all I learned. I'll wiki Kahneman.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Not to throw a wrench in a great debate, but Maslow's hierarchy of needs is rather outdated and has been replaced in most academic contexts. Daniel Kahneman for example shows how choices, values, and frameworks are a more appropriate measure of understanding one's actions and choices in a context of moral relativism.

Not to throw a wrench in your contribution, but I was speaking of neither.

I merely bring up moral skepticism as a counter-positing against moral absolutism - that is, the acceptance of socio-historical, constructionist, and individual epistemological positions on morality as opposed to accepting any truth-value of ideal, moral objective statements.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Not to throw a wrench in your contribution, but I was speaking of neither.

I merely bring up moral skepticism as a counter-positing against moral absolutism - that is, the acceptance of socio-historical, constructionist, and individual epistemological positions on morality as opposed to accepting any truth-value of ideal, moral objective statements.

I'm an ass; disregard this! Did not see Rob specifically mentioned Maslow!

 

[RobInKuwait]

Not to throw a wrench in your contribution, but I was speaking of neither.

I merely bring up moral skepticism as a counter-positing against moral absolutism - that is, the acceptance of socio-historical, constructionist, and individual epistemological positions on morality as opposed to accepting any truth-value of ideal, moral objective statements.

Urban....I'm glad he said that to you and not me.

Mullet....in case there's any question, you're smarter than the rest of the world

Edit- Nevermind

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You too....I'm going to try to stay above water with you a little more as I think I have a point you may find interesting.

What does, 'stay above water mean'? I am clueless there.

As meatheads we know that everybody has a different number of maintenance calories to maintain their size. That extends to survival as well, certain people can sustain themselves on less calories for longer people than others. In this respect, sustenance is most definitely relative.

Of course sustenance is proportionate and relational, on the most microscopic of scales - i.e., Individual A and Individual B require distinct amounts of sustenance based upon their physiology, and activity level; however, based on normal populations, one can be assured that both fall within acceptable deviance parameters for the population as a whole.

Microscopically, sustenance is relative (to individuals); macroscopically, it is transitive. In this sense, one cannot ascribe such broad deviance parameters to sustenance, such that all deviations of the term are accepted within our model. I.e., Bill Gates' concept of sustenance is not relative to his increasing wealth - once he breaches the normal sustenance deviation parameters, he passes into greed. Here, again, we see a divergence of our operative terms in this discussions: Greed from sustenance, greed from survival, and so forth.

If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of need, the bottom of the pyramid is what you "need", but to do better than "survive" you have to meet your needs higher on the pyramid. Self-actualization is not greed, I'd say its rational self-interest. Keep in mind, Maslow's hierarchy was primarily to show how survival and thriving come out of the same origin. Come to think of it, Maslow's hierarchy matches my tree in that respect. I'm obsessed with the tree metaphor!

Who said it was? However, to use your model, should your self-actualization necessarily come at the expense of mine? Are the dynamic processes of political capital compounded self-actualization, or something more or less psychological? More or less sinister?

So by definition Atheists cannot have morals? I disagree with that definition.

Atheists have morals, but they do not come as the consequence of deference to moral authority; I meant to say that all moral skeptics are necessarily atheists, as the denial of the objective truth-value of morality implies the denial of an ultimate source of morality (i.e., a Deity).

 

[Urban Monk]

Not to throw a wrench in your contribution, but I was speaking of neither.

I merely bring up moral skepticism as a counter-positing against moral absolutism - that is, the acceptance of socio-historical, constructionist, and individual epistemological positions on morality as opposed to accepting any truth-value of ideal, moral objective statements.

No worries. Nothing some Prime or Recreate won't make up.

J/k, J/k