• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Billionaires: free to romp or responsible to fellow citizens?

Should a multi-billionaire settle for 2 jets instead of 3, 7 homes instead of 10 etc?

  • Yes (if it means serving the greater good)

    Votes: 10 34.5%

  • No (no one has the right to decide how much wealth is too much)

    Votes: 19 65.5%
  • Total voters
    29
atrasicarius said:
Enough for a comfortable existence. A house or apartment big enough for their family, some appliances, a few basic luxuries, health care, quality education, maybe a car. That kind of thing. They shouldn't have to go deep into debt to afford any of those things, either.
Click to expand...

I think we have just hit another area of disagreement. Is it that you want taxpayers to just furnish every person who is in poverty all of these items? Surely not.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Absolutely not .. people need rewards for success ... however, if those rewards are so great that it causes others to suffer, the rewards are too high .... essentially, as psychological research suggests, rewards only need to be attractive enough to promote more successful behavior
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm confused. Let's say a billionaire owns ten mansions, 3 Gulf Stream Jets, drives a Bugati and a Rolls, has an antique car collection, dresses to the nines, homes are furnished with furniture to match the style of the homes, buys original artwork, owns hundreds of throusands of shares of IBM, AT&T, Microsoft, 3M, Caterpillar, & Hallmark Cards, purchases a great deal of expensive jewelry for his wife, sends his kids to Harvand and MIT, etc., etc., etc.

What does any of this have to do with rewards for success for those who are not wealthy? He may have provided employment in the home building if he had any of his mansions built. He may have had remodelers do the work in others. He helped employment in the private jet manufacturing industry, he has helped auctioneers who auction older cars, he has helped artwork dealers or art auctioneers, he helps employment at the Corporations for he buys stock, he helped jewelers and he help two higher educational institutions. He also helped clothing and furniture manufacturers and retail stores. Not only did he help all of these people, but there are tons of other people who were indirectly helped. For example, he may have helped people who manufacture faucets since the mansion he built has to have faucets and they may have been part of his remodeling. Also, he may and probably does give hundreds of millions to charities or is a patron of the arts and provides millions to art galleries or the local symphony.

I don't see where any of this is bad. I don't see how this billionaire's success impedes mine or anyone elses. I don't see where this person's riches minimizes anyone's reward for success. Sorry, but I fail to see your point.

As for having to have a reward attractive enough, what are you saying? If you are saying that some see welfare as being better than working, I understand that; however, that is why we need to end doling out money and not tying assistance to achievement. Not everyone will become a millionaire, but the poor can end up living a life of what is considered middle class. It takes following virtue and not vice to do so. When I say virtue, I mean things like personal responsibility, self-discipline, tenacity, hard work, frugality, and other virtues. Rewards may not come tomorrow morning, next week, a month from now, but they will come for those who practice those virtues.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
I don't think I ever mentioned the wealthy not paying their fair share :)
Click to expand...

I apologize, I must have become too tired to read carefully last night. Here is what you said to which I was responding, but totally misread:

Additionally, I don't see how lining other corporate richies is helping the less fortunate .. indeed if all the wealth is passed back and forth between wealthy buddies, when exactly will the less fortunate be helped?

After rereading what you said, I am a bit confused. Is it your contention that Warren Buffett gives money to Jack Welch, and Jack Welch gives money to Steven Jobs, and Steven Jobs gives money to Bill Gates... Oh wait, that last one would never happen. LOL!

If you are saying that the only rewards are those that the billionaires have and they only share those rewards with each other, then that would be a zero-sum game. In my previous posting, I have shown where that is not the case. Perhaps, I am just misreading your thoughts again. If you wish to shed some more light on the subject, I would appreciate it.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
What is up with you guys and the word "earn". You say it as if it is a sacred thing that rights all wrongs. Monopolizing a market isn't exactly earning anything (that's like going into an apple orchard, picking all the apples eating a few and putting the rest in storage to rot), nor is inheriting money.

Here's a good example of not earning: being born with an extremely athletic body that ensures he/she will make millions or billions as a professional athlete. That person did not earn his/her body, they were born with ... a lower caliber athlete who was not so lucky to be born with what it takes could work just as hard if not harder and never make it.

So technically the latter less able person is working harder and the star athlete is just reaping the rewards of their lucky innate abilities. What does earning have to do with that? I don't understand why you can't see that, in life, we are dealt cards and everyone does their best to play those cards. Unfortunately, some are born destined to make more money and they didn't earn there money, they were dealt a lucky hand.
Click to expand...

I think your first paragraph is an example of a zero-sum game and I don't believe that exists.

As for the body, athletes train constantly to be the best. The name escapes me, but there was recently a running back who played for the San Diego Chargers who now plays for a different team who had a regimen for staying in top condition that most people could not think of doing. That is part of the reason he has become one of the all-time best running backs in the NFL. You don't just get born with the best body in the world and it stays that way. I'd even bet there are examples of 99 lb. weaklings who decided to become extremely fit who have made it where others who were originally born with the better body did not.

Life is not a lottery. Yes, some can be born with physical and mental defects that prevent them from succeeding. Maybe an example of that could be Helen Keller. Okay, maybe not. The vast majority of people are born within the realm of norm. From there, it is what they do and how they do it that really matters. It is not luck.
 
atrasicarius said:
Yeah, I see what you mean. I disagree that having a government provided job necessarily makes you non self sufficient, though. In my opinion, there are certain sectors that the government handles better than the free market, and those sectors should be directly controlled by the government. I'm guessing we probably disagree on what those sectors are.
Click to expand...

If a person doesn't have money, a job, and has to be given a make-work job by the government to make it on his own, he is not self-sufficient. When he get's back to work for a company and earns his own way and can support himself and his family, he is then self-sufficient.

I agree that government does a few things better than the free market. The military would be one. Intelligence would be another. I'll bet these were not the areas you were thinking of and I further bet that you would be correct that we might disagree. For example, I would like to privatize Social Security. I'd bet you are against that. I am for the Federal Government staying 100% out of education. I'd bet you are against that. And that is probably the tip of the iceberg. Am I correct?
 
LesGovt said:
I think your first paragraph is an example of a zero-sum game and I don't believe that exists.
Click to expand...

Its called an analogy. It is a bit extreme to prove a point. This type of thing does happen, as evidenced by the vast income differential in our country.

LesGovt said:
As for the body, athletes train constantly to be the best. The name escapes me, but there was recently a running back who played for the San Diego Chargers who now plays for a different team who had a regimen for staying in top condition that most people could not think of doing. That is part of the reason he has become one of the all-time best running backs in the NFL. You don't just get born with the best body in the world and it stays that way. I'd even bet there are examples of 99 lb. weaklings who decided to become extremely fit who have made it where others who were originally born with the better body did not.

Life is not a lottery. Yes, some can be born with physical and mental defects that prevent them from succeeding. Maybe an example of that could be Helen Keller. Okay, maybe not. The vast majority of people are born within the realm of norm. From there, it is what they do and how they do it that really matters. It is not luck.
Click to expand...

As a scientists, we refer to our lot (hand dealt) in life as a gene-environment interaction. What this means is that we are born with predispositions, i.e. different levels of physical prowess, innate determination, mood types, personality traits and so on. From that point our genetic predisposition interact with the environment (nutrition, parents, school, work conditions etc.).

Essentially, everything that happens to you happened because it was going to happen inevitably. For example, someone is born who has extremely athletic genes ... that person eats well and flourishes into a budding athlete ... that person was also born with certain personality traits such as being a very determined person ... his/her parents work with that determination to help if flourish etc. The final product: a successful athlete. Similarly, another person could be born with similar or better athletic and determination genetics but be born into extreme poverty and who does not have parents that are constructive. As a result, this person begins dealing drugs and goes to prison and becomes a lifetime criminal.

Its a nice sentiment to believe we have control of our destiny, however the vast majority of scientific research regarding human and animal behavior suggests that we do not. What's the point then you may ask? Or if everyone thought that, wouldn't everyone not care about their life? The answer is no .. while people may be able to grasp the concept of determinism, they are still endowed with genetics and an environment that prevent them from giving up and pushing on despite knowing that things are determined ... i.e. they're along for the ride. :)
 
Whatever moral "obligation" anyone may think a wealthy person may have to others, especially those less well off, it is up to that person to choose to meet that obligation.

You can argue all you want that is it "wrong" to have so much money and not use it for the betterment of others, but that's just your version of morality; you have no standing to impose your morality on others.
 
LesGovt said:
Okay, I'm confused. Let's say a billionaire owns ten mansions, 3 Gulf Stream Jets, drives a Bugati and a Rolls, has an antique car collection, dresses to the nines, homes are furnished with furniture to match the style of the homes, buys original artwork, owns hundreds of throusands of shares of IBM, AT&T, Microsoft, 3M, Caterpillar, & Hallmark Cards, purchases a great deal of expensive jewelry for his wife, sends his kids to Harvand and MIT, etc., etc., etc.

What does any of this have to do with rewards for success for those who are not wealthy? He may have provided employment in the home building if he had any of his mansions built. He may have had remodelers do the work in others. He helped employment in the private jet manufacturing industry, he has helped auctioneers who auction older cars, he has helped artwork dealers or art auctioneers, he helps employment at the Corporations for he buys stock, he helped jewelers and he help two higher educational institutions. He also helped clothing and furniture manufacturers and retail stores. Not only did he help all of these people, but there are tons of other people who were indirectly helped. For example, he may have helped people who manufacture faucets since the mansion he built has to have faucets and they may have been part of his remodeling. Also, he may and probably does give hundreds of millions to charities or is a patron of the arts and provides millions to art galleries or the local symphony.

I don't see where any of this is bad. I don't see how this billionaire's success impedes mine or anyone elses. I don't see where this person's riches minimizes anyone's reward for success. Sorry, but I fail to see your point.

As for having to have a reward attractive enough, what are you saying? If you are saying that some see welfare as being better than working, I understand that; however, that is why we need to end doling out money and not tying assistance to achievement. Not everyone will become a millionaire, but the poor can end up living a life of what is considered middle class. It takes following virtue and not vice to do so. When I say virtue, I mean things like personal responsibility, self-discipline, tenacity, hard work, frugality, and other virtues. Rewards may not come tomorrow morning, next week, a month from now, but they will come for those who practice those virtues.
Click to expand...

One of the main points you are missing is a lack of equal opportunity and fair wages. Did that billionaire make sure that all of the workers he hired made a fair wage? If he did, then more power to them. Finally, its the kind of delusional thoughts that anything is possible for most people that cripple peoples ability to be empathetic and humanitarian.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Whatever moral "obligation" anyone may think a wealthy person may have to others, especially those less well off, it is up to that person to choose to meet that obligation.

You can argue all you want that is it "wrong" to have so much money and not use it for the betterment of others, but that's just your version of morality; you have no standing to impose your morality on others.
Click to expand...

You are completely right .. these are things relating to morals/ethics ... which are subjective. However, if you've ever studies ethics, if you want your ethical stance to have any credence, it needs to be logical consistent and coherent.

As for whether or not some people can force others to do things they do not want to do ... I think you should realize everyone in the U.S. is forced to do at least one thing they do not agree with (due to democracy). What's your position on democracy?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
You are completely right .. these are things relating to morals/ethics ... which are subjective. However, if you've ever studies ethics, if you want your ethical stance to have any credence, it needs to be logical consistent and coherent.
Click to expand...
Yes... like not trying to force you version of morality on others, while taking exception when others try to force their morality on you.
-You- wouldn't do that - would you?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
Yes... like not trying to force you version of morality on others, while taking exception when others try to force their morality on you.
-You- wouldn't do that - would you?
Click to expand...

You dodged my question .. what do you think of democracy?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
You dodged my question .. what do you think of democracy?
Click to expand...
Your question leads to a fallacy - an appeal to popularity. I was merely trying to save you the trouble of having to argue such a thing.

If DO you want to argue that the majority can indeed force their morality on others, this then certainly applies across all moral issues; given that, you would certainly not be someone who would fail to remain logically consistent and not at all complain when someone tries to force their morality on you, given that you are happy to force your morality on others. Right?
 
Last edited:
PzKfW IVe said:
Your question leads to a fallacy - an appeal to popularity. I was merely trying to save you the trouble of having to argue such a thing.

If DO you want to argue that the majority can indeed force their morality on others, this then certainly applies across all moral issues; given that, you would certainly not be someone who would fail to remain logically consistent and not at all complain when someone tries to force their morality on you, given that you are happy to force your morality on others. Right?
Click to expand...

Are you putting words in my mouth? Or respectfully putting words in my mouth, then trying to make it look like a question by simply adding "Right?" at the end of your statement (not a question; read up on how a true question is framed). Again you dodged my question.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Are you putting words in my mouth?
Click to expand...
I asked you a question - since you're OK with forcing your morality on others, and you understand that one must be logically consistent, will you then not complain when thers force their morality on others?

What words am I putting inyour mouth? Are you NOT OK witn forcing your morality on others? Seems that's the only possible pointof contention, given the question.
So...your answer to my quesion...?

Again you dodged my question.
Click to expand...
Read carefully - I addressed your question as far as it need be addressed.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Its called an analogy. It is a bit extreme to prove a point. This type of thing does happen, as evidenced by the vast income differential in our country.



As a scientists, we refer to our lot (hand dealt) in life as a gene-environment interaction. What this means is that we are born with predispositions, i.e. different levels of physical prowess, innate determination, mood types, personality traits and so on. From that point our genetic predisposition interact with the environment (nutrition, parents, school, work conditions etc.).

Essentially, everything that happens to you happened because it was going to happen inevitably. For example, someone is born who has extremely athletic genes ... that person eats well and flourishes into a budding athlete ... that person was also born with certain personality traits such as being a very determined person ... his/her parents work with that determination to help if flourish etc. The final product: a successful athlete. Similarly, another person could be born with similar or better athletic and determination genetics but be born into extreme poverty and who does not have parents that are constructive. As a result, this person begins dealing drugs and goes to prison and becomes a lifetime criminal.

Its a nice sentiment to believe we have control of our destiny, however the vast majority of scientific research regarding human and animal behavior suggests that we do not. What's the point then you may ask? Or if everyone thought that, wouldn't everyone not care about their life? The answer is no .. while people may be able to grasp the concept of determinism, they are still endowed with genetics and an environment that prevent them from giving up and pushing on despite knowing that things are determined ... i.e. they're along for the ride. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry, but here we have a disagreement and one that I don't think we will bridge.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
since you're OK with forcing your morality on others
Click to expand...

This my friend is a statement .. not a question .. hope that helps :)

PzKfW IVe said:
will you then not complain when thers force their morality on others?
Click to expand...

This .. is a question .. good job :) ... and I will answer it as soon as you answer mine :), i.e. do you support democracy?
 
LesGovt said:
Sorry, but here we have a disagreement and one that I don't think we will bridge.
Click to expand...

Fair enough ... perhaps we could debate "determinism" versus "free will" in another forum sometime .. aye?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
One of the main points you are missing is a lack of equal opportunity and fair wages. Did that billionaire make sure that all of the workers he hired made a fair wage? If he did, then more power to them. Finally, its the kind of delusional thoughts that anything is possible for most people that cripple peoples ability to be empathetic and humanitarian.
Click to expand...

What? Did the plan I laid out earlier in this discussion show that I am not empathetic or humanitarian?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Fair enough ... perhaps we could debate "determinism" versus "free will" in another forum sometime .. aye?
Click to expand...

We could, but I think all we would do is differ.
 
LesGovt said:
What? Did the plan I laid out earlier in this discussion show that I am not empathetic or humanitarian?
Click to expand...

No, not that I remember, I can look it over again though ... its been my experience that people who follow your line of logic aren't empathetic or humanitarian imo. Did you think I was accusing you, specifically, of not being empathetic and a humanitarian?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
One of the main points you are missing is a lack of equal opportunity and fair wages. Did that billionaire make sure that all of the workers he hired made a fair wage? If he did, then more power to them. Finally, its the kind of delusional thoughts that anything is possible for most people that cripple peoples ability to be empathetic and humanitarian.
Click to expand...

Many of today's billionaires brought other people along as billionaires or at least as multi-millionaires. Check out Microsoft, Apple Computer, Google, Facebook, etc. As for a fair wage, the people took the jobs; therefore, it was a "fair" wage. If people had not taken the jobs, there would be not billionaire.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
This my friend is a statement .. not a question .. hope that helps :)
This .. is a question .. good job :) ... and I will answer it as soon as you answer mine :), i.e. do you support democracy?
Click to expand...
I see that you are -far- more interested in playing pre-pubescent games than honestly discussing an issue. Color me surprised.

Democracy. It's great.

Now then:
Since you're apparently OK with using democracy to force your morality on others, will you then remain logically consistent and not complain when others similarly force their morality onto you?
 
LesGovt said:
As for a fair wage, the people took the jobs; therefore, it was a "fair" wage.
Click to expand...
Yes... so long as the employer and the employee agree upon it, no one has standing to argue that a given wage isn't fair.
The emplpyee did, after all, voluntarily accept the wage.
 
LesGovt said:
Many of today's billionaires brought other people along as billionaires or at least as multi-millionaires. Check out Microsoft, Apple Computer, Google, Facebook, etc. As for a fair wage, the people took the jobs; therefore, it was a "fair" wage. If people had not taken the jobs, there would be not billionaire.
Click to expand...

You actually think that someone taking a job delineates a fair wage? Wow ... we are definitely not going to agree on that point ... wow!
 
MusicAdventurer said:
No, not that I remember, I can look it over again though ... its been my experience that people who follow your line of logic aren't empathetic or humanitarian imo. Did you think I was accusing you, specifically, of not being empathetic and a humanitarian?
Click to expand...

Nope. I just think you do not understand conservatives. George W. Bush said he was a "compassionate" conservative. Many, if not most, conservatives found that offensive. Conservatives who are rational care about people and want them to do well and do not want to see people suffer. We differ from you on the solutions. If we (liberals and conservatives) would learn to express ourselves in complete thoughts on subjects without namecalling and vitriol, we might better understand each other. I would venture to say that most conservatives are empathetic and humanitarian, but do not view the solutions to problems the way liberals do. I'm sure there are some conservatives here who might say they do not give a damn about others, but I also bet that there are liberals here who have similar afflictions.

When I first joined this site, I thought I saw civil discussions that mirrored the type we are having. The longer I stay here, the less I see. I even confess that I now partake in the harsher discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom