Total posts: 87
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm on right to a degree. I would vote for Trump or DeSantis instead of Biden.
1. Biden is not responsible for inflation caused from places like Ukraine and Russia. The war in Europe has put a lot of inflation on natural gas, fertilizer and oil prices.
2. When Biden went into office, he immediately suspended new land leases on oil and natural gas. He also shutdown the keystone oil pipeline. These earlier policies in office stopped oil and natural gas prices from going down or stabilizing. Therefore, he increased inflationary prices relatively to where they would of been without intervention.
In addition, If the United States had more natural gas and oil production, this would of decreased domestic inflation and curbed potentially global inflation. With cheaper natural gas prices, the United States could of exported more to Europe and reduced the global energy costs and fertilizer shortages.
3. Gas prices would of gone up to lesser degree under Trump. I don't think he could of halted oil inflation because the economy's demand for oil was surging upwards as it was recovering from Covid lockdowns, but it would of have been better under Trump. Obviously, Trump would never have halted oil and natural gas leases if he was re-elected into office in 2020.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
"Welfare recipients should not have the right to vote"
The proposition was not intended to be strictly pro or con. I not completely for the proposition, but I'm not completely against it.
I'm against conflicts of interest in politics. Welfare recipients would have a conflict of interest whenever they voted to have more tax funds diverted to welfare. Its not really a conflict of interest for a billionaire to prefer his taxes to go to education or public roads if he doesn't directly profit from it. However, its a conflict of interest for a group of people to redirect tax funds favorably to themselves when the most wealthiest group pays the highest individual cost and prefers alternative government services.
I don't really consider it a conflict of interest if the billionaire wants his taxes to go the needy.
For everything else you said, I think you may paint people's views rigidly and in black and white terms. Its not common to come across a person that isn't empathetic or sympathetic towards the weak or the poor. Most of time, its a disagreement on the proper methods to help them. Not every person is a moronic ideologue that blindly follows a set of beliefs without justifications.
Created:
-->
@blamonkey
As for the rich not being "properly represented," their lobbyists, political donations, and connections with members of high society lend them immense power and pressure in the political arena in the US. They have, in effect, a second vote by spending their money. What contribution do they make to warrant this second vote? Is it the billions they give to shareholders or the billions in stock buybacks? Do they lose their voting status the moment they lay off their workers or retire their company?For that matter, why do contributions necessarily take on a material quantity of money? Just by becoming a firefighter, a member of the military, or someone working for charity, do they not contribute to society in a meaningful way? Many service jobs would likely not be filled by people who are rich. I argue that one's ability to purchase a McDonalds sandwich at a minute cost is itself a societal convenience worthy of praise and suffrage bestowed on the workers making it possible to do so.
I'll address the things that you brought up in these two paragraphs.
First off, I'm not necessarily dead set against welfare people voting, but I think a person's vote should be in some manner related to amount they pay in taxes. I understand that giving rich people more representation under the current structure would make them too powerful. However, higher taxation of the rich (in the numeral amount) is taxation without good representation. I will give you a demonstration of my point. Suppose I make a million dollars and pay $300,000 dollars in taxes and my neighbor makes $50,000 and pays $15,000 in taxes. Why should someone that pays 5% of amount that I pay in taxes have an equal say in the distribution/use of those funds in government?
Now, I wouldn't be in support of taxation with proportional representation in congress, but I think the people that pay the most in taxes ought to have their own house in congress to consent any increases in taxation or allocations of funds.
As for the rich not being "properly represented," their lobbyists, political donations, and connections with members of high society lend them immense power and pressure in the political arena in the US.
Your grouping an entire sector of society and not fairly. Some rich people are crooked and others are honest. I don't think we should penalize all rich people for the actions of others when they're not complicit in these actions. The idea that the rich are "supposedly" the oppressor class or that the needs of many outweigh the needs of the few are bad arguments for mostly diminishing the consent/representation of the rich. They should be able to decide to which ends their money in government is most usefully applied.
The issue you brought up is bigger and more complicated. It begs the question of "how do we end conspiring and collusion between corrupt politicians and businesses leaders?" I think then you should consider "what would make it harder or less likely for them to collude together?" Giving the rich a little veto and approval power on allocation and taxation in their respective house, I don't think will make things any worse. Its the politicians that can be bought and stay in office forever which is the problem that needs to be solved.
For that matter, why do contributions necessarily take on a material quantity of money? Just by becoming a firefighter, a member of the military, or someone working for charity, do they not contribute to society in a meaningful way? Many service jobs would likely not be filled by people who are rich. I argue that one's ability to purchase a McDonalds sandwich at a minute cost is itself a societal convenience worthy of praise and suffrage bestowed on the workers making it possible to do so.
First off, Do you think people that don't pay any taxes at all should be able to vote? Representation in the U.S. had always been based loosely on principle that taxes are based on consent and the representation of the people who are taxed. Firefighters, police and charity workers are subjectively important to society, but should they have the same representation as a person that pays double amount of taxes? I'm sure other individuals (the same income) wouldn't like it if these people paid lower taxes than everybody else because they were deemed subjectively more valuable to society.
Lastly, I don't think a lot of workers making McDonald's sandwiches are ultimately worthy of deciding an arbitrary tax rate on a group of people that pay it. If the workers pay taxes, then they should enjoy the privilege's of the government services that everyone consented would be shared by all. However, this doesn't mean they should have a say in matter about the taxes that another group commits to the government.
I think the wealthy would actually consent to many taxes that they thought were vital. More importantly though, they wouldn't consent to taxes that they deemed unnecessary or harmful to business.
Created:
If you're going to go that far then why not include as a subsidy 'paying no federal income tax' and restrict lobbying too?
I definitely agree lobbying should be restricted. Instead of a subsidy though, I'd advocate for small tax which accounts for only a small fraction of the national military defense expense. Military Defense being the thing that I think is the most vital part of the federal government's function.
I would advocate restricting the fund sizes of political contributions for PACs and individual politicians and extremely limiting the amount that a corporation or individual can give. Politicians are bad though; I think simply a random sampling and short service would be a better replacement.
Whiteflame also makes a point that I agree with that that subsided companies don't make reliable contributors to paying their share of taxes. I think any company and its employees being subsidized by the government shouldn't have the right to vote.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Funny that the only thing you quoted in my text and didn't care to speech about anything else in it. I think strikes are completely legitimate if people don't damage property and owners or workers don't use government to coerce each other. Ye have little faith that a jury of your peers wouldn't punish people for criminal and wrong actions of corporations or individuals.
Created:
ANDstop using public roadsANDstop calling public policeANDstop using public utilities and public hospitals and public school
No. They simply wouldn't make political decisions on them. They wouldn't loose the access to them.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Another point, welfare breeds voting slaves to politicians.except for the fact that poor people are statistically LESS likely to vote
I don't recall people on social security being that poor or old people not voting.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Why are you assuming if someone's on welfare they don't have a f****** job? Do you know how much many working poor there are in the United States? Do you realize that welfare could be just food stamps and that both mother and father can have a f****** job? No of course not cuz you assume if someone gets any kind of social welfare they sit on their ass all day and do nothing.
I don't assume they sit on their ass all day or assume they don't have job. It is you doing the assuming that the opposition only thinks this.
I also know that an individual doesn't need to be on welfare or social security for their entire life unless their sufficiently mentally or physically handicapped.
I assume that most people on welfare need help and once they don't need it that they will get off of it. Once they do, they will affectively be contributing their fair share of taxes to our institutions and they'll make political decisions on what they should do. Nobody should be on welfare for a long time and most people attempt to get off it if they wish too.
Created:
I'm surprised by how many of you take it for granted the right to vote and to welfare as synonymous. Poor people voted all the time before large national social welfare programs even existed. I'm not counting everything before 1860, when mostly white land owning could vote in America even though before then many states were already working on substituting other qualifications other than land ownership for the right to vote.
An adequate fair approach is to say that anyone that pays their fair share of taxes ought have the right to make political decisions on what their institutions do. Of course, we don't want the rich to be only ones represented in government, but they are not adequately represented to amount of their contributions via taxes. They do significantly more for our institutions than anyone else for making them possible to exist. A fair share of tax is one that matches the exact amount for every individual, so that a person's vote is equal to exactly their contribution.
This proposal is simply a head tax. I'm not supporting taxing poor to death or even taxing the homeless. I think the only reasonable tax is small tax which wouldn't be too burdensome for anyone to pay.
The people that think we need large taxes are people that simply love large government. Government doesn't need to large at all or have all the unnecessary expenses like social security, healthcare, and education. It simply needs to pay for the defense of a country and its institutions that protect liberty and justice.
Created:
In other words, some people pay taxes and make our institutions possible and are not fairly represented. While, other individuals are taxed ultimately very little and contribute a small portion to the funding of our institutions, but they are large part of the population and represent numerous votes.
Another point, welfare breeds voting slaves to politicians.
Created:
representation without taxation.
Good point.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
All of them that wanted to vote again would send back their stimulus checks. Or simply anyone partaking in welfare currently or during a voting cycle would not have the right to vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In response to Nasa and Government Research
A technology that might revolutionize an entire industry in future may not have much value if there isn't a known technique to put it into mass production or if its not economically feasible under current conditions.
Response to Billionaires
On another note, Billionaires are probably necessary to take on excessive risks in their industries. The main difference is their innovations will be mostly be cost effective and practical. They don't need to invent things themselves, but they definitely need knowledge of how to apply things. If you can do both, then you become extremely wealthy.
Created:
Posted in:
A consumption tax would be either a sales tax or Value added tax (VAT). A consumption tax would be disproportionate to the low and middle income households since they consume more and save less as percentage of their income.
Corporate income tax and capital gains tax is more progressive because it places the burden on investors.
The benefit of a VAT tax is that it encourages investment when it replaces a corporate income tax, however its a consumption tax which fronts the cost onto consumers instead of stakeholders.
A capital gains tax is probably the most progressive tax there is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wealth taxes encourage rich people move their wealth out of the country and hide it. Also, European countries with wealth taxes had a hard time enforcing it.
Unfortunately, a wealth tax would become another tool for the government to levy more taxes if it had it. The income tax would need to be abolished for it work for the average person. However, rich people would think it was highly unfair and hide their assets in everything that couldn't be taxed.
A graduated income tax is also less likely to be considered as envy towards the rich, whereas a wealth tax would be.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
isn't socialism-collectivism the norm ?
Collectivism is the norm and growing trend for modern governments but not as much for all the past. Maybe pre-constitutional America.
aren't all forms of government essentially collectivism ?
Libertarian forms of government are opposed to collectivism. Libertarians believe in maximizing the autonomy and freedoms of individuals while promoting a small and fiscally responsible government.
Do libertarian countries exist? No can't name one. Only 1700s America came close to it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I would say there are about 5 different versions of socialism and more. All them have slightly different objectives, but all of them produce similar outcomes.
Fascist socialism is when political leaders have all the power and everything serves as an end for the state.
Crony socialism (crony capitalism) is when business leaders have power and amass wealth through political control and political favors.
Marxism - a system where "supposedly" all people have an equal economic class. Marx would like to see philosophers hold all the power.
Social Equality Socialism - a system where people attempt make all social groups equal by removing all perceived inequalities between them.
Democratic Socialism - the means of production owned by the social and collective group and controlled through democratic processes.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I think it’s good developed countries have systems they can compare themselves to. Though it doesn’t really matter if oligarchs get into power.
If you mean oligarchs exist in any system, then I would agree.
If I follow your logic if country A and B are developed nations and A is more socialist and has a better and cheaper healthcare system, then the more capitalist B country should adopt a similar system.
However, the power and the extent of oligarchs in countries can be very different. If the healthcare system in a mostly capitalist country has become mostly crony, then a socialist healthcare system could be better than its current healthcare. However, this doesn't mean that a better capitalist healthcare system with fewer monopolistic legal barriers and more legal patient protection could not exist if we spent time changing laws to encourage free enterprise.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Are you an anarchist? If not, this argument is incompatible with your existing beliefs. You see, society and the state in general is by definition suppressing the sovereignty of individuals. If you cannot murder people then you have been restricted and your freedom violated -- but society is all the better for it.
I'm not an anarchist because I believe their are legitimate reasons for government to exist. If you murder someone your freedom is forfeit, this is a universal moral law held by all reasonable people. You never had the right to murder someone in the first place. That is true whether or not government existed. Government exists to protect the rights of individuals so that individuals are not deprived of them. Judges, jurors, law enforcement and military are all necessary to protect people's rights. If you live in society you must respect the freedoms of others, you can not live in society with people otherwise.
Literally only the rich loose their freedom, by which I mean the freedom to dominate society and the economy with money not earned through labour. For everyone else, socialism means more economic autonomy, less worries, higher standard of living and more free time. Especially the poor, ethnic minorities and women benefit from socialism.
Socialism always involves central planning and taxes. A people who are burdened to support a government are limited in their capacity to make autonomous choices for themselves. For instance, if parents were not taxed to send their kids to public school or not, then most would choose to send their kids to private schools. The fact that their income is taken away from them denies them this choice. A capitalist becomes rich as a result of providing something that is valuable to his society. If he became rich through immoral means, it is the responsibility of the justice system to determine if owes anything to any individuals. Otherwise it is not your call to say he does not deserve profit from the money he is entitled to that he had to work for at some point or inherit.
Thats the point. Nobody can get rich by providing free healthcare and education, and so under capitalism nobody will do it. Socialism puts the needs and wants of the people above the profit motive. A more productive society is only a byproduct of a happier healthier one. A central tenant of socialism is improving people's material conditions.
The needs and wants of society are clearly expressed in the way people spend their money. If you spend your money on food instead of a fancy house, you clearly indicated that you thought food was more important to your needs and wants than a fancy house. People always make choices of best or better for themselves with their own money. Entrepreneurs are rewarded with money if they produce things that people want and at the price they want it. Socialism (Central Planning) is clearly not obligated to produce things at a reasonable cost that people would actually prefer if they could spend money on things as they wished. Companies have expenses and they can produce more if they can charge more. This is true even for socialism, however, socialism charges a societal tax to produce more product. Higher taxes mean other companies need to produce less and charge more. If everyone had to pay higher prices for everything else they needed, then they would not want the healthcare or education you were providing them with socialism.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
however, socialism and communism under any conditions work poorly.how do you account for examples like denmark ?
Denmark isn't really socialist. They have really free market policies for the most part.
I'm talking mostly in relative terms more government and central planning would be considered more socialist. If we accept mostly ideal justice to be carried out (not that it exists in United States for corporations), capitalism works even better than these systems.
Regulations mostly create economic moats. Patents are mostly anti-competitive. Laws are made to favor corporations. Government protects business monopolies and conspires with them. This is the reason that the United States isn't really free enterprise. Its not socialist but its crony capitalist. Any decent capitalist country that isn't mostly crony should thrive.
Not familiar with holacracy or what you mean by it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
My argument isn't that these don't happen or that greed and incompetence don't exist. Already this issue is a legal matter. If the punishments are commensurate with the crimes then integrity is rewarded. The opposite can also exist. We need a good justice system as I've already pointed out.
Capitalism needs free enterprise, but free enterprise doesn't mean we should permit corporations or individuals limited liability for all their actions. That's an issue with our screwed up laws and justice system.
Capitalism under ideal conditions works well (not necessarily perfect), however, socialism and communism under any conditions work poorly.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Modern coal mining and railroading are much safer than it was in the Gilded Age. While I don't condone the actions of the robber barons, it seems like there was no liability back then if someone got hurt. If anyone has a workplace injury nowadays, its the employer's responsibility to pay. Entrepreneur's have incentives to prevent work place accidents and keep their employees healthy for health-insurance reasons.
In addition, as the wealth of society grows, employees can ask for different kinds of compensation for their work, for instance, health-insurance or better work conditions. Most coal miners today make good money. Its not a profession for just the dirt poor anymore. I also don't agree that health-insurance should be mandated for employers to supply. However, employees should be able to chose if they want health insurance or prefer to be compensated in wages.
Furthermore, capitalism has nothing to say about moral issues, however, the legal and justice system is the proper place to determine the moral obligations that employer's have to employees, while that could be anything from health, treatment and safety.
Lastly, capitalism is not a complete system. Its only most effective and prosperous when its regulated by a good justice system. If these conditions are met, entrepreneur's have incentives to treat their employees' properly. Moral problems would exist under communism and socialism, however, these systems are just as unequipped to deal with them. The justice systems' in socialism and communism seem that they would be far less impartial too.
Response to Malaysia problem
While I don't think we should punish companies for moving into foreign countries, the United States ought to ban products from foreign companies that were made under highly immoral circumstances. For instance, companies that pay immoral bribes to officials to avoid their responsibilities or prevent their criminal prosecution.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
The price to be paid for a better future is more readily paid under socialism. There is no better way to ensure a better future for everyone than to spend money on "unprofitable" public projects. Healthy, nourished, educated and mobile people are more productive and more innovative. A society in which the good of the people is jeopardized in the name of profit and freedom is not desirable. Why charge money for medicine when that will discourage people who can't afford it? Why allow an economic elite to siphon money needed to cure cancer and solve climate change into their own giant pockets?
The good of society is expensive, and capitalism is not willing to pay for it. Individuals have moral responsibilities, but the systemic problem lies with capitalism.
Carl Marx often thought that the factory owner's exploited the poor to increase their profits. He believed it was in the best interests' of the factory owners' to suppress wages and keep the poor impoverished to increase the supply of cheep labor.
As you have pointed out the "economic elite" have little incentive to provide real medicine to people, this would only harm their profits and worse improve the living conditions of the poor. Why would businessmen ever improve the living conditions of their factory workers if it would only cost them profit?
The short answer is an entrepreneur knows that improving the living conditions of their workers may cost them a little in the short-run but save them more money in the long run. The 40 hour work week became popularized because employers' realized that worker productivity increases if you shorten the work week. Capitalism is slow sometimes but greedy narrow minded entrepreneurs are supplanted with future-oriented entrepreneurs because they're more productive. Issues do arise because of greed and sometimes the greed is so bad that companies need to be abolished or punished. Also, government protected monopolies need to be abolished, however, these issues arise from greed and not from capitalism. Supplanting capitalism with socialism because of greed is the most ridiculous idea I've heard.
Its true that "healthy, nourished, educated and mobile people" are more productive workers, however, worker productivity also depends on investment in capital, training and resources. If your mixed-socialist utopia pays for extra medical care, agriculture and education, its because it was not fundamentally profitable and productive for the societies needs and wants to begin with. Therefore, redistributing money on unprofitable public projects is inferior because it reduces overall economic productivity and growth. Redistribution in capitalism always causes unwanted inflation.
Is it ethical or wise that the individual's sovereignty is supplanted with the states' so that state can spend money on the things that the individual can't decide just for themselves.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Is it surprising that socialist countries of similar economic development with more physicians and nurses than capitalist countries live longer and healthier? Or that socialist countries that have more expansive educational programs are more educated?
Isn't there a price to paid and sacrifice in capitalism for economic growth and a better future? Capitalism permits people to accumulate wealth and resources but often people don't make choices for the sake of their health. Most families make choices so that their children have better lives than them. This sacrifice is intergenerational but the cost to our ancestors was not for nothing. While I don't expect capitalist countries to always have the highest longevity or the most educated people, I do expect the wealthiest countries in the world to do well out of general principle. How many extremely socialist or communist countries in the world today can say that they enjoy the highest wealth per capita or lifted people out of abject poverty at an incredible rate? People complain about the inequalities in Capitalism, however, the poor are better off every decade. And like Socialism is any better. Socialism is a pipedream that promises bread and circuses for everyone. Give your income to the government so that they can most efficiently allocate resources for society without you being able make any personal choices to better your life or of others you know.
The faults of the system are not with capitalism. Its with rent seekers, authoritarians and criminal syndicates that coopt the economy of many countries. Socialist and Capitalist countries are plagued alike with these problems. Hence, the socialist country can be freer than the capitalist country or vice versa. Its only with the combination of free society unhindered by political ills and market capitalism that make it possible for capitalist countries to outperform socialist ones.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, I read about about the global fertilizer shortage. Russia and Belarus were about 40% of the world's potash and 48% of world's ammonium nitrate. South America and Africa are already getting hit pretty bad with fertilizer costs. Its hard say how hard this will impact the United States in a year, but food inflation and certain food shortages are going to real. The United States and other places probably don't lack the productive capacity. However, the Biden administration is playing games with oil and natural gas leases. Natural gas as most people know is used for fertilizer and oil for the transportation of food and other important commodities.
I don't know what Deagle's depopulation forecast is about, but I've known that global population decline would a series problem in a few decades. Western countries and China have birth rates dropping below two which makes the population replacement less than your parent's generation. This will have some interesting affects on our the world economy in the future. The United States already suffers from social security and medical burdens which will only be exacerbated with a declining workforce and most likely a decline in mass production.
The curious thing about the MIT study is it took into account a decline in birth rates when everyone thought the world population was going to explode. It also didn't include global warming into their model. However, most of all their models predicted that modern society would decline by 2040.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
Spinoza also got rid of the mind-body problem by positing that Mind and Matter are the same substance except that we refer to them as being different. His theory is called Neutral Monism. In his view, there exists something neutral that is not mental or physical rather there are natural neutral entities that make up the world.
I find Idealism, Dualism, and Neutralism to be unpalatable fanciful thinking of mystical philosophers. Ancient and Medieval philosophers had to come up with explanations for the manifestation of the "soul" and "free-will" that they thought people possessed. However, everyone is completely clueless as to what these things really are. Thus, the philosophical discussions about them are really nonsense, but they are entertaining for a short while.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
-->@TheUnderdog
Bad argument comparing politics of places like Mexico and Nigeria to the United States.
The meaning of terms of Left and Right only make sense in reference to the positions of political parties in your own country. Yes there are some religious and political similarities, but in no means is a conservative in America identical to a conservative in Mexico or Nigeria. I will not argue about the political parties of countries which I don't understand and I know nobody else knows about.
The terms Liberal and conservative have very little meaning to me. A liberal is someone who wants change and a conservative is someone who wants to keep more traditional ways of doing things. However, I would say even traditionally-minded conservatives often do want change for their societies but don't want to cast the baby out of the bath water. Therefore, I will use terms like republican and democrat to eliminate the false dichotomy between these two parties.
Republicans tend to believe in laissez-faire economics and whenever possible the individual should be able make sovereign choices. I argue society is free and productive because of our economic freedoms and sovereign choice. We see this as fact when compare ourselves to societies with very little economic freedom and sovereignty (e.g. Russia, China, Mexico). The fact that the solutions of the democrats lead to higher taxes and regulation means less economic freedom and sovereignty for people not more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Plenty of good conservative places to live. Liberal places don't have a monopoly on the best places to live because of high taxes and regulation.
Created:
Posted in:
I guess this is the thread to make unfounded accusations about politics and geography.
Reasons people move away from California
High Cost of Living
Rising Tax Rates
Unemployment
Housing Crisis
Insecurity (due to crime)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Curious as to whether you take the same position towards all of those companies making political donations - that if government passed new laws retaliating against them for their political involvement, that this would be ok…?
If the company isn't a sole proprietorship, I agree it isn't the place for corporations to make political donations with shareholder money. If it simply was a matter of making a federal and state law against political contributions of corporations, I think it would be justice.
In an idealistic society, corporations would be apolitical and the government would be controlled with citizens instead of lobbyists. However, this isn't the case and people must work in a flawed system. You may believe the Right is cracking down on freedom, but I think it was actually protecting it against Disney if you look at the context of the education bill. The "Don't Say Gay Bill" if your a leftist.
This bill bans sexual orientation instruction in grades k through 3. Since kinder gardeners and 3rd graders shouldn't have any ideas on sexual orientation at this age, it is very inappropriate for teachers to advocate their sexual beliefs. This is about the Leftists' indoctrinating kids at young ages and not about suppressing LBGTQ students to freely express themselves. If Disney thinks it okay to indoctrinate little kids into thinking their gay, I think they deserve to be burned down by Florida.
Created:
Posted in:
I wouldn't call Disney a private company. It's publicly traded.
A company like Disney has a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders. Playing woke politics with other people's money is negligent of that obligation. Woke politics doesn't make you dime on company time.
Board of directors are not entitled to free-speech when their bound by the property rights of their shareholders and their duties to them.
I am strong advocate for free speech but only privately owned companies and people outside of work have free speech.
Created:
Posted in:
Just putting some words down not trying to be dogmatic.
RationalMadman's statements are clever to say the least. My favorite one was, "That's like asking how the definition of an adjective constitutes possessing the adjective if one repeatedly behaves in the way of the definition" when replying to Athias about amoral character.
I remain unpersuaded by his arguments and I disagree that God is amoral is the only acceptable interpretation for this reality.
A large part of this discussion hinges on defining morality and accepting the things that we regard as moral. I think it can be defined as all moral precepts ought to cause human flourishing. This definition gives us a baseline for judging the morality of omniscient being (God).
Whenever we see God letting evil prevail, it's instinct to believe God is flawed and his being in part isn't all moral (or good). However, Humans are finite creatures and can only judge events in the moment. On the other hand, God is eternal and infinite for all purposes. He judges all events in existence and the entire human race. Therefore, his moral precepts may involve the flourishing of the entire species across time as opposed to the good of particular individuals.
If we judge God as being amoral because of all good and bad events, then we concede that God may simply being what is the best for us (human species).
Created:
Posted in:
Leibniz put forward this argument with the problem of evil.
The concept of God: omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient.
Evil exists in a metaphysical, physical and moral sense (e.g. earthquakes, starvation and murder)
Leibniz pointed out that suffering and physical evil can build character and better circumstances.
Moral evil is a result of the misuse of freewill.
Now to the argument:
It is impossible to have a perfect world with human beings in it with their associated free will.
God's omniscience and omnibenevolence allowed him to choose the best of all possible worlds.
God's omnipotence allowed him to make the best of all possible worlds.
Therefore, the world is is the best of all possible worlds.
Leibniz implies that God could of made a world with no evil in it, but this world would be full of automatons with no free-will.
Rationalist arguments can't prove anything about world in my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
@FLRW
Morality seen in most animals might be instincts, not morals.
An argument can be made that chimpanzees and monkeys do make conscious moral decisions.
I think morals are based on feelings, but you must be consciously aware that your making moral value judgments to be a moral agent.
As "MorningStar" pointed out dinosaurs don't have concepts of good and evil. Therefore, they are not moral agents.
I think the science for determining if animals have morals is shaky at best because we're applying a human concept to animals and expecting them to base decisions along those lines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I doubt dinosaurs had "thoughts" on the matter.
I think language, connecting signs and symbols with meaning, is a good indicator that sentient things might be able conceptualize morality. However, I think it is probably limited to humans.
Created:
Posted in:
Not that I care about religious topics much, but I thought I'd post here.
You will not find a logical argument to dismiss a contingent reality with an amoral god, however there is no logical necessity for god to be amoral.
If such an amoral god existed, he would not understand human morality.
A truly amoral person is a sociopath unable to connect with the states of others, but capable of cooperating for their needs and wants.
An indifferent god would not be amoral, but he would simply be uncaring about human affairs.
I think it wise to assume that substance is morally neutral. Therefore, god is only responsible for the maintenance of reality, but he isn't accountable for
the interactions of substance in reality and the choices from free-will.
Created: