This talk by the book's author reminded me of the first Philosophy of Law test I took at the College of Law in the last year of the course, in 1989. The professor gave a topic for the dissertation: Aristotle would agree with the Brazilian minimum wage policy. My dissertation was extremely concise and went something like this: "Aristotle could not agree with the Brazilian minimum wage policy, because the value of the minimum wage is not the middle ground between excess wealth and absolute economic deprivation. Whoever receives the minimum wage has a miserable life and this does not contribute to the stabilization and pacification of society." The teacher gave me the highest grade possible and praised my brevity. What was true in 1989 remains true, because in Brazil those who earn minimum wage have a miserable life. To get an idea of what the Brazilian minimum wage was and is, I will use a simple measurement here. At that time the minimum wage bought approximately 120 600ml bottles of beer. It is currently possible to buy between 130 and 140 600ml bottles of beer.
I grew up in a place in society where no one ever hopes to come from and, through hard work, have managed to do very well. I think we need a baseline to protect the more vulnerable, but the idea of controlling the "rich", as suggested, here would lead a substantial dampening of human creativity. As such, 'how much is enough for me?' is an interesting question an individual may ask themselves, but it's not something governments should focus on. Luck counts for sure -- in all the ways it is manifested over a lifetime -- but individual will and determination mean a great deal in life and usually make the difference between living a good life and a lesser life. Overall, interesting philosophically, but mostly disconnected from reality.
Respected, I am 70+ from Pakistan. Very thoughtful. However, today's world need something more. It's more than a social issue for humanity. There is no Absolute Liberty/ Freedom for the destruction of human beings. There must be a benchmark for poverty level, similarly must be a Cap for Maximum Wealth level. Above that someway to distribute amongst Government/ Citizens of that country. Distribution of Wealth in USA/ India is alarming at the highest level. No verifiable data is available for ME. China is following the same pattern. More than 7 billion people are unable to survive. Some positive efforts required.
The Madness is also, it is accually not about money, it is about technology, manpower ect. because money do nothing just people but people do nothing without money.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Well, funnily, when Ayn Rand suffered cancer, she filed for social and medical welfare. Her work and life is a great example for the human fantasy to be indenpendet from anyone else (I mean, tempting, it no matter would be great) and the crushing realization that it can never be more than a fantasy. And a quite dangerous and socially damaging. Sadly, her early works are still received without the larger context of her life, mostly as fuel for contemporaries who indulge in similar fantasies. It's nothing but a lure.
@@asymptotischverhalten228 "Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with no choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider such forced “participation” unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded if your opposition to the program’s injustice were to preclude you from collecting Social Security at retirement. This being said, your moral integrity does require that you view the funds only as (partial) restitution for all that has been taken from you and you continue, sincerely, to argue against the welfare state. In contrast, on Rand’s view the advocate of Social Security is not the victim but the supporter of legalized plunder, whether he realizes it or not. This fact morally disqualifies him from accepting the spoils “redistributed” by the welfare state. Rand’s position on the welfare state is no doubt controversial. But for critics to dismiss it as hypocrisy is a confession of ignorance or worse. Unfortunately, there exists a long history of Rand’s opponents distorting her positions to attack straw men. With Rand now so prominent in our national debate, let’s see if we can raise the bar and discuss her actual views." newideal.aynrand.org/what-gave-ayn-rand-the-moral-right-to-collect-social-security/#:~:text=Rand%20morally%20opposes%20the%20welfare,for%20king%2C%20neighbor%20or%20pope. Nothing confesses how intellectually second handed or ignorant someone is when dealing with Rand's ideas than talking about her talking social security i.e partially getting the money stolen from her back.
Proverbs 29:7 “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Mark 10:21 ... "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Deuteronomy 15:7 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother. Deuteronomy 15:11 For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, “You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.” Luke 6:20 ...Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-16... That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil...
@@subcitizen2012 Matthew 2:11 "On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of GOLD, frankincense and myrrh." Matthew 6:20 "But store up for yourselves TREASURES in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal." Matthew 19:21 "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have TREASURE in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Mark 10:21 "Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have TREASURE in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a TREASURE in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. Luke 18:22 "When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have TREASURE in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Revelation 21:21 "The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of GOLD, as pure as transparent glass." "God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us." -Joel Osteen
Support this 100% Question should people have to go to war for rich people whilst they hide away
This talk by the book's author reminded me of the first Philosophy of Law test I took at the College of Law in the last year of the course, in 1989. The professor gave a topic for the dissertation: Aristotle would agree with the Brazilian minimum wage policy. My dissertation was extremely concise and went something like this: "Aristotle could not agree with the Brazilian minimum wage policy, because the value of the minimum wage is not the middle ground between excess wealth and absolute economic deprivation. Whoever receives the minimum wage has a miserable life and this does not contribute to the stabilization and pacification of society." The teacher gave me the highest grade possible and praised my brevity. What was true in 1989 remains true, because in Brazil those who earn minimum wage have a miserable life. To get an idea of what the Brazilian minimum wage was and is, I will use a simple measurement here. At that time the minimum wage bought approximately 120 600ml bottles of beer. It is currently possible to buy between 130 and 140 600ml bottles of beer.
I grew up in a place in society where no one ever hopes to come from and, through hard work, have managed to do very well. I think we need a baseline to protect the more vulnerable, but the idea of controlling the "rich", as suggested, here would lead a substantial dampening of human creativity. As such, 'how much is enough for me?' is an interesting question an individual may ask themselves, but it's not something governments should focus on. Luck counts for sure -- in all the ways it is manifested over a lifetime -- but individual will and determination mean a great deal in life and usually make the difference between living a good life and a lesser life. Overall, interesting philosophically, but mostly disconnected from reality.
You're too kind. This sort of stuff is just rank leftist populism dressed up as Academia.
Respected, I am 70+ from Pakistan. Very thoughtful. However, today's world need something more. It's more than a social issue for humanity. There is no Absolute Liberty/ Freedom for the destruction of human beings. There must be a benchmark for poverty level, similarly must be a Cap for Maximum Wealth level. Above that someway to distribute amongst Government/ Citizens of that country. Distribution of Wealth in USA/ India is alarming at the highest level. No verifiable data is available for ME. China is following the same pattern. More than 7 billion people are unable to survive. Some positive efforts required.
The Madness is also, it is accually not about money, it is about technology, manpower ect.
because money do nothing just people but people do nothing without money.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
Finally someone said it! 👏
I got 20 bucks
Ayn Rands Age of Envy essay was prophetic. The seething hate dripping from this looter is unimaginable
Well, funnily, when Ayn Rand suffered cancer, she filed for social and medical welfare. Her work and life is a great example for the human fantasy to be indenpendet from anyone else (I mean, tempting, it no matter would be great) and the crushing realization that it can never be more than a fantasy. And a quite dangerous and socially damaging. Sadly, her early works are still received without the larger context of her life, mostly as fuel for contemporaries who indulge in similar fantasies. It's nothing but a lure.
@@asymptotischverhalten228 "Social Security is not voluntary. Your participation is forced through payroll taxes, with no choice to opt out even if you think the program harmful to your interests. If you consider such forced “participation” unjust, as Rand does, the harm inflicted on you would only be compounded if your opposition to the program’s injustice were to preclude you from collecting Social Security at retirement.
This being said, your moral integrity does require that you view the funds only as (partial) restitution for all that has been taken from you and you continue, sincerely, to argue against the welfare state.
In contrast, on Rand’s view the advocate of Social Security is not the victim but the supporter of legalized plunder, whether he realizes it or not. This fact morally disqualifies him from accepting the spoils “redistributed” by the welfare state.
Rand’s position on the welfare state is no doubt controversial. But for critics to dismiss it as hypocrisy is a confession of ignorance or worse.
Unfortunately, there exists a long history of Rand’s opponents distorting her positions to attack straw men. With Rand now so prominent in our national debate, let’s see if we can raise the bar and discuss her actual views."
newideal.aynrand.org/what-gave-ayn-rand-the-moral-right-to-collect-social-security/#:~:text=Rand%20morally%20opposes%20the%20welfare,for%20king%2C%20neighbor%20or%20pope.
Nothing confesses how intellectually second handed or ignorant someone is when dealing with Rand's ideas than talking about her talking social security i.e partially getting the money stolen from her back.
@@asymptotischverhalten228 Her work was not about being 'independent from anyone else', so you are doing nothing more than burning a straw man.
The case against extreme wealth: extreme jealousy.
Proverbs 29:7 “The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”
Mark 10:21 ... "You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
Deuteronomy 15:7 If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother.
Deuteronomy 15:11 For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, “You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.”
Luke 6:20 ...Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:23-16... That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil...
@@subcitizen2012
Matthew 2:11 "On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of GOLD, frankincense and myrrh."
Matthew 6:20 "But store up for yourselves TREASURES in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal."
Matthew 19:21 "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have TREASURE in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mark 10:21 "Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have TREASURE in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a TREASURE in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
Luke 18:22 "When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have TREASURE in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Revelation 21:21 "The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of GOLD, as pure as transparent glass."
"God wants us to prosper financially, to have plenty of money, to fulfill the destiny He has laid out for us." -Joel Osteen
Minting of money is something different, Happiness is something different. Kindly try for Happiness
@@subcitizen2012 Those quotes are totally irrelevant.
@@Rhimeson LOL. What load of self aggrandizing waffle.