Nine Pictures of the Extreme Income/Wealth Gap

[Winehole23]

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.

Point of clarification. Which claim?

[Winehole23]

lol ok buddy. Just don't choke on his too much.

Dirty minded? Take a number.

[vy65]

Point of clarification. Which claim?

OTOH, one can acknowledge the legitimacy of the status quo without submitting to the inequities so meekly and quietly. ing is allowed, even appropriate.

Really, this is just a poor man's version of Nietzsche's critique of christianity.

[z0sa]

Rise, proletariat, rise!

"Political Economy regards the proletarian ... like a horse, he must receive enough to enable him to work. It does not consider him, during the time when he is not working, as a human being. It leaves this to criminal law, doctors, religion, statistical tables, politics, and the beadle."

- Karl Marx

[Winehole23]

Really, this is just a poor man's version of Nietzsche's critique of christianity.

Ooh, cutting. If this were a college lit mag, my feelings might be hurt.

[vy65]

Ooh, cutting. If this were a college lit mag, my feelings might be hurt.

Meh, aside from the 'digger, there really hasn't been anything new to philosophy in the past 110 years or so ...

[DarkReign]

lol ok buddy. Just don't choke on his too much.

Gay jokes. Youre good at this.

[vy65]

Gay jokes. Youre good at this.

If you got something to contribute, do so. If you're gonna accuse me of that isn't true, then you're a get.

[z0sa]

ing gets at the top with all their goddamned money.

[Winehole23]

Meh, aside from the 'digger, there really hasn't been anything new to philosophy in the past 110 years or so ...

I mainly like old stuff, so I probably wouldn't have noticed anyway.

[Winehole23]

Not that I read all that much philosophy anymore. I don't.

[Winehole23]

the digger?


(Heidegger?)

[Winehole23]

(Disclosure, currently reading Porphyry's bio of Plotinus.)

[Wild Cobra]

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about Obama's 57 states?

[LnGrrrR]

No I said they can't defend themselves if the government INSISTS on taking more of their money. They can certainly work on the government not insisting.

Ok, I was on a different wavelength. If the gov't (and by gov't, we really mean the populace of the United States, right?) insist on taking their money, their only option is to move, lose enough money to fall under the tax bracket, or break the law.

[LnGrrrR]

Meh, aside from the 'digger, there really hasn't been anything new to philosophy in the past 110 years or so ...

I'd say you're WAAAAYYY off with that statement. Due to newer technologies (MRI for instance) newer science (genetics) and newer physics (quantum), different views on philosophy have arisen. Some of the most interesting philosophy I've read has been from Daniel Dennett. (Even though he derides a lot of hypothetical questions, my favorites, as "intuition pumps".)

Heck, quantum physics alone challenges our expectations about what the world really "is", and you think nothing big has occurred in philosophy in the past 100 years?

[LnGrrrR]

Chalmers is another good read in that area.

[Stringer_Bell]

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about Obama's 57 states?

Clearly he was joking about the amount of states he's visited. Have you no sense of humor?

Let me find the clip where GW admits to finding WMD in Iraq even though there were none...

[LnGrrrR]

True. My point was that said inequality was natural or inevitable. Inequality, hierarchy, power, etc... are givens. To some, that means fight to alter those dynamics because thier not "fair."

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.

Some people use the "fair" claim as a weapon in their fight to alter the dynamics. Don't forget to take that into account.

And again, some morality systems make that moral claim, some don't. It's hard to argue unless you stake out that territory. What might be moral to some may not be moral to others, depending on the framework.

[coyotes_geek]

Chalmers is another good read in that area.

The pot smoking point guard for the Miami Heat?

[LnGrrrR]

The pot smoking point guard for the Miami Heat?

While he might be a good read himself (I haven't checked his Twitter account), I was referring to David Chalmers

[ElNono]

its not a tax its an investment, that guarantees a return

touché

[DarkReign]

If you got something to contribute, do so. If you're gonna accuse me of that isn't true, then you're a get.

got, for future reference. If youre going to slur someone, make sure you spell it right or it loses its meaning.

[Winehole23]

To me, I don't see the point in making that moral claim. It is what it is.

Bah. How the goodies get carved up is the essential, burning political question. Where the line should be drawn is philosophical/moral to be sure, but where it does get drawn in fact is essentially political.

Attempting to turn it into a settled philosophical debate by merely waving at the settled results of a (more or less) corrupt system inspires neither confidence nor further debate, and is in itself the wily rhetorical fort of a glib political jade.

Bravo!

[RandomGuy]

I've been pretty unequivocal in saying the only obligation is the legal obligation to pay taxes.

This whole tangent obfuscated the issue. The point is 1) US citizens, even the poor, enjoy an obscene level of wealth compared to those in the third world 2) people who take your position should be comfortable giving up a large amount to those in said third world countries as a redistributive measure.

You're earlier quote suggests that earning power is the result of immutable characteristics (skill, knowledge, luck, cir stance, etc.) that one has no control over. But this whole issue is a tangent anyway.

I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

My point is this: taxes are the costs one pays for governmental services. The poor use those services to a greater degree than the rich. Why then is it ok to charge the rich more for services which they don't use as much as the poor, who are charged a lesser amount?

I think the whole social Darwinism philosophy of " the poor" misses the fact that we are all, to a great extent, dependent on each other for a host of things. No one lives/works in a vaccuum.

It also misses a wider question as to what is ethical and moral.

Not everybody is going to get lucky and start Microsoft/Google/whatever.

We have to ask ourselves what quality of life is a minimum we can feel morally comfortable with allowing fellow human beings to live under.

I also think the "obscene amount of wealth versus poor in the third world" is utter bull , made up by someone trying to make themselves feel better about being sociopathic. "People who can't pay their heating bills in the winter in the US are still obscenely wealthy comparatively, so their plight is something I can safely ignore, because I have rationalized my indifference".