The Nature of Authoritarian Morality

[The New State]

This may seem kind of rambling, because I'm riting this late at night after a long day of work...
beware of misspelz and typpos

1. Morality, or Moral code(use what you will), is universal, since humans are of the same species, and share a common nature that is constant.

- Moral Code only applies to humans, hence, there is no moral obligation to animals normally consumed as food.

2.There exist two planes[or levels] of human morality; state and individual. THis is so because in every human there is both a tendency for individuality and communal existance.

-The state, being a representative and vanguard of the whole(humanity), is morally superior to the individual. This can be demonstrated by examining the power to kill, and semantically, the difference between killing and murdering:

The state posesses the power to kill, while the individual may only kill with permission of the state, otherwise, his action is considered murder. Self-defense may at first seem to contradict this, but when one evokes that power of self-defense, it's to combat someone attempting to murder.

The point of that confusing spiel is to prove what the state actually is. The state is organized force for the purpose of enforcing organization. A law is merely a piece of thick toilet paper signed by fat men until a man with a gun orders unarmed men to obey its directives.

The state should be interested in the realms of political and social order, the necessities of progress.

The individual, on the other hand, is concerned with self-gratification. This isn't immoral, in fact, it is completely natural. Personal wealth, and individual aspirations are the sole property of the individual.

It is moral to do as you please with your personal life

3. Personal v. Political, what is the different, and who should wield political power?

Political power is power or influence over the whole(humanity), since humans are naturally self-interested, it is important that only those who have displayed an ability to sacrifice for the whole be able to wield political power.

The self-interested person is not deficient by not sacrificing, but he may not hold any poltical power, whereas the person who has proven through service his willingness to sacrifice for the whole, is entitled to political power.

yikes, OK, time to stop writing for the night, I'll expand and clear these up in the morning. For now, I'd like to hear your thoughts/criticisms(the majority of the responses, I suspect :))

[DaCuBaN]

Morality, or Moral code(use what you will), is universal,

If this were true, then all humanity would be in utopia by now. However, I might hazard a guess at your reasoning here? Socialism is to blame!


The state posesses the power to kill, while the individual may only kill with permission of the state, otherwise, his action is considered murder. Self-defense may at first seem to contradict this, but when one evokes that power of self-defense, it's to combat someone attempting to murder

The only difference between these two is one of semantics. To each party, they are no less murdered or a murderer respectively.


The state is organized force for the purpose of enforcing organization.

You mean an oxymoron?


A law is merely a piece of thick toilet paper signed by fat men until a man with a gun orders unarmed men to obey its directives.

Correct: The only thing such "laws" are worth is in use wiping your arse. The man with the gun is either attempting to enforce his particular morality upon others, else is simply "following orders".

Either way, it's a pretty awful state of affairs.


Personal wealth, and individual aspirations are the sole property of the individual.

Indeed, this appears true. I personally feel that communism is misunderstood, in that whilst "private" property - the abode of an individual, who has the right to use force to eject others from their domain - is abolished, personal property; your home; your clothes; your belongings; remain untouched.

As to these being the sole properties of the individual? Well, for starters you speak of only the altruistic being "fit to rule" - are these rulers not individuals?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 28 2004, 06:15 AM
1. Morality, or Moral code(use what you will), is universal, since humans are of the same species, and share a common nature that is constant.
Possibly but it seems these values are subverted easily enough by indoctrination and manipulation.


- Moral Code only applies to humans, hence, there is no moral obligation to animals normally consumed as food.

What of those who refuse to eat or use animal parts out of a sense of morality?


2.There exist two planes[or levels] of human morality; state and individual. THis is so because in every human there is both a tendency for individuality and communal existance.

I would be careful how you associate state and communal life. Those two words have quite the discrepancy. You might want to do some research to find a better connection between the two.


-The state, being a representative and vanguard of the whole(humanity), is morally superior to the individual. This can be demonstrated by examining the power to kill, and semantically, the difference between killing and murdering:

How do you mean this? Is this a mentality? Are you claiming the state is superior to the individual? States issue the authority to kill somewhat arbitrarily at times, these states are often fractionalized and this is usually done out of the interests of those in the power of the state.


A law is merely a piece of thick toilet paper signed by fat men until a man with a gun orders unarmed men to obey its directives.

You may want to take into consideration, the motivation of the "man with a gun."


The state should be interested in the realms of political and social order, the necessities of progress.

Why? How do you mean this? Why are those "the necessities of progress?" Also, politics and social order overlap in many cases, when they do not have the exact same meaning.


The individual, on the other hand, is concerned with self-gratification. This isn't immoral, in fact, it is completely natural. Personal wealth, and individual aspirations are the sole property of the individual.

What does "self-gratification" entail? What about individual concern for the well-being of society?


It is moral to do as you please with your personal life

Why? I could assert that it is immoral to do as you please with your personal life because you have an obligation to better society; it only has meaning if you provide rational


3. Personal v. Political, what is the different, and who should wield political power?

Political power is power or influence over the whole(humanity), since humans are naturally self-interested, it is important that only those who have displayed an ability to sacrifice for the whole be able to wield political power.

How can you judge such merit? Who is fit to judge?


The self-interested person is not deficient by not sacrificing, but he may not hold any poltical power, whereas the person who has proven through service his willingness to sacrifice for the whole, is entitled to political power.

Sounds great; but how? You also might want to be clear about men/women. Are men the only people eligible for political power?

[Professor Moneybags]

2.There exist two planes[or levels] of human morality; state and individual. THis is so because in every human there is both a tendency for individuality and communal existance.

This sounds like you are suggesting that there are two codes of morality- one for the individual, one for the state. This is right after you claimed that morality is universal.


The state, being a representative and vanguard of the whole(humanity), is morally superior to the individual.

By what standard are we basing this ?


This can be demonstrated by examining the power to kill, and semantically, the difference between killing and murdering:

The state posesses the power to kill, while the individual may only kill with permission of the state, otherwise, his action is considered murder. Self-defense may at first seem to contradict this, but when one evokes that power of self-defense, it's to combat someone attempting to murder.

Sounds okay, but the state isn't doing that at the moment. At the moment, it is "retalliating" against people who haven't done anything to anyone.


Political power is power or influence over the whole(humanity), since humans are naturally self-interested, it is important that only those who have displayed an ability to sacrifice for the whole be able to wield political power.

...So they can start sacrificing other people ?

[The New State]

What of those who refuse to eat or use animal parts out of a sense of morality?

Those people are incorrect. No moral argument can be made in the defense of the use of another's property by its owner.


By what standard are we basing this ?

Its foundation lies in the human need for survival. While personal survival is important, the survival of the species is more important; hence my statement:

The state, being a representative and vanguard of the whole(humanity), is morally superior to the individual.


What does "self-gratification" entail? What about individual concern for the well-being of society?

The aquisition of wealth

an individual concerned for the well being society, given that he or she has proven it through service, is entitled to political power.


How can you judge such merit? Who is fit to judge?

There is no "judge" - if a person completes a stint of - military - service, that person has proven the ability to sacrifice for the whole.


I'm sorry I didn't get them all, but I'm writing a brain melting paper for school, and it is taking most of my time...I'll get the rest later! :)

[redstar2000]

TNS is a good illustration of the role of contingency in individual history.

Having made his way through Robert Heinlein's "fascist" novel, Starship Troopers, he would very much like to live in that imaginary society himself.

But had he instead read Heinlein's "hippy" novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, he would be telling us that we need to "grok" the joys of communal living.

Bad break, eh? :lol:

At least he didn't read Heinlein's "racist" novel, Farnham's Freehold...otherwise who knows what he'd be trying to post here now. :o

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 29 2004, 02:25 AM
Its foundation lies in the human need for survival. While personal survival is important, the survival of the species is more important; hence my statement:

The state, being a representative and vanguard of the whole(humanity), is morally superior to the individual.
What does "the whole" consist of, if not individual parts ? What you are advocating is pure collectivism, which is not a rational foundation for capitalism (if that is what you are trying to accomplish).

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by The New [email protected] 28 2004, 06:15 AM
1. Morality, or Moral code(use what you will), is universal, since humans are of the same species, and share a common nature that is constant.
You mean that human beings understand the concept of Morality? Not everyone has the same morals.

I don't have any.


- Moral Code only applies to humans, hence, there is no moral obligation to animals normally consumed as food.

What do you mean by "applies." It doesn't apply to anything really, it's just subjective nonsense that you can either accept of reject.


-The state, being a representative and vanguard of the whole(humanity), is morally superior to the individual.

But it isn't representative of humanity. The majority of humanity either live in poverty and can't read and write or work for shit wages and long hours in the profit game.

Who represents them? The majority of statesmen are wealthy, privately educated and come from very wealthy families. They have never been in poverty and they have never been denied opportunities, and if they weren't rich to start with, they soon became rich, at which point the lack of private education becomes wholly unimportant.

How is that representative?

The State is only morally superior because we allow it to be.


The state possesses the power to kill, while the individual may only kill with permission of the state,

The state posses power because it has monopolised the power of the institutions it has created and set a standard which it forces us to accept. A standard that people do accept, without questioning it.


The state is organized force for the purpose of enforcing organization.

I agree. But what isn't defined is why? The state does not enforce this organisation because it feels morally obliged.

Many times the State employs covert and overt methods of killing to murder innocent people for there own gain. Let' take the obvious - Iraq. But what about Carlos Guiliani who was shot by policemen at Genoa. What about the thousands of children in Africa who are malnutrition, or the victims of HIV who are not allowed to buy drugs that could help them, for vastly reduced prices.

Another example of organised force it uses is the displacement of the Peruvian settlers in the mountains of Peru who were forcibly rewmoved from their communities in order to benefit the liberalisation of their economy. That was this century. They were forced into the cities where many of them died from disease and poverty.

In Sheffield, where I am from, the City Council are forcing people in a certain area to leave their homes after decades of living there so that they can sit on the property to amass a profit. Then they can then be sold to a contractor for a higher price. If those people refuse to leave, the state will use violence to forcibly remove them. The police will break down their door and drag them out. If they defend their homes with weapons, they will be shot. All so the state can make money! How is that "morally" justified?

The state, directed by the ruling class will employ violence when ever it suits them and they do it to maintain control over society in order to continue to be a ruling class. Comfort in their knowledge that they will never be in poverty or have to worry about the things that the millions of people they "represent" around the world have to suffer daily.


The state should be interested in the realms of political and social order, the necessities of progress.

Progress and order for who?


Personal wealth, and individual aspirations are the sole property of the individual.

Delusional fantasies and lies forced on us by a ruling class. "If we work hard, we can be just like them." The vast majority of people are never able to achieve it. I wonder why?


since humans are naturally self-interested,

Can you prove that?


only those who have displayed an ability to sacrifice for the whole be able to wield political power.

Why are you obsessed with this word "power". Why does power have to exist at all? Decisions are best made collectively.

[Professor Moneybags]

Not everyone has the same morals.

I don't have any.

So I've noticed.


What do you mean by "applies." It doesn't apply to anything really, it's just subjective nonsense that you can either accept of reject.

Then what right have you to reject capitalism or any morality that supports it ?


The state, directed by the ruling class will employ violence when ever it suits them and they do it to maintain control over society in order to continue to be a ruling class. Comfort in their knowledge that they will never be in poverty or have to worry about the things that the millions of people they "represent" around the world have to suffer daily.

If you have no morality, then why is this paragraph, as well as the ones preceeding it, full of moral judgements ?



since humans are naturally self-interested,

Can you prove that?

The fact that you haven't given away all of your organs to those who need them, given away all of your food to the starving, given all of your property to the poor etc. In other words, the fact that you are still alive.

[Osman Ghazi]

But had he instead read Heinlein's "hippy" novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, he would be telling us that we need to "grok" the joys of communal living.


Great book. I wish I was from Mars.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 30 2004, 12:46 PM
Then what right have you to reject capitalism or any morality that supports it ?
Because it's illogical.


If you have no morality, then why is this paragraph, as well as the ones preceeding it, full of moral judgements ?

I wasn't judging anyone.

Let's say that George Bush, Tony Blair, the Queen of Denmark, Rupert Murdoch, a child from the Mozambican bush, a housewife in an American suburb, a factory worker and a doctor and are all stood in a room.

In turn, privatly you ask them one question "Do you want to starve?" What would the answer be?

Let's make it a little different then. Let's say you put the entire population of the sane world into a big ass room and we asked them all "Do you want to starve?" What would the answer be?

Morality does not exist. It isn't real, in the sense that it isn't an infalable directive for existence. There aren't very many things which are, or at all. One thing that we can make infalable is our collective desire to be clothed, housed, fed, warm and given equal opportunities.

Each human being is born relativly equal. What I mean is, each born person has, generally, the same genetic make up. Legs, arms, head, brain, eyes, ears. There are variations of course, but as a general human being, nobody is unequal. If you then take every individual, in there most real, vulnrable state and ask them "do you want to starve" - "what do you desire" - The answers will be the same.

Why then are there inequalities? There's no logical reason why there should be. It isn't a question of morality, its a question of you justifying yourself.


The fact that you haven't given away all of your organs to those who need them, given away all of your food to the starving, given all of your property to the poor etc. In other words, the fact that you are still alive.

Staying alive is not really a selfish act! It's pretty pathetic really. Grasping onto such an absurd thing for the sake of being absurd.

Regardless of that, not giving your organs away is not evidence to prove that humans are naturally selfish.

[Invader Zim]

What you are advocating is pure collectivism, which is not a rational foundation for capitalism (if that is what you are trying to accomplish).


Your right its not, the only real foundation for capitalism is a state which follows a Laissez-Faire attitude to buisness and industry. An attitude more over which has failed, utterly failed.

So in conclusion there is no foundation for capitalism, the nearest you will ever get is weak mix of state controlled saftey measures, with complex restrictions on buisness to stop them buggering it up yet again.

Capitalism goes against human nature, it relies on honest competition, when people are in competition they are rarley honest, and never competative. They would rather cheat and improve the odds than actually compete fairly on a level playing field. There is no basis for capitalism, it is a policy of abject failure.

[Professor Moneybags]

Because it's illogical.

Riiight, now why is it illogical ?


I wasn't judging anyone.


Many times the State employs covert and overt methods of killing to murder innocent people for there own gain.

You suggest that murdering innocent people is wrong. That is a moral judgement.


Let' take the obvious - Iraq. But what about Carlos Guiliani who was shot by policemen at Genoa. What about the thousands of children in Africa who are malnutrition, or the victims of HIV who are not allowed to buy drugs that could help them, for vastly reduced prices.

This time, you have judged that people's lives are more important than "mere" property rights. This is another moral judgement, right or wrong.


Let's say that George Bush, Tony Blair, the Queen of Denmark, Rupert Murdoch, a child from the Mozambican bush, a housewife in an American suburb, a factory worker and a doctor and are all stood in a room.

In turn, privatly you ask them one question "Do you want to starve?" What would the answer be?

What has this got to do with anything ? (See below)


Let's make it a little different then. Let's say you put the entire population of the sane world into a big ass room and we asked them all "Do you want to starve?" What would the answer be?

Or better : Do you want to spend the rest of your life being forced to provide food for the starving ? What do you think the answer would be ?


Morality does not exist. It isn't real, in the sense that it isn't an infalable directive for existence.

I once saw a "morality test" written by some Harvard professor or something asking if it was right or wrong to steal a drug if it saved his wife. Apart from the fact that it was based upon Kantian ethics (which I don't agree with) and floating abstractions, this an incorrect application for morality. Morality is not for emergenices, it is for everyday living.


Each human being is born relativly equal. What I mean is, each born person has, generally, the same genetic make up. Legs, arms, head, brain, eyes, ears. There are variations of course, but as a general human being, nobody is unequal. If you then take every individual, in there most real, vulnrable state and ask them "do you want to starve" - "what do you desire" - The answers will be the same.

This is irrelevent. Reality isn't based on people's wishing and it is reality that we must all abide by if we want to go on living.


Why then are there inequalities? There's no logical reason why there should be. It isn't a question of morality, its a question of you justifying yourself.

If there is no morality, then why the need to justify one's self and to whom ?


Staying alive is not really a selfish act! It's pretty pathetic really. Grasping onto such an absurd thing for the sake of being absurd.

Of course it is. By not doing so you're claiming your life to be more important than that of the starving, those in need of organ donors etc. That is selfish. Rationally so.

[Professor Moneybags]

Your right its not, the only real foundation for capitalism is a state which follows a Laissez-Faire attitude to buisness and industry.

That is putting the cart before the horse. Try individual rights first.


An attitude more over which has failed, utterly failed.

On what basis are we judging this failiure ?


Capitalism goes against human nature,

In what way ? It sounds like you are trying to proclaim humans to be inherently dishonest and evil. In which case, why do you believe communism is possible ?


it relies on honest competition, when people are in competition they are rarley honest, and never competative. They would rather cheat and improve the odds than actually compete fairly on a level playing field.

Cheat in what way ? What mechanisms/laws are in place that allow them to cheat ?


There is no basis for capitalism, it is a policy of abject failure.

Again, what basis are we judging this on ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 1 2004, 11:52 AM
Riiight, now why is it illogical ?
Because it creates inequalities which aren't justifiable. It is against rational thinking to create poverty.


You suggest that murdering innocent people is wrong.

No, unjustified. You cannot logical justify the killing of an innocent person.


This time, you have judged that people's lives are more important than "mere" property rights. This is another moral judgement, right or wrong.

Well they are. How can you rationally argue otherwise. You call it a moral judgment, I call it logic. Someone's existence outweighs your property.


What has this got to do with anything ? (See below)

My point is no one is different or above a common set of logical justifications for existence. Regardless of how much property or power you have there is a common set of facts which should govern our lives, in the place of morality, which is nothing but subjective concepts, interpreted how ever people want.

Do you want to starve? No. Ask anyone that question and they will tell you the same answer. Why then are there people starving? Do you want to be ejected from the home you love? No. Then why does it happen?

It maybe immoral for you to starve someone, but then again, it might not be. This makes morality worthless as a concept to governing our lives. However, regardless of your moral interpretation of a situation there is an underlying fact to how we should behave. Simply, do not do what you would not have done to yourself. It's logical and invariable. Morality isn't.

Imagine if the world was like that?


Or better : Do you want to spend the rest of your life being forced to provide food for the starving ? What do you think the answer would be

Who said anything about forcing anyone to provide food for the starving? All it requires is the destruction of capitalism and it's subjective chains on humanity and the equalisation of existence will happen.


This is irrelevent. Reality isn't based on people's wishing and it is reality that we must all abide by if we want to go on living.

It isn't a question of wishing.

No one has the justification to purposely create poverty, starvation, war and disease, not for profit, property or the "war on terrorism."

We do live in reality and hopefully people will begin to realise what that actually is.


If there is no morality, then why the need to justify one's self and to whom ?

You justify yourself by yourself to yourself. Morality is like asking the question; "do you like the taste of fish?" Justifying yourself by yourself to yourself is like asking; "what is 2+2?"

The first question is variable, the second question is not.


Of course it is.

Staying alive is an instinct.


By not doing so you're claiming your life to be more important than that of the starving

No! Your actions claim that. We can all be alive, but some people can stay alive more than others.

It's what you do to equalise existence for everyone which is how your measure selfishness.

You cannot blame an animal for being an animal.


those in need of organ donors etc. That is selfish

But you get people who do actually give their organs. Kidneys for example.

Giving your heart to someone who needs it does not equalise existence. Everyone needs a heart and therefore no one is in more need than anyone else.


Rationally so.

Not really.

[che's long lost daughter]

Morality is fundamental to all or as you said, universal but not all people consider the same thing as moral.


Pffft, i hope i made some sense.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by che's long lost [email protected] 1 2004, 05:58 PM
not all people consider the same thing as moral.
Therefore it isn't universal.

[che's long lost daughter]

When I said morality is universal to all, what I meant is that every person has a sense of morality in them, if you base it on the definition of morality as knowing what is right or wrong. The thing is, people do not think of the same things as right or wrong.

[Professor Moneybags]

Because it creates inequalities which aren't justifiable. It is against rational thinking to create poverty.

Inequality doesn't create poverty.


Well they are. How can you rationally argue otherwise.

Because my property is mine. I earned it with my labour. They didn't. To argue otherwise is to adopt the morality of the burglar/armed robber/rapist.


You call it a moral judgment, I call it logic. Someone's existence outweighs your property.

So was a moral judgement after all.


My point is no one is different or above a common set of logical justifications for existence. Regardless of how much property or power you have there is a common set of facts which should govern our lives, in the place of morality, which is nothing but subjective concepts, interpreted how ever people want.

I beg to differ. Morals are not subjective any more than reality is subjective.


Do you want to starve? No.

Reality doesn't care what you "want".


Ask anyone that question and they will tell you the same answer. Why then are there people starving? Do you want to be ejected from the home you love? No. Then why does it happen?

This is rather big leap in logic. You've gone from people starving to people being ejected from homes. Ejecting someone from their house (assuming they owned it) is a violation of property rights, which you don't seem to care much about anyway, seeing as you think that people have the right to confiscate other's property/money in other to provide themselves/others with food.


It maybe immoral for you to starve someone, but then again, it might not be. This makes morality worthless as a concept to governing our lives.

This is a tautology.


However, regardless of your moral interpretation of a situation there is an underlying fact to how we should behave. Simply, do not do what you would not have done to yourself. It's logical and invariable. Morality isn't.

A correct code of morality is too. Most of what gets called a moral has no basis in reality.


Who said anything about forcing anyone to provide food for the starving?

This is the fact you and everyone else here evades.

"Someone's existence outweighs your property" means that my property can be confiscated in order to provide others with food. This means that force will be applied to me if I refuse to hand it over. In other words, I'm being forced to provide food for the starving. i.e. I become a slave.


It isn't a question of wishing.

No one has the justification to purposely create poverty, starvation, war and disease, not for profit, property or the "war on terrorism."

How is this causing poverty and starvation ?


No! Your actions claim that. We can all be alive, but some people can stay alive more than others.

How terrible ! Are you going to redistribute intelligence and common sense after the revolution too ? You ignore cause and effect.


You cannot blame an animal for being an animal.

I completely and utterly agree.

However, man not like other animals. To survive, he must act by reason and reason demands that he refrain from initiating the use of force against other men. To initiate force (demand the unearned by force) is the desire to live at the level of a lower animal, which have no rights.


But you get people who do actually give their organs. Kidneys for example.

Giving your heart to someone who needs it does not equalise existence. Everyone needs a heart and therefore no one is in more need than anyone else.

Why is the equalisation of existence "good" (again, this suggests a moral standard) ? Who is it good for and why ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 3 2004, 07:21 PM
Inequality doesn't create poverty.
It contributes.


Because my property is mine. I earned it with my labour. They didn't. To argue otherwise is to adopt the morality of the burglar/armed robber/rapist.

I'm not talking about taking away your house, or your car, or you oven, TV or CD player.


So was a moral judgement after all.

If that's what you call it.


Reality doesn't care what you "want".

You're talking no sense?


This is rather big leap in logic. You've gone from people starving to people being ejected from homes. Ejecting someone from their house (assuming they owned it) is a violation of property rights, which you don't seem to care much about anyway, seeing as you think that people have the right to confiscate other's property/money in other to provide themselves/others with food.

No I don't.


A correct code of morality is too. Most of what gets called a moral has no basis in reality.

What's your point?


"Someone's existence outweighs your property" means that my property can be confiscated in order to provide others with food. This means that force will be applied to me if I refuse to hand it over. In other words, I'm being forced to provide food for the starving. i.e. I become a slave.

No one is talking about your fucking house or your food.


How is this causing poverty and starvation ?

How is what causing poverty and starvation?


How terrible ! Are you going to redistribute intelligence and common sense after the revolution too ?

What are you arguing? You're making absolutly little sense what so ever. Allowing someone not to starve has absolutly no comparison with intelligence.


You ignore cause and effect.

So if you don't make/earn your food you should go without?


To survive, he must act by reason and reason demands that he refrain from initiating the use of force against other men.

Not in the case of self-defence and It hink stopping yourself from starving is an act of self-defence.


Why is the equalisation of existence "good"

Why does 2+2 = four?

It's logical. And it's logical because we as humans make it logical. Otherwise you would have variation on the question, "would you like to starve?"


Who is it good for and why ?

It's an irrelevant question.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
Inequality doesn't create poverty.

Odd. I thought the 'boilerplate" capitalist argument was something along the lines of "because people are unequal, some will work harder and become wealthier than others".

If the inequality of strength and skill does not "create poverty", then what does?

Divine intervention? The laws of chance?

(The latter was Engels' choice, by the way.)


Because my property is mine. I earned it with my labour.

Ok, how about we just take the part that you inherited? A 100% inheritance tax...! Are you "ok" with that one?

Why not? :lol:


Morals are not subjective any more than reality is subjective.

Another strange statement. We agree that reality is objective. But what is there in objective reality from which "moral conclusions" can legitimately and rationally be drawn?

Most humans most of the time appear to spontaneously embrace what is called the "tit for tat" strategy in game theory -- you are "nice" to someone else in the hope that they will be "nice" to you in return...but if they are "nasty" to you, then you are "nasty" to them. According to some, there are "evolutionary advantages" to this strategy: people who are always "nice" are taken advantage of, die young, without offspring -- and people who are always "nasty" make many enemies, get killed at an early age, also without offspring.

I don't really know if this is "true" or not -- but it would serve as an objective basis for TAT's formula: "don't do to other people what you would not like them to do to you".

I have no idea what the objective basis of your "morality" could possibly be: where did you get the idea that the unlimited accumulation of wealth and property is "morally sanctioned" by objective reality? Certainly not from any animal studies that have ever come to my attention.

Some animals do store food for consumption during the winter months -- and if a squirrel could speak, I'm sure he'd protest vigorously if some "lazy, shiftless" squirrel tried to appropriate his food.

But there are no squirrels that store food for a thousand winters!

Let's say that a comfortable "middle-class" living in America costs $50,000 a year. Assuming that Bill Gates' personal fortune is now around $50 billion, how long will he have to live to consume just what he has now?

One million years!

Would it really be a "moral outrage" to deprive him of all these "nuts" that he can never eat? Especially considering all the squirrels who have nothing at all.


Are you going to redistribute intelligence and common sense after the revolution too ?

This, intended as hyperbole, actually does have a basis in objective reality...at least potentially.

If everyone were well-nourished, for example, then the poor brain development caused by malnutrition would not exist. Intelligence and common sense would be "redistributed".

If access to quality education were available to all, then some present-day ignoramuses would not be ignoramuses.

If superstition were eliminated from public life, then a great many people presently handicapped by such "mental chains" would not be handicapped.

And so on.


Why is the equalisation of existence "good"...? Who is it good for and why?

It is good for the human species, of course. Any wide-spread change for the better in human living conditions promotes "nice behavior" and inhibits "nasty behavior"...which in turn promotes our survival as a species.

Greater equality is a change for the better for most humans and a change for the worse for only a few humans...thus resulting in a large increase in "nice" behavior and a sharp decrease in "nasty" behavior.

Naturally those deprived of their fortunes will try to be as "nasty" as they can (which is really saying something since most of them are pretty "nasty" now)...but they are but a small part of humanity and would be no loss if they entirely disappeared from the surface of the planet.

Perhaps you should re-think your "morals" in the light of objective reality.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)

A site about communist ideas

[Professor Moneybags]

If the inequality of strength and skill does not "create poverty", then what does?

Divine intervention? The laws of chance?

Still believe in static economic models I see.


Ok, how about we just take the part that you inherited? A 100% inheritance tax...! Are you "ok" with that one?

That would be....none.


But what is there in objective reality from which "moral conclusions" can legitimately and rationally be drawn?

How about fact and logic. We can know those, so we can come up with a moral code based upon them.


I have no idea what the objective basis of your "morality" could possibly be: where did you get the idea that the unlimited accumulation of wealth and property is "morally sanctioned" by objective reality?

The fact that it is earned and created by the owner. That is talking in the context of LFC, though. Where did you get the idea that stealing it was a moral ideal ?


Certainly not from any animal studies that have ever come to my attention.

We're not wild animals. We (well, I) do actually have something they don't. It's called a rational faculty, which gives the ability to integrate knowledge and think conceptually.


Some animals do store food for consumption during the winter months -- and if a squirrel could speak, I'm sure he'd protest vigorously if some "lazy, shiftless" squirrel tried to appropriate his food.

Strange. This is precisely what you are advocating for humans; an equal share for all regardless of what they have or haven't done.


Let's say that a comfortable "middle-class" living in America costs $50,000 a year. Assuming that Bill Gates' personal fortune is now around $50 billion, how long will he have to live to consume just what he has now?

Does it matter ? What do you "need" beyond an animal skin and a wooden club ?


Would it really be a "moral outrage" to deprive him of all these "nuts" that he can never eat? Especially considering all the squirrels who have nothing at all.

Yes, it would. That's still stealing, regardless of the quantity.


This, intended as hyperbole, actually does have a basis in objective reality...at least potentially.

If everyone were well-nourished, for example, then the poor brain development caused by malnutrition would not exist. Intelligence and common sense would be "redistributed".

At whose expense ? Will you be asking their permission ? I doubt it.


If access to quality education were available to all, then some present-day ignoramuses would not be ignoramuses.

That is debatable.


It is good for the human species, of course. Any wide-spread change for the better in human living conditions promotes "nice behavior" and inhibits "nasty behavior"...which in turn promotes our survival as a species.

It is not good to be looted, which in itself is "nasty behaviour", regardless of the number of beneficiaries.


Greater equality is a change for the better for most humans and a change for the worse for only a few humans...thus resulting in a large increase in "nice" behavior and a sharp decrease in "nasty" behavior.

See above. Those are the morals of the social metaphysician.


Perhaps you should re-think your "morals" in the light of objective reality.

They already have been. Objective reality isn't democratic; it isn't a question of how many people benefit from a particular action, but how.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
What do you "need" beyond an animal skin and a wooden club?

I see...castles and mansions for the few and "animal skins" and "clubs" for all the rest.

That's quite a "moral vision", all right. :lol:


Objective reality isn't democratic...

Well it isn't now...and I suppose you have dedicated your life to making damn sure it never will be.

How "moral" of you. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The fact that it is earned and created by the owner.

Funny, I've worked in my share of establishments, and I've never seen the owner come down and do a single minute's worth of creating wealth.