4 ms·

I accept your premise but reject your conclusion. Rather than claiming that the problem is an interdependent society and the solution is every man/woman for him

by lowkey 14y ago

I accept your premise but reject your conclusion. Rather than claiming that the problem is an interdependent society and the solution is every man/woman for him/herself consider the following quote by Thomas Paine (a liberty-minded founding father of the United States) "Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally. Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." I used to be a fierce Libertarian and then I realized that Ayn Rand's Objectivist utopia ALREADY exists in Somalia and Sudan and many other nations in the world - none of which I would call civilized. Now if you were to call out the massive corruption in the current system as the root cause, I would jump to your defense.

kamaal 14y ago
The only problem is gains from "effect of society" is benefited by everybody. But not every body contributes their equal share. That is where the problem begins. When a part of the society just refuses to contribute their share, but still expects that other absolutely must. You can't really justify contributing to "effect of the society". Its difficult to understand why one should pay for economic troubles of HF traders, especially when they are known to cheat on taxes, when they take 0 responsibilities for their actions and above all don't add any value. A man definitely benefits a lot from the collective contributions of the society. But those benefits apply equally to everybody, yet please note not every one achieves the same things in life as everybody else. There fore to now say the sum total of a man's accomplishments is all due to society is wrong. That is why a man contributes back only as much as what he benefited. Therefore, take responsibilities for both your successes and failures. Applies not just to individual but to every other entity like corporations and banks. Its difficult to understand why a common man should bail out a bank. While the common man has already contributed his fair share of taxes. If I make a mistake or do well. I take responsibility for both my successes and failures. So should banks and corporations. Both should contribute their share of taxes. But you almost always see, that the rich and powerful cheat yet benefit from the taxes contributed by everybody else. Same with the poor. Yet the middle class is always expected to pay up for every body Else's party.
tzs 14y ago
Benjamin Franklin on property is also interesting: -------------- All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. --------------

by lowkey 14y ago

kamaal 14y ago

The only problem is gains from "effect of society" is benefited by everybody. But not every body contributes their equal share. That is where the problem begins. When a part of the society just refuses to contribute their share, but still expects that other absolutely must. You can't really justify contributing to "effect of the society". Its difficult to understand why one should pay for economic troubles of HF traders, especially when they are known to cheat on taxes, when they take 0 responsibilities for their actions and above all don't add any value. A man definitely benefits a lot from the collective contributions of the society. But those benefits apply equally to everybody, yet please note not every one achieves the same things in life as everybody else. There fore to now say the sum total of a man's accomplishments is all due to society is wrong. That is why a man contributes back only as much as what he benefited. Therefore, take responsibilities for both your successes and failures. Applies not just to individual but to every other entity like corporations and banks. Its difficult to understand why a common man should bail out a bank. While the common man has already contributed his fair share of taxes. If I make a mistake or do well. I take responsibility for both my successes and failures. So should banks and corporations. Both should contribute their share of taxes. But you almost always see, that the rich and powerful cheat yet benefit from the taxes contributed by everybody else. Same with the poor. Yet the middle class is always expected to pay up for every body Else's party.

tzs 14y ago

Benjamin Franklin on property is also interesting: -------------- All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it. --------------