4 ms·

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity, so there

by tks2103 13y ago

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity, so there is always some percentage of a person's success derived from society. Society lowers the cost of innovation far more than any perceived hurdles it may place in front of people, in all but the most extreme cases (like Syria maybe?). So, what do you mean?

snitko 13y ago
> You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity You can? A lot of people became successful without roads or electricity in the past. Actually, I'm pretty sure those who built roads or invented electricity became successful without those things. Then others paid them to use their invention and that paved way to their success. Of course everyone's success depends on many things that were built before. But to claim that only a government can build those things and therefore you are forever indebted to the society as a whole is just plain wrong. Are you willing to pay Apple for the rest of your life because it invented the modern smartphone?
- tks2103 13y ago
  What? I'm willing to pay Apple for a smartphone. Why would I pay them for life? Even if I did pay them for life, what would that have to do with anything? Nowadays, everyone uses roads. If you claim today that you are a self-made person that doesn't owe anything to anyone, I could just point out that roads exist and without them you would not be successful. I guess Genghis Khan was pretty successful without roads, but what does that have to do with anything? Right now, other people make things that allow individuals to succeed. Right now, if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Edit: And therefore, the idea of a rich man who made his money 'honestly' is too simple to be useful in any framework that manages a modern society. The definition of 'honest' is missing.
  - Glide 13y ago
    One could argue that Ghengis Khan had to owe a part of his success to the culture he grew up in and the ability to use combined arms. We do have a way of rewarding innovators: patents and copyrights. Now, those systems have been abused from everywhere to Texas, but it can be reformed. At least I would like to think so. What I don't get is why people just don't look at the labor side of this argument. A wealthy person certainly didn't create a work force and educate them. He didn't provide them with a stability and other basic needs. Even at a more basic level where do all the consumers come from? Don't they buy products based on their desires that are largely due to society as well? I really do think we find ourselves in an economic "web of life." I don't like the idea of framing it as honest and dishonest either. I would much rather make sure that the wealthy don't have too much leverage overs others in society. An example I would give is how credit card companies have basically pushed the risks out to merchants. Yes combat fraud. Also push for chip and pin in the states so that less of it occurs and figure out something with online purchases. To a lesser extent we have taken steps when we recognize this imbalance. Cigarette companies can no longer market to minors. Young minds being the most impressionable ones.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I'm trying to say here that government is not the only possible provider of things it currently monopolistically provides. If you claim everyone uses roads therefore everyone should pay taxes to keep those roads well maintained I'd say you're only partially right. Government, for the most part, keeps private companies away from owning roads. If there was no government, do you think there would be no roads? Of course there would! And people would be willing to pay for using them. Except that those who use roads once a week wouldn't subsidize those who use them every day. > if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else No, I don't claim that. What I claim is that I would like to know exactly who those people are. If I use a road to deliver what my company produces, I would like to pay for this road before I actually use it. Now my business may fail, or it may succeed, but the owner of the road gets paid. I don't owe anyone more than they asked me to pay at that moment in time. Nor do they. I think that's fair. Don't you?
    - 13y ago
- nzp 13y ago
  > But to claim that only a government can build those things and therefore you are forever indebted to the society as a whole is just plain wrong. It is wrong because it doesn't make sense, but I don't think tks2103 equated government and society (am I wrong?). Are you equating them? Government does not represent society in any meaningful way. Almost always it's a foreign body on society.
  - tks2103 13y ago
    No, I am not equating government and society. I am questioning the simplistic view that a person can exist today and succeed independent of the society they grew up in. What do you mean government is a foreign body on society? Society is made of people, and people usually make up governments.
    - nzp 13y ago
      > No, I am not equating government and society. I am questioning the simplistic view that a person can exist today and succeed independent of the society they grew up in. Then we are in complete agreement on that. I was pretty sure you didn't equate them, but asked because snitko made it seem like you did. I assumed he just read that into what you wrote, but better to check. > What do you mean government is a foreign body on society? Society is made of people, and people usually make up governments. Governments are generally not there to benefit society, but to impose the will of those in power on it. You can, of course, cite many philosophical speculations that it isn't so, but the reality doesn't support those speculations. Almost all good any government has done for the people who are not in power was fought for by those not in power, or is simply a preemptive scheme to calm down the masses.

by tks2103 13y ago

snitko 13y ago

> You can easily say that no one would be successful without roads or electricity You can? A lot of people became successful without roads or electricity in the past. Actually, I'm pretty sure those who built roads or invented electricity became successful without those things. Then others paid them to use their invention and that paved way to their success. Of course everyone's success depends on many things that were built before. But to claim that only a government can build those things and therefore you are forever indebted to the society as a whole is just plain wrong. Are you willing to pay Apple for the rest of your life because it invented the modern smartphone?

tks2103 13y ago
What? I'm willing to pay Apple for a smartphone. Why would I pay them for life? Even if I did pay them for life, what would that have to do with anything? Nowadays, everyone uses roads. If you claim today that you are a self-made person that doesn't owe anything to anyone, I could just point out that roads exist and without them you would not be successful. I guess Genghis Khan was pretty successful without roads, but what does that have to do with anything? Right now, other people make things that allow individuals to succeed. Right now, if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Edit: And therefore, the idea of a rich man who made his money 'honestly' is too simple to be useful in any framework that manages a modern society. The definition of 'honest' is missing.
- Glide 13y ago
  One could argue that Ghengis Khan had to owe a part of his success to the culture he grew up in and the ability to use combined arms. We do have a way of rewarding innovators: patents and copyrights. Now, those systems have been abused from everywhere to Texas, but it can be reformed. At least I would like to think so. What I don't get is why people just don't look at the labor side of this argument. A wealthy person certainly didn't create a work force and educate them. He didn't provide them with a stability and other basic needs. Even at a more basic level where do all the consumers come from? Don't they buy products based on their desires that are largely due to society as well? I really do think we find ourselves in an economic "web of life." I don't like the idea of framing it as honest and dishonest either. I would much rather make sure that the wealthy don't have too much leverage overs others in society. An example I would give is how credit card companies have basically pushed the risks out to merchants. Yes combat fraud. Also push for chip and pin in the states so that less of it occurs and figure out something with online purchases. To a lesser extent we have taken steps when we recognize this imbalance. Cigarette companies can no longer market to minors. Young minds being the most impressionable ones.
- snitko 13y ago
  I'm trying to say here that government is not the only possible provider of things it currently monopolistically provides. If you claim everyone uses roads therefore everyone should pay taxes to keep those roads well maintained I'd say you're only partially right. Government, for the most part, keeps private companies away from owning roads. If there was no government, do you think there would be no roads? Of course there would! And people would be willing to pay for using them. Except that those who use roads once a week wouldn't subsidize those who use them every day. > if you succeed and claim other people did not have anything to do with it, you are lying to yourself and everyone else No, I don't claim that. What I claim is that I would like to know exactly who those people are. If I use a road to deliver what my company produces, I would like to pay for this road before I actually use it. Now my business may fail, or it may succeed, but the owner of the road gets paid. I don't owe anyone more than they asked me to pay at that moment in time. Nor do they. I think that's fair. Don't you?
  - 13y ago
nzp 13y ago
> But to claim that only a government can build those things and therefore you are forever indebted to the society as a whole is just plain wrong. It is wrong because it doesn't make sense, but I don't think tks2103 equated government and society (am I wrong?). Are you equating them? Government does not represent society in any meaningful way. Almost always it's a foreign body on society.
- tks2103 13y ago
  No, I am not equating government and society. I am questioning the simplistic view that a person can exist today and succeed independent of the society they grew up in. What do you mean government is a foreign body on society? Society is made of people, and people usually make up governments.
  - nzp 13y ago
    > No, I am not equating government and society. I am questioning the simplistic view that a person can exist today and succeed independent of the society they grew up in. Then we are in complete agreement on that. I was pretty sure you didn't equate them, but asked because snitko made it seem like you did. I assumed he just read that into what you wrote, but better to check. > What do you mean government is a foreign body on society? Society is made of people, and people usually make up governments. Governments are generally not there to benefit society, but to impose the will of those in power on it. You can, of course, cite many philosophical speculations that it isn't so, but the reality doesn't support those speculations. Almost all good any government has done for the people who are not in power was fought for by those not in power, or is simply a preemptive scheme to calm down the masses.