Prosperity should appeal to everyone. --- Mr. KimDictionary.com defines prosperity: 1. a successful, flourishing, or thriving condition, especially in financial respects; good fortune.
True. By definition, being prosperous is good. How individuals define prosperity might be different.
Any compassionate person would wish prosperity for all. The question is the means toward that prosperity. And what is the cost in terms of money and freedom?
I doubt it will be from taking from the rich and giving to the poor. --- Mr. KimBoth statements are biased. And each in a different direction. I question who has the right to make giving to charity a law.
Is ‘taking from the rich and giving to poor’ different from ‘redistributing resources more equitably among all peoples’?
Are we talking opportunity or assets? --- Mr. Kim
Assets equal resources. Access to resource is opportunity. The absence of resource is lack of opportunity.
Equality of opportunity infers better access to education, health care, fresh air and water, etc. for all. --- Mr. KimThe advantage of improving resources is that then everyone's assets can grow. Who should be the one doing this? Who can best do this? Who knows best what the individual needs?
Education, health care, fresh air and water are resources. Access to resource is opportunity. Equality of opportunity is Equality of ‘resource’. Resource equals assets.
I can't think of communist/socialist societies that have provided prosperity and equality of opportunity. So I'll say that Karl Marx is not good. --- Mr. KimI think the division of labor and the free market have contributed greatly to peace and goodwill. Not necessarily "intentional" goodwill, but knowing that you need your neighbor for your survival encourages you to treat her well.
I can’t think of any society were there is peace and goodwill toward all beings. Does that mean Buddha is not good?
Kennedy had it wrong when he said, "...ask what you can do for your country." --- Mr. KimHe should have said, "ask what your country can do for you." That is the basis by which many people will vote. I like better Abe Lincoln's "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." The cumulative effect should be awesome of everyone voting for a president that would make them more prosperous. Wouldn't everyone become more prosperous and therefore the country would be more prosperous? And prosperous in the way that people want to be prosperous. There is a "virtue to selfishness" as Ayn Ryan's book indicated.
Because he should have said . . .
2 comments:
The question is the means toward that prosperity. And what is the cost in terms of money and freedom?
First one must define prosperity (on an individual level) and then one can think about cost benefit annalists.
I question who has the right to make giving to charity a law. --- Mr. Kim
So now we have ‘stealing from the rich to give to the poor’, ‘redistributing resources more equitably’, and ‘laws forcing one to be charitable’. Semantic games are fun. What if you didn’t call it ‘laws forcing one to be charitable’ but called it ‘laws ensuring one doesn’t hoard all the resources from others without resources’?
He should have said, "ask what your country can do for you." --- Mr. Kim
I think there is a tasteless welfare-queen joke in that statement somewhere.
There is a "virtue to selfishness" --- Mr. Kim
I am certain every selfish person would agree. And there is selfishness and then there is SELFISHNESS. When does the hoarding of resource become problematic for lots of people?
The advantage of improving resources is that then everyone's assets can grow. --- Mr. Kim
One might view money as an asset and health care as a resource, but you buy health care with money. They are one in the same to me. So. . . I really don’t get how they are separate things. I really think this goes back to the idea of how one individually defines ‘prosperity’. Is ‘prosperity’ just more money, or is it more money set aside to improve resources, or is it limiting interest rates at places like Check-into-Cash so that there are less ‘predatory loans’ given to the people in your community?
I think the division of labor and the free market have contributed greatly to peace and goodwill. --- Mr. Kim
Maybe. . . But one might argue that a free market and division of labor have contributed to wars or other bad things. How does one prove it one way or the other?
Not necessarily "intentional" goodwill, but knowing that you need your neighbor for your survival encourages you to treat her well. --- Mr. Kim
And this is different from a communist/socialist society because. . .
Whew! H.
Post a Comment