This sums it up well. - page 8. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Jutarul

donator

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on May 31, 2013, 08:54:22 PM

Quote from: Jutarul on May 31, 2013, 08:35:41 PM

Too much of a simplification. It doesn't discuss how the coat came into existence.

Someone used a machine they owned, and thread and cloth that they owned, to make a coat. The man then bought the coat from that person (apparently as part of a suit, since it matches his pants).

That's exactly one way it can happen. But things are much more complicated in society.
E.g. imagine another scenario where the guy with the coat made blankets impractical. Now assume the guy who's freezing only had a blanket and no coat.

That said, I sympathize with what the picture tries to point out: taking away property from someone, in order to give it to somebody else, is an act of force - and that is at odds with our understanding of liberty.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on May 31, 2013, 09:17:53 PM

Quote from: oakpacific on May 31, 2013, 09:03:45 PM

Who should be in a place to judge if I accumulate my wealth morally? The majority? They used to believe being a Jewish is immoral.

Yeah, deciding laws by majority decision is stupid. It's better to have a simple principle, that everyone can agree on, like, say, "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud on another person or their property," and let people choose what other additional rules, if any, they want to live under, and who they would like to enforce those rules.

Taxation is not even law, it's retroactive. The law only say things like:" We decide that to get people to work more than 8 hours per day is detrimental to their health so from now on you can't do that anymore or you will get fined" I am OK with such things. But taxation will say instead:"We made the decision that for the last 20 years you have been treating your workers in a totally wrong way, so x% of your wealth will be immediately confiscated to compensate them, and sorry for not having told your earlier!" And I am not even talking about the"if you are rich you must have exploited your workers" taxes

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FinShaggy on May 31, 2013, 09:24:59 PM

We'll give the kids a coat (Education system)
Violent people or people who have been tricked get a coat (Military)
Politicians get coats (Public Service Salary)
Even Bankers get a coat (Bailouts)

But you're worried about the POOR guy getting a coat!?!?!??!?!?

Did you know most Wal Mart employees qualify for welfare? How bout you stop bitching at poor people, and tell Wal Mart to get THEIR employees off welfare. And they aren't the only ones.

Boy, you are just on a roll. If missing the point were an Olympic event, you would be a gold medalist, and probably world record holder.

We're not worried about the poor guy getting the coat. As you see in the first frame, the poor guy got a coat voluntarily. Do you not see the connection between the second and third frames?

FinShaggy

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Google/YouTube

We'll give the kids a coat (Education system)
Violent people or people who have been tricked get a coat (Military)
Politicians get coats (Public Service Salary)
Even Bankers get a coat (Bailouts)

But you're worried about the POOR guy getting a coat!?!?!??!?!?

Did you know most Wal Mart employees qualify for welfare? How bout you stop bitching at poor people, and tell Wal Mart to get THEIR employees off welfare. And they aren't the only ones.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Quote from: FinShaggy on May 31, 2013, 09:20:54 PM

That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.

It makes sense as-is. The man has a coat, possibly more coats at home, and he's being "relieved" of his coat for a man who doesn't have one. It's politics in its purest form: rob Peter to pay Paul.

FinShaggy

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Google/YouTube

That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: oakpacific on May 31, 2013, 09:03:45 PM

Who should be in a place to judge if I accumulate my wealth morally? The majority? They used to believe being a Jewish is immoral.

Yeah, deciding laws by majority decision is stupid. It's better to have a simple principle, that everyone can agree on, like, say, "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud on another person or their property," and let people choose what other additional rules, if any, they want to live under, and who they would like to enforce those rules.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Who should be in a place to judge if I accumulate my wealth morally? The majority? They used to believe being a Jewish is immoral.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Jutarul on May 31, 2013, 08:35:41 PM

Quote from: myrkul on May 30, 2013, 03:08:08 AM

pic OP

Too much of a simplification. It doesn't discuss how the coat came into existence.

Someone used a machine they owned, and thread and cloth that they owned, to make a coat. The man then bought the coat from that person (apparently as part of a suit, since it matches his pants).

Doesn't change the morality of any of the actions depicted.

Jutarul

donator

Activity: 994

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on May 30, 2013, 03:08:08 AM

pic OP

Too much of a simplification. It doesn't discuss how the coat came into existence.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Not to mention that now that you force me to give away my coat to a poor guy, I may feel it justified to not care about other poor guys out there anymore. So if big nanny handles everything well, cool. If she messes things up, don't bother with me.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: No 1 on May 31, 2013, 06:36:30 PM

The poor will depend on the system. No way around it when you're born in a mud hole and told you won't be shit EVER. Not saying this is always the case but I'm surely seen it with my own eyes.. Most people that start at the bottom stay there because:

1. their born into poverty
2. lack education
3. skill-less and unmotivated

The third being a direct effect of the previous.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man how to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a man a fish every day, he'll depend on your good graces to survive.

wachtwoord

legendary

Activity: 2324

Merit: 1125

Quote from: Lohoris on May 30, 2013, 11:03:29 AM

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

Abolish law?

No 1

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Ad Infinitum Et Ultra

The poor will depend on the system. No way around it when you're born in a mud hole and told you won't be shit EVER. Not saying this is always the case but I'm surely seen it with my own eyes.. Most people that start at the bottom stay there because:

1. their born into poverty
2. lack education
3. skill-less and unmotivated

The third being a direct effect of the previous.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: bitcryptonit on May 30, 2013, 11:01:44 AM

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

Well, that's a "problem" with the nature of reality. The more resources you have, the more options you have to increase those resources. Of course, that coin has an opposite side that hardly anyone ever actually looks at: The more resources you have, the easier it is to help your fellowman voluntarily. Think about it. Isn't it more likely that a man with 100 coats is going to hand over one without the gun in his face, than the man with only two?

That doesn't make stealing the coat from the man with 100 any better than stealing from the man with 2, and worse, it makes it counterproductive. It makes the man with 100 want to resist giving to the man with no coat, because it's being done by force.

deadweasel

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: bitcryptonit on May 30, 2013, 11:01:44 AM

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

Why is that a problem?

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: bitcryptonit on May 30, 2013, 11:01:44 AM

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

the problem in capitalism is that if you have more money it is easier to make more money, while if you have to start from scratch you're doomed.

also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.

bitcryptonit

member

Activity: 93

Merit: 10

the problem in capitalism is that when you have big amounts of money its way easier to earn for a living than having none or little. and much more options.

Mike Christ

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

If I'm rich enough to own more than one coat, I should be entitled to my coats. I could have a hundred coats and it wouldn't matter; they're my coats, and I'll burn them if I wanted to. Forcing me to be generous is not the way to go. Force at all is not the way to go, and welfare, as is the case in all of politics, is just a band-aid on the actual issue at hand, being, a disproportionate amount of rich people and a disproportionate amount of poor. Welfare only solidifies these two social classes, it doesn't get rid of them, and yet, do the rich give more coats than the average two-coat Joe? It hurts two-coat Joe a lot more to give up a coat than it does me, the guy with a hundred flaming coats, 'cos fuck it, I don't need all these coats, and I already gave my "fair share" away, just like everyone else.

In other words, with welfare, we're trying to keep the two-coaters and the no-coaters poor by forcing the two-coaters to make proportionally huge donations to the no-coaters. Now the one-coaters can more easily fall into being no-coaters and then we can say, "Hey bub, you look cold--would you like a free coat?" And by then they'd forgotten why they had no coats to begin with.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Ekaros on May 30, 2013, 04:26:13 AM

So how many coats the guy has and did he use slave labour?

Slave labor? Slavery is wrong.

But that aside, what difference does the number of coats the man owns make? If he has a lot of coats, does that make it OK, somehow, to steal one from him?

Topic: This sums it up well. - page 8. (Read 6249 times)