I don't think "lobotimized liberals" care so much about other people being rich, it's when it's done at other's blatant expense that is the issue.
I agree with you that riches shouldn’t come at other’s expense. In other words Riches shouldn’t come by means of being unfair/unjust.
Our disagreement is “what is unfair and unjust” and “what is in other’s expense”.
As a small business owner is it fair for me to look for cheap labor but of the same quality?
As a consumer, is it fair for you to look for cheaper price for a product of the same quality?
My answer is YES for both of the above.
You should be smart enough to figure out the implication of it.
…knowledge and ability come at a price, which some cannot afford to pay….
I agree with the first part.
But the second part need more explanation.
Why can’t they pay?
Take a loan if the cost is monetary.
Take the pain to suffer initially, to save and then pay.
If the current cost is in terms of giving up the enjoyment of 2 hours/day under the influence of alcohol in a bar, or watching TV, or similar things then you will pay more later in dollar.
A rich few having absolute control over the lives of their 'subjects' via propaganda, misinformation
Instead of teaching what you just wrote above, how about teaching that ..
“Hey, son, you are born poor in a country of few rich and powerful. Many politicians and business owner will try to deceive you and many will help you. There are good people and bad people but it is your responsibility to figure out good people from bad one, truth from lies, facts from the propaganda and misinformation.
Hey, son, in reality, no one is going to put all the truth, the complete truth and nothing but the truth in a silver or gold plate for you. Truth and lies will always come mixed up in books, in internet, in TV, in political talks, in school and everywhere. It is your responsibility to be skeptic, judge an argument from various point of view and then find the truth. Then you will be able to overcome the initial barrier that is place against you from the people who are already ahead of you. Many of those those rich and powerful people already have paid their price. Some of them become rich and power full by illegal and/or immoral means, but they very few. This your time to pay forward if you want to escape the poverty and helplessness.”
Which one would you teach to your children?
What do you think will be the result of these two sharply distinct teachings to the society?
In which society would you see less poverty.
You may or may not be able to see or admit the result.
But I have very little doubt, that Statistically, my message is more constructive and will lift more people from the poverty than the current liberals message of entitlement and dependency.
Very honestly, which one would rather teach to your children?
Really tell me, honestly.
You are implying that a monetary cost can be applied to anything.
How do rate happiness? Or material value? These things vary between cultures
I clearly see that not everything can bought by money. People give millions for their emotion. People can give their life for love or kill others for love or hate. I understand that.
But statistically speaking there is some cause and effect connection between money and happiness. These they we can see happiness and sadness inside your brain using fMRI machine. It is over 90% accurate. In double blind test we can say with 90% accuracy when you are angry, happy, in love, lying, confused or having religious experience. {please look up for “God Helmet’]
What we found is people in the West are happier than the people in the East. Further research reveals that one of the main cause of unhappiness in the East is the poverty. But yes, after a level of comfort by money, say $100K/year in the US additional money doesn’t bring in any more happiness. Then happiness comes from other things like pursuing a carrier of your passion, self-actualization, etc.
[Please do not ask me for the reference, you can find it on your own.]
I believe you are making the mistake that the ability to make money is somehow directly equal to their contributions to society.
It is not directly nor is perfect but statistically works.
“Ability”, obviously, one’s ability is more practical than others. Therefore, abilities have different value.
If I want to pursue my extraordinary ability for mountain climbing or for becoming a very good history teacher then I shouldn’t be complaining about not making enough money.
How do rate contribution to society anyways?
There is only one way to quantify this. Give people what they want and ask for a price that they are willing to pay. Capitalism.
If you have a better way to quantify then tell me about it.
To answer your question of what would happen if the top 5% left, everyone knows exactly what would happen: another 5% would simply take their place.
Yes, but then the average index will drop. World will not be as better as it was before. Go down that chain and you see the result.
Whats to stop me from enslaving you you? Think you you won't help me? What if I threaten to harm your loved ones?
Not just because Ayn Rand said so but because it make sense that no physical violence should be allowed in the society.
How do rate happiness? Or material value? These things vary between cultures.
Obviously, we are talking about the things we are commonly competing. Otherwise, there is no problem. If a society loves my trash that I don’t care for, then take it. So we are talking about the things we both parties (you the defender of middle class working class, and I the defender of the top 5%, for the things we commonly desires and arguing about.)
who gets to decide what classifies as moral and what is not?
"Qualified, 3rd Party, Double Blind, Successive Approximation, Statistical Method" will decide.
Contrary to then the common belief, who decided that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Read, Sam Harris, “Moral Landscape” – basically this about scientific, objective morality.
This is utter BS. The thoughts of others are far more important than my own in most cases. I could be the owner of a priceless diamond. It is up to ME to convince others that it is mine to keep. If they don't think that I should have this diamond, I won't have it for much longer. Heck, the value of the diamond itself is entirely contingent upon another's thoughts, not my own.
Yes, outside world (other’s opinion) has impact on our own, but at the end of the day, when everything is said and done, when my mind has considered everything under the sun or did not consider anything, the final answer comes from my mind.
No, not all people value diamond equally.
Your above paragraph that emphasizes on the outside world contradicts your statement below.
<quote>“However, the thoughts in our brain are merely a simulacrum of reality which is entirely contingent upon our current perception and prior knowledge.”</quote>
I believe that Ayn Rand's philosphy does not take into account human psychology at any stage, and that is what makes it unworkable. It says reality exists independant of conciousness, which I believe is true. However, the thoughts in our brain are merely a simulacrum of reality which is entirely contingent upon our current perception and prior knowledge. When human's differ in pereption or knowledge, conflict arises
What you should have said is that outside universe exist without human (proof: Universe existed even before human showed up on Earth) consciousness but its interpretation depends upon our perception and priori knowledge.
You should remove the word “entirely” from your statement.
Now, smile:
Only one thing your post that I can re-evaluate, re-think, re-analyze, from a different angle to give you a better explanation to maintain the integrity, coherency, consistency, of my imaginary just system (world) is the following.
Paraphrasing:
Due to the work of some scientists, engineers, philosophers and leaders the world is a better place. But many of those people did not get rich.
