Capitalism: Past, Present, Future

[Raavi 22,911]

> Split from the Eating disorders/body image/fat acceptance debate to not completely snow it under with debate about inheritances.

> Renamed after the thread evolved into a more general debate about Capitalism.

 

 

 

 

 

Never? So someone who works very hard doesn't deserve advantages, they should have the exact same opportunities and be treated the same in every way as someone who is lazy and hardly works at all?

No, privilege comes at the expense of others. If we're running a boat and I know how to drive one and all you know how to do is clean sh*t off the floors, we've got out jobs sorted.

 

I know you reject anything remotely capitalist, but that's kind of the whole point; You work hard, achieve something substantial and get rewarded duly. Effort and initiative is rewarded. I'm all for helping people on their way, and extending a helping hand to those that lost their jobs, fell ill etc. However society shouldn't go out of the way pandering to one if one refuses to do f*ck-all to improve upon their situation.

 

The overwhelming majority of middle and upper class families have't been poor since WWII.

 

The negative in that and thus your point being?

 

I'm not sure why your Great Granddad whose name you don't know should get to pass advantages down to you.

 

I'm not sure why he shouldn't, if that was his will, why not? Similarly if he opted to donate it to charity, why not? That's his choice. Or I take it you must advocate robbing the dead? Also technically my Great Grandfather passed the fruits of his labour on to his son, whom passed it on to his son, whom in turn passed it on to me. If any one in-between had squandered it, I would've ended up empty-handed. So technically it's the father, or if the birth was timely, grandfather passing on the capital to me. Why shouldn't he be able to help his (grand)children with his own money?

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

Why shouldn't he be able to help his (grand)children with his own money?

 

Why should society be structured in such a way that some people are born with advantages that others are not? If we're interested in 'rewarding hard work and initiative' then surely inheritance flies in the face of all that? Also, I don't recognise it as 'his money', I recognise it as a portion of society's resources. I actually believe human beings are a collective rather than a loose conglomerate of self-interested individuals shuffling around bumping into each other in numb alienation.

 

 

 

I know you reject anything remotely capitalist, but that's kind of the whole point; You work hard, achieve something substantial and get rewarded duly.

It's not a 'reward' he doesn't know how to drive a boat.

 

 

 

The negative in that and thus your point being?

You took that out of context. I ain't mad, I'd probably be disingenuous too if I was hell bent on defending an illegitimate form of social organisation. Look at the sentence directly before it, it answers your question.

 

You don't just hand down money like you might hand down a wedding ring. In a society where everything is up for sale, you're passing down resource control. It's a hereditary power structure.

[Raavi 22,911]

 

Why shouldn't he be able to help his (grand)children with his own money?

 

Why should society be structured in such a way that some people are born with advantages that others are not?

 

Why not? It's my choice. If I wish to bestow my wealth upon my children, that's my choice. Again or you must advocate robbing the dead?

 

If we're interested in 'rewarding hard work and initiative' then surely inheritance flies in the face of all that?

 

I said society rewarding hard work and initiative. Inheritance is within the family, aside from a reasonable tax no one outside of that family has any business deciding what the deceased can do with his money.

 

Also, I don't recognise it as 'his money', I recognise it as a portion of society's resources.

 

That's too bad, because it is his money, in his account. Money I might add, for which he worked his ass off for years and years. To address an example a bit more close to home: family owned a successful local store, son of the storeowner was a military man who spent almost every waking minute off working in the store. This resulted in a not insignificant amount which was later invested in property and passed on to the son of the military man, who build upon it and put everything in the name of his son. How dare family members help each other out, they should be positively ashamed of themselves!

 

if I was hell bent on defending an illegitimate form of social organisation.

 

Nothing illegitimate about giving your children your own goddamn money.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

 

Why not? It's my choice.If I wish to bestow my wealth upon my children, that's my choice.

 

 

Again or you must advocate robbing the dead?

 

 

I said society rewarding hard work and initiative. Inheritance is within the family, aside from a reasonable tax no one outside of that family has any business deciding what the deceased can do with his money.

Society recognises their claim to the money. Families aren't sovereign. Is it the Middle Ages?

 

Anyway you cut out any mention of social mobility, or of resource control as a hereditary power structure. Those were kind of central to my point. You've now got me arguing over whether or not something you claim is your, is yours. Well it's 'yours' insofar as I can't yet physically take it from you, and you haven't explained why I shouldn't want to.

 

 

Oh and the arbitrary nature of wages under Capitalism, that's important too.

[Abel. 5,853]

Well it's 'yours' insofar as I can't yet physically take it from you, and you haven't explained why I shouldn't want to.

 

 

Well you might want to, but you wouldn't be within your rights to do so.

 

 

Greater fairness in society is great, but it shouldn't come at the expense of violating someone's express desire to pass down their hard-earned money to their children.

 

 

We don't live in a feudal society, true, but that doesn't mean that family is meaningless. I doubt I'll ever marry or have kids, but, if I did, I'd want to do right by them and secure for them the best possible future. Make no mistake, it saddens me greatly that any children are born into poverty (I am a supporter of charity), but that doesn't mean I'm going to withhold opportunities from my own children.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Total Failure

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

Make no mistake, it saddens me greatly that any children are born into poverty (I am a supporter of charity), but that doesn't mean I'm going to withhold opportunities from my own children.

Nobody is asking you to without opportunities from you own children. I'm not saying 'don't leave your kids anything' I'm saying we should have no concept of money and resource control.

 

 

 

Well you might want to, but you wouldn't be within your rights to do so.

This is an appeal to violence. It doesn't defend the position at all.

 

 

 

Greater fairness

I'm not about 'greater fairness', 'increasing tolerance' 'supporting charity,' You don't seem to get it. I want complete, total equality and social liberation and won't settle for anything less.

[Raavi 22,911]

Nice Bert imagery. Grade A retort, if you can't be arsed to at least try come with a reply, refrain from responding.

Society recognises their claim to the money. Families aren't sovereign. Is it the Middle Ages?

 

"John Jackson has left his life savings to the sum of 2 million to his daughter Katherine Jackson". Wider society has no business here, it's all within the family.

 

Anyway you cut out any mention of social mobility, or of resource control as a hereditary power structure. Those were kind of central to my point.

 

Because I look at it from a realistic individual point of view, which it very much is an individual choice. I choose to give my hard earned money to my children, making sure they’re well taking care off when I am not able to any more is the extent of my concern. That doesn’t mean I don't; lament poverty, give to charity, support initiatives to improve upon people’s situations, nor that have I any problem with a reasonable tax being paid over that I leave behind. It just means that I recognise inheritance as what it is, something solely familial. What I opt to do with my money after I die, is my business.

 

Well it's 'yours' insofar as I can't yet physically take it from you, and you haven't explained why I shouldn't want to.

 

Take it, you mean steal it? Or at least that's what we call it in the civilised world. You're free to try, but chances are you'll leave empty-handed on a stretcher with one hand cuffed to it.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

Anything you do with your money is my business, because money represents resource control. You haven't addressed this, or any of my points really.

 

 

 

"John Jackson has left his life savings to the sum of 2 million to his daughter Katherine Jackson". Wider society has no business here, it's all within the family.

Whatever, this is an appeal to violence. Why is it none of the wider society's business? You haven't explained.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Melchior

[Smith John 4,879]

And to think, ^this PC-worshipping dolt thrives on getting offended over as many stereotypes as possible...so long as it fits within his agenda, of course.

 

Also, Belch, for somebody so incredibly intelligent as yourself, learning how to edit your posts sure is proving a bit of a difficulty for you- especially so as it's been around two years since the format upgrade.

 

Anyway...

 

Well it's 'yours' insofar as I can't yet physically take it from you, and you haven't explained why I shouldn't want to.

 

This sums up people like you perfectly.

 

You and your ilk all share this common 'take take take' attitude because you're all nothing other than a bunch of lazy layabouts who contribute f*ck all to anything other than sitting in front of your computers all day ranting and raving, blaming everyone else for your own bloody laziness and failures while demanding those who have actually earned their keep hand everything to you so you can tip your dealers a little extra. And then you have the audacity to label yourselves 'progressives'. F*cking gold.

 

I must concede though, the extreme lengths you go to in order to justify and/or excuse your refusal to get off your backside is quite extraordinary. But then you're an extremist.

 

And yes, you attempt to steal anything from me or my family and you'll be leaving with three black eyes. But then this would probably delight you as you'd probably obtain extra drug money through being compensated as a victim of assault, regardless of the circumstances. Thank the heavens for HUMAN RIGHTS!

 

*I realise this post is perhaps a little strong by the (usually) civilised standards of D&D, but this is Melchior we're talking about here, who is no stranger to noisy, aggressive jousting- a notable asset of his is repeatedly pulling groundless accusations out of his arse in his and his kind's flailing attempts to silence opponents.

[Aquilus 79]

 

You haven't really made much of a point in this thread that hasn't been discussed and proven wrong.

 

Oh? Where was I proven wrong?

 

Everything regarding the right to pass inheritance on to other family members. It might be your personal belief but no one's giving hand outs

[Raavi 22,911]

Anything you do with your money is my business, because money represents resource control.

 

You're free to hold that view, and perfectly welcome to try and peek over people's shoulders and kick up fuss when they're out shopping and try and purchase something you don't like. You'd probably get your ass kicked out of the store though, so fair warning. But that's not how the world works. What I do with my money is non of your business, just as little as it is mine what you do with yours. Only if say I opt to break the law then it becomes the business of the relevant law enforcement agency, but it's never the business of the "collective". Because it is my money, not yours. It really isn't rocket science.

 

Whatever, this is an appeal to violence. Why is it none of the wider society's business? You haven't explained.

 

Appeal to violence? Valid example you mean. There is no "wider society" involved in carrying out the will of the deceased.

 

Why is it none of the wider society's business? You haven't explained.

 

I have on multiple occasions, but I'll repeat: It's mine, or in the case of my example John Jackson's money. Not yours, not your aunt's, not your Greenlandic namesake's. Mine.

[Gay Tony 4,857]

Who is anyone to dictate whom gives money to whom or feel entitled to what other people have worked for?

[Zook 248]

Who is anyone to dictate whom gives money to whom or feel entitled to what other people have worked for?

Are people not allowed an opinion on taxation and welfare policy? Because that's what an opinion on taxation would entail, dictating whom receives what and how much people are taxed on their wages.

 

I'm not left wing at all but I think a 100% inheritance tax which would then be used to help level the playing field might not be a bad idea. Organising a society based on arbitrary factors such as the family you were born into, the level of natural talent you have, and the very fact that the society values your natural talents at that point in time seems a little sh*tty to me.

[Raavi 22,911]

 

 

I'm not left wing at all but I think a 100% inheritance tax which would then be used to help level the playing field might not be a bad idea.

 

100% Estate tax is patently absurd. You worked your ass off all those years, now you have accumulated a sum which you want to pass down on to your children, then Government swoops in and robs you blind? Eliminates the fruits of your life's efforts? That's comic book level dystopia. Why in such a society invest/save in the first place, if it all goes up in smoke if you go six feet under anyway? That being said I don't oppose taxing inheritance, but keep it within the bounds of reason.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

 

I have on multiple occasions, but I'll repeat: It's mine, or in the case of my example John Jackson's money. Not yours, not your aunt's, not your Greenlandic namesake's. Mine.

 

Wow you are completely wasting my time.

 

 

 

 

 

Who is anyone to dictate whom gives money to whom or feel entitled to what other people have worked for?

Exactly! The Kind of Jordan's father earned his position, who are we to say what we should or shouldn't inherit!? It's his country!

[Abel. 5,853]

Don't even get me started on Jordan right now mate.

[Raavi 22,911]

Wow you are completely wasting my time.

 

If you're going to brand everything that doesn't adhere to your fringe views as a waste of time, you're going to have a real tough time. On this topic especially, because it concerns family. Might be foreign a concept to you, but a not insignificant amount people "live for their children", spend their days working their asses off securing a future for their children. And you want to rob them of their life's earnings?

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

Let's all agree that we're never going to agree on any of this.

We aren't going to agree, no, but you don't understand my position anyway. I'm not saying we need a 100% estate tax within the Capitalist system. If we had that, and my parents died, I'd be f*cked. I'd rather not have to get a full time job and take ten years to do a Bachelor of Arts.

 

The point is that money represents resource control, and children are given advantages that have nothing to do with them. We shouldn't have money at all, just free access and standardised housing and education.

[Abel. 5,853]

Seriously I thought we were still on about size acceptance, but alright.

 

 

I agree with some left wing principles, but I'm not going to advocate depriving a man of letting his children partake of the fruits of his lifelong labours.

 

 

 

EDIT: I'll have a much better response in the morning, Mel.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Total Failure

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

And you want to rob them of their life's earnings?

No, I want to replace money with a free access economy. The fact that people have worked to have more than everyone else means nothing to me. You can work for a nice cushy position in the Chinese state, and even pass it down to your son! They will tell you it's fair, that doesn't make it so.

 

Prince Harry's Great Great Great Great Great Granddad probably won some badass battle with the Vikings, it has nothing to do with him.

 

 

 

If you're going to brand everything that doesn't adhere to your fringe views as a waste of time, you're going to have a real tough time.

tbh you haven't addressed a single one of my points. We can't have a discussion about money when you won't even address the nature of money. What is 'money', what does it represent? How does 'money' today differ from money in the Middle Ages?

 

 

 

Might be foreign a concept to you, but a not insignificant amount people "live for their children", spend their days working their asses off securing a future for their children.

lol because they're forced to. They shouldn't have to. Society should meet all the child's needs regardless of how hard their parents work.

[Abel. 5,853]

"Should", yeah, but that's not how things actually are. Raavi's just living in the real world, Mel.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

 

 

You haven't really made much of a point in this thread that hasn't been discussed and proven wrong.

 

Oh? Where was I proven wrong?

 

Everything regarding the right to pass inheritance on to other family members. It might be your personal belief but no one's giving hand outs

 

that has nothing to do with fat people. You didn't 'prove me wrong' there either 'it's the American way' lmao

 

 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Melchior

[Abel. 5,853]

Are we just posting videos now?

 

Sound.

 

 

 

[Gay Tony 4,857]

Inheriting positions of authority isn't the same as inheriting life savings.

 

I find a few people in this thread either feeling entitled to societal benefits for how fit they are, or feeling entitled to other people's money.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

"Should", yeah, but that's not how things actually are. Raavi's just living in the real world, Mel.

No, he's saying the status quo is how things should be. There's quite a difference.

[Tyler 5,774]

Inheriting positions of authority isn't the same as inheriting life savings.

 

It is exactly the same concept.

[Clem Fandango 5,035]

Inheriting positions of authority isn't the same as inheriting life savings.

Money is a position of authority! If you can buy power plants, airports, roads, as many vehicles and buildings as you like... how is money not a position of authority? Let's say there's a guy who owns the airport, the power plant, and several toll roads. He would be more powerful than some constitutional monarchies, and inheriting his money would give you more power than inheriting a crown.

 

 

 

or feeling entitled to other people's money.

oh my GOD

Edited August 7, 2015 by Melchior

[Tyler 5,774]

"Should", yeah, but that's not how things actually are. Raavi's just living in the real world, Mel.

 

This argument is a non-sequitur. Historical materialism is much less idealistic than REALPOLITIK or whatever other liberal "pragmatic" ideology is the label people use nowadays to justify status quo exploitation and class division. It is a radical position but of course the response to that would be that, to most people, the world could use radical change.

[Raavi 22,911]

The fact that people have worked to have more than everyone else means nothing to me.

 

You made that quite clear, but it's irrelevant. Because it has nothing to do with you.

 

You can work for a nice cushy position in the Chinese state, and even pass it down to your son! They will tell you it's fair, that doesn't make it so.

 

The concept of fairness is subjective, emotionally laden and differs greatly from place to place, hell even person to person. You determine yourself what's fair largely based on your personal circumstances, experiences and political inclinations. That doesn't make your view on fairness right.

 

We can't have a discussion about money when you won't even address the nature of money. What is 'money', what does it represent? How does 'money' today differ from money in the Middle Ages?

 

For you it's something that is to be explained and defended, for me it's matter of course. Similarly I wouldn't go in an in-depth discussion about the function of kidneys if we were debating kidney donation. Furthermore just "money" is far too oversimplified when discussing inheritances, an estate tends to consist of more than just stacks of dollar bills. Quite recent example closer to home again, the estate was comprised of more non-liquid assets than liquid assets.

 

Society should meet all the child's needs regardless of how hard their parents work.

 

There are such concepts as child benefits in place, and public education is of good quality and affordable. You can climb the ladder, with hard work and perseverance. Your background doesn't have to dictate your future.

[GTA_stu 8,365]

 

Inheriting positions of authority isn't the same as inheriting life savings.

 

It is exactly the same concept.

 

 

You're being very vague bro, and it doesn't address what TB said at all. They're the same "concept" sure, but that doesn't change the fact there is a massive chasm of difference between them. I mean a kingdom passing down to an heir is the exact same "concept" as a father passing down a watch to his son. They're still 2 completely different things. A position of authority being passed down is corrupt and nepotistic and lots of other very bad things. Passing down your life savings is totally different. If you're talking about huge sums of money, like billions, then that's a particular nuance and separate issue. But generally speaking, passing on an inheritance is very very different to hereditary rule. They're not comparable in the slightest.