Pemalite said:
o_O.Q said:
"You can. In-fact many countries do. Russia and China being prime examples"
so the only commodity russia and china trade in is printed money?
|
I never said that.
o_O.Q said:
"I think you are side-stepping what I am asking of you here?"
i never at any point suggested that i believe people should own the bodies of other people... so it wasn't a question to be taken seriously from the beginning
|
So you agree that Abortion should be legal then?
EricHiggin said:
Let's say there's a husband and wife, and he supports them financially, but over time she gets crazier and crazier, and more annoying as each day passes. He tries a bunch of things like getting her help and even lives separate from her at times, yet she still goes out of her way to make his life beyond miserable. Let's even say she got examined and somehow comes away without being diagnosed as a nut job because she's that sly. If the husband can't take it anymore because he feels like she isn't worth it and is a burden, but won't divorce her because he doesn't think she should be able to leech off of him financially anymore, and can't live his life because she's clearly willing to go out of her way to make his life miserable, so much so that he's been pondering suicide, if he one day snaps and literally beats her to death, should he get away with it? Should someone be forced to withhold physical rage towards another? If he's going to cause harm or even death to himself otherwise, which scenario is preferred?
|
So basically you are giving me a choice between an individual harming another or themselves.
The answer really depends on perspective, in the rescue services you are taught to put your own life first and not the life of others... Because if you are somehow impaired, who is going to rescue the other person?
But to answer your questions... No. He shouldn't get away with murder. Yes someone should be forced to withhold physical rage towards another.
But the difference is, the woman isn't surviving at the expense of another, making your entire argument entirely redundant.
EricHiggin said:
Is it his fault for getting into the situation in the first place or by not using another option to get out of it, as much as he doesn't want to? Is it ok because things weren't planned or expected to turn out that way, and it's his mind and body that were also at risk, and it's his body to decide what to do with?
|
If you are asking if I am okay with Euthanasia? Fuck oath I am.
EricHiggin said:
What's the point in working harder or smarter if you're being given enough free money? Where's the incentive to do more? Because you could one day make it to the top? Where is the top? Was it gasoline transportation, single core 1GHz CPU's, PS2, Blackberry's? Why create newer better stuff if there's little incentive to do so, other than life or death scenario's like war or pandemic's?
|
The fallacy here is that you don't recognize that wealth is all relative.
Someone who has nothing will see someone with a bicycle and think they have wealth.
A person with a bicycle will see someone with a car and think they have wealth.
A person with a car will see someone with a motorhome and think they are wealthy.
A person with a motorhome will see someone with a private jet and think they are wealthy.
There is always more to strive for. - Just because I earn 6 figures doesn't mean I wouldn't want more wealth.
EricHiggin said:
How much billionaires have stashed vs how much is locked up in some multi year fund or stock probably isn't as much as many would think in comparison. You don't get billionaire rich by not wisely investing a bunch of that money. You also don't stay that rich if you give it away. The world is so connected today that if you run a multi billion dollar business, having billions to keep things going if something happens isn't a dumb idea. Just look at the stir over the tariff war. That's just one possibility of the many that could hurt your business, that you basically have no control over. What you do have control over, is how much you decided to put away for a rainy day, or year. Most billionaires did whatever had to be done to make that money, and many people benefited off of that in some manner in terms of goods or services rendered.
|
The rich have an amazing savings rate. More than you think. - They aren't rich because they are spending money you know.
https://www.financialsamurai.com/the-average-savings-rates-by-income-wealth-class/
That is cash not being reinvested... And thus my point still stands that poorer income brackets tend to spend more than the rich and thus contribute more to the economy overall.
EricHiggin said:
One of the main reasons socialism doesn't work is because many of the bright people and hard workers stop doing so because there is little incentive. If everyone is treated as much the same and equally as possible, that's exactly what you end up with. The bright idea's disappear and less and less work get's completed. Why come up with a great idea if you might not be able to make it happen because you can't get enough money to do it? Even if you find a way to, why do it for a pat on the back? Why work your butt off if it's not going to really help you or the company get ahead much if at all? Once the loopholes are sealed and taxes are jacked up the businesses will slowly crumble or they will flat out leave.
|
Many european and oceanic nations implement various "socialist" practices in with their capitalist markets to great success actually.
Case in point... Norway, New Zealand and Australia.
There are businesses who target those lower social-economic demographics and become rather successful too.
For example: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-20/radio-rentals-reaps-$90-million-in-centrelink-payments/6333690
|
