Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?
Taxation determines what poverty levels will exist within it’s demographic form. It controls the graph shown below. Governments control taxation and thus control poverty levels directly.
Imagine if you will, the real truth of that taxation, if used correctly, to move the wealth shown in this graph wherever it wants to, with minimal effect on the whole. The fact is, experts say that such a reality would be a win win for everyone.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
Not how little of a change would be needed to reach the ideal.
Wise and moral people throughout history, as well as most religious movements, put poverty as the number one enemy to man’s first priority, which is security.
For perhaps the first time in history, we have the wealth where we could end poverty quite easily, --- just with our collective loose change.
It would seem to me that governments are not acting ethically and should be chastised.
I guess that George Carlin, a wise person, was correct in what he said of what Americans cannot feel in their anal orifices. I apply the same condition to the vast majority of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14SllPPLxY
If true that we are being willfully ignorant, and do not even care about each other to insure we live in a moral environment, then our owners have succeeded in cowering man’s moral nature to a state of subservience. We have given up our freedom. If we ever had any.
We have all accepted to be slaves. Shame on us all.
We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Hypocrisy.
We can easily rid ourselves of poverty.
Should we?
Morality says yes.
Will we do the right thing?
Not till hell freezes over.
Regards
DL

DingoJones

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that?

god must be atheist

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that? — DingoJones

The REAL cause of poverty is the arbitrary setting of the measures of income and of asset possession, which have nothing to do with anything, but with some think-tanks arbitrary (i.e. individualistic, relativistic, indefendable (by morals, by logic or by economic impact)) decision of what constitutes "poverty".

If you set the indicators of "poverty" low enough, then you can eradicate poverty on the entire globe in one fell swoop overnight.

god must be atheist

Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Who is "us"? Is the entire population poor?

DingoJones

↪god must be atheist

Well we arent specifying those measures of poverty. Obviously if someone uses the word poverty to describe something that isnt poverty, we are free to exclude their standard when having a real discussion about poverty. So, given a sensible standard of what poverty is (you can pick) what would your opinion be?

god must be atheist

given a sensible standard of what poverty — DingoJones

This is what I am disputing. Standards of poverty are not absolute, but relative, and hence, arbitrary. I can't deal making absolute judgments based on arbitrary evidence.

You do it.

DingoJones

↪god must be atheist

So to you there is no sensible way of defining poverty, not even for the purposes of conversation?
Arbitrary is different than relative, something can be relative but still make sense. Arbitrary implies no thought put in, obviously if you refuse to put any thought into it you will have something arbitrary so...put some thought into it.
Also, nobody asked you for an absolute judgement. Just a sensible one.

god must be atheist

↪DingoJones

There are two ways of creating a definition: by consensus, or by declaration.

In language we create definition by consensus.

In science and in philosophy we create it by declaration.

If you declare a definition, then two separate definitions will be potentially different. Because they are ARBITRARY.

If you deal with different definitions, you get nowhere.

Poverty in the sense the article deals with it is defined. Not by consensus, but by arbitrary declaration.

Therefore there is no common ground. No axiomatic structure to start from.

Discussing poverty in terms of economic measures would be like discussing which is more important: sacrificing some benefit for ethical purposes or sacrificing benefits to create something aesthetic.

If you ask me one more question to elaborate on this, I don't know what I will do. It is not a hard concept: poverty is not defined in any sort of way, but arbitrarily. Therefore you can't discuss it as a quality that has an absolute value. Just like wealth is relative, so is poverty. It makes lots of sense to say "I am richer than you, you are poorer than me," etc., (hypothetically speaking, of course), but it's a RANKING system, not an absolute value system. Once you draw a line what is poor, you are upsetting the lingual definition, and if you don't draw a line, it stays relative.

Hence, I suggest that poverty can be eradicated the way I suggested.

Then you, DingoJones, come to me with these questions, "yeah, but, yeah, but", but there is no "but". Poverty is a term of signifying rank based on a discrete difference, poverty is not a term of state.

Period.

god must be atheist

Arbitrary implies no thought put in, — DingoJones

This is patently false. People can put a lot, and I mean a LOT of thought into arbitrary decisions. Your claim is not valid.

god must be atheist

Arbitrary is different than relative, something can be relative but still make sense. — DingoJones

This is a nosequiteur. You are stating here that arbitrary does not make sense. You are illogical there. You state that relative makes sense because it is not arbitrary.

The two in this sense that you put forth is not argument against mine. Both arbitrary and relative make sense. What nakes no sense is to base a DECISION or JUDGMENT on arbitrary claims or definitions.

I hereby call you out , DingoJones: are you known now, or have been known on PhilosophyNow website as Logik, or Timekeeper, or Skepdick? Yes or no.

DingoJones

Lol, holy shit. Always amazing to me when someone is so confident and so confused.
I could have used a better word than “thought”, but it seemed precise enough considering what the word arbitrary means (not reason based, or based on whimsy) but then I didnt know you had a chip on your shoulder about defining words and some dude you got a gripe with on some other site. To answer your question, no Im not that guy. Maybe you should leave your baggage out of discussions with strangers.
Anyway, you go ahead and blah blah blah your last word here, I dont feel a pressing desire to play the phantoms in your paranoid fantasy. Good day sir!

ssu

This is what I am disputing. Standards of poverty are not absolute, but relative, and hence, arbitrary. I can't deal making absolute judgments based on arbitrary evidence.

You do it. — god must be atheist

Povetry stats are typically made using a relative measure, of being some percent of the median income. Yet there is the measure of absolute povetry, you know. And you can have an indicator for income is below a necessary level to maintain basic needs, basic living standards (food, shelter, housing).

Then there is also the term extreme povetry: Extreme poverty is typically defined as a state in which a person lacks access to all, or several, of the goods needed for meeting basic needs.

And I think the World Bank has used the 1$ per day income as an stat for quite some time. Now it's 1,9$. Actually the stat is one of the very happy stats about our time:

Special thanks to China and India for giving up socialism!

god must be atheist

Yet there is the measure of absolute povetry, — ssu

Extreme poverty is typically defined as a state in which a person lacks access to all, or several, of the goods needed for meeting basic needs. — ssu

And you are saying this is not an arbitrarily thought-up definition of poverty. You are saying this is not the brain child of some think-tank who had been tasked to define what extreme poverty is. You are saying this is an absolute measure of poverty. You are saying therefore

that it's universal, and can't be changed, because it's absolute.

Then you turn around and say that this definition is "typical". That is, not absolute.

If you yourself are saying it's not absolute, why are you trying to convince others that it's absolute?

I think your error fundamentally is that you mixed up "the measure of absolute poverty is defined" with "the measure of relative poverty is defined with absolute values".

The figures you quoted, therefore, are not measures of absolute poverty. They are absolute measures of poverty.

There is a difference between "absolute measure of a relative property" and "measure of an absolute property." IQ is an absolute measure of a relative property; cm or miles are measures of an absolute property.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that? — DingoJones

There are many reasons and they are irrelevant to what we collectively do about it.

The ease of eliminating it is what I am focused on.

Note how little of our wealth has to go from the extreme right of the graph to the left.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

If you set the indicators of "poverty" low enough, then you can eradicate poverty on the entire globe in one fell swoop overnight. — god must be atheist

Yes, especially if you add in the huge and immoral profit taking on the right of the graph.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Who is "us"? Is the entire population poor? — god must be atheist

If you consider that graph to show an immoral situation, then yes, we are all indeed poorer both morally and financially.

Do you see the graph as showing a moral demographic shape?

I do not.

Regards
DL

god must be atheist

If you consider that graph to show an immoral situation, then yes, we are all indeed poorer both morally and financially. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You say "that" graph. Which graph?

Yes, especially if you add in the huge and immoral profit taking on the right of the graph. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"Add in"? The graph already contains its entire domain and range of the graph. I had not even once suggested to truncate the graph. What are you talking about?

And how do you add in something to a graph that is not represented by its axes in terms of "kind" or "functionality"? it is about poverty, not about actions. "profit taking" is an action, not a property of poverty. The properties of poverty, as I understand it, is the income amount per period, and assets at a given point in time. Actions are not a part of it.

Please explain. To me this statement is not intuitive.

Do you see the graph as showing a moral demographic shape? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I have never once envisioned what shape a moral demographic shape looks like. Can you insert a picture which shows that shape?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

You say "that" graph. Which graph? — god must be atheist

From the O.P.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

I have never once envisioned what shape a moral demographic shape looks like. Can you insert a picture which shows that shape? — god must be atheist

Options in the presentation and graph show some options to help you decide what the moral graph might look like. Make up your mind and note how little wealth gas to move to make it moral to yourself.

Regards
DL

god must be atheist

Make up your mind and note how little wealth gas to move to make it moral to yourself. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Meaning?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Meaning? — god must be atheist

I think I was clear.

It is to you to decide if it is moral or not for a rich country to use the tax system to maintain poverty levels or not.

Regards
DL

god must be atheist

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop

Then when I have decided that you say is in my power, then my decision will be enacted in Parliament / Congress? If not, what use is my decision?

P.s. Where you spelled "gas" for "has", I hadn't been able to sub it with the correct word. It was nonsensical, that's why I asked for an explanation. It was totally clear after I realized my mistake stemming from your mistake (of a simple misspelling).
I had tried ot sub "industry" "diligence" "efficiency" even "gasoline" for gas and none worked.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Then when I have decided that you say is in my power, then my decision will be enacted in Parliament / Congress? If not, what use is my decision? — god must be atheist

All legislation begins with a person pushing the idea. That is all I or you can do.

Someone we convince might like what we think, and if the person has political power, he might grab the idea and run with it.

That is all I can hope for in outing ideas in these places.

Apologies on the spelling/typing error. If the system misses it, they sometimes get past me.

Regards
DL

god must be atheist

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop

It sounds deceptively easy, but I imagine that there are others out there who wish to achieve the opposite of what I wish to achieve re: eradication of poverty (!) via legislation.

Then two or more different pushes may touch the parliamentary representatives, and therefore it is very conceivable that I still don't have the power of getting my wish enacted by parliament.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Then two or more different pushes may touch the parliamentary representatives, and therefore it is very conceivable that I still don't have the power of getting my wish enacted by parliament. — god must be atheist

Agreed, depending on what the oligarchs want.
Even if you had a politician in your back pocket, he would have to break the trend shown in this link.

https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think?c=upw1&u=94acbbeb6bbd6d664157009a896e71b014efbf27

Regards
DL

BC

We have all accepted to be slaves. Shame on us all.
We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Hypocrisy.
We can easily rid ourselves of poverty.
Should we?
Morality says yes.
Will we do the right thing?
Not till hell freezes over. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

We live in a kleptocracy, or a plutocracy, or an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. We (the western industrialized countries) can rid ourselves of poverty. Yes, we should. But we almost certainly will not.

Your anarchist or libertarian focus, whatever it is, causes you to focus on The Government as the chief author of all that is bad. The government, Marx said, is a committee to organize the affairs of the wealthy. The bourgeoisie (wealthy people) have been in possession of the U. S. Government since the Mayflower Compact of 1620 (exaggeration for effect). The government has assisted the bourgeoisie in getting and keeping as much wealth as possible, except for a few fairly brief periods of time when the wealthy had to hand over more, but never so much that they weren't very rich any more.

The business of America is run by the businesses of America. Business is not run by the government. The businesses decide how much to pay people, and as a rule pay them the lowest possible wage that the market will bear. That doesn't mean that everybody is getting minimum wages, but it does mean that a lot of people (big portions of the working population) are getting a lot less than they could be getting.

All legislation begins with a person pushing the idea. That is all I or you can do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Sort of. But much more effective is organizing very large numbers of people to push ideas, and take concrete action if their pushing is ignored. What sort of concrete action? Well, the minimum is voting the recalcitrant sons of bitches out of office. Then there is union organizing on a massive scale; there is civil disobedience; there are mass demonstrations, boycotts, work stoppages -- let your imagination go!

god must be atheist

↪Bitter Crank

The solution to the Black slaves' fate in the USA ended up in a civil war between Whites.

Maybe the poor's fate in the New America will end up in a civil war between the rich. (Race immaterial, but chances are they will be mostly White).

After that, about a hundred years later, will come the civil war to liberate the religious from the church. That will be fought between atheists.

After that will come a hundred years later the war to release the stupid from the handcuffs of education. That will be fought by Mensans.

After that will come a hundred years later the civil war in America, to liberate the masses from their fat. That will be fought by Anorexic Amazons.

After that, a hundred years later, will come the war that aims to eradicate ugly people. That will be fought by photomodels and body builders.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Your anarchist or libertarian focus, whatever it is, — Bitter Crank

My focus here is the immorality of the governments, the oligarch's lackeys, as you seem to know, so I reject your labels.

Then there is union organizing on a massive scale; there is civil disobedience; there are mass demonstrations, boycotts, work stoppages -- let your imagination go! — Bitter Crank

All good ideas that have been tried to some extent before.

The rich are quite good at ridding out our little temper tantrums and the public has an attention span of almost 0 and they change focus at the next oligarch created headline.

It will take masses of people, as you know, but the trick is to trigger their moral indignation and as you can see by the religions they follow, the rank and file do not have a moral sense to be indignant about.

The immoral fools are idol worshiping vile gods and that makes it easy for them to not recognize their vile oligarch owned political system.

Regards
DL

god must be atheist

The key is not only the immorality of governments, but also the immortality of governents.

Any government aims at what individuals can't do: immortality.

They learn from their predecessor's mistakes. The crowd control gets tighter, and more skilled, less noticable, yet more gripping and more thorough.

The only thing that can kill governments and/or systems are revolutions. But as you say, DL, whatever your name is, the ones in power

are quite good at ridding out our little temper tantrums — Gnostic Christian Bishop

They, like you said, DL, also count on our zero attention span, gullability, and easily excitable public fear that can be whipped into a frenzie of panic at any time they wish to.

god must be atheist

I expect now a knock on my door now, and before I know it, I'll be given a lethal injection between two toes,and the coroner's report will say "Cardiac arrest".

DingoJones

↪god must be atheist

Nah, suicide is easier to stage.

I think the immorality of governments is informed by the immorality of its people. It always comes back to the people for me. Money in politics? Why is that a problem? Because people respond to repetitive ads and flashy posters and whatever they read on social media and the other things money can buy.
Why do our politicians lie? We want them to, the guy telling the truth makes us uncomfortable, people would rather vote for someone they hope isnt lying rather than the guy they know is telling the truth. Also, we lie. We lie all the time, to our friends when we don’t feel like going out, to our loved ones to spare their feelings, our boss when we are late or calling in sick to have a day off...spouses, children, coworkers, friends, ourselves...lies everywhere. We surprised when our politicians turn out to be liars? Guess what? The lying politicians make the same excuses and justifications we all do when we tell lies.
Why would a government be corrupt? Because its core is corrupt.
An oligarchy can’t buy a country unless its for sale, and the ignorant, distracted, gullible dummy population at large is like a great big “For Sale!” sign for anyone so inclined.

BC

expect now a knock on my door now, and before I know it, I'll be given a lethal injection between two toes, and the coroner's report will say "Cardiac arrest". — god must be atheist

They don't need to hide behind needles between the toes. A bullet through the head (faster, cheaper, better) and the coroner's report will still say, as you said, "cardiac arrest", or maybe if they are in a comic mood, "failure to thrive".

Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions