If you can't defeat a position, at least disarm it with absurdity.

I'm just fooling around. It's important to keep a sense of humour, even about topics like abortion and infanticide; after all, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what's the point of forcing women to bear children. — Soylent

Yes

They make a difference, as they ought to, but not big enough. You seem to be judging proportionality based soley on the amount contributed, rather than on the amount contributed in relation to wealth. If the donor is still stinking rich after donating, then it is disproportionate in that they aren't donating enough. — Sapientia

Why does rich "stink," considering it is that wealth that you incentivized them to obtain that you now need. If you create a system where people will know their efforts will not be rewarded, why would they try to get wealthy?

The argument is that they can do so much more, but choose not to for unjust reasons, and that they are allowed to get away with it, and that this situation should be rectified. — Sapientia

They choose not to give away their money for the same reasons they chose to earn their money. If we remove their right to choose how to spend their money, don't you think they will choose not to earn the money? Who is going to create the wealth once you've eliminated the wealth producers?

Differences in wealth and merit are not at the heart of the issue. It's about proportionality. — Sapientia

This is exactly where I said this argument would end up in my first post, with me submitting that merit was the object worth promoting and you submitting that equality was the object worth promoting. That is the fundamental point of disagreement always in these debates.

A long way? That is incredibly naïve. — Sapientia

I was being sarcastic. A little levity.

I am only one person, and I work part-time on minimum wage. — Sapientia

A couple of things about this: I understand that you can do only so much, but I also think that if you and everyone like you worked together, you could get something meaningful done. And the truth is that it will take an organizer to do such things, and organizers are not a dime a dozen, but they have special talents far exceeding the ordinary folks. Those you mentioned (MLK and Gandhi) are those who fought for civil rights and they certainly have their place. There are others with extraordinary talents who have an incredible ability to organize people and create wealth. The wealth they create is much needed for all sorts of things, like providing you a job to paying to help the poor and homeless. Those organizers are not a dime a dozen either and they rightfully get paid for their services.

You can be annoyed that you work very hard for little money when the owner of your company perhaps makes far more working what seems to you to be far less hard, which means you should go get your boss' job and open your own company as should all your co-workers. Obviously that isn't going to happen, largely because you wouldn't know where to begin and you'd likely fail, yet there are people who do know where to begin and who don't fail, and those people are therefore due their reward.

And sure, there are those who inherited their wealth and did not start from scratch, but there are many who did. It can be done, so either do it yourself, or respect the fact that there are those whose extraordinary talents deserve far greater compensation. Instead of vilifying the rich, respect the fact that they are an integral part of society and need to be encouraged to continue to create wealth.

You are trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because you think it's unfair that you aren't that goose.

Right, because that has worked so well thus far. A big part of the problem is that your appeal to voluntary action falls on deaf ears for so many people, and, importantly, for a number of those who are exceptionally rich; yet just a single one of them could quite easily make a massive difference.

I take a more cynical view, and advocate a more practical solution. — Sapientia

Well, I do think the rich already make a massive difference, not only from the fact that they already contribute disproportionately to the tax base, but because they also contribute disproportionately to charity. Take a look at the donors to the next charitable event you attend. A single Platinum sponsor (usually a corporation, a trust fund, or a single very rich person) likely contributes more than all the regular donors like you and me combined.

It's for this reason that I just don't follow the argument that the rich suck, which seems to be the pervasive argument. If the problem is poverty, the solution is wealth, making those who have figured out this whole wealth collection thing a bit important.

It boils down to what amount of their money has been earnt. Ownership of the means of production doesn't mean that you've earnt a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth created by the workers. — Sapientia

The value of the service you provide isn't set by committee. It's set by the market. If you have the ability to organize labor and produce a product and that results in great wealth to you, then that's how much you have earned. Every grunt in the field is important, but not as important as the person coordinating their efforts.

But this is already the case, and yet we seem to agree that what's being done isn't enough. So, how do you propose increasing private supplementation to the required level on a voluntary basis? Are you going to go door-to-door asking "What are you doing to correct this problem?"? — Sapientia

Having recognized your abilities, I'm trying desperately to elicit action on your part. I think if I can motivate you to serve your fellow man, then we'll have come a long way to resolving the problem of poverty and hunger.

I think that you and I simply differ on where said decision should be made, then. Birth works well enough for me because it's far before the gray zone you're referring to. I'd say personhood, in the metaphysical/moral sense, occurs well after birth. — Moliere

Yes, but if birth is also clearly before the gray zone, then we should allow parents to drown their kids in the well for some period of time after birth. Well drowning is cheaper and more medically safe than abortion, and it allows the parent to look at the child and see if its worth keeping. It also gives the well water that much desired new baby smell.

I don't care if it's 30 years old. — The Great Whatever

I don't care if you're 30 years old.

I think personhood begins at birth. However, an 8 1/2 month old fetus is a viable infant, probably without any help. — Bitter Crank

Allowing abortion up until "personhood" is a philosophical concept, asserting that only "people" have an inherent right to live. A "person" are those entities endowed with whatever essential qualities other people have. The word "essence" is just a secular word for "soul."

Viability is a legal concept, enshrined by the US Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case that asserts that only those human entities that are capable of living outside the womb have the right to life. The inherent problem with that view is that viability changes as medical technology advances. The advantage of the position is that it avoids all this impossible personhood talk.

My point here is simply to point out that you've intermingled the personhood and viability arguments. It would seem that if you had a fetus that was endowed with personhood, it would be wrong to kill it simply because it was still dependent upon the womb (i.e. not viable). On the other hand, it wouldn't seem particularly wrong to abort a non-person even if it were possible to support that entity outside the womb. That is, if we could take a two minute old united sperm and egg and incubate it until it was a fully formed baby, I wouldn't really consider it murder if we instead just poured it down the sink (which is what is commonly done in fertility clinics).

We should be more like the Spartans and allow it after birth, too. — Michael

In a showdown, who would win, the Spartans, the Vikings, or the Mongols?

Morally speaking the question hinges on personhood, I would say, and how you approach that topic. — Moliere

Then why arbitrarily choose birth as the moment of personhood? It's not like a 1 day old infant can do a whole lot of the things that fully fledged kids can do and they certainly can't do what fully mature adults can do. Morally speaking, though, they may be superior to those who actually believe that 8 1/2 month old fetuses should be killed with impunity.

morally speaking I am more conservative. But legally speaking I am not. I don't think the question is amenable to the necessary precision we expect of law nor should it be answered by the force of the state. — Moliere

If you're speaking legally, then you'll need to cite to the law that permits the abortion of 8 1/2 month old fetuses. We do in fact have precision in the law when it comes to abortion. It's just a matter of looking it up and reading it. Any highly disputed area of law is going to be subject to some arbitrary decision, whether it be when a person is endowed with rights, to how much emissions are acceptable, to how much privacy I am afforded. The power granted to those to decide isn't arbitrary, but to some extent decisions have to be made. I'd say, though, that the simple fact that it might be disputed whether the government can walk into my open yard and look for me but they can't walk into my open garage, for example, hardly means that it's disputed whether there are some limits I have from government intrusion. The outer parameters are obvious (like 8 1/2 month old fetuses), but at some point we reach a gray zone.

Abortion: Legal up until birth — Moliere

This is absurd.

Abortion - The right to bodily autonomy trumps the right to life of those infringing upon it; so permissible so long as birth requires inhabitation of a body, but not otherwise — The Great Whatever

Suppose the fetus is 8 1/2 months old?

Generalized label - Common sense conservative.
Form of government - Constitutional democracy limited to what the Constitution actually says.
Form of economy - Free market capitalistic within reason
Abortion - In favor of it within the 1st trimester.
Gay marriage - In favor of it if that's really what they want to do.
Death penalty - In favor of it as long as we're killing the right folks
Euthanasia - Limited to very serious cases, not just folks who are annoyed with life.
Campaign finance - No limitations
Surveillance - Free reign for the government to conduct surveillance outside of areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but beyond that only by court order.
Health care -- Private pay, with some allowances for pre-existing conditions.
Immigration - Enforce the immigration law.
Education - Public education for everyone with some accountability for bad schools.
Environmental policy - Balance the damage done to the environment against the damage done to the economy when considering policy.
Gun policy - Allow law abiding folks to have guns and triple the penalties for those committing crimes with guns.
Drug policy - Legalization is way overdue.
Foreign policy - Do what is necessary to protect US interests and once military action is taken, commit to stabilizing whatever destabilization arose.

Here's a link to the good old days of civil political debate: http://articles.philly.com/2012-08-25/news/33367841_1_jefferson-presidency-presidential-power-hideous-hermaphroditical-character

That having been said, I do believe we have reached a new nadir in all of our lifetimes regarding the state of political discourse. Trump responds to the Mexican president's refusal to fund the wall by stating that now that's there's this back-talk, the wall is going to be 10 feet higher. He then starts calling Rubio "little Rubio" and calls him a choke artist and then says that Cruz is the biggest liar he's ever seen. Trump then attacks the moderator by telling him that no one watches his TV show and asks the public to look up his ratings to confirm it. Rubio, getting late into the fray, later mentions Trump's horrible spray on tan.

What we do know about the wall is that it will be funded by Mexico, that it will be fantastic, the best we've ever seen, and that with Trump in charge, you better believe it will come in under budget and ahead of schedule.

It's just amazingly stupid, but entertaining, which is what it is sort of about I guess.

Regarding what you see in the House of Commons, it appears to me to be a bit tongue in cheek, and the people are generally informed and actually responsive to the issues, even if they throw in a few unnecessary barbs. There is also a level of civility that always accompanies an English accent, where no matter what they say, it seems important and well thought out. Sometimes when I have nothing to say, I'll say it with my award winning English accent so that I can gain some credibility. It's the Simon Cowell effect.

Can't say I read through the entire OP, but from my perspective, if people want to gamble or engage in other forms of self-destruction, I'm generally of the mind to allow them.

My objection to the lottery is the hypocrisy of the government declaring gambling immoral and then legalizing it only for itself so that it can maintain a monopoly and avoid the competition from private enterprise. It also begs the question of whether the proper role of government is to create for profit organizations in order to provide for the public.

That having been said, in Georgia the lottery proceeds are earmarked by Constitutional amendment to be used only for college education. This has resulted in every child who maintains a B average to have 80% of his college in state tuition paid (room and board excluded). An A average earns you 100% tuition. Competition for all in state schools has dramatically risen because of this. When I was college age, they'd admit anyone into UGA (goooooo Dawgs, sic 'em, ruff, ruff, ruff). Now there are kids who get admitted in Vanderbilt, but not UGA.

So, I like the result, even if I disagree with the idea. I also like the idea that the stupidest segment of the population buys the most lottery tickets and therefore pays for the smartest segment's education. I like the idea that trailer park parents are paying for suburban kids to go to school. It's funny in an upside down sort of way.

You haven't established why, in principle, communist forms of government necessarily cannot protect individual rights. I suspect this is because you don't know what you're talking about, and haven't actually read any Marxist political theory. — Shevek

This is the very nonsense I've been trying to avoid. Of course anyone can sit around and hypothesize a possible situation where a Marxist government would protect individual rights. That would be a wonderful exercise I suppose. But, to the extent that economic theories can be actually implemented, the question of whether Marxist governments have been protectors of individual rights is an empirical question. It's the same old argument that's been made for decades and decades: Marxism isn't per se bad, it just happens to be every time it's been attempted.

If they decide they don't like working 60 hours a week at McDonalds and forced to wear stupid attire and flair and quit their job, then they're threatened with the prospect of going homeless, racking up debts and hurting their credit score, and not eating. — Shevek

We're all slaves under this definition. I have to eat, so I am a slave to food. Equating working at McDonalds to slave working the fields is hyperbole and a bit of an insult to those suffering slavery. We all have to work. Food doesn't fall from the sky. How you choose to work is your choice, but no one is making you work at McDonalds are in any particular job you don't want to.

Oh the 'market force of demand' is alive and well in Vietnam. — Shevek

Of course it is. Without capitalistic initiatives, Vietnam's economy wouldn't be thriving and it would be a far more miserable place to live. Capitalism is saving Vietnam from its failed communistic system. That is pretty obvious even if it pisses you off.

As if the shitty corporate media in the US owned by a handful of conglomerates provides a vibrant democratic interchange of journalistic integrity. — Shevek

The US media sucks, yet somehow everyone (here at least) seems to know it and seems to know what's really going on. That would seem to indicate that there is no control over information or opinions in the US and that media, in all its various forms, is doing its job.

Yet I was implying that 'Marxism doesn't work' is a meaningless claim. You're making it not me. 'Marxism' isn't a definite set of principles or a political and economic system that we can test whether or not it 'works'. It's an intellectual and political tradition. You can argue that that tradition is wrong-headed for certain reasons, or that certain ideas within the tradition were failures, but then you might have to treat them like actual philosophers and read them. Yuck. — Shevek

I just think you're stuck in trying to evaluate Marxism as an intellectual enterprise as opposed to looking at what has happened when it has been implemented. The proof is in the pudding, not in the recipe.

So I endured a day long meeting at work that I thought useless, but now am excited because it contained information I can now use, if only here. They explained this concept of disruption, where a product will be sold on the market and all competitors will slowly evolve toward the industry leader. Think of the minor differences in cell phones, cars and the like. Then, all of a sudden, a new player will show up and BAM the whole industry is changed. One day everyone has flip phones and the next androids.

This is where the meeting turned into bullshit, where they tried to encourage us to innovate the next best thing. I figured if I was that smart, why would I be sitting in this meeting?

At any rate, I think we're see innovations every day. I don't know which to call revolutions though.

Don't all governments necessarily back up their authority on principles that the state maintains some level of supremacy over the individual? — Shevek

No, there are some governments that hold that certain principles are self evident and that derive from nature and cannot be infringed upon. The government is understood as the protector of those inherent rights, as opposed to the grantor of those rights.

Marxists want to create a system where the state isn't a coercive apparatus for the capitalist class to enforce their unequal power relation with labour and the economically/politically excluded. — Shevek

This characterizes Marxist governments as nothing other than protectors against capitalism, as if they have no proactive goal of their own.

Large political and economic forces suppress the vast majority of individuals in capitalist societies. Freedom of expression and self-determination suddenly magically disappear when you enter the workplace, where most people spend a majority of their waking life. — Shevek

It's hard to coherently speak of self-determination when you suggest it doesn't exist. If I voluntarily choose a job that requires behavior that I find oppressive, then one must ask why I chose it unless I find the pros of that job outweigh the cons, which simply means I've made a rational choice. If you're suggesting that I was forced to take that job because I was forced not to have adequate skills to find other employment, then I don't know what you mean by choice or self-determination. That is to say, if you don't like wearing a hair net at McDonalds because it makes you look silly, then don't work there.

So basically you've convinced yourself that by calling Marx a 'politician', you can dismiss an entire body of work and say that it's flawed without ever having to read it or understand it. That's pretty convenient. I should have tried that trick in my philosophy program in college. I can't believe philosophers haven't found out that devastating way of arguing yet. — Shevek

And you again miss my point, although this time apparently intentionally. Is Cartesian dualism defensible? Let's first read the Meditations and break it down and figure out what it says, then we can see the strengths and weakness of it. All fun stuff. My question relates to whether Marxism pragmatically applied is better than capitalism. My position is hardly anti-intellectual. It just starts with the idea that if you're going to argue a political theory (as opposed to a metaphysical theory), it actually matters whether your theory works.

And why would a Marxist charter necessarily include such measures? — Shevek

The better question is why they all do, not why they all must, including in Vietnam.

For what it's worth, I'm an American living in one of those scary supposedly 'Marxist' countries (Vietnam), and I can tell you from first hand experience that a) there is nothing meaningfully Marxist about the organization of society, except for perhaps some terminology and government posters, and b) to say that oppressive structures in the US are "child's play" compared to here is more than simply hyperbole, it's blatantly false and the truth is arguably the opposite in certain aspects. — Shevek

Oh, yes, nothing like a single government media outlet to get your news from. Although I understand that you don't really care about the market force of demand, maybe ask yourself why the trail of immigrants moves from Vietnam to the US and not the other way around.

Spoiler alert: 'Marxism' isn't a set of doctrines but a tradition of many different writers disagreeing with each other. — Shevek

And such is my point: trying to declare Marxism a failure simply results in its redefinition where someone cries out "yeah, but that's not really Marxism." The claim "Marxism doesn't work" becomes unfalsifiable, meaning it is a meaningless claim

But I don't see any virtue in further discussing these contexts or arguing why Marx matters outside of academia if you're unashamedly sticking to intellectual laziness and dogmatism. — Shevek

I know, but you'll keep talking to me about it because you can't help yourself not to. It's just too near and dear to your heart for some reason.

.

By your reasoning, any system with 'restrictions' (i.e. all of them) lead directly to totalitarianism. — Shevek

I've not suggested that there be a democracy without a constitution of sorts to designate the powers of government, and I've also not suggested that the creation of one would necessarily lead to totalitarianism. It's not as if I wasn't aware that there are many countries (most notably the US where I live) that are democracies and that also have constitutions that designate the role of government.

The distinction is that a Marxist government would have to set forth Marxist principles within its constitution and it would necessarily begin with the notion that the state (or community, or whatever you wish to call the collective) maintains some level of supremacy over the individual. It is that notion that leads to the totalitarianism that is characteristic of every state that considers itself Marxist. Such places have never been bastions of individual rights. And so when the proletariat votes, should it vote for anything over the subjugation of the person to the collective, then it has redefined it's god.

You're obviously coming from a place of ignorance when you purport to have figured out everything wrong with Marx's arguments. Have you even read Marx, let alone tried to extend the least bit of charitability in trying to understand his arguments? Attacking strawmen gets tiring, and it is quite unfortunate because I'd really like to hear intelligent criticisms of Marx from perspectives that know what he's talking about. I don't believe everything Marx says, but I try to understand what he says before evaluating it. — Shevek

You miss my perspective is all. You can read Marx as a philosopher or you can read him as a politician. The former leaves us having all sorts of heady discussions about alternative ways to structure our society, and perhaps we can talk about revolutions and bringing down the oppressive structures so prevalent in our society (despite the fact that the oppressive structures in non-Marxist countries are child's play when compared to those in Marxist countries). The latter leaves us with a very different discussion. We stop caring about theories, hypotheticals, and endless debates in smoke filled rooms. We simply ask: does this work? It seems not to. You've built a hell of a mousetrap, but it just doesn't catch mice.

So, sure, I could go about discussing Marx like many discuss Descartes (for example). Interesting stuff with a massive academic history that really doesn't matter outside of academic settings. That, though, isn't why he's being discussed. You guys are discussing him like he ought to matter outside of academia.

Once people ride in machines and not on their own feet or on the feet of horses, that transformation is finished. Even if future cars rest on anti-gravity devices instead of wheels, it's a refinement, not a revolution. — Bitter Crank

There's no distinction between revolution and refinement. I'd say it was as much a refinement when the first guy was able to tame a horse enough to ride it as it was a refinement to move to a horse driven buggy and then another refinement to the horseless carriage. You could also call each of those revolutions.

I also question anyone who says that human ingenuity has largely run its course. When I was a kid, we had a complex network of cans and kite strings to communicate and now we have rotary phones hanging from our walls that enable us to contact our friends from across the country (but be sure to call at night when the rates are lower).

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is supposed to designate such a system, in which total political power emanates from democratic worker councils and governmental/inter-local institutions are meant largely as coordinating bodies for carrying out decisions coming from them. — Shevek

There would have to be a limitation placed on such a democracy which would require that it adhere to the principle that each must contribute to the best of their ability and each is entitled to his fair share. That is, you can't just assert there will be an open democracy with each voting his individual conscience for whatever he wants, else there most certainly will be some group of people who will vote for privatization and capitalism. which would defeat the whole point of enterprise. In fact, I'd expect that no rule could be passed (even should it emanate from the worker's council) that does not require certain behavior consistent with working for the collective. Those restrictions placed on democracy are what will (and has) led to totalitarianism within communist systems.

Of course we can all make criticisms of Marx and update it to more contemporary conditions. — Shevek

Or we can simply finally recognize that Marxism is an unworkable theory in practice and that constant efforts to explain how it might work make it a meaningless tautology where it's just true that if we all live together as one, we'll be happy.

If it was just the homeless or just food insufficiency, voluntary efforts could conceivably solve the problem. — Bitter Crank

Well, I've not argued for the Randian wet dream of complete government elimination of all services with the expectation of private enterprise replacement of those services. The spectrum runs from radical rightest Libertarianism to absolute communism with no retention of private capital, with me obviously fading toward the right and you being more left than I am right (as you are a self-avowed Marxist).

The point being that I favor some taxation (which is already progressive in nature) and government services, and I believe that what we currently have adequately provides the basic services. The concern that I'm hearing in this thread is that those dreaded 1 percenters have too much money and should do more to help their fellow citizens (1) out of a sense of general fairness, and (2) because there are many who need more help than the government is currently willing or able to provide. My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money, and (2) private supplementation can better address many of the problems related to poverty.

I then went on to say that since private donations of money and time do make a real difference to the problems facing us, it might make sense for all you bleeding hearts to contribute (if you aren't already) instead of just griping about how the rich should be forced to come down from their penthouses to save us.

No, the idea of government redistribution of wealth (as opposed to a charitable distribution) seems to be a contemporary secular concept. — Bitter Crank

This is a complicated question that might be the subject of a dissertation.

The earliest forms of government redistribution were referred to as a palace economy, which dates back to the Bronze Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy . The absolute ruler would receive wealth from the people and would then redistribute it out based upon special privilege or in order to invest for more wealth for the ruler. The notion of "each according to need" came a long time later obviously, but I'd assume was an outgrowth of modern democracy, where the needs of the people generally predominated over a particular ruler's needs. Generally rulers do seize money, but they keep it for themselves, although I'm sure Kings and Queens have from time to time distributed their wealth for some benevolent purpose, however sporadic it might have been.

In looking to ancient Jewish culture, charity was required by God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah), but not by any person with secular power to enforce the rule. You gave charity to avoid the harsh judgment imposed by God. Deut 11:22-32. It was also considered a social norm. https://books.google.com/books?id=s3VnyvPlVb4C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=how+was+charity+required+in+ancient+israel&source=bl&ots=0c8mYP1wUO&sig=1DSi-v5lPblxjb_bayO40acF1f0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT7seUtYTLAhXDMyYKHR_LCIgQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=how%20was%20charity%20required%20in%20ancient%20israel&f=false.

There was also the requirement to tithe, which is today understood as a requirement to give 10% of your income to charity. This is a bit of a corruption of the actual rule, which was actually that farmers were required to give 10% of their annual crops and livestock to the Levites (the priests) because the Levites had no land and no way to produce their own food. The rule really wasn't meant to feed the poor, but was required to sustain the structure of the society. With the destruction of the second temple, that rule was abolished, as were all laws related to sacrifice and priestly rites.

My point here is only to say that there have been many instances in history where money was provided to some central entity and that entity then gave that money back to the rank and file. How it was seized (whether by force, fear of God, or by social expectations) varied, and how it was redistributed varied (by special privilege, through investment concerns, or to assist the most needy) also varied.

My position therefore isn't that charity or taxation or redistribution is a bad thing per se, but it is to say that there are all sorts of forms, with me favoring a more voluntary system imposed by social norms and a distribution to those truly in need. It's for that reason that I keep asking "what have you done to correct the problem"? That is, there should be a social expectation that everyone fix this problem, not just a demand that those who have enough extra stuff to just give it up. Such a demand is especially difficult to accept from those who refuse to accept the social norm that they get out and help those in need. As I see it, we're an army of millions of people fully capable of resolving this problem, but instead we turn on each other and point to others and ask why they're not doing enough.

Much of what you said I agree with. The ethical imperative of charity is not unique to Christianity and it largely explains why the religious (who are more often on the right of the political spectrum) are more charitable than their counterparts.

I think you have to make a leap, though, to suggest that Christianity suggests that the government is properly empowered by God to seize assets of the rich and to redistribute them. I'm generally opposed to any attempt to equate political positions to religious positions. Your post hints at "God is on the Democrats' side," which is as dangerous as saying God favors the Republicans (which is no doubt preached in certain churches). That seemed to be what was intimated in your post, but I could have over-read it.

I also am aware that Protestantism rejects the notion that good acts are necessary for salvation, which was a response to the Catholic Church's prior rules requiring payment of money to the church in order to be saved. There was a certain enlightenment associated with this reformation, as it eliminated the Church's control over who might get into heaven and thus put such matters solely in the power of the faithful. I find that change enlightened because it did exactly what it was intended, it kept folks from demanding things or acts in order to be right before God, and to some extent it puts an end to your suggestion that proper Christians must favor a particular political view. That is, it is not required that the rich help the poor for them to be good people as long as they keep the faith.

Where I might add to the Protestant view is that I can accept that salvation might be achieved through faith alone, but I am going to be highly suspect of anyone's declaration of faith if there is no corresponding good behavior that accompanies it. If you care so deeply for the poor, it would be an odd way of showing it if you never did anything caring for them.

If you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, then you have questionable morals — Sapientia

Why? I think that characterizes most people at a basic level. We first care about ourselves, then about others. I'd say the immoral person is the one who does not care about others at any level.

An aim, like a desire, doesn't necessitate action, but it doesn't have the same meaning as the latter, so you can't reduce the former to the latter. — Sapientia

Alright, you meant aim, not want, but I think we're using it the same way here, which is just to want things to change, but not necessarily to do anything about it.

How, may I ask, do you know that I've done nothing? Or is that just an assumption? Do you know what they say about those who assume?

Even if I have done nothing, I would just accept your charge of hypocrisy. It's an irrelevant ad hominem. — Sapientia

You may be a philanthropist as far as I know. My point is very different from yours despite that I may have engaged in an irrelevant attack on your integrity. My point is that there is nothing moral about wanting things to be good if you do nothing good and there is something moral about wanting things to be bad as long as you make things good. This dispensing of the requirement that you actually try to make things better is what I'm objecting to.

I'd also point out that your argument was in fact that you objected to certain good deeds because you felt it would result in the rich being absolved of their duty to help the poor. That is, you were actually arguing that it was bad to do what appeared to be good, so if you do in fact do good deeds for the poor, you're not just a hypocrite, you're a bad person under your definition of what it is to be good.

Is that what a partner in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty would do, or is that just what a self-interested profiteer would do? — Sapientia

Who cares as long as poverty is reduced? Would a homeless person really care if his bagged meal was in generic paper or in one with a Nike swoosh?

False dilemma. I'll go with option 3: aim to change things for the better, so that the power isn't in the hands of Wells Fargo and others like them. — Sapientia

By "aim" I suppose you mean "want," because as I've pointed out, you've done nothing. How does wanting change trump going out and helping others?

No, my primarily ethical duty would be to put right the wrong, rather than maintain it, and compensating for the inadequacy of the rich would maintain that wrong. So I would instead advocate revolutionary action. — Sapientia

Well that sure is the laziest solution. You can't help the poor because if you do then your government representatives won't force the rich to help the poor, but the rich won't be forced because they control the whole enterprise, so the poor will remain poor, even though you could have done something to help them. I'm sure the poor appreciate your integrity in not helping them and they admire your philosophizing from your armchair.

Should I encourage others not to help the poor so that I can create such a horrible situation that my government might finally act? Suppose my representatives don't act, but they instead interpret everyone's refusal to help the poor as evidence that their constituency doesn't care about the poor? That might be a logical conclusion, as opposed to their thinking that the reason their constituency doesn't help the poor is actually because they care so much they refuse to help in the hopes the poor end up getting help. While it's physically lazy, the mental gymnastics are strenuous.

I view any corporations and wealthy people as partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty who I believe are genuinely attempting to resolve the problem. But that, in itself, is not sufficient. They might have the wrong idea about the best way in which to resolve the problem. — Sapientia

And yet another reason not to help out. Nothing like throwing down the moral gauntlet and refusing to do anything that is beneath you, all the while when there's someone suffering.

So here's how it works: Wells Fargo Bank decides to team up with the American Cancer Society to raise funds to help treat cancer. As you might know, Wells Fargo really isn't in the cancer treating business, but they're in the banking business. What they really want is to profit from selling banking products, and they're using the ACS as a vehicle to make more money. Shocking, I know.

So, you have 2 choices, work with Wells Fargo and see to it that more people are treated for cancer or sit back in your chair and bitch about it. I suppose you'll take option 2, considering that requires no effort on your part.

Edit: From their website: "The American Cancer Society gratefully acknowledges those many corporations who actively support its mission to save more lives from cancer and create a world with more birthdays. In 2014 corporate contributions accounted for approximately $85,173,147.00."

Rather than buy an expensive yacht, donate that money to charity. Still left with billions of dollars in the bank and a large collection of extremely valuable assets? Then sacrificing the addition of a new yacht to your collection was not enough. Don't want to do more? Ok, then, I guess that's your prerogative. On second thought, that's rubbish. If you won't do more, then that superfluous wealth should be forcibly taken from you and redistributed. — Sapientia

Sure, and we can have a committee that oversees his bank account and governs all the money that he earns to determine what is and isn't a frivolous expenditure. I'm sure that wouldn't disincentivize anyone from making money and we'd see an explosion in productivity.

You continue to ignore that the rich already are paying disproportionately and it already is their contributions that are building public housing, education, welfare, health care, etc. You're just demanding that they pay more and for some reason you think folks shouldn't own yachts. Do you suppose someone might lose their job if they shut down the shipyards after you outlaw yachts?

And you also ignore my plea that you go out into your community and make it a better place as opposed to complaining about the rich bastards out there. Let's assume the world is unfair and that the rich are being relieved of their duty to make the world a better place all as the result of their ability to manipulate the law. It would seem if that were the case then your ethical duty to compensate for the rich's inadequacy would be increased. It's not like you can turn to the poor and tell them you can't help them because that is the job of the rich, and so sorry if they are failing.

I just find the moralizing a bit hypocritical. The rich need to do more, but I am justified in doing next to nothing? I daresay that if you actually committed your free time to resolving these problems, you wouldn't waste your time complaining and you might even see corporations and wealthy people as partners in your efforts. And if you were pulling your weight in regard to solving the problems, you would at least stand on the firm ground of your example when you demanded more from others. And by "others," I mean everyone, rich and poor.

@Sapientia The rich already are paying a disproportionate share towards helping the poor. As I've cited many times before, conservatives give more toward charity than liberals on average and the wealthy provide far more tax revenues than the poor. You may wish to argue they should pay more, but you can't argue that they are paying less than everyone else.

My comment was pretty simple, and it didn't even suggest the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. I simply said that you have little standing arguing about what other people do if you're just sitting in your chair complaining. Get out and help the homeless if they are your concern. Sign up at your local charity. There is a way to help out others other than by complaining that other people don't help out enough. All this wonderful talk about how we should serve others sounds somewhat hollow when it is followed by a rationalization for why we personally have no obligation to serve others.

If all the complainers would get out and help resolve the problem instead of demanding that others resolve the problems they find so important, then the problems would go a long towards being resolved. I get that you're tired of an unkempt house. Clean it.

The poor dear! After doing whatever he does in well-lit, air conditioned, clean, comfortable surroundings, he get's off the bus after work and what does he see? Suffering humanity! The fucking nerve of these people, displaying their wretchedness where he might see it. maybe smell it. — Bitter Crank

It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that his position has been accepted by any meaningful group, so have at it in defeating it. You're not going to get any push back from me.

I will say, though, that sweeping the homeless from public spaces is a general tactic used in large cities, many of which are run by Democrats. We don't argue that it's being done because we're disgusted by them, but we instead make arguments related to crime and the annoyance of panhandling. It's also pretty clear that the homeless problem is more related to addiction and psychological issues than it is to a failed economic system.

It seems fairly irrelevant to me whether one group wants the homeless out because they stink and another because they hurt business and another because they think they're annoying. It also seems irrelevant to me whether some see the homeless as regular folks who have stumbled and others as failures. It's not what you think in your heart; it's what you do with your hands. So, if you care, go feed the homeless, assist in a shelter, donate money, do whatever. Telling folks how much you care and condemning those who you think don't care doesn't matter a whole lot to a homeless guy. I'd imagine you're both the same in his eyes.

So, the super rich and the working class have merit proportional to their status and contribution to society? I don't think so. The super rich are overprivileged, and something ought to be done about that, e.g. redistribution of wealth, higher wages for those at the lower end of the scale, higher taxes for big businesses. — Sapientia

Right, exactly what I thought you thought. You are arguing for equality, but I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. To the extent you simply point out that there is unequal distribution of wealth, I'd be concerned if there were not. I don't observe equal contributions, so I'd be alarmed if there were equal rewards.

in the bowels of bad legislation — Bitter Crank

would be as effective a plug in the rectum of Republican Policy — Bitter Crank

would need a collective colostomy. — Bitter Crank

having a plug free rectum and dumping — Bitter Crank

In need of a good gastroenterologist?

Like the goal of creating a fairer society by, for example, targeting the super rich? Trump is a fat cat that will prioritise the interests of other fat cats if he can get away with it, and he will hinder progress towards such a goal. He is also someone who takes advantage of prejudice, and if that were reflected in policy, then it would have serious detrimental consequences. — Sapientia

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it.

They're all fat cats, every last one of them, Dem or Republican. Ordinary folks do ordinary things, which doesn't include running for president.

Race baiting is hardly a Republican idea. Both sides play that card, and it's close kin, class warfare, gets played when people start vilifying the rich.

Unfortunately, a Conservative landslide, with David 'pig fucker' Cameron securing another term as Prime Minister. — Sapientia

If one can get elected with such an unfortunate middle name, then I suppose anyone can.

Oh, I know, I was just trying to provoke you. — Baden

Say crude things about your mom. That really pisses me off.

So, does that mean that you think that Trump can be trusted to govern the U.S.A. better than Sanders? Because unless Sanders has said crazier and/or more morally repugnant things than Trump, I trust Sanders over Trump. — Sapientia

I trust that Trump will make better decisions than Sanders, not because either are truly crazy. I just disagree with Sanders on just about everything.

Trump is a genius of sorts. He can say "I'll make the Mexicans build their own wall" and then he'll get billions of dollars in free advertising from CNN and MSNBC when they express their outrage. Meanwhile, the average guy thinks to himself, "yeah, they should pay for their own damn wall" and then he gets more votes. How a real estate investor becomes a celebrity and is able to appeal to the common man is an amazing feat.

Great risks with completely unpredictable results is what makes America great I tell you! Come on over and spin the wheel, see what happens.

I'd vote for Trump over Mr. Magoo and Mr. Magoo over Hillary and Trump over Hillary.

To be fair to Hanover, completely selfish relatively rich people interested in nothing but how much tax they have to pay have plenty to gain from a Trump presidency and plenty to lose from a Sanders one. ;) — Baden

And yet many of his supporters are blue collar Democrats (and Republicans). This old "everyone just votes for self interest" just isn't true. If it were, no wealthy people would vote for Sanders, but they do. People are driven by ideology more than you suggest.

You did actually say any Democrat; not just Sanders - which is even more shocking. And that is precisely what BC addressed in his comment to which you replied with the quote above. — Sapientia

Well, ok, not any Democrat. I suppose if you found me a conservative southern Democrat (like Zell Miller), then I'd vote for Zell even though he's really old now. At his finest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSQ5BX6YXg.

But to the question of Trump vs. Sanders, it'd be Trump without question. Mr. Magoo or Sanders, it'd be Mr. Magoo.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar. @Michael recommended it, and although very thick in parts (because the pages were made of sturdy cardboard), I really enjoyed it.

Precedence is useful for guidance but no more than that. — Bitter Crank

I get that the tradition argument is pretext, but so is the argument that Obama was elected, so the Senate must honor his wishes and vote as soon as possible. It is true that the Republicans must suck it up that Obama gets to pick the candidate, but the Dems must suck it up that the Republican Senate gets to decide when (and if) they vote. No one gets to tell the other what to do, and each gets to explain why they can do whatever they want to do, and we the electorate get to decide who we despise more.

As for Trump, I'm disappointed that you would prefer a schlockmeister Trump to any, perhaps very superior, Democrat. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with Sanders on much more than I disagree with Trump, so that's why I'd vote for Trump if I had to choose between those two.

Let's just agree that we're all going to argue in favour of whichever outcome satisfies our principles and personal interests. — Michael

I don't want to find common ground. It only humanizes my opponents and makes their destruction that much more draining.

Favor has no u.

Let's not insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that the Republicans wouldn't try to nominate a conservative justice if they were in Obama's position, and cry foul if the Dems tried to obstruct them (which they probably would). — Baden

Sure, they're both equally inconsistent. There is some tradition, though, about not making lifetime appointments during a lame duck period, so it makes sense that it would be argued. I do agree that the underlying tradition of fair play and civility is a thing of the past, although I wonder if it really ever was.