Neutrality and other stuff.

[StormBolt24 117]

@@StormBolt24,

 

rofl XD yet you live in Finland, one of  the most wealth and rich country in Europe XD

I didn't knew Finland is wealthy coutnry. Also: here is budjets made so, that there is as well peoples that can have "Middle-income."

[Milky Jade 138]

The only way I can explain such an opinion of yours to myself is that either you don't understand the definition of greed, or that you are an atheistic satanist.

 

False dichotomy much?

 

Greed, in the economical sense, is a prerequisite for goods and services to be created.

Tell me, what economy doesn't run on greed? If it wasn't for the healthy and personal interest to create products in order to trade them for something you want (re: greed, though if you're willing to use the more absurd definition that greed is tantamount to theft and constitutes an exuberant interest* in goods and market share)?

 

It is literally what creates jobs. In reference to what I said earlier: Unless you want to make it painfully obvious to anybody that you think money can only be created at the loss of another, then we're talking about the same thing, right?

 

Where money (value) is created, there was productivity. The incentives to produce something are firstly governed by the nature of our economics (we might as well say economics is part of our nature), and secondly, made possible by money.

 

So if "greed" means "wanting to make tonnes of money", then I really, really don't see what is bad or destructive about it.

 

No... no, and I relay this to anybody. I don't think human productivity is destructive.

 

Is that now clear?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Milky Jade

[Doc. Volt 2,561]

@@StormBolt24,

 

it is, and your "middle income" is like a very high income here in this poor country called Italy pal XD

[Serbon div 386]

False dichotomy much?

 

Greed, in the economical sense, is a prerequisite for goods and services to be created.

Tell me, what economy doesn't run on greed? If it wasn't for the healthy and personal interest to create products in order to trade them for something you want (re: greed, though if you're willing to use the more absurd definition that greed is tantamount to theft and constitutes an exuberant interest* in goods and market share)?

 

It is literally what creates jobs. In reference to what I said earlier: Unless you want to make it painfully obvious to anybody that you think money can only be created at the loss of another, then we're talking about the same thing, right?

 

Where money (value) is created, there was productivity. The incentives to produce something are firstly governed by the nature of our economics (we might as well say economics is part of our nature), and secondly, made possible by money.

 

So if "greed" means "wanting to make tonnes of money", then I really, really don't see what is bad or destructive about it.

 

No... no, and I relay this to anybody. I don't think human productivity is destructive.

 

Is that now clear?

Do you know what economy even means? It comes from two Greek words, οἶκος, or house, home and νέμω, manage. It's all about managing your household. You don’t need greed to be productive. Does wanting to feed your children mean being greedy? Of course it doesn’t. Please think about this further.

 

Furthermore, jobs exist for the survival of the family, not because of some "greed".

 

Are you trying to say money created productivity? Did productivity not exist when money didn't exist.

 

When did I say human productivity was destructive.

 

 

in this poor country called Italy

Poor poor Italy XD People here would die to live in Italy XD

[StormBolt24 117]

@@StormBolt24,

 

it is, and your "middle income" is like a very high income here in this poor country called Italy pal XD

I don't still know about richnessess of different countries. How you know what is the middle income around here?

I suppose the answer for you all, is this:

 

I don't know can I trust on that "money" or not. I have seen that it can be used for good or for bad. Maybe personality lives it can turn out to be very good used and very useful... In other hand: it can be really bad as well.

 

The only thing I guess I am really bothered about: Is that how governments decides where those money are being used. Build weapons or builds or something to advance country technology, country itself etc... Or donating for other poor countries or all of them? I still cannot say directly really what to make of money though. I suppose it can be used for good as well... But I am still very suspicious of that where goverments uses the money. Even following news don't possilby tell 100% of it.

 

Maybe USA does use money for good meanings, but I cannot tell, because I don't know it 100% sure.

Well, you answered my question anyway.

 

See, in order for you to make a statement of money which is of interest, I first need to know if your understanding of what money is, is sound in the first place.

 

I've had the same concerns for another thread I've read yesterday. If money is bad, why don't we get rid of it? And why do you continue to deal with others in terms of money (read: a good thing)?

 

Since these are obviously contradictory, one of the premises has to be wrong.

 

Do you know why I think that money isn't bad?

Well.. I think the concern of the people that blame money is real, but they are blaming the tool instead of the carpenter.

The question is: In what way can a tool be responsible for the bumbling of carpenters if they're being used for the construction thereof?

 

I don't think anything is heaven, but I do recognize the importance of currency. It is a utility and also a reminder: that there are working persons willing to deal with each other for mutual benefit, because if people wouldn't be keen on dealing with each other, then money would have no reason to exist.

 

So... if money is the root of all evil, then what is the root of all money?

 

Money represents a value. Not any specific value, but more like the "promise" that it represents some value, so long someone is willing to exchange it for other values, giving it a personal value.

 

It is what allows us to be a step-up from trade and exchange. It is what allows us to not trade 10 pairs of shoes for a washing machine, it is what allows us to save up for something that you couldn't've attained per trade, because the momentary needs and wants of people are unpredictable and your 10 pairs of shoes are prone to lose all their value in a few year's time. It is what allows you to go to universities.

 

The values that money represents are the ends of a production and the means to trade it for other people's results of productivity.

It is the middle man of cooperation. To reach constructive ends, you need to be able to offer your product and trade it for something that you want, but cannot produce yourself.

 

To say that money is evil because of the specific wants of people is shifting the blame onto something you and I consider to be constructive. It would be to blame human productivity and their tools of trade (you know, that thing which made that box of dancing lights you use to communicate your messages to me possible).

 

And, sorry, if I may - if that is what you're saying, then I haven't the foggiest idea where you're coming from.

I suppose the answer for you all, is this:

 

I don't know can I trust on that "money" or not. I have seen that it can be used for good or for bad. Maybe personality lives it can turn out to be very good used and very useful... In other hand: it can be really bad as well.

 

The only thing I guess I am really bothered about: Is that how governments decides where those money are being used. Build weapons or building civilazations or donating for other poor countries or all of them? I still cannot say directly really what to make of money though. I suppose it can be used for good as well... But I am still very suspicious of that where goverments uses the money. Even following news don't possilby tell 100% of it.

 

Maybe USA does use money for good meanings, but I cannot tell, because I don't know it 100% sure.

Then you will probably not want to talk with anyone else in here, because the main reason seems to be that you cannot defend your own claims in a proper discussion, and it seems that you don't know much about money, economy or politics either.

 

 

Wow, lots of judgmental presumptions, which you state as if it were facts, about a person you don't even know much.

I suppose the answer for you all, is this:

 

I don't know can I trust on that "money" or not. I have seen that it can be used for good or for bad. Maybe personality lives it can turn out to be very good used and very useful... In other hand: it can be really bad as well.

 

The only thing I guess I am really bothered about: Is that how governments decides where those money are being used. Build weapons or building civilazations or donating for other poor countries or all of them? I still cannot say directly really what to make of money though. I suppose it can be used for good as well... But I am still very suspicious of that where goverments uses the money. Even following news don't possilby tell 100% of it.

 

Maybe USA does use money for good meanings, but I cannot tell, because I don't know it 100% sure.

 

This still does not remove my suspicion unfortunately. Because I don't know anything for sure.

That's the problem, I can't because I value them, and they are essential for my survival. Well actually my government values them. The government guarantees it's value, what if something happened to the government? That is the main problem.

 

 

If I had money I'd probably invest in three things: books, education and land. If you'd have a better use for them I'd give them to you, if I had some excess

 

 

We actually don't use presidents on our money, nor monarchs (with the exception of one, who was an incredible writer). We usually have great scientists, reformers and intellectuals on them

I suppose the answer for you all, is this:

 

I don't know can I trust on that "money" or not. I have seen that it can be used for good or for bad. Maybe personality lives it can turn out to be very good used and very useful... In other hand: it can be really bad as well.

 

The only thing I guess I am really bothered about: Is that how governments decides where those money are being used. Build weapons or building civilazations or donating for other poor countries or all of them? I still cannot say directly really what to make of money though. I suppose it can be used for good as well... But I am still very suspicious of that where goverments uses the money. Even following news don't possilby tell 100% of it.

 

Maybe USA does use money for good meanings, but I cannot tell, because I don't know it 100% sure.

 

So I cannot say directly what to think of money... It seems to go inbetween of everything.

Edited May 16, 2014 by StormBolt24

[Milky Jade 138]

Do you know what economy even means? It comes from two Greek words, οἶκος, or house, home and νέμω, manage. It's all about managing your household. You don’t need greed to be productive. Does wanting to feed your children mean being greedy? Of course it doesn’t. Please think about this further.

 

What?

Yes, I daresay I have a degree of insight into economy sufficient enough for sophisticated discussion. No, the etymology of economics is not interesting to the discussion at hand.

 

Repeating myself is stupid, but once more: Greed is a prerequisite for creating goods and services. We wouldn't advance from where we are if all we were concerned about was feeding ourselves and keeping ourselves warm.

 

Take Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The lowermost castes can barely be resolved with anti-selfish systems (like socialism),

how do you expect to uppermost to be resolved without a great deal of economic greed? Surplus is what makes progress possible. Our fundamental needs are not driven by greed, but greed and selfish interests (such as food and water) go hand-in-hand in this sense: they are both direct corrolaries of human interest. Computers and technology, quality of life, it all needed a wherewithal to fund their inception and development. Humans typically work for more than they can eat - they demonstrate a very real interest in progression, in making life even simpler, raising their standard of living and quality, and tend towards a more comfortable future.

 

Every statement about "greed" underlies the presupposing question: of benefit to whom? and to what purpose?

 

Even if you accused me misrepresentatingly of white collar devotion: What is the direct consequence of someone trying to amass more money they will ever be able to spend in their entire life?

 

Huurrr... well, it's jobs. At least we can agree that the amount of economical power you (would, in a free market,) possess is directly proportional to the amount of jobs you create to achieve that power.

 

 

Are you trying to say money created productivity? Did productivity not exist when money didn't exist.

 

When did I say human productivity was destructive.

 

Well, if you cared to read any of the above or of what I said in my last post, *or* of how I spawned this discussion in the first place (StormBolt's suggestion that money is a cause, and not a tool), then you should be left in no doubt as to what I think is true.

 

I'm saying that money is a direct consequence of humans wanting to deal with each other. Humans wants to deal with each other because there exists billions, and among those billions are some that are more proficient at something than you are, and therefore we can create a society in which all goods and services are accessible to all people regardless of how much they could perform themselves. That is the proper function of money, to make human interaction seamless and time-independent.

 

 

I'm saying that that is in implicitness in saying "money is evil". To say that money is evil is to say that humans interaction is evil.

[StormBolt24 117]

What?

Yes, I daresay I have a degree of insight into economy sufficient enough for sophisticated discussion. No, the etymology of economics is not interesting to the discussion at hand.

 

Repeating myself is stupid, but once more: Greed is a prerequisite for creating goods and services. We wouldn't advance from where we are if all we were concerned about was feeding ourselves and keeping ourselves warm.

 

Take Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The lowermost castes can barely be resolved with anti-selfish systems (like socialism),

how do you expect to uppermost to be resolved without a great deal of economic greed? Surplus is what makes progress possible. Our fundamental needs are not driven by greed, but greed and selfish interests (such as food and water) go hand-in-hand in this sense: they are both direct corrolaries of human interest. Computers and technology, quality of life, it all needed a wherewithal to fund their inception and development. Humans typically work for more than they can eat - they demonstrate a very real interest in progression, in making life even simpler, raising their standard of living and quality, and tend towards a more comfortable future.

 

Every statement about "greed" underlies the presupposing question: of benefit to whom? and to what purpose?

 

Even if you accused me misrepresentatingly of white collar devotion: What is the direct consequence of someone trying to amass more money they will ever be able to spend in their entire life?

 

Huurrr... well, it's jobs. At least we can agree that the amount of economical power you (would, in a free market,) possess is directly proportional to the amount of jobs you create to achieve that power.

 

 

 

Well, if you cared to read any of the above or of what I said in my last post, *or* of how I spawned this discussion in the first place (StormBolt's suggestion that money is a cause, and not a tool), then you should be left in no doubt as to what I think is true.

 

I'm saying that money is a direct consequence of humans wanting to deal with each other. Humans wants to deal with each other because there exists billions, and among those billions are some that are more proficient at something than you are, and therefore we can create a society in which all goods and services are accessible to all people regardless of how much they could perform themselves. That is the proper function of money, to make human interaction seamless and time-independent.

 

 

I'm saying that that is in implicitness in saying "money is evil". To say that money is evil is to say that humans interaction is evil.

Umm... Actually money is a causer AND a tool. Depends really much who is using it.

 

As a tool, I mean something that does work as something, that makes something else happen.

 

It is hard to explain, because money seems to go through everything.

Edited May 16, 2014 by StormBolt24

[Milky Jade 138]

I suppose the answer for you all, is this:

 

I don't know can I trust on that "money" or not. I have seen that it can be used for good or for bad. Maybe personality lives it can turn out to be very good used and very useful... In other hand: it can be really bad as well.

 

The only thing I guess I am really bothered about: Is that how governments decides where those money are being used. Build weapons or building civilazations or donating for other poor countries or all of them? I still cannot say directly really what to make of money though. I suppose it can be used for good as well... But I am still very suspicious of that where goverments uses the money. Even following news don't possilby tell 100% of it.

 

Maybe USA does use money for good meanings, but I cannot tell, because I don't know it 100% sure.

 

Now we are getting to the core of the issue.

 

The questions are: What are the proper functions of a government? Is involuntary taxation a way to solve problems efficiently?

 

The questions to you specifically are: Why should a government be entrusted with the responsibility of spending your money?

You said it yourself, I think, unintentionally... you wouldn't even trust me to do that for you. And you are suspicious of a government's spending policies because obviously, problems aren't* being removed, but created.

 

I'll leave these questions in the open. To answer them myself would create another wall of text I don't have the time to create, but in the meantime... well, you can attempt to. The answers are pretty much implicit should you have read any of my former posts.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Milky Jade

[StormBolt24 117]

Now we are getting to the core of the issue.

 

The questions are: What are the proper functions of a government? Is involuntary taxation a way to solve problems efficiently?

 

The questions to you specifically are: Why should a government be entrusted with the responsibility of spending your money?

You said it yourself, I think, unintentionally... you wouldn't even trust me to do that for you. And you are suspicious of a government's spending policies because obviously, problems are being removed, but created.

 

I'll leave these questions in the open. To answer them myself would create another wall of text I don't have the time to create, but in the meantime... well, you can attempt to. The answers are pretty much implicit should you have read any of my former posts.

Actually perhaps I would now, since I finallyrealized what this is all about,

[Milky Jade 138]

Umm... Actually money is a causer AND a tool. Depends really much who is using it.

 

As a tool, I mean something that does work as something, that makes something else happen.

 

It is hard to explain, because money seems to go through everything.

 

This is really along the lines of saying "fire is bad because as it creates, so can it destroy".

 

Similar to knives: Have we ever blamed knives for any wounds they inflicted?

 

Am I to really ask you: Were knives created for a constructive purpose? Are knives and fire therefore evil? Are they a cause for evil?

 

Using this tautology on money, I will leave to you. I think I have nothing more to say, it's all up there for you to read.

Actually perhaps I would now, since I finallyrealized what this is all about,

All I really wanted to make clear is that issues can be either resolved by being rational about them, or you can shift the blame from the perpetrators (humans) onto their tools (money) and not get anywhere by the end of the day.

 

I'm a fan of reaching constructive ends. That is why I really, really, wanted to first make this clear and inductive to everypony.

[StormBolt24 117]

For respond to your first answer quote: it depends how you use fire and knife. It really freaks me out that EVERYTHING seems to always depend on the user... Which makes it extremely hard to say directly: is it evil or not. Because if someone decides to use money as the weapon ((in that way he would use money to gather up some peoples to work for him for example)) so he could get rid to someone else. In that way, it could make a money a tool, but as I said: I cannot directly say.

 

 

And as for answer to your second answer quote: I know, but it usually takes painfully a lot of time, beofre I realize some of these more rational things. I try to avoid overdoing stuff.

 

But the thing that still bothers me, is that: WILL the government really reslove something or do really something about something where money is really needed for good means? I really don't know, because they do not tell directly anything.

 

I'd say also that you convince me of that money is NOT ALL evil... But it does not remove my suspicion towards government. If sometimes government can really ASSURE using it for something good for eally DOING it and not just saying ((In other words: show that they are really doing it)), it might help a lot.

Edited May 16, 2014 by StormBolt24

[Milky Jade 138]

For respond to your first answer quote: it depends how you use fire and knife. It really freaks me out that EVERYTHING seems to always depend on the user... Which makes it extremely hard to say directly: is it evil or not. Because if someone decides to use money as the weapon ((in that way he would use money to gather up some peoples to work for him for example)) so he could get rid to someone else. In that way, it could make a money a tool, but as I said: I cannot directly say.

 

That is a good observation, thank you for making it. In order for you to tell good from evil, right from wrong, we have to first know what it means for something to be either of those.

 

First of all, let me state that there is no such thing as "inherently good/evil". It's a contradiction in terms. I'll soon come back to this.

 

"Right and wrong" are concepts in reference to chosen values. If that chosen value is "freedom", then everything which furthers your freedom is "right" and everything which diminishes it is "wrong".

 

There is a large accent on "chosen". That's correct: "Right" and "wrong" presuppose a choice. Where no choice exists, something cannot be either for or against something, that is to say, something cannot be intended to further or destroy a chosen reference value.

 

According to the philosophy I subscribe to, "life" is the primary value, and "freedom" is a direct corollary. If you want to make a statement about right or wrong, it is implicit in its nature that you need a system that is built upon your liberty to be an "evaluator".

If someone makes a choice for you, then it is no account of what you did right or wrong, but it is certainly an encroachment of the value of freedom, and thereby wrong by necessity.

 

Now back to inherency: If you wrapped your head around the above, then it's time to explain what inherency means.

Inherency means to import some property by compulsory means. E.g.: "the army is inherently bad because they are trained to kill".

 

Inherency presupposes no choice (re: compulsory). Where there exists no choice, you cannot by definition tell right from wrong, because only our choicemaking ability can have "for" or "against" (a value) as a consequence.

 

Fire and knives are, similiarly, inable to make a choice. So are all inanimate objects, and all other animals.

 

And no matter to what benefit or ail fire/knives are used, they will never be moral. Inanimate objects are choice-free and therefore not in the province of morality. The user of them can be (im)moral: You can cook meals to further the life of the ones you care about, or you can set fire to orphans. In neither case is fire the saint or offender. It is strictly contingent on the acting, choice-making party, that is, the cook or the arsonist.

 

 

But the thing that still bothers me, is that: WILL the government really reslove something or do really something about something where money is really needed for good means? I really don't know, because they do not tell directly anything.

They do tell a great deal, and that is exactly why I'm concerned for today's policies.

Taxation has benefits and downsides. It is beneficial in that you can have street damage repaired from the comfort of your armchair without having to arrange a meeting with the township, bottom line: have others arrange these kinds of necessary investments for you.

It is detrimental in that you repose your trust to authority that doesn't need that much money to begin with, does (excuse me) fuck-all, and pumps an unnecessary large contingent of taxpayer's money into arbitrary institutions and the military. The problem: the government doesn't cost that much. Why are they driving these sorts of cars?

 

The fundamentals of taxation are built on the tenets of socialism:

The basal assumptions of socialism are assumed in the following, that we cannot be counted upon to do the right thing. It assumes that a government of moral betters is needed to impose law that will elicit the morally approved actions that people are too selfish to be expected to do freely. It insists that force and guilt are the motivators needed to weave the fabric of a proper society. And the champions of socialism declare that it is the banner under which the good human beings must march. Remember that inherency and morality are mutually exclusive. To have important, impactful choices be made by political surrogates cannot be encouraged as virtuous. I abhor socialistic principles for this reason: they subordinate freedom and choice, (re: indespensable prerequisites for morality) to compulsion and a collective, a "greater good", in the name of moral sanity and empathy. It is an inversion of what it intends to be by definition and I resent it massively for that reason.

 

 

I'd say also that you convince me of that money is NOT ALL evil... But it does not remove my suspicion towards government. If sometimes government can really ASSURE using it for something good for eally DOING it and not just saying ((In other words: show that they are really doing it)), it might help a lot.

That's already what I hoped to achieve (though I hoped to resolve this quicker). You already show a degree of understanding exceeding that of certain posters I've clashed with. If you're asking for transparency in government, well.. I might go into this topic later, but for now, this'll have to do. It's been a pleasure.

[BMF 57]

Personally I want my country to be neutral.

I hate that my country is in the EU and NATO.

 

We need to work on deterrence.

 

No offense anybody.

Edited September 4, 2014 by BMF