Unworthy of Life

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2021.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,576
    Well, in terms of capitalism - capitalism for the consumer economy, with regulation to protect against monopolistic abuses. Socialism for common projects (roads, the EPA, the FAA, the NTSB, the CDC etc.) Communism for commonly owned properties (like our national parks.)
     
    Write4U likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    That sounds like it just might work. What would capitalism for the consumer economy look like though? Also, what is monopolistic abuse?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    I don't think people should be forced to contribute anything to commonly owned properties though.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I believe the Capitalist part could be a little more controlled. I see no reasonable advantage or benefit to a society when a person can have a billion dollars in a tax-free off-shore account, and pays a lower percentage of taxes on his "passive incomes" (money earning money without production).
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2021
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I agree. A well balanced socio-economic system seems to offer the best of both worlds.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,576
    Again, the tragedy of the commons applies. Given the choice, people would contribute zero to the military and to public roads, since someone else will probably do that, and money is tight for them. They WOULD be willing to do it, see, as soon as they get their next raise, or the kids move out, or they retire.
    Pretty much what it looks like. There's some regulation (i.e. cars have to meet emissions and safety standards, and radio transmitters have to follow FCC rules) but by and large, supply and demand set prices.
    1) One airline sells all their tickets for $1.
    2) They take over the market (while seeing a huge loss) and all other airlines fail. They buy some of them and let the others just disappear.
    3) Once the last competitor fails, they increase their prices by a factor of 1000. Then, if you want to fly, you have no choice but to pay whatever they ask.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,576
    Agreed. I see no downside either.
     
  11. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    They would probably contribute to it if they really needed it, and needed to contribute in order to get it. Anyway, it seems like a good strategy to get suckers to volunteer to pay for them instead.
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,576
    But they don't need roads - they already have them. And they don't like toll roads, and they vote against them. And they don't need a military until they are attacked by a foreign power.
    Exactly! And are you a sucker? Am I? Heck no! Let the suckers pay for them!

    And that's why it won't work.
     
  13. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    But it would, because there are plenty of suckers. If there are not any suckers though, then people who aren't suckers will be forced to pay for these services which they need instead.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,576
    No one thinks they are a sucker. So no one will pay.

    Would you pay, knowing it made you a sucker?
     
  15. Holly-May Leslie Registered Member

    Messages:
    304
    I'm just saying that people should be forced to pay for what they need, if required, by circumstances rather than government.
     
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,058
    theorizing concepts ...
    a monarchy defining a feudal system
    at some point the majority become equal(socialism in a sense although run by fascism)
    except in a critical survival frame where 1 must be a trades person to survive

    the UK which is probably one of the worlds strongest most robust democracy's has earned its way through the ages
    evolving feudal systems into democracies

    i think the UK is probably the world leader in democracy
    its NHS & social services & utility servicing of its people is unrivaled with its freedoms & rights.
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,058
    in which case you are only ever walking on someone elses land
    in which case you are a trespasser

    so public land creates the civility of not shooting anyone who walks past too close

    soo the negotiation has already taken place & has been agreed on.

    how else do you travel from one persons land to another persons land without trespassing on other ?

    EVERYTHING is already owned !
     
  18. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    You are suggesting for them to "evade the consequences" at the cost of killing a life.

    Sure you are in the right path....sure... right.
     
  19. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    Propaganda that women have the right to kill the life they carry in their wombs.

    You have no idea why that court case was settled in those years. Again, review the whole scenario. You will find that women's rights have nothing to do with that court case.
     
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,058
    what is the opposite position of the assertion of the thread title statement ?

    those worthy of life should get free money(?)


    how much free money should those worthy of life get ?


    if they are worthy of life; ...

    why are they not worthy of food, housing & healthcare & education ?


    [we can up-size & condense that to woman being denied abortion & reproductive system health care is biased punitive punishment of women for them being a woman]

    try thinking about the difference between
    being punished for free will
    being punished for being poor
    being punished for being unlucky

    to evade consequences
    by virtue of arguable "right" to choose domain over their own body ...

    where is the argument ?
    inside the woman

    to moralize liberal freedoms of equal human rights
    there should be no division between the cost to the male as the cost to the female
    but that debate has been poisoned by religious extremists & terf's & various other self defining splinter concepts.

    feminism is not an extremism
    human rights is not an extremism

    is the action of applied right to self control by way of internal medical procedure;
    an act of extremist removal of individual rights & freedoms ?
    an act of applied liberal freedoms of personal rights ?

    where does other peoples rights over ride a womens rights to her own physical internal(wearing clothes in public etc) body & still be defined as equal liberal freedoms ?


    if a women, becoming pregnant
    is an act of her surrendering her own liberal freedoms & personal rights ...
    who owns them ?
    who takes control of her once she becomes pregnant
    and what are they doing to help her now they are accountable ?

    now look at all those people going crazy chasing men for child support
    surely the state should be forced to pay pregnancy support
    because the state now owns the liberal freedoms & rights & body of the pregnant woman.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  21. Luchito Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    389
    At the age of 23 you will ask your friends: what is the past tense of the word "virgin"?

    No one is prepared to have sex for the first time, to be a parent, neither to be a married person, and so forth. Those events related to our sexual life sometimes happen to us when we less expected them, and here is when we learn to be mature according to our response for our actions.

    We are to make lots of mistakes, that is true, but we can't make our mistakes a model for others. Abortion as a "solution" is the worst example given to others.
     
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,058
    ?
    did you read that on an anti-abortionist flyer ?
    handed out by rich insular self absorbed white people who can afford to have 1 or 2 extra children but who also have money to access contraceptives & childcare
    & fly out of state for an abortion if they really choose to
    & keep it quiet from their church(their church being just a business network for making money)

    charity starts at home

    too much cow-bell ?

    the Sunday matinee grand performance

    selfish arrogant patriarchal men
    telling women they must be the sole virtue & moral sacrifice for all mens ills & then load women up to not have that right to power of free choice

    so the man has no opposition in moral authority
    dressed up in religion & culture
    like a scarecrow made of broken birthday presents
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2021
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,576
    Yep. I bet if you found you had cancer, you'd want to evade the consequences by having doctors remove living tissue from your body - and/or have them kill it.
     

Share This Page