On 09 Nov 2013, at 17:50, John Mikes wrote:

On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today.

There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth.

I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly....

Bruno, before I touch the "basics" - could you explain what you would consider to produce M O R E money HONESTLY?

I give you an example. I live in a village and someone come to see me, because he has some health problem. I sell him some good herb, with a link to the papers showing that the herb can help. That's an example of doing more money and being honest. I would put some bd herb, knowing it, and then I have fall in the dishonestly realm of method.

Dishonesty is when you lie on what you sold, or when you disallow competition by defamation on products.

Making more money honestly is like selling more beef steaks, when those are indeed beef steaks and not horse steaks.

Money is not the problem. It is a formidable work distribution tools, and when play fair, everyone can win. The problem are the cheaters.

Of course, the cheaters get enormous benefits, and invest in hiding their misdeed, and corrupts the whole system especially when they got the media.

To condems ├╣oney is like condemning the blood cells, when they are deviate in nourishing cancers cells and tumors.

Those who pervert the system are happy to see people condemning the system, and not their misdeed.

Bruno





Same question to Brent's text above: that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively.

I don't see a 'productive' way how 'the rich' get more wealth and power by using their wealth and power. It is exploitation, political scam, bribery, terrorism, etc. - all in the framework of accepted "morals" of the system (either capitalist, or fascist).

I recall some basics (I am no 'Socialist') from Marx:
NOBODY owns Nature so any natural products (mining, farming, or other) are valued 'honestly' as recompensation for the efforts invested into the natural process "for getting money" - honestly - productively, without exploitation. Does any mine-owner work on his product? Does any Farming conglomerated stockholder work honestly on the crop? I do not advocate the CEO to sweep the floor: there is tasks' - organization in which everyone has a "role to perform", but are the roles proportionately paid for? Mao tried to switch 'roles' temporarily - he failed. Lenin realized that such just distribution is impossible in today's society and postulated FIRST the development of som "COMMUINST" MAN who lives up to such 'just distribution' of benefits - surely realizing the impossibility of such development. All other ("Socialist?") countries suffered from the same malaise as the (democraticly?) capitalistic ones: the leadership and its power usurped wealth, acquired MONEY and POWER on the back of the 'not so fortunate' exploited majority.
Alas, I have no solution to remedy the situation.
Re-hire Dr. Guillotine is unrealistic.
JM





On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen money, and that's the case today.

There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia) then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property. Where there is government, the police protect their property and the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the increasing concentration of wealth.

I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly. Once a few "fake money" (based on a lie) appears, it corrupts the whole system, and the society get pyramidal, with a higher gap between poor and rich, and eventually this crush down.

We must think about a way to prevent that. Some state can play a role. But we have to get rid of the bandits first, and there is an easy way: legalize all drugs. Regulate them, and tax them proportionally by the "real" harm (that is measured by statistics no more confusing a -> b and b -> a) they do.

May be that is not enough. Prohibitionists should be judged. We have to get spiritual or mature enough to understand that.

The state must ensure the fairness of competition among products, their traceability, the presence of notice with the secondary effects, etc. But the state has nothing to say about what is good or not for any one. That's between you and you, with the help of your shaman if you decide so, but it is your decision, to say "yes" or "no" to this or that shaman.

Stopping prohibition will not solve all problems. But continuing prohibition aggravates the situation, ... except for the super- riches and the bandits.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to