|
|
|
| Forced into switching to Linux |
|
Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
 |
|
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
 |
axilmar said: Tobias Dammers, will you give us your project? I am still waiting. You said you wouldn't mind giving your work away for free. There you go. It's quite silly of you to take my word out of context like that though. Quote: It's funny that you say that, because these things are established through majority vote. How? Honestly - how does a majority vote establish a public discussion? You've got it backwards. Ideally, the voting process merely confirms the preceding discussion (and resulting consensus or compromise). "War voting" is sometimes unavoidable, but a democracy that does it all the time ceases to be one. Quote: Quadrupling the source usage of the rest will do nothing to raise those people's standard of living to acceptable levels. According to wikipedia, the poverty line is $1 per day [en.wikipedia.org].If you quadruple that, it's $4 per day.According to wikipedia, the average income in America is $45000 per year [en.wikipedia.org].The average dollars per day for an American is 45000 / 365 = $123.So, in order to raise the standard of living of that 80% of the population to the 1/10 of the average American, i.e. to $12, you need to raise the income of those poor people from $1 to $12, i.e. 12 times, not 4. And all this is meaningless because you're using money, a concept that doesn't have any intrinsic value at all. People don't need money; they need food, shelter, healthcare, and things to make their lives meaningful and enjoyable. You don't need twelve times the resources and workforce to raise everyone's living standard to 'acceptable'; the extreme kind of wastefulness we're practicing now is only necessary if you take the current state of things for granted. --- |
|
Slartibartfast
Member #8,789
June 2007
 |
axilmar said: In the cause of giving up a percentage of your income, your basic rights are not taken away: they didn't take ALL your income.
1) The right to keep personal property is not the right to keep some of your personal property. ---- |
|
axilmar
Member #1,204
April 2001
|
Tobias Dammers said: It's quite silly of you to take my word out of context like that though. Thank you. Which project of these is your company's project? I was interested in that specific project of your company. Quote: How? Honestly - how does a majority vote establish a public discussion? You've got it backwards. Ideally, the voting process merely confirms the preceding discussion (and resulting consensus or compromise). "War voting" is sometimes unavoidable, but a democracy that does it all the time ceases to be one. In most, if not all, democracies around the globe, laws to help minorities are voted in parliaments using the 50% vote law. Quote: And all this is meaningless because you're using money, a concept that doesn't have any intrinsic value at all. Money itself doesn't have value, but it represents value. Quote: People don't need money; they need food, shelter, healthcare, and things to make their lives meaningful and enjoyable. And all these things require money. Quote: You don't need twelve times the resources and workforce to raise everyone's living standard to 'acceptable'; the extreme kind of wastefulness we're practicing now is only necessary if you take the current state of things for granted. I agree. The standard of living for the poor could be raised. That's why I want the rich to be taxed more. However, there should be a balance between sharing and not sharing. Some resources must be shared, some must not be shared. The ultimate goal is the prosperity of mankind, and for this to happen, sometimes sharing resources is good, and sometimes is bad, because it makes people lazy or unmotivated to do their best. |
|
Jonatan Hedborg
Member #4,886
July 2004
 |
axilmar said: And all these things require money. To be fair, money is not an intrinsic requirement for food, shelter, healthcare etc. Money could not exist without the need to trade for food and shelter, but the opposite is not true. But one could argue that food and shelter = value, and money is an abstraction of value.
|
|
|
|
