It's wrong for not giving a child any freedom or responsibilities. But it's also wrong to let a 4 years old kid to cross a busy street.

The thing is I've seen too many people causing bad things and deteroriating the environment in using their freedoms. Many big companies , for instance, throws their waste everywhere, rapes resources greedily in destructive ways, and launches irresponsible marketing campaigns polluting the minds of the youngs with consumtive culture. Many other smaller cases take place every day. I belive you would, if not already, found some if you just look around.

FreedomEvolvesB9 wrote:
When too many losers in genetic or demographic lotteries are unable to participate in the market, . . .

Orang wrote:
Fried Egg



Damn right they are! I'm not suggesting the now states to be given more authority. No they need to be changed also. I said we ought to elect people who are wiser than us first (most of the current governments are clearly far from this quality) , then we'll talk about setting the freedom level. Not the other way around.



Well it's still freedom all the same. And not an unusual one. Logically speaking increasing freedom more or less also means increasing that kind of freedom. And that's just an extreme clear example of problems created by too much freedom (yet as clearly wrong as it is, it's still happening and growing like crazy). Many other problems are not as clear as that. But I'm not gonna mention mine now cause they will trigger another lengthly debate. I'm sure we all got our own examples.

RandsAXiOM



Guess he won the genetic lotteries then.

Orang wrote:
RandsAXiOM



And how could you say Stephen Hawking is a genetic loser. He might've lost the motoric part, but he had certainly won the logic part.

It takes the 'right' (not good or bad nor high or low but right) combination of gene, nutrition, and education (and perhaps many other things) to make a capitalism compatible person. I don't think capitalism allows for everyone. Like you said, you're fortunate.

Orang wrote:
Point of extereme:
Backward people
Autist people
People with extreme phobias
(And people with many other severe physical and mental abnormalities)

Point of not so extreme:
People who have to work all day just to make enough money to life
People who are severely indoctrinated that their people don't deserve anything better
Many people in poor countries
People in war zones
People with non-productive frame of mind (might it be caused by bad parents or friends or TV )
Or people who just have plain bad luck

You might think that they just don't have enough wills, but the diference in states of minds are real. Just because doing somethings are really easy for me doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else, vice versa. Don't discredit someone's effort for it might be his incapability (or plain unluckyness) not unwillingness that made it fail. People are different, look around.

unrealist42 wrote:


So what, in your view, would constitute a proper system of property rights?

Fried Egg wrote:

A system that prosecuted any who encroached upon the property rights others. A system that well defined property rights (to minimise ambiguity and confusion). A system that extended the concept private property as far as it would go in an attempt to eliminate all forms of "commons".

hipskipdip wrote

Let me ask you this: Would you prefer to be a rich person in 1925, with access only to the technologies and lifestyle available in 1925, or to be a person with an average standard of living today, with access to all the modern technologies?

psychopath wrote:
As Fried Egg pointed out to me in another thread, my belief relates to "labor theory of value", but not completely based on labor.

If you invest in a house, and someone rents it, you get money from it forever. I find this disturbing, and I also believe this is how most rich become rich, by increasing their assets and not doing anything at all (yes this is a genralisation, I don't really mean ALL rich people)!

The people renting that house have to keep paying to live in it, yet you only pay once and own it forever. I think that the amount you pay should determine the time you own the house, and you have to pay again to keep owning it. I mean, don't you find it disturbing that someone can be rich in such a way without conributing to society much at all? If we can get rid of investing, we get rid of lazy rich people, and the only rich people left are big contributers.

psychopath wrote:
Don't you think that what I have said so far result in a more effective civilisation? For example, many people believe that communism failed since nobody was motivated (including me), but what I have said mtivates people to contribute more (not always "work"), and I think that is the answer to all our problems!

JChen
How exactly does a society's economy relate to its citizens' happiness?

JChen
The point of a government is to establish a society's infrastructure so that meaningful social interactions can happen. Its role is to protect and structure, not mother and pamper. Welfare, wellbeing, security, happiness. Out of these, only security is the government's concern and even that only to a certain extent.