Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I referred to libertarianism's aim, you referred to the process.

You should have lived in Scandinavia before they went berserk with immigration. Before Sweden decided to turn Nordic nations into the rape epicentre of Europe, they were high trust communities where selfishness was frowned upon. The community came first, and the individual second. You'd have loved it.

My preference has always been balance, in this situation. A true balance between the community and the individual. This allows both to 'perform' at their best, for the good and benefit of all. Is that so wrong?

All societies have their own version of it, putting more or less money into government or the people. The balance between government and individuals is always shifting. Thing is, when governments decide to get more money from the rich, they don't touch the ultra-rich oligarchs and friends who support them and keep them in power. No, they attack the upper middle class, who are just trying to pass on nest eggs to their children.

In the end, there will no longer be a progression of incomes, from poor to rich. There will increasingly just be VIPs, the poor, and the destitute. The middle class will disappear as people increasingly "own nothing and be happy", ie. completely controlled and ignorant of what's going on.

[Thomas3333]

Sometimes hurting other people or refusing to help them is selfish. Other times it is a healthy way to protect yourself and provide help to others and an effective way to fulfill your desires.

Yes!-If a beggar steels from a shop (an independent one, to keep politics out of the argument) he is acting out of self-interest, for he needs it to survive, however if a person who can afford the bread steels it from the same shop, the act of steeling is out of selfishness. To have a single standard for everyone in this particular instance is inadequate as some are richer than others, and not only in an economic sense. Some are more able to be altruistic, perhaps out of an abundance of love, of happiness, of success. How can someone give something they don't have themselves?

I find, at first glance, the scenario you offer as philosophically juxtaposed with social pragmatism outlook. By this, I mean that I am torn of modes. Anyway, I'll now proceed with my own analysis, of the scenario of distinction between begger and non-begger context.

It's like a fable offer, what you did. By this, the denotation is that of the macro context, i.e. the perspective of macro solution-providing, by humanitarianisms, and by socialists, the scenario you ruminated upon is invalid, ergo the fable/fairy tale contextualism.

Fables, are a concept of inwardness, of presumption morality. Presumption morality, here, isn't a denotation of judgement on you, but, is meant to convey the sensibility that society using fairy tale morality is inherently a state of presumption of no macro contextualism, of no macro perspective on the problem being examined.

Wealth vs no wealth, per the perspective that capitalism is the innate moral user/used system, is ostensibly the invalid solution, alas, that is, in the context of no presence of world socialism as the new world order idea.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sometimes hurting other people or refusing to help them is selfish. Other times it is a healthy way to protect yourself and provide help to others and an effective way to fulfill your desires.

Yes!-If a beggar steels from a shop (an independent one, to keep politics out of the argument) he is acting out of self-interest, for he needs it to survive, however if a person who can afford the bread steels it from the same shop, the act of steeling is out of selfishness. To have a single standard for everyone in this particular instance is inadequate as some are richer than others, and not only in an economic sense. Some are more able to be altruistic, perhaps out of an abundance of love, of happiness, of success. How can someone give something they don't have themselves?

I find, at first glance, the scenario you offer as philosophically juxtaposed with social pragmatism outlook. By this, I mean that I am torn of modes. Anyway, I'll now proceed with my own analysis, of the scenario of distinction between begger and non-begger context.

It's like a fable offer, what you did. By this, the denotation is that of the macro context, i.e. the perspective of macro solution-providing, by humanitarianisms, and by socialists, the scenario you ruminated upon is invalid, ergo the fable/fairy tale contextualism.

Fables, are a concept of inwardness, of presumption morality. Presumption morality, here, isn't a denotation of judgement on you, but, is meant to convey the sensibility that society using fairy tale morality is inherently a state of presumption of no macro contextualism, of no macro perspective on the problem being examined.

Wealth vs no wealth, per the perspective that capitalism is the innate moral user/used system, is ostensibly the invalid solution, alas, that is, in the context of no presence of world socialism as the new world order idea.

Yes, the example offered resembles a fable or moral tale. But there is a valid point there, if we look: that justice, if that is important to us, requires different cases to be treated and judged in different ways. In this case, the "distinction between begger and non-begger context".

Is justice "valid", from your perspective?

[Thomas3333]

Sometimes hurting other people or refusing to help them is selfish. Other times it is a healthy way to protect yourself and provide help to others and an effective way to fulfill your desires.

Yes!-If a beggar steels from a shop (an independent one, to keep politics out of the argument) he is acting out of self-interest, for he needs it to survive, however if a person who can afford the bread steels it from the same shop, the act of steeling is out of selfishness. To have a single standard for everyone in this particular instance is inadequate as some are richer than others, and not only in an economic sense. Some are more able to be altruistic, perhaps out of an abundance of love, of happiness, of success. How can someone give something they don't have themselves?

I find, at first glance, the scenario you offer as philosophically juxtaposed with social pragmatism outlook. By this, I mean that I am torn of modes. Anyway, I'll now proceed with my own analysis, of the scenario of distinction between begger and non-begger context.

It's like a fable offer, what you did. By this, the denotation is that of the macro context, i.e. the perspective of macro solution-providing, by humanitarianisms, and by socialists, the scenario you ruminated upon is invalid, ergo the fable/fairy tale contextualism.

Fables, are a concept of inwardness, of presumption morality. Presumption morality, here, isn't a denotation of judgement on you, but, is meant to convey the sensibility that society using fairy tale morality is inherently a state of presumption of no macro contextualism, of no macro perspective on the problem being examined.

Wealth vs no wealth, per the perspective that capitalism is the innate moral user/used system, is ostensibly the invalid solution, alas, that is, in the context of no presence of world socialism as the new world order idea.

Yes, the example offered resembles a fable or moral tale. But there is a valid point there, if we look: that justice, if that is important to us, requires different cases to be treated and judged in different ways. In this case, the "distinction between begger and non-begger context".

Is justice "valid", from your perspective?

I am applying macro, to the scenario, of the context the identity state of the scenario itself isn't a macro-embodiment.

[Trokanmariel]

Tesco workers, in the UK can actually possess the meta ability to give American presidency atoms to the very notion, the very idea and theme of Saturday, the day of the weekend, and, moreover, they can perform this distribution as a way to help American Republican senators use the physics of their private healthcare opinions to create universal healthcare across America.

Notionally, this is a charitableness system. In terms of the meta distinction, irrespective of the terminology's meaning of application, there might be perhaps the potential for a self-interest if not selfishness paradigm outlook.

The latter unit, i.e. the private healthcare opinions system, to clarify is about the Republican senators, and not the Tesco workers. In lieu, the ideology of the overall schematic is to do with distribution's status as a meta value.

Beyond all these ideas, and units, there is thus the greater perspective; the problem, of meta having to deal with the status of the distribution despite the cartoonishness of the names involved in the distribution angle. Cartoonishness, such as pertaining to America's value of terminology, or that of Tesco's value of terminology, or worker's value of terminology.