|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The opiate of the people.
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gwai.
Acknowledged with apologies.
Also secondarily for the confusion of my last post with the link to my question to 2RM.
I thought I was quoting myself in the one ending, 'I will when you answer my question cogently.'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Are you sure about that? One is a matter of moral prohibition, the other a matter of moral injunction.
Semantics.
I don't think so.
~~snippity snip~~
I think this is more than just a semantic difference.
Best wishes, 2RM.
You are confusing legal and moral.
Actually, I think 2RM is right about this, albeit perhaps not being as clear as possible.
We have two subtly different injunctions:
- "Don't do anything to someone else that you wouldn't want them to do to you"
- "Do those things to others that you would want them to do to you"
To reference the movie Batman Begins, Batman's statement "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" is perfectly compatible with injunction 1. Injunction 2, however, would require Batman not only to refrain from killing Ra's Al Ghul but also to save him from dying in the train crash. I do think that's more than just a semantic difference.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are confusing legal and moral.
I can see why you might say that.
There is some overlap between ethics and the law.
Seems to me, it is a proper function of the law to discourage me from harming others, or their interests. Or to prevent me from doing so. And to punish me if I do. The silver rule applies.
However, it is not a proper function of the law to try to make me virtuous, and punish me if I am not. The application of the golden rule must be voluntary, or virtue becomes an onerous duty, inflicted by a paternalist government in a patronising way on a disparate citizenry who may well have a justifiably different conception of the ethical from the establishment 'great and good'.
For a government to say 'Don't be bad, or we will stop you', is not the same thing as saying, 'You must be good, as the nation-state determines goodness'. The first is acceptable, and in all our interests; the second is not far different to slavery.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 18. January 2018, 13:13: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Most nation states do go beyond don't harm and most people want that. The difference is in which things different people want enforced.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.
Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.
Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
Ah ha, Mr. Wilson...
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.
Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
Stop paying ridiculous prices for tickets.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
As long as those who choose to enjoy sport or entertainment are the ones who finance it, I have no issue. As soon as governments, by way of taxes or otherwise, force their entire citizenry to finance it, those who do and those who do not want to, then I have a problem.
If the government were to cut support for sport, culture, and entertainment, think of all the money freed up to "feed the poor".
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
When it's reported that Coldplay earned $500 million, pretty certain that's without disbursements. So all the engineers, cooks, roadies, techies, PAs, hire companies, teamsters, etc etc, are all getting paid out of that, for months of hard work at often unsociable hours.
What Chris Martin will have personally earned will be significantly south of the headline figure. Paying creative artists is a positive thing. And yes, people like a show.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.
Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
Ah ha, Mr. Wilson...
How can you KNOW that?!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
When it's reported that Coldplay earned $500 million, pretty certain that's without disbursements. So all the engineers, cooks, roadies, techies, PAs, hire companies, teamsters, etc etc, are all getting paid out of that, for months of hard work at often unsociable hours.
What Chris Martin will have personally earned will be significantly south of the headline figure. Paying creative artists is a positive thing. And yes, people like a show.
All that is true. It is also true that ticket prices are on the rise and that even if Martin only earned 1% of that, it isn't nothing. Musical artists make very little, if anything, from recording. The money is in the touring. But how much depends on one's fame.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
At least musicians can tour, and monetise their performances.
Us writers have nothing but easily pirated words.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least musicians can tour, and monetise their performances.
Us writers have nothing but easily pirated words.
Take music lessons? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that Coldplay made $500 million from their recent tour. It's a ton of money, and I suppose you could criticize it, along the same lines as huge fees in sports, can be criticized.
Fair enough, but I don't see anybody coming up with solutions to this. What do we do, cancel music tours? Tax the guys at 98%?
Ah ha, Mr. Wilson...
Hmm...is this Mr. Wilson, next-door neighbor to Dennis the Menace (IIRC)?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Most nation states do go beyond don't harm and most people want that. The difference is in which things different people want enforced.
...which usually apply to those irresponsible so-and-sos over there, not to us decent people...and, of course, the decent people are deeply shocked if someone tries to apply laws/rules to the decent people.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
At least musicians can tour, and monetise their performances.
Us writers have nothing but easily pirated words.
Words are just words. Even plots and characters are hard to protect, cf Jeffrey Archer.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
sharkshooter said, a while back:
quote:
If the government were to cut support for sport, culture, and entertainment, think of all the money freed up to "feed the poor".
Yes maybe, but, even with increased private sector spending on bread and circuses, there would probably be even more 'poor', i.e. those whose jobs depend on the culture, sport, and entertainment industry.
This really isn't a black-and-white issue...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And there you're getting down to the root problem of democracy. People vote for what they want. But do they vote for what is best for them? Clearly money diverted to luxe football stadiums would be better spent clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. But the voting populace wants football. And so they vote to fund that stadium, constructing whatever rationale you like (they're lazy! stadiums create jobs! We need to field a team for the Olympics!) to justify the vote.
But, if we then accept that the voters do not always vote wisely (and you need only look at the US for proof, that is if you don't want to talk about Brexit) then what should be done? Rely upon wise legislators to guide decisions? Look at the US Congress today and try not to fall on the floor laughing. A prudent chief executive? Oh please.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Anarchy - but only under a wise, and benevolent, Anarch.
I'll get me coat...
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
OK, I thought it may be useful just to summarise this thread, as I see it, in the hope of keeping it on track:
1) I started with the suggestion that too much money is spent on sport, and not enough wealth is distributed to those that need it.
2) Challenged as to my personal circumstances, I asserted that a 'fair' distribution of the world's wealth, such that anyone and everyone could own a decent standard standard of living, would be all the world's wealth, divided by all the world's people.
3) That amounts to some $33,000 net worth, and $15,000 income per year, per person.
4) I asserted that I live within these boundaries, and that made some of you 'want to puke' at my sanctimonious, holier than thou, position.
5) However, I further advocated that that (re)distribution of the world's wealth should be voluntary, even if I advocate a general denigration and disparagement of the avaricious few who are millionaires and more, and hoard wealth others need more.
If you disagree with this summary of the thread, or think it in some way an unethical position, now is the time to comment.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
(This is not a direct response to your last post 2RM.)
I'm not one for quoting parables, but there is the one about the servants (?) who were given so many talents each. When the money-giver returned to find out what had happened, one had spent it, one had hidden it, but the third had made the money work and now had more than he started with.
Even if everyone was given an equal share of the world's money and resources, , the same results would apply. some would fritter it away, some would hoard it, others do something useful.
Yes, I know that is stating the obvious!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
Are you saying that the poor are poor through their own fault?
I prefer to see the parable of the talents as a parable of opportunities. Some get more, some less. Some fritter them, some bury them, some take advantage of them.
None of which determines, to my my of thinking, that some should starve, while others feast.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
OK, I thought it may be useful just to summarise this thread, as I see it, in the hope of keeping it on track:
1) I started with the suggestion that too much money is spent on sport, and not enough wealth is distributed to those that need it.
2) Challenged as to my personal circumstances, I asserted that a 'fair' distribution of the world's wealth, such that anyone and everyone could own a decent standard standard of living, would be all the world's wealth, divided by all the world's people.
3) That amounts to some $33,000 net worth, and $15,000 income per year, per person.
4) I asserted that I live within these boundaries, and that made some of you 'want to puke' at my sanctimonious, holier than thou, position.
5) However, I further advocated that that (re)distribution of the world's wealth should be voluntary, even if I advocate a general denigration and disparagement of the avaricious few who are millionaires and more, and hoard wealth others need more.
If you disagree with this summary of the thread, or think it in some way an unethical position, now is the time to comment.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Basically, you presented this thread as a 'gotcha'. Either people agreed with you (and are hypocrites for not acting accordingly) or they are monsters who hate the poor.
And you wonder why folk here have reacted strongly to your thesis?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hey 2RM, may be you and Russ should get a room in Hotel Marriage-Made-In-Nemesis.
[ 20. January 2018, 16:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Basically, you presented this thread as a 'gotcha'. Either people agreed with you (and are hypocrites for not acting accordingly) or they are monsters who hate the poor.
And you wonder why folk here have reacted strongly to your thesis?
Not really. In the western world, people's wallets are probably the most sensitive part of their anatomy. And, we are talking about why people waste and die needless, preventable deaths in the developing world. If these two factors combine to arouse strong feeling, it is because they jolly well should.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 20. January 2018, 17:22: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
It's not so much the question you raise, but the way in which you treat those who disagree with your binary view....
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SecondRateMind
Shipmate
# 18898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It's not so much the question you raise, but the way in which you treat those who disagree with your binary view...
It's not binary. I am quite prepared to admit that some are more culpable than others, for the holocaust of poverty, in proportion to their wealth. And, I am quite prepared to countenance disagreement. I just want it properly and justifiably argued, before I will admit an objection is sound and valid.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 20. January 2018, 18:46: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posts: 88 | Registered: Jan 2018
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
*sigh*
I can only reiterate, and agree with, what Doc Tor said earlier:
quote:
Basically, you presented this thread as a 'gotcha'. Either people agreed with you (and are hypocrites for not acting accordingly) or they are monsters who hate the poor.
IJ
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I think that will do for this thread. The recent exchanges underline my growing judgement that there is no real prospect of serious discussion here, as opposed to tedious repetition of entrenched positions.
Serious discussion is the fundamental aim of Purgatory.
Thread closed.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
