Forum Post: To those who OWS: Evolve your moral development
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 9:48 p.m. EST by cubedemon
(185)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is time for me to continue with what I am saying. Even though the conservatives are correct about what they say about the constitution does anyone feel what I feel? Does anyone feel anger that swells up when they say certain things to you? I do and I have thought long and hard; I have had to come to this hard conclusion and I have had to choose a side because of certain conditions. If we disagree with what their rules are where can we go? Can pack our bags and go where they have no influence and be able to live our lives, maintain our liberties, and pursue our own happiness? If yes, I totally agree with the conservatives on the things they say. If not, then by practicality we are all forced to function with these one percentagers and their rules and practices. What if some can't function with their practices at all?
By today's conditions, their property rights have to be superceded by people's lives. People's lives must come first before their property. I was told this story about Ayn Rand and her beliefs. Let's say there are two towns. One of them has a cure for a disease the people in the other town has. Let's say the only way the towns can meet each other is through a path and it is owned by someone. Let's say this owner does not allow the town with the people who has the disease onto this property and go to the next town to obtain the cure. Ayn Rand says, this owner is not even obligated to let anyone on his property even to save lives. I'm sorry but as painful as this is to me I believe we're in this type of situation even though it is not a disease caused by any pathogen.
To the occupiers of Wall Street, you have the right to your very lives contrary to what some say. My friends, it is time to think past this social contract these conservatives try to bound us to even though the conditions that exist are inherently immoral. It is time to move past the stage five of Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and move into stage six.
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritlakeconsulting.com%2FTLI%2Flibrary%2Fbooks%2Fmoraldevelopment.ppt&ei=o7rJTvC8DcmXtwfn2KWTDA&usg=AQjCNHmNRrplQOHbXXMHhaIOkgfbEcwaQ
Be prepared to face the consequences of whatever you do and must do.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/rawls-as-a-touchstone/
None of this makes any sense to me. What do they say about the constitution? I wasn't aware of any single interpretation conservatives had, or how this might conflict with OWS protesters. I think you skipped the part about what it even means to own property. I think that property must be earned through one's own labor in order to own it/have a right to it. No person can "earn" a billion dollars. They might luck out, but they didn't earn it.
Excellent point. Your last sentence really sums up what this whole movement is about. It is about labor productivity and fair pay for said labor.
Why can't they?
Did they provide the labor to equal 1 billion dollars in goods is what he is talking about.
Exactly.
since this is a theoretical question and there is no 'they', that's an impossible question to answer. If it is possible to earn 1 dollar, why not 10? Why not 100? Why not 1000? Etc.
There are well over a billion people in the world. If you were able to create such an efficient production facility that you could make $1 profit on every item you sold, it would be quite easy to earn a billion dollars. This is just one amongst many possible methods.
Profit isn't value. A good or a service has value.
I'm not trying to be rude but do you get what I'm saying. You can right books on this idea.
What do you think is meant by profit? Let's say that it costs me $2 to produce something (including what I have to pay my workers, the cost of the materials involved, etc.). I sell that something for $3. My 'profit' is $1. So long as that dollar can be exchanged to those who printed it for the wealth that it represents, 'profit' is 'value'. Now, in our monetary system, one cannot present a dollar printed by the federal reserve to the federal reserve and get anything in exchange for it. This is because the federal reserve does not back the currency by objective value. This is the major flaw in our system of currency and the root cause of inflation.
So in our system, I suppose you could say that 'profit' is not 'value'. But That is only because the currency is not backed by goods.
The dollar has value based on what people think it's value is it is just like any good out there you sell it for what you think it is worth. Your "profit" the one dollar is what the value of labor that went into creating or selling that item. If you sell something for way more than it's worth that causes inflation. It will cause other items to cost more etc. It causes inflation. To much inflation can cause problems in the economy. It really creates questions about the real value of the dollar.
Your example of the cause of inflation is true only when there is only one supplier of a good or service (a monopoly). If that is not the case, competition will keep the price at it's market value (what most people are willing and able to pay for it). If there is a monopoly, then there are two scenarios. Either the gouged price will create incentive for others to enter the market and lower the price or, if there is a coercive monopoly (one maintained by government edict, as is the case with monopolies in this country), new entrants into the market will be barred and the single source will set the price of the good. This, however, does not cause actual inflation, it merely sets the price of a good. Inflation is the devaluation of the currency itself. Inflation is caused when currency production is not limited to a representation of goods that actually exist which it can be exchanged for, but is instead printed at the whim of those who hold the power to do so. This latter case is the situation we have now.
In a free market where their is real competition though, a competitor would undercut the overvalued product and force him to lower his price or force him out of business. One main contributor that causes inflation is the Feds ability to create fiat money, that is just print more. When all of a sudden the economy is flooded with, say 600 billion more dollars, but the amount of goods and services does not grow, or as in a recession, is less, the situation becomes too many dollars chasing too few goods. Thus we have inflated price.
Because nobody 'merits' billions of dollars in wealth. There is no way for a single human being to 'deserve' a billion dollars.
Why wouldn't it be logically possible to earn billions of dollars?
It is logically possible if people valued the dollar so worthless that it has very little value.
Look, think of the different meanings of 'earn.' In capitalism, if I were to employ your labor to dig a small hole for me, I might pay you 20 bucks. Did you earn 20 bucks? Well, it depends on what you mean. If there were lots of people around willing to work, I could have gotten away with paying you 5 dollars. If there was nobody around to do the work except for one person, I might have to pay you 5,000 dollars to dig the hole. How can a person "earn" different amounts for the same work? It should be the case that what you deserve from your labor isn't contingent on whether there are other people around or not. In capitalism, this fake sense of "earn" is a matter of market forces, not of any real fairness or "deserved" sense of 'earn' as some would like to have us conceptualize it as.
How would we truly determine what was fair and deserved? Could we come up with a better criteria.
It is up to those who participate in any given trade to determine what constitutes a fair trade. This is the principle by which trade occurs under Capitalism.
Under Capitalism, what your dollar can buy you is determined by the same market forces that determine what you will earn for any given type of work. Thus, the value of goods and services determines the value of the work required to produce those goods and services.
I don't think we're having the same conversation, you and I.
"In capitalism, this fake sense of "earn" is a matter of market forces, not of any real fairness or "deserved" sense of 'earn' as some would like to have us conceptualize it as."
The dictionary defines the word 'earn' to mean 'to receive in return for provided goods or services'.
Under Capitalism, it is up to those involved in any trade to determine what will be traded and how much. If they do not both agree that what the other person offers is worth what they offer (that the other person does not provide enough to earn what it is to be exchanged for) trade will not happen.
My above example was to point out why given one situation, a certain type of work may be worth some amount of wealth, while in another situation it may be worth a different amount. Only those involved in a given trade are able to determine what the goods or services they trade are worth to them. There is no worth without a human mind's evaluation. There is no earn without an evaluation of worth.
Because no one person's labor could ever equal that amount. They make the money because of capital they control and laws and regulations that enable them to make a profit.
I understand what you're saying, bro and this is why I've written the Declaration for the Occupy Movement. We need a solid moral standing in which we can precede with this protest peacefully but it seems that some aren't getting the message. Take a look: http://www.scribd.com/doc/73304557/Declaration-of-Independence-for-the-Occupy-Movement
Hi, Centrist Fiasco. I read through your declaration. I found it extremely idealistic and most of your practical demands kind of impractical. If nothing else, you are venturing into some pretty tricky territory, in that the demands can be so loosely interpreted that they don't really amount to anything. The founding fathers created the Constitution because of some of the problems with the previous system under the Articles of Confederation. In addition to mapping out a governmental system (3 branches, checks and balances, etc.), they authored the bill of rights, which line out some very specific rights for all citizens of this country.
In contrast, you've listed some things like:
We Want Economic Justice for All Human Beings My response: are you serious? That's like 7 billion people, most of who we have no control over any aspect of their lives since they are in different countries. Also, can you expand on what it means to be economically just?
We Want Balance in our Educational System for Our Children. I have no idea what this means, like none. What is being balanced?
We Want Affordable Healthcare for All Human Beings in this Country. You realize that the definition of affordable varies greatly, right? Like if have $50 million in the bank I can afford way more than the guy who has nothing. Also, does this mean some dirt poor 75 year old man who smokes 2 packs a day and has cancer in both lungs and will die in a few months should get $75000 in healthcare treatment? What if that were like 50 million people in similar scenarios? I would like healthcare to be affordable for everyone, too, but realistically that would most likely mean everyone gets crappy health care. There are only so many hospital beds.
Anyway, the only part of the Occupy ideaology I support is for taxing wealthy people more, at least on capital gains. If nothing else, that's at least a specific and measureable goal. If you ask 20 occupiers what they want you will probably get 20 very different answers, so I don't support the implementation of the movement. I think your system might be able to exist in a microcosm, but to try to apply it to this country would not succeed and would have disasterous results.
I understand what you are saying as well which is why I feel despair. I've wondered this. What if our country has just reached the point of diminishing returns? What if our country and other are to big for their britches.
You're obviously a radical leftist if who have clue what I just wrote.
Hey, False Flag, there is ALREADY a "Declaration of the Occupation". Got to:
http://nycga.net
And look under the "Resources" tab.
Get with the program and stop trying to lead from behind.
[Removed]
In a situation where someone owns the land between two towns, would it not be in his own interest to keep the people of the town alive? He could charge them a small fee for traveling across his land or hell, he could even let them cross it for FREE in order to get the cure. Owning that land and keeping the populations alive on both sides would be HUGELY advantageous due to the trade possibilities. He would have to be a fool not to realize that he could make gigantic profits over time charging a small fee for the use of a portion of his land for transportation.
Now, as for the moral aspect of that story, the man in the middle would be under no moral obligation to let others use his property. The fact that this may happen (and it is certainly a very unlikely situation) is certainly not a good enough reason to abolish property rights.
I believe history has shown there are plenty of fools.
"Now, as for the moral aspect of that story, the man in the middle would be under no moral obligation to let others use his property. The fact that this may happen (and it is certainly a very unlikely situation) is certainly not a good enough reason to abolish property rights."
Typhoid Mary's liberty had to be infringed to protect people's lives. I believe it is a very good reason to take this person's property. I'm sorry but I do not agree. I wish all three of our rights could be inalienable at all times but sometimes some rights are greater than others. That is what I believe. If other means are found though like another path to this town or this property owner relinquishes his stand maybe through some trade I would agree with you. I would hope and pray other means were found. As I said, I do not like the conclusion I have come to. I wish I could come to another one. Honestly, I am still wrestling with myself over this.
If it came down to it I would sacrifice my own liberties if I was a carrier of a deadly disease that was highly contagious and communiable. I would want to be confined like Typhoid Mary was.
From the wikipedia article:
"Eventually, the New York State Commissioner of Health, Eugene H. Porter, M.D., decided that disease carriers would no longer be held in isolation. Mallon could be freed if she agreed to abandon working as a cook and to take reasonable steps to prevent transmitting typhoid to others. On February 19, 1910, Mallon agreed that she "[was] prepared to change her occupation (that of a cook), and would give assurance by affidavit that she would upon her release take such hygienic precautions as would protect those with whom she came in contact, from infection". She was released from quarantine and returned to the mainland.[4]
After being given a job as a laundress, which paid lower wages, however, Mallon adopted the pseudonym Mary Brown, returned to her previous occupation as a cook, and in 1915 was believed to have infected 25 people, resulting in one death, while working as a cook at New York's Sloane Hospital for Women. Public-health authorities again found and arrested Mallon, returned to quarantine on the island on March 27, 1915.[4] Mallon was confined there for the remainder of her life. She became something of a minor celebrity, and was interviewed by journalists, who were forbidden to accept even a glass of water from her. Later, she was allowed to work as a technician in the island's laboratory."
She was confined, then she was released under conditions that she act responsibly (knowing she was a carrier). She agreed, then she went back to working as a cook for higher wages. It is at this point that she has given up her rights by knowingly infringing on the rights of others. She knowingly infected other people with the bacteria responsible for typhoid fever and it is for this reason that her rights were legitimately denied. Of course, when one violates the rights of another, one gives up one's own rights. This is the principle that justifies the retaliatory use of force by government.
Do you propose that someone who is dying from an illness has the right to violate the rights of a doctor and (through government) force the doctor to cure them? It is slightly different but the principle which you seem to be a proponent of is the same: that need trumps rights.
Yes, you are correct at what the results of the Mallon case was. The health officals did the correct thing. Her liberties had to be forfeited to protect other people's lives after she was warned. I believe My point is proven exactly.
"Do you propose that someone who is dying from an illness has the right to violate the rights of a doctor and (through government) force the doctor to cure them? It is slightly different but the principle which you seem to be a proponent of is the same: that need trumps rights."
From my own moral ethics, Yes, this is what I do propose. If it came down to it and through my own ethical principles I would steal the cure for myself or for my wife, especially for my wife. This is because I believe some rights are more inalienable than others. I would do everything I could to prevent this like finding another who would give the cure. Again, if it came down to it and the choice came in which the doctor's property rights had to be violated I would be forced through my own ethical principles to steal this cure. Our rights are inalienable but some are more inalienable.
I would accept the consequences of my own actions if it came down to it. If I was caught, I would plead guilty and explain my actions, tell them I acted in good faith and in good conscience and ask the jury and the judge to do what they must do. I would be very respectful of the jury and the judge as well.
Your point is proven, but my intention was to clarify it. It was only right for them to forcefully detain her after she knowingly infected others. Unlike with the man in between the two towns, she was the carrier of the disease. It was her actions which caused the disease to spread.
My viewpoint on the whole situation is this: If you're in a situation where a man owns the only thoroughfare between two towns (and there are no other towns around yours), a disease infecting your entire town is probably not going to be the first time the people in your town have ever needed anything from the outside world. This means that your town would either have already invested in and created an alternative method of getting things from the outside, or that you would have developed a relationship with the man in the middle that facilitated trade between your town and the outside world. The preposterous situation in which a disease which plagues your town brings to your attention the benefits of trade with the outside world, which is hampered by the man who owns the thoroughfare is so far outside the normal range of activities that I cannot grant that the significance (social or otherwise) to dilute the absolute right to own one's own life and property.
Whisper, if I was the leader of this town I would've done everything possible to find another way. My point is I would do everything possible to find a way to keep everyone's inalienable right's intact but I do believe there are possible situations in which some rights do have to be violated. Honestly, I do not like it one single bit. I believe we are all in this situation today.
If there is another way that presents itself I will be glad to lend an ear to it. If any of the one percentagers have committed any crime and any fraud in the obtainment of their wealth they do need to be brought to justice and put in prison and I mean a real prison, not the white collared prison. I do believe there needs to be investigations done and they can't be allowed to buy their way out of a crime if they committed a crime. By how much they are in bed with the government and the politicans I do not see this happening. That's my fundamental problem.
Then why in the hell would you suggest that government should have the power to violate individual rights?
To violate one man's rights is to declare either an ignorance of what rights are or to declare that you do not believe they exist. To perform an act of evil (the violation of someone's rights) and justify it by saying it was for a 'greater good' (the protection of other people's rights) is a contradiction. You destroy the concept of what you hold as the good 'in order to protect it'.
Now you see the problem that I have. Our rights our a contradiction. What is the formula to resolve this contradiction?
Our rights are not a contradiction. Your mistake (from what I can tell by what you've written here) is that you assume the right to life is the right to be alive. It isn't. It is the right to affect your own survival by whatever means necessary while recognizing that others also have this right. To force someone else to provide you with what they produced (or came into legitimate ownership of through other means) for their own survival is a violation of, not just their rights, but rights as such. The concept of a 'right' is a principle that applies to all people simultaneously.
Now, the correct application of the principle of rights in the above example with the two towns becomes tricky when you start thinking "but just because they use his land doesn't mean that they kill him or otherwise prevent him from living..." But the danger isn't in the action itself, it's in the principle. The principle that that line of reasoning will lead you to is that someone (government) has the legitimate power to violate rights. When you arrive at that conclusion, you've destroyed the concept of a right.
there are easement laws and eminent domain.. constitutional reasons the government can seize all or a portion of private land for the greater good.
Yes there are. These laws are a violation of individual (human) rights. Just because it's a law doesn't make it right.