What does the fact that rich people cannot own nuclear bombs have to do with the idea that they should not be allowed to accumulate unlimited wealth?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Wealth acquisition and distribution?
- Thread starter Mock Turtle
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
He will agree with those as aint wrong
Heyo
Veteran Member
What do you think where morality comes from and what does it accomplish?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
First, I didn't mention rich individuals specifically not being allowed to own atomic bombs, I said "regular citizen".
What I was talking about is that whoever owns atomic bombs possesses a lot of power, and that it is usual to prevent regular individuals from possessing this much power. By the same rationale, since owning money is owning power, it is reasonable to put a limit on how much money someone can have.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
It's a typical definition, unlike your own twisted take on it.
Secret Chief
Degrow!
He will agree with those that agree with him. Complex, huh.
PureX
Veteran Member
There is no logical reason why we should allow any one single human to amass more than about 30 million in personal wealth. That's plenty to live out a very comfortable life from any age. If someone still wants to chase money after amassing that much of it, they should be allowed to, I think, but they should not be allowed to keep ANY of it.
Last edited:
Secret Chief
Degrow!
Why does anybody need unlimited wealth?
In the Medieval Age, there were these aristocrats who were allowed to stockpile unlimited wealth.
The aristocrats used to possess all the lands. There was the feudal system.
The commoners couldn't own anything, because all the lands were already taken.
Do you think it was a good system?
The problem is that there are banking dynasties who own much more than 10 billion each. I said billion.
So...the limit 10 billion would be a great accomplishment.
Audie
Veteran Member
Money finite.There is something called monetary circuit.
The more billions few banking dynasties phagocytize monstrously, the more poor people there will be.
Money is finite. It's a circuit.
It's not inexhaustible.
So at creation god made some money.
So much granite, so much antimony.
So much money. Finite.
You cannot make more antimony.
Or money.
Such is the level of informed thought
that gives us socialists.
Which I addressed earlier.
Did you miss it?
I don't see those 2 issues as linked.
I was thinking of this: if all American citizens committed a mass suicide, you could own all the lands of the US.
Wouldn't it be nice?
I am just saying hypothetically: to explain the paradox of greed.
Morality is an abstract absolute. It doesn't "come from" anywhere. Humans accomplish things to the extent they incorporate morality into their existence.
LOL The "it's typical" argument. Nice try.
Woohoo!
Look at you being tolerant towards the caviar & champagne set.
Eventually though, we'd run out of other
people's money. Someone must be productive,
which requires incentivizing.
We have real world examples that show
inevitable economic & social woe if private
wealth is banned. But allowing individual
economic success does allow prosperity &
liberty.
A big difference here is that my story actually
happened. Yours is mere parody. Your socialism
has never provided a single example of success,
ie,, economic & social liberty.
Many on RF do it.
Just set aside all evidence & reason.
PureX
Veteran Member
That's already happening in the U.S., and is why we are seeing a epidemic of homelessness. Homes are not for people to live in, anymore, they are just investments for wealthy people to make money off of. Transportation is not for helping people get around, it's just a commodity for wealthy people to make money off of. Medicine is not for keeping everyone healthy. It's just another service-for-profit for the rich. Everything we do, now, we do not for its own sake or for the well being of society or humanity. We do it just for profitting the rich.In the Medieval Age, there were these aristocrats who were allowed to stockpile unlimited wealth.
The aristocrats used to possess all the lands. There was the feudal system.
The commoners couldn't own anything, because all the lands were already taken.
Do you think it was a good system?
Last edited:
Not nearly to the extent that academics do.
As is said...
Those who can...do.
Those who can't...teach.
That is unreasonable and you haven't provided any evidence of that.