Speech, Power, and Responsibility

[devonin]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

I almost feel as if this would deserve a separate thread, but could you elaborate on this? More specifically, that it is immoral to have wealth, and that billionaires by definition are evil.

I disagree with both statements, but I would need to hear more from you to really get into this.

It's relatively simple in application: There is a certain amount of money/resources that are required to live comfortably. An amount that is required to live well. An amount that is sufficient for you to live well, and one or more generations that come after you to live just as well. All of those are well below being a billionaire.

A billionaire, by definition, has more money than they could possibly use to have even a luxurious lifestyle for themselves, their children, and their children. To hold that kind of wealth and use it to just grow itself and evade paying even the legally mandated taxes to the government under which you live for the betterment of others makes you evil.

Somebody with a billion dollars could lose 0.1% of their wealth and that is a MILLION DOLLARS. That million dollars could pay for 20 people's 50k university educations, or fund 100 classrooms with 10k each for supplies and better teacher compensation.

Somebody like Jeff Bezos is worth 140 times that much. The same 0.1% of his wealth ratchets those 20/100 up to 2,800 people or 14,000 classrooms, for 0.1% of his wealth.

In a year where I made say, 40,000 dollars, 0.1% of that wealth is 40 bucks. If I could spend 40 bucks to give a university education to 2800 people, or cover supplies and a several thousand dollar a year raise for teachers in 14,000 classrooms, I would absolutely consider myself evil to withhold that pittance, that irrelevant amount of my wealth.

When you have more than you need, I believe it is a moral imperative to use the excess to help people who need it. I've been flush, and I helped those who were bust. Heck, I've been bust, and helped those who were more bust.

When you have the ability to fix major national crises for an amount of money so small you would literally not be able to notice it was missing, and you don't, I think you need to answer for that.

Hey look a very timely example of what I mean:

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1087893604243128320

[ledwix]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

Somebody with a billion dollars could lose 0.1% of their wealth and that is a MILLION DOLLARS. That million dollars could pay for 20 people's 50k university educations, or fund 100 classrooms with 10k each for supplies and better teacher compensation.

Somebody like Jeff Bezos is worth 140 times that much. The same 0.1% of his wealth ratchets those 20/100 up to 2,800 people or 14,000 classrooms, for 0.1% of his wealth.

How exactly did Jeff Bezos get his wealth? Did he go around stealing from people and getting away with it? Or did a large number of voluntary interactions happen in which both parties considered themselves better off for having closed the deal? I think the latter is the case.

And even when he became a billionaire and a public figure, people still bought products through Amazon, thus endorsing the fact that whatever income inequality was on display did not constitute inequity. People still felt better off and were willing to make the slight "sacrifice" of helping some people at a corporation become very rich.

If Bezos had given away all his money in 1999 besides one million dollars, would Amazon be as expansive and helpful to as many customers as it is today? I'm not even saying I like Amazon, but the market certainly does.

Some people are better with money than others, and people aren't nearly as replaceable as currency notes, especially within an industry. I won't be receiving a billion-dollar investment any time soon, because I'm not as productive as an Amazon warehouse.

Maybe Bezos can't be confident that investing in 20,000 people's college educations will be as productive as investing in 20,000 new jobs and a warehouse for workers in a business model he is entirely familiar with and therefore can more reliably predict the continued productivity of. Maybe more of the college students could be expected to drop out, or major in gender or ethnic victimhood studies. Either way, it's wise to invest in what you know rather than what you don't know. Just ask the Oracle of Omaha. Familial and community structures innately work in the same way, and justifiably so.

Of course the rich should give some money to charity, but 99% of it? Buffett is too nice.

[123kappa3]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

In my opinion, you are only responsible for your actions. People make mistakes. People are misunderstood. People have different opinions. You cannot be held accountable for other people being dumb or misinterpreting your views. You can be aware if a lot of people hold a negative opinion of something you have said and you can atone for it, restate it, or back it up. The only responsibility people should have in my opinion is responsibility for what they themselves would like people to know not, how the public is going to use it.

[Zageron]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

An important thing not to miss is that most billionaires are not philanthropists. Elon is an outlier, and progress would be uniquely stymied without him. But, if all of the billionaires in the world had been equalizing their wealth out in various poverty reduction strategies, healthcare improvements, and raising the lowest bar of quality of life, then we would have been far better off far earlier than anything Elon can possibly do today.

The assumption is that technological advancement goes more slowly when there isn't any capitalistic incentive. This is mostly true, but it would still happen. And given the hundreds of additional years we would have had in equality and educational opportunity, I think we would be in a similar if not better place now.

Educated and smart people like spending time inventing things for free if they don't need to struggle to survive.

[Funnygurl555]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

Maybe more of the college students could be expected to drop out, or major in gender or ethnic victimhood studies.

i bet you're a real hit with the ladies

[dadcop2]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

i bet you're a real hit with the ladies

SHIT'S WEAK

[Tarlis]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

Power is moving energy.

Speech is Emotional Vocal Conveyance.

Responsibility is the ability to be responsive in an emotional Intelligent way.

[Not devonin]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

Didn't see this actually had responses at the time, though that bump there is sort of "wtf" but on the off chance it comes back up:

How exactly did Jeff Bezos get his wealth? Did he go around stealing from people and getting away with it? Or did a large number of voluntary interactions happen in which both parties considered themselves better off for having closed the deal? I think the latter is the case.

Actually yes, he went around thoroughly exploiting the labour of people who generate him billions of dollars and receive such little compensation that they're also on food stamps, or live in their cars, or aren't allowed to go to the bathroom on shift and have to piss in jars.

You can't earn a billion dollars, let alone a trillion dollars. You can only exploit the labour of other people and take their value for yourself.

[ledwix]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

Actually yes, he went around thoroughly exploiting the labour of people who generate him billions of dollars and receive such little compensation that they're also on food stamps, or live in their cars, or aren't allowed to go to the bathroom on shift and have to piss in jars.

You can't earn a billion dollars, let alone a trillion dollars. You can only exploit the labour of other people and take their value for yourself.

Who's to say you can't? What if I said you can't earn a million?

Exploitation implies their labor is being used unfairly, which invokes the question of: relative to what?

If they're being used unfairly for labor, then they should stop being used unfairly for labor and get a relatively better occupation where they do not feel so exploited.

And if such an occupation isn't available, then they can (a) work on their skills until it does become available so that they can change career paths, (b) negotiate with their bosses or otherwise increase their productivity so that a raise or promotion results, (c) leave the company and take a similar job with better pay/benefits at another company, or (d) accept that they are not willing to better themselves, negotiate, or leave and look for a new job, and thus accept that the situation they are in is already as fair as possible.

Since it is possible to perform one of those options at any time, there is really no excuse but to say that a voluntary contract of employment (at will, etc.) is an admission that such an arrangement is the best possible way that a person has chosen to currently utilize their labor in exchange for money.

Who is to decide what is or isn't a fair net worth? It is arbitrary to place a cut-off point, and price controls tend to create shortages. So if you're willing to accept a less productive world in which there are shortages, lack of innovation, and a lower average quality of life for everybody, then I suppose it is a good idea to place limits. But in a world of exponential fractals, it's hard to say that any particular individual shall be barred of their property rights at some arbitrary cut-off, through the use of force and threat of violence directed collectively at those whose monetary worth we are jealous of.

Sometimes, expansionist government policies create the very shortages and food stamp dependencies we are trying to stamp out.

[SputnikOwns]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

If you value your time more than the more you're being paid then you should obviously quit.

[Funnygurl555]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

If you value your time more than the more you're being paid then you should obviously quit.

few people have the luxury to just quit a job and job hunt until they find something they believe they're suited for.

y'all gotta understand here, employees of major corporations, at least the ones on the lower rungs, are often living paycheck to paycheck and don't have much wiggle room for negotiation. if they do, their and their families' lives are at stake

talking points like this one come from a place of privilege.

[SputnikOwns]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

few people have the luxury to just quit a job and job hunt until they find something they believe they're suited for.

y'all gotta understand here, employees of major corporations, at least the ones on the lower rungs, are often living paycheck to paycheck and don't have much wiggle room for negotiation. if they do, their and their families' lives are at stake

talking points like this one come from a place of privilege.

So you're saying they value the pay more than their time. Good, they shouldn't quit their job. It's not 'privilege', it's common sense.

[Funnygurl555]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

So you're saying they value the pay more than their time. Good, they shouldn't quit their job. It's not 'privilege', it's common sense.

no i'm not. i'm saying they could value their time more than the pay, but even if they do, they're not in a position to change that

[klimtkiller]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

what do you think peterson's beliefs are?

[DaBackpack]

Re: Speech, Power, and Responsibility

what do you think peterson's beliefs are?

It's been a while since I made this thread and I know he's not doing well lately so I've kind of been ignoring him. However, from memory:

I really do think he sincerely believes in a lot of what he's saying. He DOES seem to follow the Jungian paradigm (almost to a T... way more than is accepted by the scientific community at large). I really do think he believes a lot of what he wrote in "12 Rules." I also think he (at least at as within his capacity as a therapist) DOES derive sincere satisfaction and pleasure from helping people, especially disenfranchised young men. This is perfectly valuable.

Things get a little muddy when you consider his position as a celebrity and pop-science leader.

I feel like a lot of people in his position compromise their integrity to appeal to more people. (Grifting) I'd need to look at some of his claims but Peterson almost certainly has done this and had profited off of it. (Not totally sure, but I do not totally think "12 Rules" falls in this category.)

One immediately obvious logical failure is in how he applies the basic tenets of Jungian thought. Jung never really dove into psychologies that emerge from actual SYSTEMIC, OPPRESSIVE societal structures. Most of it essentially treats all psychology under the same umbrella, which whitewashes almost all cases where "pick yourself up by your bootstraps!" logic flatly cannot work.