Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well to force people to act like they have compassion, and to respect their fellow man. I don't believe it would create a huge problem by putting a limit on what people are able to acquire..it would actually do quite a few people a whole heck of a lot of good. We already have many limits imposed upon us within day to day life..this would be no different.You ever heard of the expression.."Am I my brothers keeper?"..Well guess what? You are in a sense..because his actions, in many ways.. effect you later on.
Anyone who earns 500 billion dollars a year, and spends it exclusively on themselves is insane. Particularly since the average human being lives of less than 1 million for their entire lifetime. If everyone had an attitude of doing unto others..instead of doing unto themselves..then their would be no need for any type of "socialism" in our government. Unfortunately, we live in a world that has the exact opposite ideal..and until this changes, then some form of socialism is needed to help those who have difficulty helping themselves.
Indeed. As I mentioned in an earlier post, imagine how much simpler our society would be, how much more genuine our human experiencing of one another, ourselves, of life, would be, if we truly valued honesty, compassion and personal responsibility, instead of giving it $19.99-act-now-get-1-free" lip service.
But as I also said before, we, as a species, may simply not be mature enough at this point in time to put into effective action anything more evolved than our current way of doing business.
Originally posted by BackFire
You can't "force" someone to have compassion and respect for their fellow human beings, either they do or they don't, kinda self defeating to try and force something like that.
Well, most of the governments that are based off of "Judeo-Christian" value systems do kind of force compassion/love in a sense. Grants are given to those who do things that benefit society. Laws are put into place to stop individuals from doing things that will effect the welfare of society.
Anyway..my opinion is this, regardless of what politicol system one follows or idealizes, they are still being "forced" or attempting to "force" others into practicing their ideals.
If one makes the choice of creating a "self serving" system, then they are imposing that belief system on people, just as much as an individual who is imposing a "compassionate" one. I believe I would prefer living in the system that concentrates less on self..and more on others. But again that is just my preference, you are certainly entitled to your own.
See, there's a difference between rewarding those who do good, and actually, literally, forcing someone to do good, regaurdless of whether or not they want to. It becomes pointless and somewhat contradictory when the good in the world is forced. There's also a difference between protecting the rights of fellow human beings by preventing harm from coming to them and forcing them to give money to others who may simply be lazy.
While I agree that, logically speaking, there is no need for someone to have 5 billion dollars, and after a while it does just become for show, I don't like the idea of a "wealth limit". It simply wouldn't work in this country. If someone has the capability or talent to make tons of money then they should be allowed to. Most people who are rich do give to charities and help those less fortunate, simply because they're decent people for the most part. But they shouldn't be forced to, it would promote laziness (If I don't succeed someone will just GIVE me money) rather then motivate for success.