Given the protests and our times, this is a statement for the ages.
The subtly of deception is some on the left attempting to silence the obvious class warfare attack on capitalism with pacifying comments like greed being the issue, not capitalism.
If this genius does not like cooperate greed, then don't buy their products or services. The invisible hand of the market should weed greedy companies out and hopefully companies like this will grow and proposer:
The problem is not corporate greed, or excessive pay. The problem is crony capitalism under girded by a massive spending, debt driven out of control government, oh and their plans to get even fatter with this new health care bill.
The problem is that the success of North America has brought us to think that we can undermine the free market and mandate forced giving under the pretense, "rights and compassion". This hug-fest has failed. We are crippled by our debt and inefficiency. Time to give the reigns back to the free market. And one more point, if the left is against greed, then they should remove the plank from their eye first. Greed drives the insatiable need to have and want what is not theirs. Greed drives the left to demand more of what they did not work for, or pay for. Greed pours out of men and women's hearts to genuinely believe in their heart of hearts that other people forcibly paying the way for others is the best way to work. This is greed. So before the marchers scream at greedy corporations, look no further then their positions. At least corporations earned what they have.
"This hug-fest has failed" - trivializes the issue.
ReplyDelete"Greed drives the left to demand more of what they did not work for, or pay for" - Why do you assume that just because a person holds a position on the left that they do not work for or pay for what they have? That is a very simplistic generalization.
"Greed pours out of men and women's hearts to genuinely believe in their heart of hearts that other people forcibly paying the way for others is the best way to work. This is greed." Not a real connection here. Just because I vote for the privilege to live in a society that intentionally and systematically cares for its people in the hopes that all people no matter what their circumstances can have an acceptable standard of living - because they are human and not because of what they do or do not do for a living or what they have or have not done to contribute to their circumstances, in no way implies that I am greedy. I make a very good living and I would rather pay taxes than see one child go hungry.
"At least corporations earned what they have." Not really a fair comment. I know some very well educated, highly successful people who marched in Toronto. They have all earned what they have and they in no way feel superior to others who are also marching and who use social services. Your statement implies that "earning" in some way makes a person "better?" or if that someone is marching they are not earning? I fail to see the logic.
Anonymous, thanks for the clear and respectful response.
ReplyDelete1. Don't think all of the left holds to that. It is a generalization that I believe is generally accurate. Don't think it's simplistic because I deem taking anothers money by force is stealing. It's my basic belief. Which is no different then the nature of another's belief, that it is not stealing. Both are basic in nature...therefore, it's not simplistic b/c the left typically deems taking money and spreading it around to be fair, thus my comment from my basic belief applies and is not simplistic...from my point of view.
2. Again, if I take something of yours, without consent, that is stealing. I simply believe that as basic. I cannot "prove" it to be absolutely true...likewise, in the same manner, when the government operates outside it's jurisdiction and takes what I earn without my permission, I deem that to be stealing. If you want to help that person, then you do that with your money, not mine. You forcing me to give up my money to pay for the person you see fit is greedy. Pay for them yourself, don't ask me to pay the way. Now, with that being said, I agree that a life of hording and not being generous is terrible. I too make good $$ and believe in helping others. I happen to believe that our free will and generous spirit should be the motivator, not forced laws via government. I have a passion for helping people and seeing them grow and increase, again, may it be our generosity that lends a hand and not laws. You give your money where you see fit, and I will give mine where I see fit. How is that not fair? I can't break into your house and steal a bunny for my daughter because you have 2 and she has zero citing, "i want to live in a generous and fair society". Your free will should balance the scales, not my desire imposed on you.
3. I made no reference to one being more valuable then another based on social status. All men/women are equally valuable. My point dose not make suggestions about marchers, as I say, before the marchers scream greed, please consider yourself first. When you take from someone what is not yours, greed may be a factor. Imposing taxes (outside of jurisdiction) to redistribute is a form of taking, and often with that there is greed. Look no further then Greece and the fire in the belly...wanting, wanting and wanting. It is quite sad how entitlement has permiated their mindset...even in the face of going broke...that i submit is a good example of greed. Sorry for spelling, and good comments. Ryan Jantzi
Let me clarify, yes, I think the left works hard for what they earn. My point about the left generally voting for entitlements/programs does not mean they do not work hard for what they have, it means they tend to vote for programs that may support themselves or others. My generalization is in reference to the left voting for more programs/spending to help others...which often is outside gov's jurisdictiona and therefore a violation of my basic belief on taking what is not theirs: therefore greed. Ryan Jantzi.
ReplyDeleteYou are too kind Ryan. Unidentified, above, makes two preposterous claims: that leftists are as productive as sensible folk; and that only bureaucrats dispensing tax money "spread the wealth around." My simplistic understanding of reality is that where merit is rewarded above seniority or tenure the result is more output at less cost. As to socialism's record of improving the lives of the less fortunate, there is that inconvenient thing called history showing the exact opposite to be the rule. In the final analysis capitalistic greed causes people to do the right thing - increase the general wealth - regardless of what they choose to do with their share of that wealth.
ReplyDelete"...to live in a society that intentionally and systematically cares for its people in the hopes that all people no matter what their circumstances can have an acceptable standard of living - because they are human and not because of what they do or do not do for a living or what they have or have not done to contribute to their circumstances..." I live in a community populated predominantly by recent immigrants, not all of whom are in the U.S. legally as I am. Being one who lives without blinders on, I see in areas of urban blight people who choose to not seek employment because they would rather wait for government handouts while others work several jobs trying to make ends meet. I too become ill at the thought of a child going hungry, but I know far too many people who are content to leech off welfare rather than lift a finger to contribute somehow to society. Everyone has something to contribute, so why should hard working, wage earning tax payers be expected to foot the bill for those who want to receive CEO wages for watching television? LIKEWISE, why should corporate CEOs receive multiple millions of dollars annually when it is apparent that their irresponsible fiscal practices are largely to blame for our current financial distress?
ReplyDelete"You are too kind Ryan. Unidentified, above, makes two preposterous claims: that leftists are as productive as sensible folk;"
ReplyDeleteOf course they are.
" and that only bureaucrats dispensing tax money 'spread the wealth around.' - Not my intention. In fact in an ideal world we would all feel obliged to care for others. Sadly, in reality that is not the case. Thus, I choose to vote to care for others and at the same time I willingly spread my own wealth around.
" My simplistic understanding of reality is that where merit is rewarded above seniority or tenure the result is more output at less cost." Not in my field. Actually, the number one contributor to success is feeling respected.
Anonymous 2 - I agree with you that there are people who abuse the system at both ends of the corporate spectrum. I too do not wear blinders and in my work encounter people from all walks of life. I don't think any system is perfect, but I also don't think that is a problem of the principle itself. It is more of a problem in the way the principle (or the system) is executed.
Ryan - I appreciate your response. However, I respectfully disagree with you. I have not written on this blog for a very long time. However, I felt compelled to after reading "The Greedy Left" . Clearly, I side with the left and I assure you I am not greedy and I earn everything I have. I do not speak for all "lefties" and surely there will be greedy people on the left, right and in the centre. I think when we speak in generalizations and stereotypes we lose credibility. Although this is a stereotype I have never heard before - "the Greedy Left". Interesting.
Thanks for your candid comments Anonymous. All points fair, however, please consider my generalization comment losing credibility. If you said, "people have 2 arms", you are generalizing, but not making an exclusive comment. Therefore, you do not lose credibility necessarily (if i can find a person without 2 arms for example). In the same manner, the generalization should not cause one to lose credibility, but rather the accuracy of it should stand on it's merits...and of course, what that generalization is tied to. So, here is some context: I am writing a blog, not a logical proof essay, so generalizations are required so I don't take 5x the space. I try not to offend or be divisive, but rather encourage people to think (hence me appreciating your comments despite disagreeing). To further clarify, my generalization is the following: people who want/demand outside of their jurisdiction may be running into problems with greed (by definition of greed). I happen to believe that on some matters, the left (generally, but not all) looks to support programs that cost taxpayer dollars. I happen to think that many of these programs fall outside the jurisdiction of government and therefore they are not responsible to spend. Thus, if the left presses for something (again, generally) that I believe is not within their jurisdiction to do, then greed (excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions) plays a factor, because according to my belief there is excess desire for wealth that does not belong to them. What if someone said, "I really really real want the rich person to give me 1 million dollars right now and I want the government to force them to do it...hurry!". I submit that is greed b/c he has an excessive desire to want something that is not his. I am not accusing the left of operating to that degree...it was merely to illustrate a point. The point is excessively wanting what is outside one's jurisdiction to provide.
ReplyDeleteI agree greed comes with rich, poor...it transcends politics, economics etc.
Ryan Jantzi
People have 2 arms is not really what we are talking about nor is wanting a rich person to give me 1 million dollars. It is a much more complicated issue. You call me, a "leftie", greedy. Offense taken. Blog or essay - stereotypes and generalizations are never appropriate. It is disappointing.
ReplyDelete