Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us?

I wouldn’t think so, no.

Distribution of wealth is a really rough scheme. It leads to more debt than profit.
Welfare usually doesn’t lead to too much profitable behaviour.
No Marxist ever proved otherwise. Well, one or two but that really proves only the rule.

Well I think there is your problem.
I personally think that any revolutionary movement should seek to allow the wealthy classes to keep their wealth.
“Ask” them to invest in the new order, with only monetary and no political gain as there is already an agenda.

on account of having been assraped too much I surmise, or rather as a precursor to such abuse?

I haven’t. It is true that therefore I am often shamed.
But fuck it. Literally.

Same thing old man.
People be sheeple.

We will.

Yes.

Agree to disagree and regards.

You do not think it is immoral to impose poverty.

Make your argument.

Regards
DL

Sometimes, yes it is.

Is it moral now, in Modern times? That is questionable. The Western Standard-of-Living is so high nowadays, that “poverty” has a new-age meaning. Is “Obesity” a form of poverty? That’s debatable.

gia: is it moral for…
jakob: no (which means it is not moral. If he answered yes, then he thinks it is moral)
gia: you do not think it is immoral.

the batch of negatives seemed to have confused things but your conclusion about what he meant is not correct.

I just haven’t seen any indication, let alone argument, to the effect that it is moral.

I didn’t say it is actively immoral (though it might be), I just don’t think, personally, that Ive ever seen any definition of morality where making people poorer than they need to be fits in.

Your assertion is not an argument for the proposition.

When is genocide and killing better than the curing that Jesus said he came to cure?

Regards
DL

I read him as saying that genocide is sometimes justified and I asked our friend to actually show an argument for that barbarity.

I think that any god who chooses to kill when he can just as easily cure is a prick of a god.

Those who try to justify genocide show how they like a god who is synonymous with Hitler and Stalin.

Regards
DL

If you have to read that from somewhere to dither out that imposing poverty through the tax system is immoral, then you are not much of a thinker.

If you need something though, read Ghandi. He calls it immoral.

Regards
DL

If a foreign nation wages war against you, then it’s moral for government to increase taxes to 80-100% to fund killing and self-defense.

In other circumstances, such as a trade-war, it also might be necessary for a government to impose poverty on “us”, the general population.

Neither of those conditions have applied for what, about 70 years now if not longer.

You would have a point if the whole population was made to suffer a bit instead of forcing all the harm onto the weakest and poorest of our people.

Regards
DL

I suggest you start reading Tragedy and philosophy. You appear unaware that there is no standard definition of morality. I recommend you start with Sophocles.

When you have acquired some conditions for thought in your life and have developed a mind, come back here and read my post again, and respond to me like a grown up.

It would confuse your immature mind.

Regards
DL

I think there should be a minimum income for everybody. The income also should scale with amount of work you do. We don’t need many governments. One state one government as it is stated.

I agree and see government growth as make work projects for their friends.

We would all be millionaires if we did not have to support so much political duplication.

Look at all the state and municipal governments that just duplicate services.

Stupid tax payer is as stupid tax payer pays for.

Ending poverty means that all will pay taxes and the minimum income should be based on an after tax number.

To keep things fair, we would have to rid ourselves of regressive sales and VAT taxes and charge everyone the same tax rate.

Many want to nail the rich but if we did that, it would not be a fair tax system.

Regards
DL

I forgot to mention about warfare. There would be no need for warfare if there was one state obe government.

I forgot to mention about warfare. There would be no need for warfare if there was one state obe government.
[/quote]
I don’t know about that. At the micro level within individual countries under one ruler, revolts have happened.

At the macro level, revolts might still happen. but then we would have all the resources necessary to end them more easily and hopefully more justly than if the resources were not available to the rulers.

But yes, I tend to agree that not being hungry or poor should reduce evolutional thinking by quite a bit.

Regards
DL

I don’t understand the relation of what you said to what I said. I meant that we could save tons of money from no building warfare. What is the use of warfare when there is one state?

I thing analogically and, agree when you say an army would not be necessary.

I was looking at the military being replaced by police or whatever the unified world would call their emergency services.

The main point was that people would have less to revolt against.

I hope that clears things up.

Regards
DL

I see and I agree.

Regards
DL