Actually, if you forced everyone, upon installing/activation/account generation to implement a passcode, then this would not be as much of a problem. (And by force, I mean this program will not install or run; or the user's account will not be created unless the user creates a password).
I never mentioned anything about working less; in fact, I encourage people to work and be productive constantly. However, I believe they should only take what they need. Example: Say I am that genius who can make a million in a day; that is fine so long as you 1) don't stop being an active member of society and devolve into senseless hedonism and 2) you use that money for something and it just doesn't sit around; you could use it to educate and improve your value, you could set up charities, you could invest in small businesses, keep it in savings so you can live off of it while creating amazing works of art -- pretty much anything so long as it is positive for society.
What would be bad is if you were a genius who could make a million in a day, and you lived off it for a year sitting by your pool and doing nothing of merit.
I would never force either to give up their money, however, one is obviously more useful than the other and I would much prefer to have productive individuals populate society.
As for Rand, yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged, among other books she wrote. However, she assumes entrepreneurs are the driving force behind innovation and will reap the rewards from their inventions. This does not always happen; just look at current intellectual property law. Additionally, many independent artists constantly provide new and beautiful art, but have to do so without profit, or at a loss; sometimes it is not they have died that the artists work becomes worth anything or widely know.
I have no problem with capitalism. I am a capitalist, however, people forget there is more than just the dollar that goes into a purchasing decision. One has to determine the cost of the true cost of the good, and that includes, among other things: how much you will pay for the product, where the product was made, what business process the producer of the product follows, what will happen to the money I pay, (if there are any) how are the employees paid, etc. In todays society, it seems few people actually look at the whole cost of the good and even fewer are willing to live without as a protest or try and provide alternatives. People always seem to forget they are the bedrock of the market.
Maybe. If you desire to amass a more wealth and resources then you need while providing nothing, or comparatively little based on what you take, back to humanity; but you never act on it, no. Dreams and actions are different. I can desire to kill someone, but if I don't act on it, it does not matter. If you act on your desire to amass more wealth and resources then you need, then, yes; You are a bad person. Most people are bad people.
However, making money is not bad so long as you would use it well.
I cannot make a judgment. I do not know that both parties entered into contract willingly or that either of the parties were eligible to enter into contract.
I would like to say that I don't believe in 'doing the minimum'. However, just because someone does the work does not mean they get the money. In fact, most people I know who are extremely curious, who spend 60+ hours a week working on things they love, make less then most middle managers I know. For a more tangible example, take a look at issues with modern patent (and copyright) law: frequently a few with money who produce nothing are taking profits from those who generated the ideas and stifling innovation by keeping new innovators out of the market.
Why should an individual respect someone who is overly opulent and ostentatious while inhibiting the advancement of society?
At all levels of economic strata, some people have more then they need. At all levels, some people have too little for what they need.
"Whoa....wait. What are you saying? That a person should only be making enough money to basically...get by...and if you make much more than that...it is a bad thing?????"
Yes, however, I recognize different people need different amounts of money to get by. As such, and being that I don't know this man personally, I certainly can't make a decision on his behalf. Some people don't have children and might not need as much. Some people run huge charities; they might need billions. I am merely saying you can have to much money, given certain, very amorphous parameters. Very extreme fictional example: if you have a trillion dollars, are not married, have no children or other dependents, do not run or donate to any charities, and otherwise provide no service to humanity; you just sit in a pool and drink margaritas; then you have too much money and, yes, that is a bad thing. And yes, that person is a bad person. However, I would never advocate forcibly taking the money from that person. I would advocate individuals should not accept his money and should refuse to provide him with goods and services.
"Geez...who is to say if a person is making 'too much' money..and 'be faulted'?? I don't get it...I always want to make more. I supposed if I was super rich, multi-millionaire...I'd slide and just enjoy it for the rest of my life playing, but, still, I don't get how people can say someone is making too much money."
Everyone judges everyone they come into contact with every day, whether they admit to it or not. Very few people, however, are in a good position to make that assessment. Hence the reason I said as much in my original post. I will say this, I would not approve of what I believe you are espousing: make a ton of cash, keep it all, never work again. I believe not only is that a disservice to the people who you come into contact with, but also a disservice to the people you took the money from as well as yourself. If having multiple millions of dollars would make you do nothing and contribute nothing to society, why do you deserve the money? (again, I do not advocate taking it from you) Just because you can have something, doesn't mean you deserve it.
"I can only guess you're one of those that thinks someone that is making MORE than they 'need' should have their excess monies taken away forceably (sp?) by tax for wealth redistribution?"No."Who exactly is to be the judge of who makes too much money? Who is to say you have too rich a lifestyle?"
Everyone judges everyone else all the time; the only difference is who is honest about it and what their decisions are (and I believe undecided or abstention are decisions). Is murder wrong? is cannibalism? Maybe, it all depends on the specifics. If we are both starving on a desert island (or high in the mountains), we have no food, it has been almost two weeks without food; is it ok to kill you (or vice versa) to obtain food? what if you attacked me first? what if you were already dead?
I don't know enough information to judge you (though I can speculate about your present ideals) or this man, however, sometimes having and wanting money is wrong. Everything can be wrong, including helping people. Example, sometimes it is good to let children fall, burn themselves, or otherwise experience pain to teach them something, even though, in general, we want to try and keep children safe. (I do not advocate harming children, but, pain is part of life and an excellent teacher.)
"I don't fault anyone who makes more than I do...nor am I jealous, it does, however, encourage me to get off my ass and work to make more, so I can live the 'easy life', not want for anything, and have fun."
I fault people who I know who have more money then they need to sustain themselves comfortable (and I understand that is very subjective) and fail to take care of their dependents or give back to their community. They are greedy. They are a cancer on society. Please note: I view people who abuse, as opposed to use, social services in the same light as self-cen
I specifically stated I could not make a judgment in this situation as I do not know the individual...
As a political Libertarian I do take offense to being called a Democrat. Believing something is wrong and legislating it are two completely different things. Please read my responce to this message's parent entitled: Moral fault is different than law...
I do not propose that the money be taken way from some one who makes what I consider to much. I do believe I stated I don't even know how much he would need. However, I do think it is wrong to earn more than you need and I define need as what you require to take care of yourself, your dependents, and fulfill your societal and humanitarian moral obligations. The amount of money needed will be different for each individual. I would never say that money should be forcibly seized from someone unless it was ill-gotten (such as if it were stolen or willingly given under false pretenses). I merely believe in only taking what you need. In a similar vein, I think people should recycle, but I would never force them to at gun point. Other examples: I think it is wrong for people to over eat, but I would never pass a law saying someone could not eat more than a certain amount. I think it is wrong for people to over spend (ie spend credit), but I would never pass a law saying someone could not use credit.
...it all depends on the situation. If you have access to a income with which you can reasonably support yourself and your kids and, optionally, donate to charities you find worthwhile, then you can't be faulted for making that income. If you make more, you are able to be faulted. Whether or not he can be faulted for the income he has received, I do not know. As I do not know the individual, or what he needs the money for, I can't make that judgment. However, that does not mean that such a judgment could not be rendered.
It could just be that you like the dramatic experiences that you make up better than those that are put before you. Depending upon the 'literature' that you read, the author makes demands upon you to visualize the situation and fill in the gaps s/he left out. No matter how good a writer s/he is, something will be left out. There is truth in the saying, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Pictures, especially moving ones, generate a sense of the event for you with details that may not be exactly as you would have imagined them if you had free reign to create them yourself.
If you look at a highly detailed picture and you see a man leaning over a corpse crying, there is only one interpretation of the physical nature of the event. The man can only give one expression; can only give one pose; that everyone who views that picture will share.
Books are not quite like that; words are far more fluid. Unlike the people who would view the aforementioned picture and share the same image, each person who would read about the man leaning over the corpse and crying would take away a different mental image. Maybe, if the writer wrote a novel about the man leaning over the corpse, it might come close to the accuracy of the photograph, but it is unlikely.
Not that ambiguity is a bad thing, however, don't attack other media just because your imagination is good. Visual media suffer from less ambiguity and, in the case of viewing static images, generally require less imagination than textual mediums.
As for, specifically, your issue with Final Fantasy 7; I wasn't moved either, however, I'm seldom moved by cinema or books either. However, I think the issue with Final Fantasy (in general) is that it plays against the strengths of gaming; it isn't hugely interactive and games that are not interactive don't really allow you to gain a connection with the characters.
Example: If I set down and play the Sims; spend 8+ hours making a family, generating back story, building their house, and creating a neighborhood for them to inhabit; and in the first 30 minutes they end up dying by fire (and I didn't intend for that to happen); I will be far more distraught then seeing a character that I didn't really control too much and didn't like to much in the first place dying.
From here I could do a whole rant on how I'm upset with the lack of RPG in MMORPG's, but now that most of them are MMO's, I can't be too angry...
The longer I live, the more I think that no population is capable of being as responcible as it needs to be for the level of freedom it enjoys and no force (governmental or otherwise) can make it so for a flash in the pan.
The current patent problems are just a symptom of a fundemental flaw in humanity.
...the proto-capitalists; Jamestown wasn't a religious colony -- it was all about the $$$.
The US was really based both violent, intolerant, zealots who publicly feared sex, yet privately indulged *and* short-sighted, exploitative traders who only worried about the bottom line.
Yet people still don't understand why the US acts the way it does...
(Relation to topic: Rockstar and retailers want money {capitalistic founders}; Public wants to play 'immoral' games, but don't want to others to know they play 'immoral' games -- and they certainly don't want their children or even neighbors playing 'immoral' games {religious founders})
Also, sure, sex gets worse flak, but violence still does get targeted... a lot. My fiancée works at an EB and, well, just about every day there is some parent who looks at the games in the demo boxes and goes, "Oh my God! How can you traffic in something so violent?" Never once has any parent complained about how women are depicted on game covers (skimpy dress and all that), so the sex/violence debate is not a binary. (Ex: more parents have had problems with the blood on Red Ninja's cover than with the fact that she's suggestively dressed, at least at my fiancée's store)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you forced everyone, upon installing/activation/account generation to implement a passcode, then this would not be as much of a problem. (And by force, I mean this program will not install or run; or the user's account will not be created unless the user creates a password).
I never mentioned anything about working less; in fact, I encourage people to work and be productive constantly. However, I believe they should only take what they need. Example: Say I am that genius who can make a million in a day; that is fine so long as you 1) don't stop being an active member of society and devolve into senseless hedonism and 2) you use that money for something and it just doesn't sit around; you could use it to educate and improve your value, you could set up charities, you could invest in small businesses, keep it in savings so you can live off of it while creating amazing works of art -- pretty much anything so long as it is positive for society. What would be bad is if you were a genius who could make a million in a day, and you lived off it for a year sitting by your pool and doing nothing of merit. I would never force either to give up their money, however, one is obviously more useful than the other and I would much prefer to have productive individuals populate society. As for Rand, yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged, among other books she wrote. However, she assumes entrepreneurs are the driving force behind innovation and will reap the rewards from their inventions. This does not always happen; just look at current intellectual property law. Additionally, many independent artists constantly provide new and beautiful art, but have to do so without profit, or at a loss; sometimes it is not they have died that the artists work becomes worth anything or widely know. I have no problem with capitalism. I am a capitalist, however, people forget there is more than just the dollar that goes into a purchasing decision. One has to determine the cost of the true cost of the good, and that includes, among other things: how much you will pay for the product, where the product was made, what business process the producer of the product follows, what will happen to the money I pay, (if there are any) how are the employees paid, etc. In todays society, it seems few people actually look at the whole cost of the good and even fewer are willing to live without as a protest or try and provide alternatives. People always seem to forget they are the bedrock of the market.
Maybe. If you desire to amass a more wealth and resources then you need while providing nothing, or comparatively little based on what you take, back to humanity; but you never act on it, no. Dreams and actions are different. I can desire to kill someone, but if I don't act on it, it does not matter. If you act on your desire to amass more wealth and resources then you need, then, yes; You are a bad person. Most people are bad people.
However, making money is not bad so long as you would use it well.
I cannot make a judgment. I do not know that both parties entered into contract willingly or that either of the parties were eligible to enter into contract.
I would like to say that I don't believe in 'doing the minimum'. However, just because someone does the work does not mean they get the money. In fact, most people I know who are extremely curious, who spend 60+ hours a week working on things they love, make less then most middle managers I know. For a more tangible example, take a look at issues with modern patent (and copyright) law: frequently a few with money who produce nothing are taking profits from those who generated the ideas and stifling innovation by keeping new innovators out of the market.
Why should an individual respect someone who is overly opulent and ostentatious while inhibiting the advancement of society?
At all levels of economic strata, some people have more then they need. At all levels, some people have too little for what they need.
I hit preview and it submitted instead; at least I thought I did...
"Whoa....wait. What are you saying? That a person should only be making enough money to basically...get by...and if you make much more than that...it is a bad thing?????" Yes, however, I recognize different people need different amounts of money to get by. As such, and being that I don't know this man personally, I certainly can't make a decision on his behalf. Some people don't have children and might not need as much. Some people run huge charities; they might need billions. I am merely saying you can have to much money, given certain, very amorphous parameters. Very extreme fictional example: if you have a trillion dollars, are not married, have no children or other dependents, do not run or donate to any charities, and otherwise provide no service to humanity; you just sit in a pool and drink margaritas; then you have too much money and, yes, that is a bad thing. And yes, that person is a bad person. However, I would never advocate forcibly taking the money from that person. I would advocate individuals should not accept his money and should refuse to provide him with goods and services. "Geez...who is to say if a person is making 'too much' money..and 'be faulted'?? I don't get it...I always want to make more. I supposed if I was super rich, multi-millionaire...I'd slide and just enjoy it for the rest of my life playing, but, still, I don't get how people can say someone is making too much money." Everyone judges everyone they come into contact with every day, whether they admit to it or not. Very few people, however, are in a good position to make that assessment. Hence the reason I said as much in my original post. I will say this, I would not approve of what I believe you are espousing: make a ton of cash, keep it all, never work again. I believe not only is that a disservice to the people who you come into contact with, but also a disservice to the people you took the money from as well as yourself. If having multiple millions of dollars would make you do nothing and contribute nothing to society, why do you deserve the money? (again, I do not advocate taking it from you) Just because you can have something, doesn't mean you deserve it. "I can only guess you're one of those that thinks someone that is making MORE than they 'need' should have their excess monies taken away forceably (sp?) by tax for wealth redistribution?" No. "Who exactly is to be the judge of who makes too much money? Who is to say you have too rich a lifestyle?" Everyone judges everyone else all the time; the only difference is who is honest about it and what their decisions are (and I believe undecided or abstention are decisions). Is murder wrong? is cannibalism? Maybe, it all depends on the specifics. If we are both starving on a desert island (or high in the mountains), we have no food, it has been almost two weeks without food; is it ok to kill you (or vice versa) to obtain food? what if you attacked me first? what if you were already dead? I don't know enough information to judge you (though I can speculate about your present ideals) or this man, however, sometimes having and wanting money is wrong. Everything can be wrong, including helping people. Example, sometimes it is good to let children fall, burn themselves, or otherwise experience pain to teach them something, even though, in general, we want to try and keep children safe. (I do not advocate harming children, but, pain is part of life and an excellent teacher.) "I don't fault anyone who makes more than I do...nor am I jealous, it does, however, encourage me to get off my ass and work to make more, so I can live the 'easy life', not want for anything, and have fun." I fault people who I know who have more money then they need to sustain themselves comfortable (and I understand that is very subjective) and fail to take care of their dependents or give back to their community. They are greedy. They are a cancer on society. Please note: I view people who abuse, as opposed to use, social services in the same light as self-cen
I specifically stated I could not make a judgment in this situation as I do not know the individual... As a political Libertarian I do take offense to being called a Democrat. Believing something is wrong and legislating it are two completely different things. Please read my responce to this message's parent entitled: Moral fault is different than law...
...my comment Moral fault is different than law which is a response listed under my initial thread
I do not propose that the money be taken way from some one who makes what I consider to much. I do believe I stated I don't even know how much he would need. However, I do think it is wrong to earn more than you need and I define need as what you require to take care of yourself, your dependents, and fulfill your societal and humanitarian moral obligations. The amount of money needed will be different for each individual. I would never say that money should be forcibly seized from someone unless it was ill-gotten (such as if it were stolen or willingly given under false pretenses). I merely believe in only taking what you need. In a similar vein, I think people should recycle, but I would never force them to at gun point. Other examples: I think it is wrong for people to over eat, but I would never pass a law saying someone could not eat more than a certain amount. I think it is wrong for people to over spend (ie spend credit), but I would never pass a law saying someone could not use credit.
...it all depends on the situation. If you have access to a income with which you can reasonably support yourself and your kids and, optionally, donate to charities you find worthwhile, then you can't be faulted for making that income. If you make more, you are able to be faulted. Whether or not he can be faulted for the income he has received, I do not know. As I do not know the individual, or what he needs the money for, I can't make that judgment. However, that does not mean that such a judgment could not be rendered.
He's made of gold.
And yes, yes you can fault people for making money.
It could just be that you like the dramatic experiences that you make up better than those that are put before you. Depending upon the 'literature' that you read, the author makes demands upon you to visualize the situation and fill in the gaps s/he left out. No matter how good a writer s/he is, something will be left out. There is truth in the saying, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.' Pictures, especially moving ones, generate a sense of the event for you with details that may not be exactly as you would have imagined them if you had free reign to create them yourself.
If you look at a highly detailed picture and you see a man leaning over a corpse crying, there is only one interpretation of the physical nature of the event. The man can only give one expression; can only give one pose; that everyone who views that picture will share.
Books are not quite like that; words are far more fluid. Unlike the people who would view the aforementioned picture and share the same image, each person who would read about the man leaning over the corpse and crying would take away a different mental image. Maybe, if the writer wrote a novel about the man leaning over the corpse, it might come close to the accuracy of the photograph, but it is unlikely.
Not that ambiguity is a bad thing, however, don't attack other media just because your imagination is good. Visual media suffer from less ambiguity and, in the case of viewing static images, generally require less imagination than textual mediums.
As for, specifically, your issue with Final Fantasy 7; I wasn't moved either, however, I'm seldom moved by cinema or books either. However, I think the issue with Final Fantasy (in general) is that it plays against the strengths of gaming; it isn't hugely interactive and games that are not interactive don't really allow you to gain a connection with the characters.
Example: If I set down and play the Sims; spend 8+ hours making a family, generating back story, building their house, and creating a neighborhood for them to inhabit; and in the first 30 minutes they end up dying by fire (and I didn't intend for that to happen); I will be far more distraught then seeing a character that I didn't really control too much and didn't like to much in the first place dying.
From here I could do a whole rant on how I'm upset with the lack of RPG in MMORPG's, but now that most of them are MMO's, I can't be too angry...
How many gamers keep Win boxes up and running to play games even if they use a flavor of unix for everything else?
With freedom comes responcibility...
The longer I live, the more I think that no population is capable of being as responcible as it needs to be for the level of freedom it enjoys and no force (governmental or otherwise) can make it so for a flash in the pan.
The current patent problems are just a symptom of a fundemental flaw in humanity.
The US was really based both violent, intolerant, zealots who publicly feared sex, yet privately indulged *and* short-sighted, exploitative traders who only worried about the bottom line.
Yet people still don't understand why the US acts the way it does...
(Relation to topic: Rockstar and retailers want money {capitalistic founders}; Public wants to play 'immoral' games, but don't want to others to know they play 'immoral' games -- and they certainly don't want their children or even neighbors playing 'immoral' games {religious founders})
Also, sure, sex gets worse flak, but violence still does get targeted... a lot. My fiancée works at an EB and, well, just about every day there is some parent who looks at the games in the demo boxes and goes, "Oh my God! How can you traffic in something so violent?" Never once has any parent complained about how women are depicted on game covers (skimpy dress and all that), so the sex/violence debate is not a binary. (Ex: more parents have had problems with the blood on Red Ninja's cover than with the fact that she's suggestively dressed, at least at my fiancée's store)