|
|
 Originally Posted by Lyric
Wealth is only exchange capable stuff. Happiness etc is not wealth unless it can be traded.
So you're essentially endorsing a system that's completely free-for-all, with no checks and balances, no regulation and no safety nets. I can't think of a more efficient system to fuck over 95% of the planets population.
Originally Posted by Lyric
The sun will engulf the earth before it burns out. We talked about that earlier in the thread.
Yes, so are the sun and the resources on earth infinite, yes or no? The funny thing is that while they probably are from your perspective, they aren't from mankind's perspective, but you're making it pretty obvious that the latter is of no interest to your system.
Originally Posted by Lyric
Many in this thread claimed that wealth generation was impossible without society. Perhaps you missed those claims?
I don't feel I'm in any way responsible for other people's claims.
Originally Posted by Lyric
If two men are on an island and they split the land in half, each is responsible for his own half and they agree that each will "own" and develop half the island. If one man cuts all his trees and does not replant them he would be lowering his land value. If the other man sustainable harvests his trees slowly and replants them there is no permanent loss to his half of the island. He can farm and harvest trees until the sun absorbs the earth. His side of the island will become wealthier until he dies.
Farming takes rain and sun and his labor. His labor I directly related to his wealth because he is the only one working on his land on his side. Even if he lives for a million years he would never run out of anything, ever.
What if there are 10 billion people on this small island, with no room for everybody to farm a crop. The fastest, fittest and the most ruthless claim their spots first, and are the only ones able to farm. Is this away from the resources of the other people or not? And as you yourself state, _IF_ the other man harvests sustainably. What if he doesn't? What's forcing him to? What if he not only screws up his own land, and after that moves to the land of the other guy because he's bigger and stronger and ruins that too? I guess based on your ideology he's free to do that because he can, long live freedom?
Is this the optimal solution for the well-being and prosperity of mankind, does anything besides this one guy's material wealth matter? It's pretty clear that you identify with the hardworking guy and can see no reason other than laziness and stupidity why the other 9.99999999 billion people wouldn't do the same. I was earlier wondering about your statement that 90% of people are generous, but I get it now.
|
Reply With Quote