'robin hood' bankers

bendix

Completely right, Generali. Muddle-headed leftist nonsense in the extreme. Classic Shephards Bush dinner party socialism.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

To be clear, you have said that it is perfectly reasonable to take money (and presumably property) on a completely arbitrary basis from people you deem to be rich and give it to those you deem to be deserving.

no i haven't. the terms used to redistribute wealth should not be arbitrary. the terms the bankers used were not abitrary, they were their own. and i'm not saying they were necessarily correct since i do not know the individual cases and how they applied their criteria. but they certainly had criteria.

my point is that is morally desirable to distribute money more evenly among everyone. it seems crazy to me that the U.S. should receive financial aid for the less well off in its society whilst many there are completely dripping in wealth. there is a difference between a poor government / country that can't provide for its citizens and a rich government / country that can't make sure all its citizens can meet their own basic needs. a country that allows some to be very rich whilst others are homeless and struggling to feed themselves adequately has failed imo. i am not changing the terms of the discussion - it is all linked.

btw bendix i've never been to a shepherd's bush dinner party, have you?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

btw bendix i've never been to a shepherd's bush dinner party, have you?

ninky, did you get round to handing over your salary in a spirit of kindness and generosity and as a token towards redistributing wealth from the haves to the have not yet?

No? No, I thought not.

You talk a good game - I'll give you that - but it's all talk, isn't it? In this debate there are people who live up to their ideals and philosophies, and there are those that don't. Which are you?

There are people who wring their hands at inequality and poverty, and they subscribe to Save the Children and probably adopt a little black boy in Botswana and get nice letters from him quarterly, which is nice, so long as he doesn't turn up on their doorsteps with a runny nose. They get their onions out on red nose day, and go to charity concerts for tsunami victims and it all makes them feel great.

But when it comes to the crunch, it's all a game. A way to ameliorate their pseudo-humanist political stand.

I repeat, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping you from living your political standpoint and redistributing your wealth meaningfully but - I forget - there's no need to focus on individuals is there?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

ninky, did you get round to handing over your salary in a spirit of kindness and generosity and as a token towards redistributing wealth from the haves to the have not yet?

No? No, I thought not.

You talk a good game - I'll give you that - but it's all talk, isn't it? In this debate there are people who live up to their ideals and philosophies, and there are those that don't. Which are you?

what purpose would handing my salary over serve to change the system? it would just make me a 'have not' surely? the point is to make everyone a have. duh!

bendix

ninky wrote: »

what good is handing over my salary going to do towards changing the system? it would be like a drop of rain in the desert. tokenistic and largely pointless and would leave me as a have not surely? the point is to make us all haves not just swap the sides. duh!

Ahhhhhhh, ok.

Now I get it. So by clamouring in a meaningless noise-making humanist way for a new type of society that is never going to happen because it's against basic human instinct, your conscious is clear and you can retain your cosy middle class lifestyle at the same time.

It all works out very well for you guys, doesnt it?

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

There are people who wring their hands at inequality and poverty, and they subscribe to Save the Children and probably adopt a little black boy in Botswana and get nice letters from him quarterly, which is nice, so long as he doesn't turn up on their doorsteps with a runny nose. They get their onions out on red nose day, and go to charity concerts for tsunami victims and it all makes them feel great.

But when it comes to the crunch, it's all a game. A way to ameliorate their pseudo-humanist political stand.

I repeat, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing stopping you from living your political standpoint and redistributing your wealth meaningfully but - I forget - there's no need to focus on individuals is there?

yeah, been there done that. but as my OH points out charity is often a bit like an icecube that gets passed around, by the time it gets to the person you wanted to have it, it's largely melted.

i'd say i do live my ideals as much as i can. probably it is often flawed. but you can't be an island. you have to live to a certain extent within the boundaries you are given and the limits that are put on you. for example, i'd find it hard to live out a nomadic lifestyle in the uk, wouldn't i? it's largely been made illegal.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

no i haven't. the terms used to redistribute wealth should not be arbitrary. the terms the bankers used were not abitrary, they were their own.

If each person redistributes wealth using their own criteria then it's arbitrary!

I'm going to bow out of this thread now as it's getting pointless.