With this kind of thinking you won’t change nothing, because of the economic entanglement of countries worldwide. Economic links that should leads to world peace and benefit to all. But what do we see of the promises of worldwide liberal capitalism ? Wars, nations corrupted by companies, world organisations ill-organised to benefit the rich countries, wealth concentration, mass media manipulation, tech ownership concentration and so on. There are some good things either, don’t get me wrong (like technological progress and an overall better life condition for most people).
But without moral arguments all this described above will just continue as it is. We should arg about what is moral and what isn’t and agree on this before trying to find solutions I think… Like is it moral or ‘good’ to have 100 000 times more wealth than an another person ?
And the biggest mistake is thinking that your arguments aren’t morals and ideological either, because they are. Where did I say 'shut all borders’? I didn’t say that. I say taxe the rich and good riddance if they leave and ‘pouf’ it’s closing the borders like we set the north Korean regime in France. That’s a bit farfetched, don’t you think ? An economic system is a tool not an end. If you can’t do the thing you want with the one you have, just look for another one.
Yes societies should be based on what humans wants : having food and shelter, taking good care of kids, and have a meaningful life (like having fun, enjoying things). Not being rich but be safe mostly. You think the occidental capitalist society is made for healthy people ? That’s naive, it’s made for depressed an addicted workers, who will be unsecured enough to not leave their job, sick and depressed to buy useless shits, insurances and meds. It’s also made for social inadapted persons who are willing to do ‘whatever it takes’ to rise above the others. And yes it is not a moral society, because it just can’t stand any moral criticism to a point to discard climate change as if it was a religious belief. Climate change is a phenomenon that have known causes and we know that some entities are more responsible for it than others.
The fun thing is human do need moral at a personal level to function properly…
You talk about communism, I’m pretty sure everybody agree that the kind of communism that was wasn’t good at all, because it gets power away from people rather than granting the power to people. And as a comparison, we tried to let the market free and unregulated in France (19th century) : it was a ‘fun’ time where children were put to work, workers weren’t allowed to have free time because they were ‘lazy’ and they were scarcely paid because working 12h a day wasn’t apparently enough to gain more money according to the market. All this was and still is bs.
As I was saying in my reply above, being greedy is not in the interest of the rich anymore. To enjoy their money, they need a world that does not collapse due to fascism, climate change… Which are partly avoided with public action funded by taxes.
The rich that refuse to pay their share are being selfish to their own detriment.
Not to mention that the tax effort is not shared as well by everyone… The poor spend considerably more percents of their worth and income to pay their taxes than the rich. Looking at how much they contribute in absolute value is meaningless. They’re richer, of course they’re going to pay more taxes.
With this kind of thinking you won’t change nothing, because of the economic entanglement of countries worldwide. Economic links that should leads to world peace and benefit to all. But what do we see of the promises of worldwide liberal capitalism ? Wars, nations corrupted by companies, world organisations ill-organised to benefit the rich countries, wealth concentration, mass media manipulation, tech ownership concentration and so on. There are some good things either, don’t get me wrong (like technological progress and an overall better life condition for most people).
But without moral arguments all this described above will just continue as it is. We should arg about what is moral and what isn’t and agree on this before trying to find solutions I think… Like is it moral or ‘good’ to have 100 000 times more wealth than an another person ?
And the biggest mistake is thinking that your arguments aren’t morals and ideological either, because they are. Where did I say 'shut all borders’? I didn’t say that. I say taxe the rich and good riddance if they leave and ‘pouf’ it’s closing the borders like we set the north Korean regime in France. That’s a bit farfetched, don’t you think ? An economic system is a tool not an end. If you can’t do the thing you want with the one you have, just look for another one.
Yes societies should be based on what humans wants : having food and shelter, taking good care of kids, and have a meaningful life (like having fun, enjoying things). Not being rich but be safe mostly. You think the occidental capitalist society is made for healthy people ? That’s naive, it’s made for depressed an addicted workers, who will be unsecured enough to not leave their job, sick and depressed to buy useless shits, insurances and meds. It’s also made for social inadapted persons who are willing to do ‘whatever it takes’ to rise above the others. And yes it is not a moral society, because it just can’t stand any moral criticism to a point to discard climate change as if it was a religious belief. Climate change is a phenomenon that have known causes and we know that some entities are more responsible for it than others.
The fun thing is human do need moral at a personal level to function properly…
You talk about communism, I’m pretty sure everybody agree that the kind of communism that was wasn’t good at all, because it gets power away from people rather than granting the power to people. And as a comparison, we tried to let the market free and unregulated in France (19th century) : it was a ‘fun’ time where children were put to work, workers weren’t allowed to have free time because they were ‘lazy’ and they were scarcely paid because working 12h a day wasn’t apparently enough to gain more money according to the market. All this was and still is bs.
As I was saying in my reply above, being greedy is not in the interest of the rich anymore. To enjoy their money, they need a world that does not collapse due to fascism, climate change… Which are partly avoided with public action funded by taxes.
The rich that refuse to pay their share are being selfish to their own detriment.
Not to mention that the tax effort is not shared as well by everyone… The poor spend considerably more percents of their worth and income to pay their taxes than the rich. Looking at how much they contribute in absolute value is meaningless. They’re richer, of course they’re going to pay more taxes.