Well...

2 debates now and I think I finally learned my lesson.

See?

This is why I started this thread in the political forum.

(It's OK that the moderator moved it. I'm just making an observation, that's all.)

I'll be the first to admit that I went a little bug shit the first few years DVD was out, and found it a bit easier to be self-serving; at the time, I didn't have a massive college loan, a kid, a house or a car payment. My lifestyle has dramatically improved since then, but my financial comfort level from check to check is much more strained. Now that we've effectively deconstructed my personal lifestyle, any chance you'd like to even pretend you're going to address the actual issues I've raised, or are you one of these duck-and-runners who like to grab the most inessential bone in a debate and chew it to the marrow to the exclusion of all else?

He he...

So, grundle, now that you have multiple feedback on the yes and the yes-nots, what's your take on the issue? What's the story behind your curiosity regarding this issue?

I've addressed them repeatedly by saying I think people who are rich should donate, but are entitled to their luxury items and that we have no real obligation to help others to the extent you support. See my various replies above. Including, namely, this one:

I've held back from this discussion for a while because I hate when people proselytize their ideologies and try to force them on others. Nonetheless, here I am.

And why should you have a problem with the how the world is set up? You are---we all are---in a position of relative privilege. How would your views change if you were born destitute in Africa, if you lived in the poorer Latin American countries, or were working as a child laborer in Asia? Would you still have no problem with how this cold world is set up?

To respond to my own questions, I certainly would. Such reasoning has forced me to the realization that I really do live a privileged life. As a result of my empathy, I give to those who are less fortunate. To make it a non-issue later, I give close to 5% of my overall income to charity (namely UNICEF).

I don't think it's fair or realistic to ask people to give up their hobbies completely, but I also don't think it's unrealistic to donate 1% of your overall income to help the less fortunate. If you make $40,000 a year, how bad do you really need those four hundred dollars?

This thread has been bothering me for a while, partly because I wished that other people were more willing to help other people. But so many people seem to be caught up in this "earning" ideology---that they "earned" their money. I'm not arguing that people don't work for their money. But chances are that the only reason they are in a position to "earn" their income is because they were born into that position. Rags to riches stories are the exception, not the rule. America is not a meritocracy, and it makes no sense to think that the world at large is.

Corvin,

Keep in mind I said people should donate and help others, but we should focus on helping others help themselves, not just pouring money at countries that gets spent poorly or stolen by the corrupt governments.

I don't think anyone has said we shouldn't help at all. Just that we don't have an obligation to donate most of our expendable income to charity and not buy any luxury items. I can't imagine you disagree with that give you donate only 5% of your income. I imagine have to be spending more than that on crap you don't need.

Misconstrued? Only because I'm trying to make your arguments internally consistent. Bono having a Mercedes is a 'sin' [you used that word], but somehow your having thousands of hours of dvd's is not. Or it is, but hey, it's 'less' of a sin, I could only feed 10 starving people, Bono could feed 100, so I'm better than him.

Again, "art"? "Elf" is "art"? Citizen Kane, Wizard of Oz, even Godfather, but Elf? As long as we're being judgemental as to how people spend their money [which you are], hold yourself to the same standards.

Degree, is it? Perhaps Bono with his Mercedes and his mechanic and the miles he drives, gets a lot more value/efficacy out of the Merc than a Hyunday. Short term cost= higher, long term cost= lower. Is it better to buy 4 cheap cars to 'save the children' instead of 1 more expensive?
So at any given time you are watching more than 3 dvds?

However you find it, its true. If you help add to Bono's billions, and you think he's a greedy SOB who needs to donate more, then your own enjoyment is more important to you than the 'children.'


I'm just taking your own argument to its logical, but absurd, extremes. You seem to resent people of wealth because of the assumption they aren't donating 'enough' to charity, and they have more than they 'need' Whereas you are in the same situation. Most people in the civilized western world have more than they 'need', and that allows them to be more generous with their additional funding if they so desire, if they want to help, if they have the guilty conscience.


"Lack" as determined by you, based on faulty and incomplete data. And again, it's hard to take the 'feelings of conscience' seriously from someone who has 750 dvds. No one "needs" 750 dvd's, all purchased brand new and unopened. And that was the beginning of the discussion, I believe, when you brought in 'need' relative to housing.


Then how come you continue to do it? You keep defending your 'extra stuff' while denigrating others, implying your charitable donations are greater than [proportionally] theirs.

Oh, don't worry, we are.

Um, I'm using a concrete example YOU brought up [Bono's hypothetical Mercedes]. I personally drive a BMW and an SUV, love them both, and don't really care what anyone thinks about them.

Talking about Bono and 'never wanting for anything'....Isn't Michael Jackson pretty much broke, even though he was found not guilty? Remember Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer, both of whom were relatively wealthy but now have nothing?

To Joe Akinkuoto on a ramshackle barn in Africa, where he works 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and started that at age 5, the difference between his situation and yours is quite equivalent to the difference between your situation and Bono's, if not even more egregious.

And Josh Hinkle is absolutely right:

"The biggest part of the problem is that the contributions are being stolen by the governments in these poor nations, or used poorly in general (i.e. not in ways to permanently improve the economies and infrastructures in these places.)."

We can give all the money we want to certain nations [yay Live 8, which raised NO money itself, but rather 'awareness'. I'm so proud of the talents and attendees, who really put themselves out in PLAYING MUSIC and LISTENING TO MUSIC 'for the poor'], but it doesn't matter if it's not used effectively/efficiently, and is merely embezzled, given to dictator's cronies, etc.
I do give to charity, but I want to make sure it's being used well. We got some flyer from a charity claiming we had pledged. I did some research on it, found out their CEO makes like 2.5 million a year, and 40% of their money goes back to 'fundraising', only 30% or so went to the actual cause. Please went right in the trash.

No, that's the theme of your argument overall, but not a concise response to my individual counter-arguments. When I list 5 or 6 different points and you willfully ignore them all in favor of furthering a a tunnel-vision discussion of my DVD collection, then I can't help but assume you're more interested in fighting for the fight's sake then engaging in authentic discourse.

Ethiopia actually has more fertile land per person than England. And Ethiopia used to be self sufficient in food production.

But then there was a Marxist revolution. The Marxists made it illegal to grow food for profit. So food production fell by 84%. That's why they are starving.

People in rich countries who buy giant manisons, luxury cars, and huge DVD collections are preventing people from starving, because by buying these things, they are providing employment to people.

The average Ethiopian earns about 50 cents a day. If Wal Mart opened up a factory there and offered to hire them for 10 times as much, and they could now afford to buy food, I wonder if the liberals would protest against what Wal Mart was doing.

And if Wal Mart opened up a giant supermarket to sell food to the Ethiopians, I wonder if the liberals would protest against that too.

Sometimes I wonder if liberals' hatred of the rich exceeds their compassion for the poor.

Not at all. Your other points are of no concern to me as we have a fundamental disagreement on the main, overarching point.

No point in debating finer details when we're miles apart on the general concept.

I think there was a discussion here somewhere about a Nike factory that opened in Vietnam. Quadrupled the net worth of the community, vastly reduced the hours worked by everyone, and vastly increased opportunities.

And yes, Nike was slammed by the resident liberals for "only" quadrupling the quality of life in that community, while somehow trying to defend the previous state of affairs.
I don't wonder at all.

Exactly. I think middle class Americans should donate a portion of their money to the poor and needy!

Those people are making less than a dollar a day because there aren't enough rich people to offer them jobs. We need more rich people, more investment, and more capitalism.

That's actually an excellent point, that I'm upset *I* didn't think of. While I still think charitable donations are necessary -- You bring up a good point. If the wealthy (or even the non-wealthy) stopped buying luxury items (i.e. non-necessities), it would do far more harm to the world economy than they could make up in giving away their money.

I don't know if it's "rich people" that are necessary, but I do believe capitalism in general can help. There are organizations out there that loan poor people (in 3rd world nations) money (micro-loans) in order to invest in their future:

I.e. these families will often buy a couple cows, and then pay back the loan when they start selling the extra milk they produce. Or chickens and eggs, etc.

It means two things. a) the negative effects of Bono's (or any other celebrity's) actions are exponentially magnified over mine. Again, the wealthier you are, the greater your responsibility, which ties into the second point, b) the gap between my use of fun money and payment of required needs is infinitessimal to a celebrity's. I'm flummoxed this point is so hard to grasp. Villify me all you want for my DVD collection, but my fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point.

Again, this brand of arguing is snide, derisive and childish. I'm not participating at that level.

Are you going to make the case that that Mercedes will outlast a, say, $15,000 Honda Civic to the tune of $60,000 worth of price differential? Are you? Really? Think hard...

Again with this bone. [red]I will no longer respond to points targetting my DVD collection to the willful exclusion of the counter points regarding it.[/red] My position against any argument using my DVD collection as its crutch is covered in full with my first paragraph in this post: "Villify me all you want for my DVD collection, but my fun money represetns a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point." I have nothing more to argue in that vein.

This argument fails on two fronts. It presumes I'm an enabler, an off-shoot of paying for the "sins of the father"; I already clarified I do not believe such a philosophy. Secondly, it fails to recall that I identified Bono as, IMO, one, if not THE, single most important individual on Earth right now for making substantial, measurable, unprecedented improvements in the life of citizens of Third World countries. I do not villify Bono whatsoever; I just make the case that he drew his "line in the sand" tighter than I believe is warranted. As great as his contributions have been, he can and should do more. He's a saint and a hypocrite. He's better than me, and worse.

Once more, for the back row: "my fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point."

As you continue to focus on the 1" crack in the mile-wide window, let me say again: "Villify me all you want for my DVD collection, but my fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point."

I don't imply, I state outright. The evidence is obvious. Celebrities literally have no outstanding needs. They want for nothing. I, on the other hand, have needs that do not get met. "My fun money represents a tiny fraction of my income; it represents the vast majority of a celebrity's--that difference is the whole point." Oh, and for your satisfaction, perhaps the sentence should have read: "I believe discussing one's own specific contributions to charity is crass and unsavory and self-aggrandizing."

Does that keep you warm at night? What a delicious soul you are.

Hmm, considering this is your umpteenth post to a dissenter, I call "bullshit".

All due to the most egregious, repulsive misspending of the type I decry. What in the name of anything is your point here? You equate the condition of people who were born into poverty with those who owned a mint and blew it because they were utter fools???

Again, research the efforts of the one.org movement and quit arguing 1985 aid in the face of improved, intelligent, focused, "teach a man to fish", savvy 2005 aid.

Exactly!

Botswana is a country in Africa that has adopted policies of freedom, property rights, and capitalism. In the past 25 years, their per capita GNP has more than tripled. They are not starving. In 30 years from now, they should be a rich, first world country.

It's funny how the liberals in rich countries who pretend to care about the starving people in Africa never suggest that the other countries in Africa should copy Botswana's example.

The problem I have with this, is while he's spending a greater portion of his expendable income on luxury items, I bet he is ALSO donating a significantly higher portion of his expendable income.

Thus he IS taking care of his greater responsibility.

Today, in 2005, tons of aid money to Africa still gets stolen by corrupt goverment officials.

But as we've seen, it's "not enough"
Filmmaker himself states that Bono is the most charitable person in the world. A saint, if i recall correctly. And yet, he's a hypocrite, because he DARES to drive a Mercedes.
I think I see the argument now:
"My DVD's and other extraneous spending suit a need for me, but everyone else, no matter how much they give, need to give more."

I don't think someone spending his own money on stuff for himself, ESPECIALLY when you yourself [not you, Josh, but FIlmmaker] stated he's a "saint' for his charitable deeds, is a 'negative effect'.

Fair enough, but it leads to you beating the same drum beat over and over, like a mantra: "I earned my money and I can do with it what I please!" Great, thanks for your opinion, it's been noted on the board with the other 140+ people who agree with you, thanks for stopping by, see you in the next thread.

People keep posting the same shit in response to your posting of the same shit. You're just as much at fault for the repetitiveness as any of us.

I voted "Yes."

I'm a Libertarian. (Regular posters in the politcal forum are well aware of this.)

J.K. Rowling deserves to be a billionaire because huge numbers of people chose to give money to her in exchange for the books that she wrote.

This is an excellent example of decentralized decision making. Her becoming a billionaire didn't happen because of any government decision. Instead, it happened as a result of the actions of millions of free people, each making decisions on their own, of their own free will.

I started this poll because I wanted to read the opinions of people who argued in favor of the "No" answer.

Horseshit; as long as that money given away builds up the poor of the world, then the former-rich buy less, the former poor buy more, and the economy moves along without a hitch, only now, the quality of life playing field has been evened.