"I think that statement embodies a lot of what's wrong with money-based philosophy. An economy should exist for the benefit of everyone, not for individuals."


This philosophic statement would be hilarious if it weren't so common. Who do you suppose 'everyone' is? They are individuals. There is no such organism 'society' or 'the whole.' There are only individuals.

What the quote really means, is that the economy should exist for the benefit of some, but not for the benefit of others.

BTW: who do you suppose makes an economy? Individuals do.

---

"I don't think it's proper to have a system which benefits those on whom fate smiles, with a small amount trickling down to the rest. It's too Darwinistic (which is the way things work, but IMHO, is something that humanity has the power to overcome.)"


Fate didn't smile on Edison, or Einstein, or Ford, etc. They *created* wealth, or ideas, etc. The Wright brothers didn't have fate smiling on them, they learned how to fly.

And, if that is "the way things work" (in reference to darwinism), then how is it you think "humanity" can overcome it? You mean, you think humanity can fight reality? This is an example of what I stated previously, social subjectivism. Thinking that 'somehow' the group or the collective or "humanity" can overcome anything (the law of identity even), just as long as they 'will' it to be.

The way things work, isn't by social darwinism. The rational success of one individual isn't to the detriment of another; the man that created the transistor did not do so at the expense of the man that did not create it, and did not know how.

The individuals who created 'push button' labor did not harm other individuals, they made their jobs easier, their labor less intensive. The individuals who created the graphical user interface, if they grew rich by their invention, did not gain a reward anywhere near the value their invention has given in return.

---

"Ray is somewhat correct. People don't mind screwing each other over, as long as they can "rationalize" it with "I have to take care of #1"/"I worked hard, I deserve it"/"Survival of the fittest.""


It isn't necessary to screw someone over to be successful, to make money, etc. in a free society.

Of course one has to take care of "#1," selflessness is not a virtue. Since I don't care to write a book explaining it to you, I'll point out that selflessness, i.e. self-sacrifice, was Hitler's philosophy (and communism's, nazism's, fascism's, and is socialism's), how did that work out again?

---

"This is the curse of prosperity: A subtle and deeply-rooted selfishness develops in people; the virtues of humility, humbleness, and self sacrifice are washed away, and concern for the well-being of others takes a back seat."


There is no curse of prosperity. Rational self-interest is the cause of prosperity. Which is a reason so much of the world has lacked such; the philosophy that has dominated the world is selflessness. There is no virtue to humility, humbleness or self-sacrifice; this has been proclaimed for two thousand years, and it wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The middle ages, which were dominated by self-sacrifice, humility, and humbleness were the darkest period in recorded human history.

Care for the well-being of others does not require that you sacrifice your self to them. And care for others does not require humility, or humbleness.
This comment was edited on Sep 7, 13:34.