Have the rich and powerful lost their altruistic instincts?
Humans are the most altruistic and good of all the animal species, yet at present, our rich and powerful allow the poorest of us to starve to death by hoarding their wealth. This is unheard of in the animal world.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
Generally speaking, in ancient days the rich and powerful insured that the poor were taken care of to the best of their ability. In the past, the rank and file demanded that the rich and powerful live up to that good altruistic trait by revolting against them. The French Revolution is a good example of this. Have the rank and file lost their altruistic and good characters by allowing the rich and powerful to let people starve to death while doing nothing?
Are the notions of liberty, equality, and fraternity dead in the world?
Is mankind at the point of losing the altruistic instincts that has made us the greatest animal that the world has ever produced?
Regards
DL
Quote from: Greatest I am on November 27, 2018, 04:02:33 PM
In the past, the rank and file demanded that the rich and powerful live up to that good altruistic trait by revolting against them.
Hence, our problem today. If more people voted there wouldn't be so much wealth hoarding by the 1 percent, hence why voter suppression is such a big thing for the Republicans.
The voters, suppressed or not, are idiots. That is why revolutionary cadres leading the way to socialist utopia, are necessary.
The rich and powerful have never been altruistic. They virtue signal, at pennies on the dollar. Poor people do the same, just with less money.
I think two minutes looking at the world around us provides a resounding 'yes', certainly for the most part. There are individual exceptions, of course.
QuoteGenerally speaking, in ancient days the rich and powerful insured that the poor were taken care of to the best of their ability.
Uhhh... sure...
Quote from: Greatest I am on November 27, 2018, 04:02:33 PM
Have the rich and powerful lost their altruistic instincts?
Humans are the most altruistic and good of all the animal species, yet at present, our rich and powerful allow the poorest of us to starve to death by hoarding their wealth. This is unheard of in the animal world.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
Generally speaking, in ancient days the rich and powerful insured that the poor were taken care of to the best of their ability. In the past, the rank and file demanded that the rich and powerful live up to that good altruistic trait by revolting against them. The French Revolution is a good example of this. Have the rank and file lost their altruistic and good characters by allowing the rich and powerful to let people starve to death while doing nothing?
Are the notions of liberty, equality, and fraternity dead in the world?
Is mankind at the point of losing the altruistic instincts that has made us the greatest animal that the world has ever produced?
Regards
DL
It was always this way, and it was worse in the past, when we didn't have the power to vote people out of office. In America, it took the rise of unions to force businesses into changing the horrible working conditions that were common at the time. Low pay, child labor, ridiculously long hours, unsafe equipment and machinery, all of that was common place until workers had enough and banded together to demand they be treated like human beings. To this day, big businesses are still struggling against unions. Despite owing this great debt to unions, Republicans still paint them as the bad guys, destroying businesses and trying to turn America into a socialist nation.
We also have Roosevelt to thank for creating the middle class. Unfortunately, the middle class has been steadily shrinking as Republican policies allow businesses to continue ballooning up, delaying the increase of the minimum wage indefinitely, allowing the rich plenty of loopholes to avoid paying taxes (but it's totally those illegal immigrants you should be looking out for).
The thing is, people by nature are selfish. It doesn't matter if you're rich or not, although the rich tend to be particularly greedy. Almost everybody looks out for number one first. Sometimes they extend similar concerns for family and close friends. Total strangers, though? Just look at how people drive, or how they behave on the internet, and you'll get an idea of what the true nature of humanity is. People are assholes when they think they can get away with it.
Without being on the winning side in WW II, and farther away from Berlin than London, or farther away from Tokyo than Shanghai ... there would be no middle class. History makes winners and losers. And the winners think it is because of their virtues, and the losers think it is because of their vices. Neither are correct. The meat grinder of time cares not for such trivialities.
Quote from: Greatest I am on November 27, 2018, 04:02:33 PM
Have the rich and powerful lost their altruistic instincts?
Humans are the most altruistic and good of all the animal species, yet at present, our rich and powerful allow the poorest of us to starve to death by hoarding their wealth. This is unheard of in the animal world.
https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2
Generally speaking, in ancient days the rich and powerful insured that the poor were taken care of to the best of their ability. In the past, the rank and file demanded that the rich and powerful live up to that good altruistic trait by revolting against them. The French Revolution is a good example of this. Have the rank and file lost their altruistic and good characters by allowing the rich and powerful to let people starve to death while doing nothing?
Are the notions of liberty, equality, and fraternity dead in the world?
Is mankind at the point of losing the altruistic instincts that has made us the greatest animal that the world has ever produced?
Regards
DL
Yes...
They never had any.
QuoteThe French Revolution is a good example of this.
I imagine it would be a good thing to drag a few Wall Street scumbags out to Central Park and chop their heads off. You'd only have to do a few and the rest would fall into line. They are only brave when they can threaten to sue!
Quote from: Minimalist on December 10, 2018, 12:22:48 AM
I imagine it would be a good thing to drag a few Wall Street scumbags out to Central Park and chop their heads off. You'd only have to do a few and the rest would fall into line. They are only brave when they can threaten to sue!
Bankers have always served higher powers that remain in the shadows.
It is worth noting that US "Robber Barons" once held the kind of wealth that modern day tech businessmen do today. But social forces "encouraged" them to part with a large part of their wealth in charities.
I was just watching a documentary about them last night. After John Rockefeller, Jr caused a mine failure, the family decided to improve their image. That simple decision has led to a massive charitable foundation benefiting millions of people.
The future will bring the same from all those of great wealth.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2018, 03:38:51 AM
It is worth noting that US "Robber Barons" once held the kind of wealth that modern day tech businessmen do today. But social forces "encouraged" them to part with a large part of their wealth in charities.
I was just watching a documentary about them last night. After John Rockefeller, Jr caused a mine failure, the family decided to improve their image. That simple decision has led to a massive charitable foundation benefiting millions of people.
The future will bring the same from all those of great wealth.
Not quite. Andrew Carnegie did real philanthropy, providing many public libraries. The "mine" problem wasn't a cave in. It was strike breakers in Colorado, who beat and killed 21 people, including miner families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
He famously gave away dimes to little children. This was because the father of Behaviorism, John Watson, invented PR ... same time as Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, was inventing marketing. Eventually this was mocked by "March of Dimes" under FDR. Of course, these were silver dimes worth about $2 today. John Watson founded the dominant US school of psychology, and his successor, B F Skinner, wrote a book Walden Two ... which was required reading when I was in college. In that book you got a utopia thru mass manipulation, because free will is an illusion (though how the Elite manage to exert their free will on the rest of us isn't explained). This utopia is the world we presently live in (narrative control and false flags).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2018, 07:09:58 AM
Not quite. Andrew Carnegie did real philanthropy, providing many public libraries. The "mine" problem wasn't a cave in. It was strike breakers in Colorado, who beat and killed 21 people, including miner families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
He famously gave away dimes to little children. This was because the father of Behaviorism, John Watson, invented PR ... same time as Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, was inventing marketing. Eventually this was mocked by "March of Dimes" under FDR. Of course, these were silver dimes worth about $2 today. John Watson founded the dominant US school of psychology, and his successor, B F Skinner, wrote a book Walden Two ... which was required reading when I was in college. In that book you got a utopia thru mass manipulation, because free will is an illusion (though how the Elite manage to exert their free will on the rest of us isn't explained). This utopia is the world we presently live in (narrative control and false flags).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two
I already know about the Ludlow Massacre...
The "mine problem" was caused by John Jr paying workers by output rather than hourly work. He pushed them to take risks and one day they all lost and some died. He was officially (in front of cameras) kinder after that.
But I'm not hiding that, in fact, he really did get into charity work after the accident.
I call BS on your "millionaires in love" theme. A lot like "lawyers in love". Coal mine cave-ins happened all the time. There is one under the football field of the college I graduated from. The memorial to the miners whose bodies were never recovered, is just past the goal line.
We need more real Marxism, just to freshen the gene pool.
Quote from: Minimalist on December 10, 2018, 12:22:48 AM
I imagine it would be a good thing to drag a few Wall Street scumbags out to Central Park and chop their heads off. You'd only have to do a few and the rest would fall into line. They are only brave when they can threaten to sue!
That does seem a bit excessive. Maybe just "half-chop" off their heads. You could even ask them which they preferred.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2018, 07:41:23 PM
I call BS on your "millionaires in love" theme. A lot like "lawyers in love". Coal mine cave-ins happened all the time. There is one under the football field of the college I graduated from. The memorial to the miners whose bodies were never recovered, is just past the goal line.
We need more real Marxism, just to freshen the gene pool.
I wasn't refferring to "all" mine accidents. If I was, I would have said so. And I could have. Most mine owners didn't give a damn about worker deaths.
I was refferring only to the effects one particular mining accident had on John, Jr. It DID change his future actions.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 21, 2018, 02:50:46 AM
I wasn't refferring to "all" mine accidents. If I was, I would have said so. And I could have. Most mine owners didn't give a damn about worker deaths.
I was refferring only to the effects one particular mining accident had on John, Jr. It DID change his future actions.
Sorry, Google still says you are wrong. Maybe a different tycoon, but not John D Rockefeller Sr.
You are a millionaire yourself, so not hard to see where you are coming from.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2018, 08:39:53 PM
Sorry, Google still says you are wrong. Maybe a different tycoon, but not John D Rockefeller Sr.
You are a millionaire yourself, so not hard to see where you are coming from.
I said John JR! Try to read better.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 25, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
I said John JR! Try to read better.
OK. Didn't realize there were two of them. But is such philanthropy real, or just a tax dodge (as I see the Clinton Foundation)?
Quote from: Baruch on December 25, 2018, 11:48:28 PM
OK. Didn't realize there were two of them. But is such philanthropy real, or just a tax dodge (as I see the Clinton Foundation)?
As I said, John JR saw there was a need to repay society for his family's great wealth. He meant it. And no need to extraneously involve the Clintons. Anyway, the fact is that no one who donates money to charities makes a profit on it. It just doesn't work that way.
FAKING donations, like Trump may have done, IS a profit. Can't wait to see HIS tax returns once the Democrats take control of the House in a week...
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 02:21:10 AM
As I said, John JR saw there was a need to repay society for his family's great wealth. He meant it. And no need to extraneously involve the Clintons. Anyway, the fact is that no one who donates money to charities makes a profit on it. It just doesn't work that way.
FAKING donations, like Trump may have done, IS a profit. Can't wait to see HIS tax returns once the Democrats take control of the House in a week...
Well there was the fake $400K go fund me, and now all the donations have been returned, and the scammers arrested. Color me surprised ... nothing has worked like that since President Eisenhower.
Warren Buffet has made similar claims, but his wealth keeps growing anyway. About $80 billion. And Zuckerberg of Facebook is worth $54 billion. They both earned every penny (sure they did).
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 02:36:29 AM
Well there was the fake $400K go fund me, and now all the donations have been returned, and the scammers arrested. Color me surprised ... nothing has worked like that since President Eisenhower.
Warren Buffet has made similar claims, but his wealth keeps growing anyway. About $80 billion. And Zuckerberg of Facebook is worth $54 billion. They both earned every penny (sure they did).
You do realize you aren't talking about the Rockefellers now, right? Sure there are scams. Not by them though, so far as I know.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 02:40:43 AM
You do realize you aren't talking about the Rockefellers now, right? Sure there are scams. Not by them though, so far as I know.
Not all philanthropies are scams. But that is why you want to see the percentage for admin costs, before donating.
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 02:42:18 AM
Not all philanthropies are scams. But that is why you want to see the percentage for admin costs, before donating.
We agree again. Twicet in one day. Can the Board survive?
I donate directly to some few charities that have vanishingly small overhead costs. After research. And I always give directly, no middleman costs.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 02:47:15 AM
We agree again. Twicet in one day. Can the Board survive?
I donate directly to some few charities that have vanishingly small overhead costs. After research. And I always give directly, no middleman costs.
I doubt people sincerity in giving. Even if the mechanism isn't a scam, I think people are insincere, either because of delusion, or deception or both.
So yes, I judge people, and find them lacking. I would prefer to have no standards at all, but I can't shut off my "woke-ness" to people's crap.
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 02:57:46 AM
I doubt people sincerity in giving. Even if the mechanism isn't a scam, I think people are insincere, either because of delusion, or deception or both.
So yes, I judge people, and find them lacking. I would prefer to have no standards at all, but I can't shut off my "woke-ness" to people's crap.
If I handed $100 to a cancer research lab directly, would that suit your requirements? Suppose I did it through a group that took 3 cents of it for handling the transfer. Would that be OK?
We organize charities to encourage and direct donations to increase the total. And someone has to do the transfers and organizing. Do you object to THAT?
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 03:03:34 AM
If I handed $100 to a cancer research lab directly, would that suit your requirements? Suppose I did it through a group that took 3 cents of it for handling the transfer. Would that be OK?
We organize charities to encourage and direct donations to increase the total. And someone has to do the transfers and organizing. Do you object to THAT?
Yes, but the charity industry wouldn't like you doing that. They want their cut, even if they aren't Clintons etc. Yes, even a 10% admin would be reasonable. But if you check, there are many who fail that.
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2018, 03:13:23 AM
Yes, but the charity industry wouldn't like you doing that. They want their cut, even if they aren't Clintons etc. Yes, even a 10% admin would be reasonable. But if you check, there are many who fail that.
And the ones who demand a bigger cut don't get my donations. Find a local one that puts your donations directly into their goal and support them. Visit them. See that they are doing what you want them to do.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2018, 03:17:12 AM
And the ones who demand a bigger cut don't get my donations. Find a local one that puts your donations directly into their goal and support them. Visit them. See that they are doing what you want them to do.
Yes, local is better.