DCLugi Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 While making the case that someone threatening me with force is simply immoral I was asked to consider the idea that my very existence was by nature a threat to everyone else given our limited resources and that this in turn justified a system of wealth distribution for equality. When I pointed out the gun it was then suggested that we are all guns. Is this a cue to stop the dialogue and go my merry way or a chance to unpack this further. What say you all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cab21 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 que to go your merry way i would think it's not a zero sum game. it's called wealth creation for a reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasatchMan Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 So that person thinks a guy in a coma is being immoral? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLugi Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 So that person thinks a guy in a coma is being immoral? It was his idea that a person in a coma or a baby or any life form is a threat simply by needing limited resources. Basically he was implying that stealing at gunpoint is no different than needing food to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 It is impossible to know what they mean without asking questions. I spent a little time writing up a response and deleted it because I don't know what this person would argue. The claim doesn't seem at all coherent to me, unless they are arguing that equal distribution would greatly reduce consumption, which I suppose it might if it kills 2/3's of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 If they aren't just fooling around playing Devil's Advocate, run far away very quickly. You are likely dealing with an ethical vegan that has no understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics who supposes that eating animals is wrong because it makes Mother Earth weep. You could argue that someone's existence is a potential threat to you if they have the lawful right to threaten your person or property such as a cop or reserve soldier. Simply eating is not a gun unless you can prove that the food is stolen. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 While making the case that someone threatening me with force is simply immoral I was asked to consider the idea that my very existence was by nature a threat to everyone else given our limited resources and that this in turn justified a system of wealth distribution for equality. When I pointed out the gun it was then suggested that we are all guns. Is this a cue to stop the dialogue and go my merry way or a chance to unpack this further. What say you all? Well you ARE a resource too as you can create wealth so even his own theory logically fails. This person sees the world as a struggle for resources and humans as parasites who only consume. Why would you want to debate them? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AynRand Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I would point out that it is a non sequitur to say the very existence of a life form is the same as initiating violence against nonviolent people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagnumPI Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Just kick their ass. They're threatening your existence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotDarkYet Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Wealth grows with productivity. In 1150, the world could barely support 1 billion humans In 2015, the world can adequately support 10 times that. Wealth is a function of productivity (which itself it a product of property rights & technology). Your friend doesn't understand resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCLugi Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 It sounded absurd but I think his argument was that not sharing is the same threat as forcing to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 14, 2015 Share Posted January 14, 2015 It sounded absurd but I think his argument was that not sharing is the same threat as forcing to share. That's just a statement though. One could also just say, not putting out is the same as rape. What's the argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iHuman Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 While making the case that someone threatening me with force is simply immoral I was asked to consider the idea that my very existence was by nature a threat to everyone else given our limited resources and that this in turn justified a system of wealth distribution for equality. When I pointed out the gun it was then suggested that we are all guns. Is this a cue to stop the dialogue and go my merry way or a chance to unpack this further. What say you all? that reminds me of this insane tv ad that they had on British tv some time back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Unplugged Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Talk about projection. This guy calls you a threat and in the same sentence tries to justify unprovoked aggressive actions against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John CEFD Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Well, this is correlated to the problem of wanting to preserve property "values" instead of physical integrity. In this problem, someone entering the market would depreciate other owner's property value due to competition, that is, "harming" trhough passive acting towards the "victims". This is obviously insane. If we follow the guy's logic there would be no civilization at all, since anyone could simply outright murder someone else simply because they would be "threatening" him by mere existing, just as the newcomer in the market would be "threatening" the other owners. This logic fails to acknowledge property rights, just because we say there is competition on scarce resources doesn't mean that if A would not consume those resources, they would be used by B, and not by C, D or whatever; hence having no real claim to those scarce resources or base to prove that "threat". A, by mere existing, does not pose a real threat to B because B has no way to prove that what A has/consumes would be his; and A, assuming his resources were acquired through home-steading, production or exchange, hasn't directly harmed B on the use of those resources didn't decreased B's wellbeing but has crated extra-wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omegahero09 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 While making the case that someone threatening me with force is simply immoral I was asked to consider the idea that my very existence was by nature a threat to everyone else given our limited resources and that this in turn justified a system of wealth distribution for equality. When I pointed out the gun it was then suggested that we are all guns. Sounds deterministic to me. If he really thinks that all humans fight tooth and nail for resources... he doesn't get out much does he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkJello Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Just kick their ass. They're threatening your existence. QFT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts