Ms Park Geun-hye, the South Korean President, has been impeached for corruption and abuse of power. ( See Park Geun-hye: South Korean court removes president over scandal @ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ … mpeachment . ) Not long back, we heard of the conviction of Ms Christine Lagarde, now the IMF MD ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38369822 ) and the indictment of the Samsung CEO Mr Jay Y. Lee on corruption charges ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … on-charges ). What moral should we draw from such things ? No sensible humans can help wracking their brain in order to comprehend the significance of such silly things and find the right answer to this query. I should like you to reflect on it.
[ Attribution: By Droustas_Park.jpg: Greek Foreign Ministry derivative work: Daffy123 (This file was derived from Droustas Park.jpg:) [CC BY-SA 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File … e_Park.jpg ) ]
I think the moral is don't do wildly illegal things... or possibly don't get caught doing them.
At first, I'd like to replace the word ' impeached ' by ' ousted from her position ' in the above post by me. Then, I'd like to say your view appears good. But, my dear friend, have your considered the fact that they may have succumbed to the temptation of power and money, and thus they've become victims of the twin evils that are power and money ?
Ultimately, we are all responsible for our own actions. Giving in to temptations is an act of free will. In this case, she choose to do it and now is facing the consequences of her actions. A drug addict is both a victim of the drug and responsible for taking the drug. And the argument everyone else is doing it does not excuse there acts. Just ask Cleveland’s Jimmy Dimora (D) or James Traficant (D) both busted and jailed for corruption.
Mike is right - blaming our actions on the "evils" of money is more an indication of how we refuse to accept responsibility for our actions than anything else. Neither money nor power (consider that every parent has "power") is evil or the cause of our actions: we are.
As with any other criminal, the reason why she did it does not make her any less guilty. Nor is "greed and a love of power" a very sympathetic excuse.
psycheskinner, I feel I should change the expression ' is plain nonsensical ' in my comment dated March 13 as it sounds rather abrupt.. I'd like to replace it with this : does not seem sensible. I also feel I should thank you for your response to my post, and I'd like to hear more from you. How do you view this moral : ' NONE of us are SAFE from the twin EVILS money and power ' ?
As I see it, psycheskinner's idea of escaping arrest and being brought to justice after committing something wrong seems plain nonsensical just because acts like the arrest of a wrongdoer and bringing them to justice are NOT in the wrongdoer's hands. On the other hand, the view that you shouldn't do anything illegal or wrong sounds like preaching that appears good on the surface but in reality happens to be, as it comes out on analysis, outright hollow and useless, as I see it. the point that oughtn't to be missed is the undeniable fact that so many people, ordinary and extraordinary, talented and mediocre, rich and non-rich, et cetera diverse sorts included, succumb to the temptation of power and money. All the three persons convicted of or indicted on charges of wrongdoing are well-educated ( Ms Lagarde is highly educated, isn't she ? ) and high-calibre people who are also very well placed to enjoy life. Another most important point not to be missed in this regard is the fact that none of them was in their teens or twenties when they committed wrongs. The fact that they have failed to resist the seduction of power and money happens to be a glaring evidence of how powerful it is. And what the sensible cannot help caring about is the most disconcerting fact that there's NO telling who'll be among, and who'll be able to escape being among, the victims of power and money. Yes, the inescapable truth is there's NO assuring that you yourself or some beloved one of yours won't be a victim of power and money. The brute and naked truth is power and money each are far more seductive than the preaching like you shouldn't do any wrongs, et cetera happens to be. It's easier said than done, as the saying goes. To resist the seduction of power and the filthy lucre is really NOT as easy as preaching at someone that they oughtn't to give in to such thing is, the way I see it. In a country where the taxable income is over Rs 300 000 per annum ( in the current fiscal year, i.e. 2017-18, as against Rs 250 000 in the past fiscal year ), it may be possible for a person belonging to the middle class to vanquish the seduction of Rs 30 000 or Rs 300 000 of easy money through illicit means. But what if the amount of illicit money rises to Rs 3 000 000 ( i.e. ten times the taxable income in 2017-18 ) or a sum more than that ? The taxable income is an amount earnings below which do not count as taxable. That means all those Indians with earnings below the taxable-income amount are regarded by the Govt of India as so poor as to deserve to be exempted from paying taxes add up to over 95 per cent. It ought to be clear as day to the sensible now how tough it is for even an average middle-class Indian to overcome or stay indifferent to the seduction of power and the filthy lucre. And the fact that extraordinary figures like the IMF MD, the head of a State, or a company CEO have given in to the seduction of power and money incontestably proves that power and money are just invincible. Is there no WAY OUT, the sensible humans cannot help wondering. I expect a truly civilised human to make the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living their life principle and honestly pursue it. But I also know that man is a social being, and that in order to live a healthy and meaningful life, you need a social environment that fits in with the Principle of Healthy and Meaningful Living, a social environment that's free of all such temptations as that of the evils called power and money.
Power CORRUPTS. Every powerful man or woman runs the risk of abusing power, then being brought to justice, and ending up in prison.
Money, the filthy lucre, also happens to be NO less an EVIL than power. Being a commodity itself money is meant to measure the value of and to exchange commodities. Thus, money means the commodity economy, and by the fundamental law of the commodity economy, wealth accumulates in a few hands at one pole to lead to the impoverishment of millions at the other. Thus, money also means the division of society into the rich, the super-rich, and swarms of the poor and underprivileged. In such a society, you'll always encounter someone wealthier than you or someone not as much wealthy as you are, but the wealth gap appears to be NOT as large as you'd like it to be, which fact gives birth to a hankering after wealth, which is most likely to degenerate into an insatiable craving for wealth, as if the accumulation of wealth happens to be the sole end and aim of living, as if life without a mountain of wealth is meaningless. But in capitalism, lawful roads to riches are too few while it holds NO end of the allure of easy money through illicit means and practices. Driven by their insatiable craving for wealth, they give in to such allurement and resort to some illicit means aimed at making easy money, then be found out someday, and land up in a jail. There's NO assurance that you yourself or some beloved one of yours won't succumb to the irresistible temptation of the filthy lucre and suffer such consequences.
But then, NO money or less money means deprivation, disgrace, and indignity. You need be a moneyed and powerful in order to live with dignity in the capitalist world. Leading an existence as the powerless and the penniless in the dole queue do does NOT fit in with
The PRINCIPLE of HEALTHY & MEANINGFUL LIVING as well. Thus, the sane and the sensible find themselves in a dilemma and wonder whether there's any way out, and if there's any, what it i and how to avail themselves of it. what's the way out ? There's really a way out, and only one such, that can help rid ourselves of the twin EVILS , the power and the filthy lucre. What is it ? The sensible of the space age ought to know it.
I'd like to add the following to my comment dated March 13, 2017.
I stated that the poor Indians exempted from paying income tax ' add up to over 95 per cent. ' I'd like the following parenthesis to follow the quoted expression : ( of total Indian adults making up the national workforce ). Further, in this regard I'd like to bring the following data to your notice.
According to the UNDP Human Development Report 2015, the Indian and the USA's GNI per-capita figures in 2014 were respectively $* 5 497 and $*52 947 ( ' $* ' denotes 2011 PPP $ ; ' GNI ' stands for gross national income . ) Now, if $ 1= Rs 65.00, the highest Indian non-taxable income-figure ( Rs 300 000 in 2017 ) equals around $ 4 615.
The USA's median household income in 2014 was $ 53 657 ( Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the USA : 2014 ), which means half the total US households' per-household income was below $ 53 657 while that of the remaining half was over $ 53 657 in 2014, OK ?
How many Yanks of this space age do you believe have got the calibre they need be possessed of in order to vanquish the temptation of illicit money to the tune of $ 1 000 000 ? And how many Yank that belong to the only SUPER POWER of the world are in your estimation endowed with the capability to conquer the temptation of $ 1 billion of easy money through illicit means and practices— 1 per cent ? 0.1 per cent ? Or 0.01 per cent ? The fact that you haven't been convicted of the abuse of power or corruption to date proves NOTHING. It does NOT prove that you're more powerful than the seduction of money and power. It does NOT prove either that you're endowed with more calibre than the IMF MD or the ousted South-Korean PRESIDENT is. In order to abuse power, you have to gain access to power first. Did you really ever grow so powerful as to deserve the luxury of indulging in the abuse of power ? Did you really ever have an opportunity to make a gargantuan sum of money through some illicit means or practice ? A penniless, powerless guy may boast of honesty, but his boasting does NOT prove that he's really honest or so powerful that he can conquer the power of power and money.
The saying goes that everyone has their PRICE. I believe it's outright TRUE. Yes, every human, like a commodity, has got a price, and like commodity prices varying with demand, their prices vary too. This is the main POINT I want to focus the world's attention on. Someone would like to sell at $ 1 000 ; someone will ask you $ 100 000 while someone else won't accept an amount less than $ 1 million. This I believe holds true for 99.99 ... 9 ( you may replace the three dots with as many 9s as you please ) per cent of humanity, as i see it.
I'd like to add a few words more to my last comment.
I'd like to tell you once again that because you haven't been convicted so far of the criminal abuse of power or any illicit practices aimed at making easy money, it does NOT follow that you're a better human with more calibre than the IMF MD or the ousted South-Korean President that deplorably failed to resist the seduction of power and money, and once again I'd like to refer to the main POINT I want to focus the worldwide humanity's attention on, namely the fact that everyone has got a PRICE peculiar to persons and their positions, on payment of which you can make them sell themselves readily to you. And what the sensible find most disturbing is what is implicit in it, i.e. the brute FACT that none of us are IMMUNE to the seduction of money and power. Thus, as I see it, none of us and our beloved ones are SAFE from the peril of giving in to money and power and ignominious consequences similar to the ordeal of the high-profile personalities at issue. This I think is the right MORAL in question which the sensible oughtn't to miss : none of us are safe from the peril of money and power .
Am I right or wrong ? Don't shy away from making your views known. The TRUTH is, as the sensible know, inescapable, irresistible, and invincible. You have really NO reason to fear the TRUTH if you're NOT bad. The TRUTH never hurts but helps always the good. The TRUTH awakens us to the root of a problem and shows the WAY OUT too.
I would first say (and if I am reading you wrong sorry) a person should first look to put their own house in order. My country (USA) has had a bad history of interfering in the internals of other countries (politics, social and more) while ignoring our own problems.
Yes, none of us are immune from temptation. That however can’t be a valid excuse for abusing his/her office (everybody else does it so why can’t I). That’s why there needs to be safeguards in place to either prevent such corruption or detect it. This includes non-government agencies and a free press (so important that we wrote it in our constitution). You can’t force people to do the right thing. You can have an entire can of alphabet soup in front of your name (PHD, MD, CEO, LAPD and others) it does not make you a better person than those who don’t. It doesn’t make you more trust worthy. All you can do is elect people you believe you can trust with enough safeguards to try and keep them honest. Trust but verify.
I must disagree with you on the idea that a person can be a “victim” of money and power. Temptations (outside of addictions) are a choice not an inevitability.
Ms. Park Geun-hye ouster shows that no one is above the law not even people in the highest of offices. Here in Ohio we had several political officials ousted for corruption in recent years. Proof that the system of accountability works.
I am willing to bet psycheskinner was being sarcastic “or possibly don’t get caught doing them.”
Suppose there're two buses both of which are ready to carry you to your destination. One of the two bus drivers has got a reputation as an alcohol addict while the other one, as far as you know, doesn't drink. Which bus would you board if you're free to make a choice in this matter ? I think it's not sensible to fail to see the distinction between punishing a wrongdoer just to punish them because they've committed a wrong and punishing a wrongdoer with a view to discouraging them from committing wrongs again and thus ridding your society of high crime rate. If your goal is to make your society free of drug addiction, you're expected to stand for the penalisation of the production of and trading in drugs, RIGHT ? But if just punishing a drug addict is what you want, you should find NOTHING wrong with the production of and free trading and trafficking in drugs, OK ? If you're a school teacher that truly wants to improve the students' average academic standard, I think you have to think beyond giving them better tuition and deal with factors that are to blame for the distraction of your students and thus improve school's academic atmosphere to make it more conducive to learning. Mere punishing problem children and children with ADD as well as discarding deficient students in order to improve the school's overall academic standard is silly, isn't it ?
Prevention is better than cure, as the saying goes. If you're a statesman that really cares about the average health of his countrymen, you must take effective measures meant to ensure the supply of safe drinking water and pollution-free air and prevent soil pollution too, first of all. In order to achieve this goal, you have to replace all environment-unfriendly technologies with their environment-friendly counterparts. You also have to work to make good health-care services affordable for all. And if you truly care about the average MENTAL health of your compatriots, you have to improve the SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT of your country, haven't you ? And in order to achieve this goal, you have to deal with SOCIAL POLLUTANTS, to my way of thinking. Money and power together happen to form, as I view them, the most powerful and most perilous SOCIAL POLLUTANT.
You do not seem to have given due thought to the fact that NONE of us, you included, are immune to the TEMPTATION of money and power.
Thank you for this response. Would like to hear more from you.
In most western societies, we punish people for what they do with the subtext that this public punishment would put the public on notice that crime will not pay (unless you are a lawyer). Punishing drug addicts will not get them off drugs. The US has many years of experience and many people in jail proving this. I must admit I don’t see how you are connecting punishing drug addicts = allowing the illegal drugs to be sold? Are you saying that we need to outlaw corruption? I thought it was already illegal?
Here in Ohio bus drivers are routinely screened for drugs and alcohol. Your analogy is flawed unless you think that everyone is addicted to corruption. And yes, everyone including the crooks we elect need to work toward improving our society. We also need some measures in place to reduce temptation. That would include holding these elected officials accountable to the oaths they take upon entering office. The trouble is that politics = power. In the US money = speech (per the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution). It would be like trying to outlaw water and dirt because they make mud when put together. (And as before in I am just interpreting you wrong, sorry about that)
Correct me If I'm wrong. I don't think I said anything like ' punishing drug addicts = allowing the illegal drugs to be sold '. What I said was meant to throw light on the basic distinction between punishing an offender just to punish them for committing an offence and punishing an offender with a view to communicating to them and all others the message ( the ' subtext ' ) that ' crime will not pay '. As I see it, this message ( the ' subtext ' ) is meant to contribute to some extent to the creation of a social environment that is expected to act as a deterrent to the commission of crime. Your reference to the ' subtext ' suggests that you're certainly aware of its significance and the significance of the social environment it contributes to. The points I wish to focus humanity's attention on in this regard are : ( 1 ) sauch a ' subtext ' is NOT strong enough deterrent to crime ; ( 2 ) we have to look beyond such stuff as the ' subtext ' and detect other factors contributing to crime ; ( 3 ) when it comes to dealing with the criminal abuse of power and economic offences, we mustn't fail to take cognisance of the social pollutants like temptations owing their origin to power and money ; ( 4 ) the fact that so many high-profile and high-calibre people worldwide succumb to the temptations at issue shows how powerful these temptations are ; it also shows these temptations happens to be far stronger than the ' subtext ' associated with the penalty such wrongdoing carries ; ( 5 ) it's time we thought over how to create a cleaner social environment free of such pollutants as the temptations in question.
If it is punishing the drug addicts for taking drugs, NOT communicating to anyone any message like the ' subtext ' the punishment is associated with, that happens to be our only purpose, we should, most probably, NOT find anything wrong with the production of and trading in drugs and consider it's necessary to care about ridding society of the evil that is drug addiction. The fact that humanity has yet to take any effective steps aimed at the creation of a social environment free of the pollutant like the temptations at issue has convinced me that humanity has yet to awake to the significance of such pollutants, hence the need, if leading a healthy and meaningul existence is humanity's life principle, for getting rid of them. I just want to call attention to these points.
i wish you would interpret me right. Thank you for your response.
“But if just punishing a drug addict is what you want, you should find NOTHING wrong with the production of and free trading and trafficking in drugs, OK?”
What I was saying is that we need to punish the dealers and manufacturers and treat the addicts. Currently we punish both addict and pusher. (For the most part) drug addiction is chemical (an addiction in the body) where corruption is a moral decision. We can educate people on right and wrong, but we can’t make people do the right thing. A free society must accept that people will commit crimes including drugs and corruption. It’s that or strip people of their civil rights in a socialist society such as the old USSR or North Korea.
' We can educate people on right and wrong, but we can’t make people do the right thing. ' I wholeheartedly agree with you over this point. Society cannot ' make people do the right thing .' Society can only make them pay for their wrongdoing and thus discourage people from doing wrongs. Nevertheless, this discouragement is not strong enough, I think we do NOT disagree over this point, to defeat temptations of power and money, and because these temptations are rooted in the social environment of the capitalist order, I think we ought to look beyond capitalism and give serious thought to communism just as a good teacher determined to raise their students' overall academic standard thinks beyond giving them good tuition and is for dealing with factors behind the distraction of students and thus improving their school's overall academic atmosphere.
' A free society must accept that people will commit crimes ... ' I agree with you over this point too. I'm on principle against coercion by the State. Besides, I don't believe coercive measures can prove productive in such matters. I think we don't disagree over this point either. If so, what about if we find a new and higher social order with an environment free of such pollutants as power and money ? If democracy can replace dictatorship, capitalism feudalism, and welfare capitalism non-welfare capitalism, I cannot see the reason why welfare capitalism cannot be replaced by communism that happens to be far superior to capitalism. To be noted, as democracy, capitalism, and welfare capitalism each are superior to what they replaced, communism happens to be superior, in fact, far superior, by my view, to capitalism too. Your disapproving attitude towards communism seems to be the only hindrance to our joining hands now. Well, let's now focus our attention on issues relating to communism, your attitude towards it, our differences over the acceptability of communism, et cetera. I'd like you to say freely whatever you've got to say against communism. I've already stated my view of ' the USSR or North Korea '.
I should like to add a few words more to my comment dated 17 March 2017.
Man is a SOCIAL being, and so every man is a product of the social ENVIRONMENT they were born and bred in. Our likes and dislikes, taste and distaste, our attitude to life and the universe, our attitude towards women, feminine freedom, sexual freedom, gayness, trans-sexuality, gender reassignment, capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, religion, secularism, atheism, theism, racism, sexism, universal education, adult suffrage, democracy, dictatorship, freedom of expression, human rights, our stand on welfarism, income redistributive taxation, tax evasion, capitaism, communism, democratic socialism, et cetera, et cetera owe their origin to the environment of the society we were born and brought up in and belong to. The Middle Ages created humans with outlook, principles, and values befitting humans of the Middle Ages who had no idea of universal education, gender equality, feminine freedom, freedom of expression, adult suffrage, et cetera, et cetera. Modern man with modern outlook, modern principles, and values is the creation of modern times. An average man belonging to the twentieth century happens to be far more enlightened, hence far more civilised than an average man of the nineteenth century, as I see it. Nevertheless, humanity still happens to be a long way off the level of enlightenment it must attain in order to deserve to be reckoned civilised through and through. the world and the time we belong to still leaves a lot to be desired. The ignominious failure of the high-profile, high-calibre people to resist the temptation of power and money is an incontestable evidence of this view of mine. If humanity wants to make progress and make this world a better place ( for the good; we cannot transform it into a better one for both the good and the bad ), it must change itself into a better humanity. to create better humans, humanity has to improve the social environment, and in order to create a better social environment, humanity must rid society of all social pollutants. This great mission has to be accomplished, for the humanity, by the most advanced and enlightened humans.
As the penalisation of the production of and trading in narcotics is meant to get rid of the evil of druf addiction, the creation of a social environment that fits in with the PRINCIPLE of healthy and meaningful living calls for the elimination of the twin evils power and money, as I see it. Therefore, I think it's high time the sensible, the most advanced and enlightened humans worldwide gave due thought to this issue.
Looking at the problem from this new standpoint of an enlightened human of the space age we belong to, I'm persuaded that a person born and bred in the environment of the capitalist world happens to be no more to blame for failure to conquer the irresistible temptation of power and money than a person that has caught the common cold is to blame for catching the common cold. Thus, if viewed from this enlightened viewpoint, people charged with the abuse of power and corruption happen to be innocent victims of power and money and thus do NOT deserve any punitive actions against them. I can hear the deafening clamour and commotion of the benighted billions and the less-enlightened the whole world over who have risen to their feet all together to raise a storm of protest against this view of mine. I do appreciate and approve of their main argument in this regard, namely that if all such people they view as criminals are allowed to get off scot-free, it'll be an encouragement not only to all those criminals to commit similar and even bigger crimes but to all others to turn criminal as well, and thus it'll lead to total anarchy that is certain not only to bring immeasurable suffering to everyone without exception but to bring the dissolution of the society unless the existing social order ( i.e. capitalism ) is supplanted by the superior communist order. Thus, as I see it, it is something to be cared about and dealt with by capitalists and democratic socialists. Nevertheless, communists, because they're the most enlightened humans, canNOT stay unperturbed in such situations. Communists are NOT for anarchy or the dissolution of capitalism leading to the dissolution of society. Communism is for the substitution of capitalism with communism and thus ridding humanity of all ills and evils of capitalism.
Brevity is the soul of wit. There has never been a truly successful communist country. USSR no. China is not really a communist country (many rich, many poor). Cuba? North Korea???? Every communist country both past and present suffer from corruption and crime just like western democracies.
' Brevity is the soul of wit. ' I wholeheartedly subscribe to this view of yours. Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and comprehensibility, I sometimes fail to adhear to this principle. Please bear with me.
I've taken serious note of your view of communism and would like to enter into a friendly and conclusive debate over it with you. I wish you wouldn't say no to it ( the debate ).
First off, I'd like to know whether you're sure you have a clear concept of what communism truly means. I think I understand communism, the theory of which was originated by two great 19th-century thinkers, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, and so I believe whoever has got a clear concept of the ABC of communism ought to understand that there's NO, and NEVER was there any, such a country as the communist country in the world. Therefore, as I see it, expressions like ' truly successful [ or unsuccessful ] communist country ' are, like expressions like the death of an unborn child, plain nonsensical. The former USSR's economic basis wasLenin's NEP, which Lenin himself once defined as ' state capitalism '. By my view, the USSR was precisely a mixed-economy, welfare capitalism sans democracy and sans freedom of expression. The China of today is a variety of the former USSR. As far as I know, none of Cuba, China, and North Korea claim theirs is a communist state. I do NOT recognise Lenin, Stalin, Mao, their followers of the past as well as their present-day followers as communist. An incontestable proof of the fact that Lenin, stalin, and Mao did NOT understand the theory of communism is the HAMMER & SICKLE emblem. My hub ' the HAMMER & SICKLE emblem : What does it signify ? ' ( @ https://hubpages.com/politics/the-HAMME … it-signify ) throws light on this point.
They were NOT communists. What they did in the name of communism and communist movement were sheer travesties, the way I see it. So far I haven't found a SUBSTANTIAL argument against communism. Would like you to state it if you know any such arguments.
For a “true” communist ideology to work you will need people to think of other people. You will end up with a socialist state every time. You need people in charge and that means power and money. History has proven in such as Brook Farm, New Harmony and Oneida failed in their “Utopian” experimental living back in the 1800’s, or the Jamestown settlement back in the 1600’s. eventually people see the community will support them whether they work or not. You will need to force people to work. You can educate people but you can’t make people believe or think what you want.
mike, this comment by you gives me the impression that you're certain that communism is NOT a practicable proposition. Of course I appreciate that it doesn't become a sensible human to squander their precious time on a chase for something that's certain to prove a mirage in the end. But I don't think the arguments you've put forward in defence of your stand are substantial. The ' “Utopian” experimental living back in the 1800’s, or the Jamestown settlement back in the 1600’s ' has truly NOTHING to do with communism or the theory of communism . Both of Marx and Engels, the great thinkers that originated the theory of communism aka scientific socialism , belonged to the 19th century, and it was in 1847 that the Manifesto of the Communist Party made its first appearance. And it was around 1845 when they discovered the materialistic conception of history, the foundation of the theory of communism, while Capital Volume I, the great work by Marx, which is a must-read for every communist was first published in 1867. I'd like to know what led you to believe that those that undertook those ' “Utopian” ' projects referred to by you were communists.
The truth is you need force people to do a job that's either NOT rewarding or NOT a job that befits their social status and/or calibre. Workers do work of their own free will and truly enjoy doing work if the work is rewarding. Workers switch from a less-rewarding job to a more rewarding one of their own accord. The phenomenon called BRAIN DRAIN happens to be a glaring and incontestable proof of this fact. The only factor behind the incessant flow of the hard-working mass of poor people from less-developed economies ( such as developing countries like India ) into developed economies ( i.e. countries belonging to the First World ) is the fact that workers seek rewarding jobs. The fact that developed economies are still developing with the labour of both the native workers ( who happen to be far better paid than their counterparts in developing economies ) and the immigrants is a glaring and incontestable evidence that disproves the thesis ( actually, it's a reactionary argument ) that better pay and the betterment of the standard of living would make people turn IDLE. It also incontestably disproves the view that people won't work unless they're forced to. I think you don't need more proofs in this regard, do you ?
I expected far more response to this post of mine. How to explain so poor response, I wonder.
You can expect all you want but as with any attempted communist movement you will get what you get. I think we will not see eye to eye on this nor do I feel the need to explain why. In a free democratic society, you can believe in or not believe in whatever you want.
' ... nor do I feel the need to explain why. ' You willingly entered into a debate with me. Of course, you're free to beat a retreat anytime you like. Nevertheless, the way you did it not only smacks of silly arrogance which hardly hid the fact that it was an escapist retreat unbecoming of a human with backbone but a silly display of your intellectual immaturity as well. If you were NOT so immature, intellectually, you'd appreciate that retreat with arrogance does NOT make it any less humiliating and inglorious, and that the truth is invincible and inescapable.
' In a free democratic society, you can believe in or not believe in whatever you want. ' As I see it, this statement by you reflects the fact that little do you care about the truth or falsehood of your cherished belief or ideas. My dear friend, I'm afraid you're outright wrong to think that cherishing wrong ideas or beliefs would prove rewarding someday. Nevertheless, I'm a communist, and my mission in life is to seek after the truth and enlighten humanity by sharing the truth I've discovered with all of you. To date I haven't heard of a substantial argument against communism. I'd be so pleased if you oblige me by bringing to my notice such an argument if you ever find or come across it.
Dear friend, don't you really care that retreating from a debate shows that you're lacking in the backbone you need to face up to the truth, and that such an act is unbecoming of an enlightened man ?
My dear friend, your fear of the truth is baseless, as I see it. The truth never hurts the good. It's the bad, and the bad alone, that has good reason to be afraid of the truth. The truth always helps the good by showing them the right way out whenever they're in trouble. You don't seem to be a bad guy. You brought some important points to my notice and thus made the debate very interesting. I wish you'd soon awake to your mistake, triumph over your baseless fear of the truth, and re-enter into the debate for the truth. .
Your resorting to personal insults demonstrates that there is no point trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Thank you a lot for letting me know of your accusation against me. Maybe you're right. After all we're blind to our own faults. Nevertheless, I'd expect you to be fair on me and give me my due opportunity to speak up in self-defence. Would you oblige me with a citation, such as a comment by me, which you consider offensive and an instance of ' personal insults ' ?
I wish to hear something more from you all on the main point I've tried to focus humanity's attention on in this post and thread following it.
by ngureco 7 years ago
How Many Times Was Jesus Tempted By The Devil In The Wilderness?
by Faith Reaper 3 years ago
How do you resist or escape temptation?We are all human and are tempted each day. We can be tempted by our cravings for those certain foods we really should not eat, shopping too much or sometimes easily drawn into gossiping when we know we should not and then there are the more serious...
by RealityTalk 5 years ago
Who is the most honest politician you have ever known & who is the most dishonestPoliticians make a lot of press & become the butt of many jokes for their lack of honest & ethics. So I thought it fun to get your opinions as to politicians you believe to be honest and...
by emichael 6 years ago
I am working on a short story and wanted to get your feedback on the topic of temptation. The story is allegorical, moral, and sort of in the style of a Grimm or an Andersen tale.Stearing clear of anything too personal or revealing, what do you think are man's greatest temptations?I use...
by Don W 15 months ago
I want to get people's views on this. The thread's inspired by comments I've seen from people in and outside of this forum that suggest taxes are theft. The idea goes: if the government forces people to pay taxes (under threat of imprisonment) then they are essentially stealing people's money by...
by Kathryn L Hill 2 years ago
Hillary Clinton could win the election on 11/ 8 /16. Based on her beliefs, habits and attitudes how will her nomination affect the Nation? For Instance:"Throughout her time in office, (secretary of state,) and in her final speech concluding it, Clinton viewed "smart power" as the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|