2 of 3
2
Is plunder groundless?
Posted: 15 June 2011 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
Gnostikosis - 14 June 2011 01:35 PM
neolib=plndr - 14 June 2011 11:34 AM

...is it groundless, what do you think? Are you saying you don’t know if it is groundless, I don’t understand your answer? So empathy is relative, do you mean this? What if ‘empathy’ were an absolute, ‘concrete’—then what? Regardless of one’s station plunder is groundless, it is not an issue of relativity. If this IS the case that empathy is relative then I ask, where? I think that it is divisive to understand empathy as relative or exceptional.

I was referring to your example of the missing 6 billion. If a country’s government allows stuff like this to happen, where’s the theft?

As far as empathy, I don’t really expect you and I or someone else to have the same empathy for the same thing. What reason would you have for thinking of empathy in absolute terms.

Sure it’s divisive. The struggle for life is a battle over resources. Groups work together to gain control of certain resources but some other group is going to lose out. It’s the nature of people to have different values. Support different groups.

Is survival groundless? Groups that are successful are going to grow larger and they will eventually need to “plunder” the resources of other groups. The US plunders the oil resources of other nations. The rich and powerful of those other nations benefit from that plunder. The poor of those nations get poorer. The US needs the oil to continue to survive. To be a “super power”.

Everyone is happy as long as the resources hold out. But as I think I pointed out earlier the US got where it is though the plunder of other groups. If not them then someone else.

Maybe not now but at some point plunder equals survival. If you are part of a group and that group is dying out because of a lack of resources are you just going to let that group die out? I don’t know. Maybe some would. But then that is what happens. That group dies and other groups who fought for and won control continue to survive. I suspect the instinct to plunder promotes survival.

I agree with much you are saying, but that applies only to laws of Nature.

Survival is not groundless, but that was not in question. To equate plunder with survival is incorrect, unless you want to cite army ants as model for survival, even then they plunder only during swarming. Natural law strives for balance, you are only allowed to take what you need, not what you want. If you break that rule and deplete your survival resources the inevitable result is starvation and culling of the group, leaving only the “fittest”. In human terms the fittest means the richest. If we apply this to a nation, culling would be a completely inhumane result. But then those that are being culled will try to survive and the only way to do that is by personal plunder of one another, i.e. anarchy.

Because humans have the ability to take more than what they need, it brings with it a responsibility for restraint and if this restraint is not practised voluntarily, it must be imposed.

Corporations, in spite of the SC ruling that they are “persons” are not persons and do not need to abide by any rule, except more profits. They will try to maximize profit by plundering resources, both natural and human and must be restrained by law.

Why on earth would a multi billion dollar corporation or a billionaire need a “tax break” to outsource jobs? That is plundering your own country and it has nothing to do with survival. That is just greed.

[ Edited: 15 June 2011 01:54 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 03:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26

Gnostikosis
Nothing wrong with rational regulation, however sometimes regulation is used to limit choice

Nothing wrong with limiting choice. Ability to choose is severely restricted in nature, as it should be in a civilized human society. Freedom of choice does not include choices which are detrimental to other individuals or a nation or globally for that matter. That would fall under the category of plunder. Predation should be reserved for non-human animals, who do not have the capacity for understanding moral obligation other than survival. Even then animal predators take only what they need for survival and no more.
Strange that we control animal predators (wolves), while we seem to be encouraging human predation (wolves in sheeps clothing) in the name of freedom of choice and capitalism.

On the whole I think together we have presented at least 5 cents worth…... cheese

[ Edited: 15 June 2011 04:12 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 04:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26

There is an expression, “Natura artis magistra” (I’m from Amsterdam).  I should like to see adoption of “Natura civilis magistra”

[ Edited: 15 June 2011 05:32 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 04:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 15 June 2011 03:54 PM

Nothing wrong with limiting choice. Ability to choose is severely restricted in nature, as it should be in a civilized human society. Freedom of choice does not include choices which are detrimental to other individuals or a nation or globally for that matter. That would fall under the category of plunder. Predation should be reserved for non-human animals, who do not have the capacity for understanding moral obligation other than survival. Even then animal predators take only what they need for survival and no more.
Strange that we control animal predators (wolves), while we seem to be encouraging human predation (wolves in sheeps clothing) in the name of freedom of choice and capitalism.

On the whole I think together we have presented at least 5 cents worth…... cheese

Sure as long as the rational argument is made that actually supports it’s detrimental nature.
But then it should be a no-brainer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 04:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
Gnostikosis - 15 June 2011 04:20 PM
Write4U - 15 June 2011 03:54 PM

Nothing wrong with limiting choice. Ability to choose is severely restricted in nature, as it should be in a civilized human society. Freedom of choice does not include choices which are detrimental to other individuals or a nation or globally for that matter. That would fall under the category of plunder. Predation should be reserved for non-human animals, who do not have the capacity for understanding moral obligation other than survival. Even then animal predators take only what they need for survival and no more.
Strange that we control animal predators (wolves), while we seem to be encouraging human predation (wolves in sheeps clothing) in the name of freedom of choice and capitalism.

On the whole I think together we have presented at least 5 cents worth…... cheese

Sure as long as the rational argument is made that actually supports it’s detrimental nature.
But then it should be a no-brainer.

Therein lies the problem. Any rational argument made to “non-brainers” is rejected.
Rational arguments regarding human impact on climate change have been made for decades. In response we “drill baby drill” with renewed vigor.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 11:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 15 June 2011 04:16 PM

There is an expression, “Natura artis magistra” (I’m from Amsterdam).  I should like to see adoption of “Natura civilis magistra”

Has not nature taught that survival requires the control of resources?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2011 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 15 June 2011 04:32 PM

Therein lies the problem. Any rational argument made to “non-brainers” is rejected.
Rational arguments regarding human impact on climate change have been made for decades. In response we “drill baby drill” with renewed vigor.

Indeed, so what would you do with these non-brainers? Fight over control of resources?

[ Edited: 16 June 2011 08:06 AM by Gnostikosis ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2011 01:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03

I suppose we are all on the same page in a way but no one has said outright yes or no addressing my concern; is plunder groundless? Which ever way you lean please give an explanation as to why. Why do you do say plunder is (...or is not) groundless—the breaking of things, theft, sophistry, etc., why? To this moment I don’t think that it is a relative thing, it’s not a ‘One man’s trash is another’s treasure’, no—that can’t be true of plunder. OK, so pick your poison…economic, social, environmental, physiological, or perhaps another.
  I have to be honest, I wish to engage even further on the matter regardless the response. If someone said that it isn’t always or never groundless I will ask where is that not the case. If another replied, yes it is—always, I will ask ‘why?’. I understand that plundering or ‘plunder’ is the reason the planet is melting, it(plunder) doesn’t work in the least—it only leads to further ‘breaking’, that is all and everything from sophistry to brute force will be used to cover it, but it is groundless…for nothing, zilch!
  There is nothing there w/in ‘plunder’, it is for nothing!

[ Edited: 16 June 2011 01:06 AM by neolib=plndr ]
 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2011 02:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
Gnostikosis - 15 June 2011 11:26 PM
Write4U - 15 June 2011 04:32 PM

Therein lies the problem. Any rational argument made to “non-brainers” is rejected.
Rational arguments regarding human impact on climate change have been made for decades. In response we “drill baby drill” with renewed vigor.

Indeed, so what would you do with these non-brainers? Fight over control of resources?

How about sharing them responsibly? It is called symbiosis.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2011 02:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
neolib=plndr - 16 June 2011 01:02 AM

I suppose we are all on the same page in a way but no one has said outright yes or no addressing my concern; is plunder groundless? Which ever way you lean please give an explanation as to why. Why do you do say plunder is (...or is not) groundless—the breaking of things, theft, sophistry, etc., why? To this moment I don’t think that it is a relative thing, it’s not a ‘One man’s trash is another’s treasure’, no—that can’t be true of plunder. OK, so pick your poison…economic, social, environmental, physiological, or perhaps another.
  I have to be honest, I wish to engage even further on the matter regardless the response. If someone said that it isn’t always or never groundless I will ask where is that not the case. If another replied, yes it is—always, I will ask ‘why?’. I understand that plundering or ‘plunder’ is the reason the planet is melting, it(plunder) doesn’t work in the least—it only leads to further ‘breaking’, that is all and everything from sophistry to brute force will be used to cover it, but it is groundless…for nothing, zilch!
  There is nothing there w/in ‘plunder’, it is for nothing!

The reason why no single response is possible is the fact that the question is confusing and indeed relative to one’s viewpoint.

Definition of plunder: to take goods by force, pillaging, looting (i.e. spoils of war)
Definition of groundless: without grounds or foundation (i.e groundless, unjustified fear)

Thus the question translates as: is plunder (looting, pillaging) without grounds (unfounded, unjustified)
Obviously the question can be answered in two ways, depending on whether you are the plunderer (who feels that he is entitled by virtue of power) or the innocent victim (who feels that the act was unfair and unjustified).
IMO, “plundering” is not necessarily groundless but never morally justifiable.

However the question, “is killing groundless” would depend on whether you kill for pleasure or gain or whether you kill in defense of your life or protection of your family. The first is morally groundless, the second is morally justified.

Sorry, but that’s the best I can come up with. I would suggest rephrasing the question.

[ Edited: 16 June 2011 03:53 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2011 08:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 16 June 2011 02:04 AM
Gnostikosis - 15 June 2011 11:26 PM
Write4U - 15 June 2011 04:32 PM

Therein lies the problem. Any rational argument made to “non-brainers” is rejected.
Rational arguments regarding human impact on climate change have been made for decades. In response we “drill baby drill” with renewed vigor.

Indeed, so what would you do with these non-brainers? Fight over control of resources?

How about sharing them responsibly? It is called symbiosis.

Maybe that’s what ought to happen but it never seems to end up that way.

One group abuses misuses their share of resources. Like the story of the grasshopper and the ant if you’ve heard it before.

One group or another is going to find their resources as lacking and see your share as an abundance they feel entitled to. Are you going to keep giving in? Make sure whatever remaining resources are left continue to be evenly distributed regardless of a large portion of of those resources being misused?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2011 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 16 June 2011 02:52 AM

Definition of plunder: to take goods by force, pillaging, looting (i.e. spoils of war)

Or like taxes on the wealthy…  tongue laugh

But yes to your point it’s subjective IMO as to what a person sees as plunder.

I think specific examples are necessary as to what plundering one thinks is going on.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2011 10:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
neolib=plndr - 16 June 2011 01:02 AM

I suppose we are all on the same page in a way but no one has said outright yes or no addressing my concern; is plunder groundless? Which ever way you lean please give an explanation as to why. Why do you do say plunder is (...or is not) groundless—the breaking of things, theft, sophistry, etc., why? To this moment I don’t think that it is a relative thing, it’s not a ‘One man’s trash is another’s treasure’, no—that can’t be true of plunder. OK, so pick your poison…economic, social, environmental, physiological, or perhaps another.
  I have to be honest, I wish to engage even further on the matter regardless the response. If someone said that it isn’t always or never groundless I will ask where is that not the case. If another replied, yes it is—always, I will ask ‘why?’. I understand that plundering or ‘plunder’ is the reason the planet is melting, it(plunder) doesn’t work in the least—it only leads to further ‘breaking’, that is all and everything from sophistry to brute force will be used to cover it, but it is groundless…for nothing, zilch!
  There is nothing there w/in ‘plunder’, it is for nothing!

Sorry from your post I’m assuming this is regarding plundering the natural resources of the earth?

I think obviously it is in our best interests to find a way to come within the natural balance of the carbon cycle.

I also think we’ve gone past the point of no return. Unless you want to cull out the human herd. This may take place anyway regardless of our actions. The balancing is going to happen. Just no guarantee humans are going to survive it.

Problem is, well two things actually. Our economy is based on oil. Take that away and numerous people are going to be out of work. People won’t be able to support themselves. You lose a huge tax base. You’ll even further bankrupt the government.

Other thing is regardless of any rational argument, there are always those people who think they’ll be able to avoid the consequences of their actions.

I think to answer your question, the continued plunder of our natural resources is stupid, (groundless?). However even in accepting/knowing that, I don’t expect enough people to be willing to sacrifice their current lifestyle to stop it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2011 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  32
Joined  2010-01-03
Gnostikosis - 15 June 2011 11:24 PM
Write4U - 15 June 2011 04:16 PM

There is an expression, “Natura artis magistra” (I’m from Amsterdam).  I should like to see adoption of “Natura civilis magistra”

Has not nature taught that survival requires the control of resources?

...open ended! I would say that the issue is perhaps renewable vs. finite. Some would say that America has a thirst for oil. Well this can not be the case. I think America has a legislated demand for it! For example, the auto industry lobbied congress for inefficiency;“Americans want big cars…”, etc. The banking industry lobbied, they all did. This is correct, no. One reason why we can’t collectively pursue renewable e is we’re not allowed. LOL ...you can’t deregulate infinite resource material, only that which is finite. Infinite resource material supports inherently the sovereignty of Labor, it is endless. But not that which is finite. This is what is destroying planet Earth. Yeah, now lets make fun, right?

[ Edited: 17 June 2011 11:09 AM by neolib=plndr ]
 Signature 

We have one choice, either we are going to die on a living planet or we are going to try to live on a dead one.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2011 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26
neolib=plndr - 17 June 2011 11:06 AM
Gnostikosis - 15 June 2011 11:24 PM
Write4U - 15 June 2011 04:16 PM

There is an expression, “Natura artis magistra” (I’m from Amsterdam).  I should like to see adoption of “Natura civilis magistra”

Has not nature taught that survival requires the control of resources?

...open ended! I would say that the issue is perhaps renewable vs. finite. Some would say that America has a thirst for oil. Well this can not be the case. I think America has a legislated demand for it! For example, the auto industry lobbied congress for inefficiency;“Americans want big cars…”, etc. The banking industry lobbied, they all did. This is correct, no. One reason why we can’t collectively pursue renewable e is we’re not allowed. LOL ...you can’t deregulate infinite resource material, only that which is finite. Infinite resource material supports inherently the sovereignty of Labor, it is endless. But not that which is finite. This is what is destroying planet Earth. Yeah, now lets make fun, right?

Yoy do have a curious way of putting things.

The argument has some merit, subsidies to Big Oil is definitely an indication of “favoritism”. But I chalk it up more to “shortsightedness” and “immediate gratification”. Sadly, congress is slowly being stocked with representatives of Big Business.
IMO it is the lobbying laws which make all this possible.
Instead of “one man one vote”, we now have a system of “one million dollars vs one vote? Guess who wins?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2