At 12/5/2011 8:50:47 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The disconnect is that making large sums of money is in and of itself a moral travesty to most socialists, regardless of how those funds are created, unless an exorbitant amount of money is given towards taxes or donations.
See, that's a pretty extremist perspective. I figure that, generally speaking, belief and perspective falls along a bell curve in terms of its distribution. What I mean is, there is a minority with both very conservative and liberal views regarding a belief system or perspective, with the vast majority falling somewhere in the middle.
Therefore, if we're referring to the average perspective regarding OWS and others who see something wrong with the system, then socialism is irrelevant. Sure, socialists agree, but so do libertarians.
My school of thought says that private charity is a wonderful thing when done of their own volition, but that "taking" money in order to "give" it to someone else is not really giving... that's theft.
That depends on where your values lay. My school of thought relies on balance between majority and individual benefit. It is most logical, and thus, what I consider most moral.
To explain, I do, of course, want what's best for me and my loved ones. However, both (most) of my loved ones and I are dependent on the state of this society in general. The general state of this society depends on how cooperatively we work toward a general benefit. Therefore, what's best for me is also what's best for my society, to a degree. That doesn't mean that we should become an anthill, but that also doesn't mean that I can possibly agree with exploitation.
The common man is not indefensible from predatory practices within crony capitalism. I remain steadfast on my initial point that if you take strong exception to the unethical practices of a corporation, then boycott them altogether.
Someone already mentioned this -- that's an irrational perspective. It isn't really possible to "boycott corporations" in a corporate global economy. Your best bet is to move somewhere else. However, it sounds more practical to assume you can somehow lobby for a system that doesn't benefit those already in a favorable position.
But please don't buy an iPad, if you think it was manufactured in a third world sweatshop, only to turn around and bitch about it. Kind of defeats the purpose.
You do realize, that's subversive. Instead of compromising the stability of the economy, corporate leaders and management can ensure that ethical and legislative standards are upheld, thereby ensuring that the economy ends up in a better position. Wouldn't that make more sense?
"The System" in this regard can be accepted as a pronoun referring to our socioeconomic construct, as I would figure is obvious.:
And it should be substituted for what?