Political Crossfire Forums

[LockeAdvisor]

power is a persons ability to influence others decisions.

A rich person can definetly do this by using his wealth and statis in soceity. The more wealthy, then the more influence that person has.

Locke

[Cato]

social wrote: The point Cato is making, which you and the rest of the Right seem utterly unable to grasp, is that the rich man has to rely on those who, as you so eloquently put it, 'eat trash from thier garbage dumps.'

In the words of Rousseau, "It is impossible to enslave a man without first putting him in the position of being unable to do without another."

We're on the same page, as usual.

[social]

Cato wrote: social wrote: The point Cato is making, which you and the rest of the Right seem utterly unable to grasp, is that the rich man has to rely on those who, as you so eloquently put it, 'eat trash from thier garbage dumps.'

In the words of Rousseau, "It is impossible to enslave a man without first putting him in the position of being unable to do without another."

We're on the same page, as usual.

Indeed we are. You seem to have taken quite a liking to Rousseau recently Cato. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I actually know very little about his work. I'm especially interested, though, in the quote of his you have under your username, and would like to sample a little of his philosophy. Any recommendations?

[Dagger]

Time = Money
Money = Power
Therefore over TIME one gains POWER
Which means
Time = Power

If you spend your time wisely you can be powerful, without actually being rich. But money is always a factor, for a powerful man to do what he wishes, he needs the help of others, and people help him for money, or time.

Power give your riches

And Riches give you power.

The only way to gain either is over time. Therefore the more years your alive, the better chances of you being more powerful.

SO you cant be rich or powerful unless you have time, and the more time you have the more rich you can be and te more powerful you can be.

So directly answering your question

Is a rich man powerful?
Yes

Does a man of power need riches? No, But it does help. ALOT

[Cato]

social wrote: Indeed we are. You seem to have taken quite a liking to Rousseau recently Cato. I'm ashamed to admit it, but I actually know very little about his work. I'm especially interested, though, in the quote of his you have under your username, and would like to sample a little of his philosophy. Any recommendations?

I warn you, I'm new to Rousseau myself. But, if you want a quick sampling of his views, the preface and the first part of the Second Discourse (Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequity Among Men) provides a pithy introduction. The quote I'm using is from this selection.

While you may find his notion of savage man naive (as I have), Rousseau is otherwise quite worthy of our attention. His polemics are generally against the Hobbian notion that man is naturally vicious, and should therefore forfeit his freedom to some sovereign power. He was one of the first to espouse that man is 'perfectible', that is, that his nature is subject to his environment, and can thus be changed through altering such; so, accordingly, man can 'perfect' himself. He saw that men in modern society are enslaved by their absolute interdependence, and so advocated a retreat to a simpler, more robust lifestyle. I think you'll find an ally in Rousseau, social; I certainly have.

[nopostonsundays]

LockeAdvisor wrote: power is a persons ability to influence others decisions.

A rich person can definetly do this by using his wealth and statis in soceity. The more wealthy, then the more influence that person has.

Locke

Whether someone is free or not doesn't limit itself to the physical state, because freedom beyond physical conditions.

I Agree with Locke, because the wealthy man is simply more free than a poor one.

[Cato]

Now a wealthy man may be more 'free' than one impoverished against his will, but does freedom come concomitant with wealth? This is to ask, is the most affluent man also the most free? Also, is the poorest man necessarily the most fettered? Consider the word 'freedom' carefully.

[nopostonsundays]

Cato wrote: Now a wealthy man may be more 'free' than one impoverished against his will, but does freedom come concomitant with wealth? This is to ask, is the most affluent man also the most free? Also, is the poorest man necessarily the most fettered? Consider the word 'freedom' carefully.

Good point.

A man with property is more than likely bound by law under his own will in order to protect that property.

I mistakened safety and power for freedom. To be completely free, a man cannot own any property or have any government obligation.

[Johannes]

nopostonsundays wrote: Cato wrote: Now a wealthy man may be more 'free' than one impoverished against his will, but does freedom come concomitant with wealth? This is to ask, is the most affluent man also the most free? Also, is the poorest man necessarily the most fettered? Consider the word 'freedom' carefully.

Good point.

A man with property is more than likely bound by law under his own will in order to protect that property.

I mistakened safety and power for freedom. To be completely free, a man cannot own any property or have any government obligation.

So man can not be completely free, as this was discussed on another post.

[Alchymical]

The Things you Own, End up Owning you.

[Johannes]

Alchymical wrote: The Things you Own, End up Owning you.

I don't think that is entirely true. It may have simplistic value as a statement, however, expand upon what you are talking about and it becomes, maybe, if, and almost. I own many things, and I spend a lot of time taking care or paying for these things. However, I do with them what I want, with respect to keeping them for future use. Now, that may be considered as these things governing my actions. Which in a current society, would be somewhat accurate. But, I only have and do these things because:
a. I enjoy them as objects of my entertainment and I can choose when I want their disctractions to occupy my attention.
b. I need these things to be succesful in society
c. I wanted these things because I'm competeing with the Jones's
-or-
d. These things were of the above catagories, but now sit in my garage as I promise every month or so to rid myself of them.

If everyone was a minimalist, and conformed consistantly to that philosophy, then the sawing would have a much greater and accurate depiction. Instead, there are many more things than survival that people want/need to worry about. Ask TGM1 what I mean about merely living, or enjoying life.

[Cato]

Quote: So man can not be completely free, as this was discussed on another post.

It seems another Rousseau quote is in order...

The truly free man wants only what he can do and does what he pleases. -- Emile (or On Education)

[HomoUniversalis]

On poor and rich, there is no doubt,
Only causality, I cry, devout,
A believer in determinism,
the Old illuminism...

Mr U