Political Crossfire Forums

[Stygma]

Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: Taliesin wrote: Stygma wrote: I think the only bad type of greed is that which leads you to demand what you are not rightfully entitled to. Welfare is bad greed, theft is bad greed, a minimum wage is bad greed; but there's nothing wrong with getting stuff, with making oodles of money (as long as it is legal and ethical), with trying to fulfill your wildest dreams through your own effort.

What are you rightfully entitled to?

What you earn, without infringing on the rights of another person. What you contractually agree upon with another person or entity (a salary, for example). Of course, the most important entitlements you have are your rights. You are entitled to your property, so long as it was legally/justly acquired. You are entitled to your own intellectual power, your own ability, your own speech and expression. And nobody else is entitled to what you have earned.
How does one legally/justly acquire property?

By buying it from someone else, or creating it yourself.

[thefranzkafkafront]

The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.


it gets a "bum rap" because one person's greed usually conflicts with the needs of others... how we got to this point in the thread with nary the mention of "self-interest" is most shocking!

greed is want, why is it good to want more than you need?

What dose one need?

less then one wants?

Lets not dance around it, if people here are going to be true to the definition of greed being aquiring any form of goods after one has what they 'need'.

Some one first needs to quantify what a person 'needs'.

[Cato]

Quote: Some one first needs to quantify what a person 'needs'.

What a person 'needs' is entirely relative to the person, his particular situation, and his culture. I shall here look at culture.

I live in western civilization, a civilization of roads, cities, and technology. To survive here, I need the right tools: a car, a computer, a home, etc. If I lack these things, my ability to survive here will be compromised; the fear of failure, the fear of death, prompts me to desire these things.

More examples: if I live in a small tribe, I need a spear for hunting; if I live in an agrarian community, a hoe for tilling, a hovel for my family, and a granary for storage of extra grain; if I live under the sea, a yellow submarine (hehe)... I require the tools of my society to survive in my society.

How can I participate in my community, and be thus permitted to survive in my community, without its tools? These tools are necessary, and the community will not look on you as greedy if you want them; in fact, you'll look sensible.

[Cato]

Quote: How does one legally/justly acquire property?
Quote: By buying it from someone else, or creating it yourself.

Or having it given to you. There is nothing wrong with taking something freely given.

[The Impeacher]

i repeat...

The Impeacher wrote: Cato wrote: TI wrote: greed is want

No it isn't. Your definition is missing a couple words; try adding 'to excess'. Greed is to want to excess. Not simply to want.

Seriously, why do we call somebody greedy? Because they want something more than they need to survive at this very moment? That's stupid.

We simply must concern ourselves with the meaning of the word 'greed'. Otherwise, this is all just going to be senseless blather.

i agree of course, and like to throw in the word AVARICE whenever i get the chance, but...

fkf wrote: Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

[...]

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?

Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

how would you quantify excessive, if not starting at a point past necessity?

what comes between need and greed? luxury maybe? probably "happiness," to be sure...

can one then actually separate "modern comsumerism" from greed, if the only definition of greed is "excessive want"?

i say one's greed begins when it conflicts with the needs of another...

you cannot claim greed is "good," and then define it only as excessive franz. you cannot have your cake and eat it to..

i guess your greed for liking greed clouds your judgement that you are are arguing for "greed is good." :lol:
i guess that's the logic of greed at work...

if your arguing that excessive want is "a good," than you are just a fool not worthy of my time...

[thefranzkafkafront]

The Impeacher wrote: i repeat...

The Impeacher wrote: Cato wrote: TI wrote: greed is want

No it isn't. Your definition is missing a couple words; try adding 'to excess'. Greed is to want to excess. Not simply to want.

Seriously, why do we call somebody greedy? Because they want something more than they need to survive at this very moment? That's stupid.

We simply must concern ourselves with the meaning of the word 'greed'. Otherwise, this is all just going to be senseless blather.

i agree of course, and like to throw in the word AVARICE whenever i get the chance, but...

fkf wrote: Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

[...]

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?

Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

how would you quantify excessive, if not starting at a point past necessity?

what comes between need and greed? luxury maybe? probably "happiness," to be sure...

can one then actually separate "modern comsumerism" from greed, if the only definition of greed is "excessive want"?

i say one's greed begins when it conflicts with the needs of another...

you cannot claim greed is "good," and then define it only as excessive franz. you cannot have your cake and eat it to..

i guess your greed for liking greed clouds your judgement that you are are arguing for "greed is good." :lol:
i guess that's the logic of greed at work...

if your arguing that excessive want is "a good," than you are just a fool not worthy of my time...

Firslty i never claimed greed was good, good is mearly a subjective assessment.
There is the justifed and the unjustifed, the question here is , is greed justifyied.

Secondly, your yet to quanitfy what one needs for me.

[The Impeacher]

Cato wrote: Quote: How does one legally/justly acquire property?
Quote: By buying it from someone else, or creating it yourself.

Or having it given to you. There is nothing wrong with taking something freely given.

how aristocratic of you... ;)

[The Impeacher]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: i repeat...

The Impeacher wrote: Cato wrote: TI wrote: greed is want

No it isn't. Your definition is missing a couple words; try adding 'to excess'. Greed is to want to excess. Not simply to want.

Seriously, why do we call somebody greedy? Because they want something more than they need to survive at this very moment? That's stupid.

We simply must concern ourselves with the meaning of the word 'greed'. Otherwise, this is all just going to be senseless blather.

i agree of course, and like to throw in the word AVARICE whenever i get the chance, but...

fkf wrote: Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

[...]

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?

Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

how would you quantify excessive, if not starting at a point past necessity?

what comes between need and greed? luxury maybe? probably "happiness," to be sure...

can one then actually separate "modern comsumerism" from greed, if the only definition of greed is "excessive want"?

i say one's greed begins when it conflicts with the needs of another...

you cannot claim greed is "good," and then define it only as excessive franz. you cannot have your cake and eat it to..

i guess your greed for liking greed clouds your judgement that you are are arguing for "greed is good." :lol:
i guess that's the logic of greed at work...

if your arguing that excessive want is "a good," than you are just a fool not worthy of my time...

Firslty i never claimed greed was good, good is mearly a subjective assessment.
There is the justifed and the unjustifed, the question here is , is greed justifyied.

Secondly, your yet to quanitfy what one needs for me.
:lol:
and you have yet to qualify what e"xcessive" or "good" is for me?

which was my point, but you seem to have mised it.

the point is, these subjective defintions only have meaning relative to each other, and the contect that said "economic choice" is occuring in.

greed is at work the second you acquire more than you need, and thus the "greed is good" argument flies until it becomes EXCESSIVE, which i defined as harming the needs of others. we can tax the greedy, and that is a good thing.

where greed and luxury equate, i can see some leeway, but not where greed and luxury ALSO imply the suffering of others needs.

AND YES IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE.

[Protostar]

I donot see anything wrong with greed. It is human nature to want to look after ones own interests and ensure that they are satisfied.

[garyd]

Again gentlemen greed is not mere acquisition of things one does not need. Were that the case then every leftist posting here would be a greedy hypocrite as you are typing upon an implement you most certainly do not need for your survival.

To want things does not make you greedy greed is a function of what you are willing to do to obtain them I gave of may labor to buy this mobile home I live in I give of my labor as well to pay for the lot rent in the upscale mobile home park in which I live (the most expensive one in the area I know I've call all the others. :cry:) I give of my labor to buy food.

[Cato]

Quote: . . .your yet to quanitfy what one needs for me.

Respond to my attempt, would you?

[Cato]

Quote: how aristocratic of you...

Aristocrats do, after all, need clients :)

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.
Sorry, but I consider that definition worse than useless. It does not accord with the sense of most dictionary definitions, and renders the word unable to denote what people normally mean by it. It is nothing but an attempt to smuggle your conclusion into the definitions of the terms of the discussion. Which may be a venerable form of argument, but is nonetheless a fallacious one.

[garyd]

Roy for once we agree.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.
Sorry, but I consider that definition worse than useless. It does not accord with the sense of most dictionary definitions, and renders the word unable to denote what people normally mean by it. It is nothing but an attempt to smuggle your conclusion into the definitions of the terms of the discussion. Which may be a venerable form of argument, but is nonetheless a fallacious one.

Ok find me some dicatory definitions and justfy them.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Cato wrote: Quote: Some one first needs to quantify what a person 'needs'.

What a person 'needs' is entirely relative to the person, his particular situation, and his culture. I shall here look at culture.

I live in western civilization, a civilization of roads, cities, and technology. To survive here, I need the right tools: a car, a computer, a home, etc. If I lack these things, my ability to survive here will be compromised; the fear of failure, the fear of death, prompts me to desire these things.

More examples: if I live in a small tribe, I need a spear for hunting; if I live in an agrarian community, a hoe for tilling, a hovel for my family, and a granary for storage of extra grain; if I live under the sea, a yellow submarine (hehe)... I require the tools of my society to survive in my society.

How can I participate in my community, and be thus permitted to survive in my community, without its tools? These tools are necessary, and the community will not look on you as greedy if you want them; in fact, you'll look sensible.

If greed is entirely subjective how can it then be quantified, is then the western man in the village in africa, most problaly greedy by definition without doing a single thing.

And would not the greedy man of the village in the western city then not be greedy as his yard stick for greed would have moved.

Is the defintion for greed is not universal it cannot be quantified, and if it cannot be quantified it cannot be said to exist as anything more than subjective emotional essement.

[thefranzkafkafront]

The Impeacher wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: The Impeacher wrote: i repeat...

The Impeacher wrote: Cato wrote: TI wrote: greed is want

No it isn't. Your definition is missing a couple words; try adding 'to excess'. Greed is to want to excess. Not simply to want.

Seriously, why do we call somebody greedy? Because they want something more than they need to survive at this very moment? That's stupid.

We simply must concern ourselves with the meaning of the word 'greed'. Otherwise, this is all just going to be senseless blather.

i agree of course, and like to throw in the word AVARICE whenever i get the chance, but...

fkf wrote: Finlay the most interesting point, is the notion of greed being passing what you need.

[...]

But then theres this really funky idea of having more than you need?

Is that not a stupidly fallible principle, how can you quantify what you need, you obviously don't 'need' a computer, so is it greedy to want one, is it even greedy to own one?

how would you quantify excessive, if not starting at a point past necessity?

what comes between need and greed? luxury maybe? probably "happiness," to be sure...

can one then actually separate "modern comsumerism" from greed, if the only definition of greed is "excessive want"?

i say one's greed begins when it conflicts with the needs of another...

you cannot claim greed is "good," and then define it only as excessive franz. you cannot have your cake and eat it to..

i guess your greed for liking greed clouds your judgement that you are are arguing for "greed is good." :lol:
i guess that's the logic of greed at work...

if your arguing that excessive want is "a good," than you are just a fool not worthy of my time...

Firslty i never claimed greed was good, good is mearly a subjective assessment.
There is the justifed and the unjustifed, the question here is , is greed justifyied.

Secondly, your yet to quanitfy what one needs for me.
:lol:
and you have yet to qualify what e"xcessive" or "good" is for me?

which was my point, but you seem to have mised it.

the point is, these subjective defintions only have meaning relative to each other, and the contect that said "economic choice" is occuring in.

greed is at work the second you acquire more than you need, and thus the "greed is good" argument flies until it becomes EXCESSIVE, which i defined as harming the needs of others. we can tax the greedy, and that is a good thing.

where greed and luxury equate, i can see some leeway, but not where greed and luxury ALSO imply the suffering of others needs.

AND YES IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE AND RELATIVE.

Ok then fine lets stop dancing around with subjective assements.

Is greed justifed or unjustifed as a course of action or/and motive?

[garyd]

If you are unwilling to share you are greedy.

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.
Sorry, but I consider that definition worse than useless. It does not accord with the sense of most dictionary definitions, and renders the word unable to denote what people normally mean by it. It is nothing but an attempt to smuggle your conclusion into the definitions of the terms of the discussion. Which may be a venerable form of argument, but is nonetheless a fallacious one.

Ok find me some dicatory definitions and justfy them.

Uh, Franz? It's your idiosyncratic definition that would need justifying, NOT dictionary definitions. Hello? Dictionary definitions are compiled by lexicographers -- who are experts in the field -- based on commonly accepted usage by skilled and educated native speakers and writers (that's me).

Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."

Notice the important implication of the second occurrence of the word, "or" this definition: it is not greedy to desire more than one needs, as long as one deserves it; nor is it greedy to desire more than one deserves, as long as one needs it. It is only when one neither needs nor deserves the desired item that desire becomes greed. Please take the time to rethink your position on greed in light of this definition.

Of the many words of wisdom in the Bible, IMO among the wisest is the observation that greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" in the King James version) is the root of all evil.

[garyd]

I still like my definition by example best. Abraham after all was the Bill gates of his day with far more than he could ever possibly need but his possessions did not rule his life.

If you are ruled by your possessions then you've got problems.