A Tale of Two Cows

[washamericom]

what political platform did the governor use to get elected, or was he appointed. that matters. could the mayor be executed, cause that might affect his thinking, and the course of his decision ?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

Ok, I didn't read any of the thread just answering the question.

Pauvre can go work for Riche until he had saved enough money and he could purchase another cow. He can then choose to nuture his cow and purchase more cows till he has a whole cow-filled field. Or he can butcher his purchased cow, eat drink and be merry and continue to work for Riche and buy another cow and continue ad nauseaum. Or he can purchase one girl cow and make us of it's milk. Or he can purchase a few cows and have a cow party, keeping it small.

Why should the governor respond to Pauvre' situation at all? It's up to Pauvre to solve this problem, as he is perfectly capable of doing so.

 

[Big Fitz]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow and he did everything honorably necessary to one day own a herd of hundreds of fine cows.

Pauvre started out with one cow. Pauvre enjoyed life to the fullest and the cow was something of an inconvenience to his chosen lifestyle So he butchered his cow to provide a feast for his friends and drink and make merry. But the meat and the gratitude of his friends would not last forever and one day he was poor and dissatisfied.

And he noticed that Riche had many cows while he had none. He demanded that the governor give him some of Riche's cows as it was unfair that Riche had so many while he had none.

What gives Pauve the right to any of Riche’s cows?

How should the governor respond to Pauvre’s demand?

Ok, I didn't read any of the thread just answering the question.

Pauvre can go work for Riche until he had saved enough money and he could purchase another cow. He can then choose to nuture his cow and purchase more cows till he has a whole cow-filled field. Or he can butcher his purchased cow, eat drink and be merry and continue to work for Riche and buy another cow and continue ad nauseaum. Or he can purchase one girl cow and make us of it's milk. Or he can purchase a few cows and have a cow party, keeping it small.

Why should the governor respond to Pauvre' situation at all? It's up to Pauvre to solve this problem, as he is perfectly capable of doing so.

but but but.... I'm entitled! Helloooooo?? Entitled!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

The governor should ignore Pauvre's demand.
At most he should recomend that he ask Riche for a job.

but nothing, absolutly nothing else.

Good answer as several others have given.

But why?

Riche earned all he has, it was not given too him. so the cows have both value and meaning, that he will pass on to his family.

To Pauve it means nothing. so even if the gov to 2 from R and gave the to P, there is no reason to expect that P will care for the cows since P won't even care for himself.

so once P eats both cows, he knows he can go to the Gov and get more taken from R, and the Gov will have to, b/c he set the standard that it was OK to do so.

Then P's friends will notice that P is getting free cows and demand they get some. Eventually it will get to the point R is outta cows, or tired of having his taken away, and will demand the Gov give him cows from somewhere, or he will take what cows he has left and leave the region to live where cows are not taken, but bought and sold, like should happen.

P won't starve if he is not given a cow. Hunger is a great motivator and he will find some kind of work to feed himself.

Best answer so far I think except that I would like for Pauvre's likely behavior to not be justification for the policy. If we go in that direction of basing economic policy on merit or lack thereof related to virtue, then Riche's behavior can also be used as a justification for confiscating his cows. Some here on USMB believe and have said that a person should only have so much of anything so that would include cows, and think if Riche is so greedy as to have more cows than any normal person needs, it is right and just that the government take some of his cows for those who have fewer or none.

We could call that a tax on the overly cow endowed.

You were correct thought that Riche will need people to help take care of his cows and the people working for him could save to buy their own cow to breed and grow their herd until they also had many cows. But those no inclined or motivated to take that much risk and work that hard would still be able to buy beef to eat.

You were also correct that if the government starts confiscating many of Riche's cows, Riche won't have incentive to work as hard to produce cows that the governor will just take. Or he will have incentive to move to some other place where people are allowed to have as many cows as they want.

And then Pauvre will really be out of luck. No job by which he can earn enough to have beef on his table, and perhaps no cows at all to be had.

Most of you are thus far said that the governor, in effect, should agree with John Locke's philosophy: "Property precedes government." For Locke, the right to one's honorably acquired property is protected by natural law. Karl Marx argued strong against thatilosophy.

Can anybody provide the reasoning Locke (and others) used for the philoosophy?

Do you agree with it. Why or why not?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The governor should ignore Pauvre's demand.
At most he should recomend that he ask Riche for a job.

but nothing, absolutly nothing else.

Good answer as several others have given.

But why?

Riche earned all he has, it was not given too him. so the cows have both value and meaning, that he will pass on to his family.

To Pauve it means nothing. so even if the gov to 2 from R and gave the to P, there is no reason to expect that P will care for the cows since P won't even care for himself.

so once P eats both cows, he knows he can go to the Gov and get more taken from R, and the Gov will have to, b/c he set the standard that it was OK to do so.

Then P's friends will notice that P is getting free cows and demand they get some. Eventually it will get to the point R is outta cows, or tired of having his taken away, and will demand the Gov give him cows from somewhere, or he will take what cows he has left and leave the region to live where cows are not taken, but bought and sold, like should happen.

P won't starve if he is not given a cow. Hunger is a great motivator and he will find some kind of work to feed himself.

I do have one question.

Where did the first 2 cows come from?

Did either work to buy thiers? That would make sense in R's case, since he has a work ethic but not in P's. With no work ethic, he could not have bought the cow.

Are they retired? And the cow was retirement?

Did the Gov give everyone a cow at some time?

I based my initial responses off being an American in these times. And I assumed R and P both had land on which to work from. P may live in an apartment and not able to care for a cow, while R lives on a ranch.

there's a lot of variables, so I need more background.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good answer as several others have given.

But why?

Riche earned all he has, it was not given too him. so the cows have both value and meaning, that he will pass on to his family.

To Pauve it means nothing. so even if the gov to 2 from R and gave the to P, there is no reason to expect that P will care for the cows since P won't even care for himself.

so once P eats both cows, he knows he can go to the Gov and get more taken from R, and the Gov will have to, b/c he set the standard that it was OK to do so.

Then P's friends will notice that P is getting free cows and demand they get some. Eventually it will get to the point R is outta cows, or tired of having his taken away, and will demand the Gov give him cows from somewhere, or he will take what cows he has left and leave the region to live where cows are not taken, but bought and sold, like should happen.

P won't starve if he is not given a cow. Hunger is a great motivator and he will find some kind of work to feed himself.

I do have one question.

Where did the first 2 cows come from?

Did either work to buy thiers? That would make sense in R's case, since he has a work ethic but not in P's. With no work ethic, he could not have bought the cow.

Are they retired? And the cow was retirement?

Did the Gov give everyone a cow at some time?

I based my initial responses off being an American in these times. And I assumed R and P both had land on which to work from. P may live in an apartment and not able to care for a cow, while R lives on a ranch.

there's a lot of variables, so I need more background.

It really doesn't matter so long as the hypothesis is that they each had a choice of what to do with the one cow they each had.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Good answer as several others have given.

But why?

Riche earned all he has, it was not given too him. so the cows have both value and meaning, that he will pass on to his family.

To Pauve it means nothing. so even if the gov to 2 from R and gave the to P, there is no reason to expect that P will care for the cows since P won't even care for himself.

so once P eats both cows, he knows he can go to the Gov and get more taken from R, and the Gov will have to, b/c he set the standard that it was OK to do so.

Then P's friends will notice that P is getting free cows and demand they get some. Eventually it will get to the point R is outta cows, or tired of having his taken away, and will demand the Gov give him cows from somewhere, or he will take what cows he has left and leave the region to live where cows are not taken, but bought and sold, like should happen.

P won't starve if he is not given a cow. Hunger is a great motivator and he will find some kind of work to feed himself.

Best answer so far I think except that I would like for Pauvre's likely behavior to not be justification for the policy. If we go in that direction of basing economic policy on merit or lack thereof related to virtue, then Riche's behavior can also be used as a justification for confiscating his cows. Some here on USMB believe and have said that a person should only have so much of anything so that would include cows, and think if Riche is so greedy as to have more cows than any normal person needs, it is right and just that the government take some of his cows for those who have fewer or none.

We could call that a tax on the overly cow endowed.

You were correct thought that Riche will need people to help take care of his cows and the people working for him could save to buy their own cow to breed and grow their herd until they also had many cows. But those no inclined or motivated to take that much risk and work that hard would still be able to buy beef to eat.

You were also correct that if the government starts confiscating many of Riche's cows, Riche won't have incentive to work as hard to produce cows that the governor will just take. Or he will have incentive to move to some other place where people are allowed to have as many cows as they want.

And then Pauvre will really be out of luck. No job by which he can earn enough to have beef on his table, and perhaps no cows at all to be had.

Most of you are thus far said that the governor, in effect, should agree with John Locke's philosophy: "Property precedes government." For Locke, the right to one's honorably acquired property is protected by natural law. Karl Marx argued strong against thatilosophy.

Can anybody provide the reasoning Locke (and others) used for the philoosophy?
Do you agree with it. Why or why not?

People of chracter rise to the challenge.

Lockes reason was that if you earned it, it's yours, and you will love it more than anything given to you.

Marx ideas create medicraty. Why even try harder to do better when there is no reward?

Lockes ideas create a thriving society of one-up-manship. Why do you think we have trophies? Keep track of records? People have more than 2 cars?

 

[Foxfyre]

Riche earned all he has, it was not given too him. so the cows have both value and meaning, that he will pass on to his family.

To Pauve it means nothing. so even if the gov to 2 from R and gave the to P, there is no reason to expect that P will care for the cows since P won't even care for himself.

so once P eats both cows, he knows he can go to the Gov and get more taken from R, and the Gov will have to, b/c he set the standard that it was OK to do so.

Then P's friends will notice that P is getting free cows and demand they get some. Eventually it will get to the point R is outta cows, or tired of having his taken away, and will demand the Gov give him cows from somewhere, or he will take what cows he has left and leave the region to live where cows are not taken, but bought and sold, like should happen.

P won't starve if he is not given a cow. Hunger is a great motivator and he will find some kind of work to feed himself.

Best answer so far I think except that I would like for Pauvre's likely behavior to not be justification for the policy. If we go in that direction of basing economic policy on merit or lack thereof related to virtue, then Riche's behavior can also be used as a justification for confiscating his cows. Some here on USMB believe and have said that a person should only have so much of anything so that would include cows, and think if Riche is so greedy as to have more cows than any normal person needs, it is right and just that the government take some of his cows for those who have fewer or none.

We could call that a tax on the overly cow endowed.

You were correct thought that Riche will need people to help take care of his cows and the people working for him could save to buy their own cow to breed and grow their herd until they also had many cows. But those no inclined or motivated to take that much risk and work that hard would still be able to buy beef to eat.

You were also correct that if the government starts confiscating many of Riche's cows, Riche won't have incentive to work as hard to produce cows that the governor will just take. Or he will have incentive to move to some other place where people are allowed to have as many cows as they want.

And then Pauvre will really be out of luck. No job by which he can earn enough to have beef on his table, and perhaps no cows at all to be had.

Most of you are thus far said that the governor, in effect, should agree with John Locke's philosophy: "Property precedes government." For Locke, the right to one's honorably acquired property is protected by natural law. Karl Marx argued strong against thatilosophy.

Can anybody provide the reasoning Locke (and others) used for the philoosophy?
Do you agree with it. Why or why not?

People of chracter rise to the challenge.

Lockes reason was that if you earned it, it's yours, and you will love it more than anything given to you.

Marx ideas create medicraty. Why even try harder to do better when there is no reward?

Lockes ideas create a thriving society of one-up-manship. Why do you think we have trophies? Keep track of records? People have more than 2 cars?

Neither Locke nor Marx were basing their philosophy on character or morality or virtue, however.

Locke based his philosophy on one guiding principle that applies in every way to the tale of two cows here.

Marx based his philosophy on a desired result.

You're drawing conclusions of the behavior involved in the application of the two philosophies, but still have not provided a rationale for why Pauvre is or is not entitled to one or more of Riche's cows.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Best answer so far I think except that I would like for Pauvre's likely behavior to not be justification for the policy. If we go in that direction of basing economic policy on merit or lack thereof related to virtue, then Riche's behavior can also be used as a justification for confiscating his cows. Some here on USMB believe and have said that a person should only have so much of anything so that would include cows, and think if Riche is so greedy as to have more cows than any normal person needs, it is right and just that the government take some of his cows for those who have fewer or none.

We could call that a tax on the overly cow endowed.

You were correct thought that Riche will need people to help take care of his cows and the people working for him could save to buy their own cow to breed and grow their herd until they also had many cows. But those no inclined or motivated to take that much risk and work that hard would still be able to buy beef to eat.

You were also correct that if the government starts confiscating many of Riche's cows, Riche won't have incentive to work as hard to produce cows that the governor will just take. Or he will have incentive to move to some other place where people are allowed to have as many cows as they want.

And then Pauvre will really be out of luck. No job by which he can earn enough to have beef on his table, and perhaps no cows at all to be had.

Most of you are thus far said that the governor, in effect, should agree with John Locke's philosophy: "Property precedes government." For Locke, the right to one's honorably acquired property is protected by natural law. Karl Marx argued strong against thatilosophy.

Can anybody provide the reasoning Locke (and others) used for the philoosophy?
Do you agree with it. Why or why not?

People of chracter rise to the challenge.

Lockes reason was that if you earned it, it's yours, and you will love it more than anything given to you.

Marx ideas create medicraty. Why even try harder to do better when there is no reward?

Lockes ideas create a thriving society of one-up-manship. Why do you think we have trophies? Keep track of records? People have more than 2 cars?

Neither Locke nor Marx were basing their philosophy on character or morality or virtue, however.

Locke based his philosophy on one guiding principle that applies in every way to the tale of two cows here.

Marx based his philosophy on a desired result.

You're drawing conclusions of the behavior involved in the application of the two philosophies, but still have not provided a rationale for why Pauvre is or is not entitled to one or more of Riche's cows.

He didn't earn it.
No one is entitled to a free ride or another persons property.

 

[dilloduck]

Best answer so far I think except that I would like for Pauvre's likely behavior to not be justification for the policy. If we go in that direction of basing economic policy on merit or lack thereof related to virtue, then Riche's behavior can also be used as a justification for confiscating his cows. Some here on USMB believe and have said that a person should only have so much of anything so that would include cows, and think if Riche is so greedy as to have more cows than any normal person needs, it is right and just that the government take some of his cows for those who have fewer or none.

We could call that a tax on the overly cow endowed.

You were correct thought that Riche will need people to help take care of his cows and the people working for him could save to buy their own cow to breed and grow their herd until they also had many cows. But those no inclined or motivated to take that much risk and work that hard would still be able to buy beef to eat.

You were also correct that if the government starts confiscating many of Riche's cows, Riche won't have incentive to work as hard to produce cows that the governor will just take. Or he will have incentive to move to some other place where people are allowed to have as many cows as they want.

And then Pauvre will really be out of luck. No job by which he can earn enough to have beef on his table, and perhaps no cows at all to be had.

Most of you are thus far said that the governor, in effect, should agree with John Locke's philosophy: "Property precedes government." For Locke, the right to one's honorably acquired property is protected by natural law. Karl Marx argued strong against thatilosophy.

Can anybody provide the reasoning Locke (and others) used for the philoosophy?
Do you agree with it. Why or why not?

People of chracter rise to the challenge.

Lockes reason was that if you earned it, it's yours, and you will love it more than anything given to you.

Marx ideas create medicraty. Why even try harder to do better when there is no reward?

Lockes ideas create a thriving society of one-up-manship. Why do you think we have trophies? Keep track of records? People have more than 2 cars?

Neither Locke nor Marx were basing their philosophy on character or morality or virtue, however.

Locke based his philosophy on one guiding principle that applies in every way to the tale of two cows here.

Marx based his philosophy on a desired result.

You're drawing conclusions of the behavior involved in the application of the two philosophies, but still have not provided a rationale for why Pauvre is or is not entitled to one or more of Riche's cows.

Possession is 9/10 ths of the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

People of chracter rise to the challenge.

Lockes reason was that if you earned it, it's yours, and you will love it more than anything given to you.

Marx ideas create medicraty. Why even try harder to do better when there is no reward?

Lockes ideas create a thriving society of one-up-manship. Why do you think we have trophies? Keep track of records? People have more than 2 cars?

Neither Locke nor Marx were basing their philosophy on character or morality or virtue, however.

Locke based his philosophy on one guiding principle that applies in every way to the tale of two cows here.

Marx based his philosophy on a desired result.

You're drawing conclusions of the behavior involved in the application of the two philosophies, but still have not provided a rationale for why Pauvre is or is not entitled to one or more of Riche's cows.

He didn't earn it.
No one is entitled to a free ride or another persons property.

Agreed.

But why is no one entitled to another person's property?

 

[dilloduck]

Neither Locke nor Marx were basing their philosophy on character or morality or virtue, however.

Locke based his philosophy on one guiding principle that applies in every way to the tale of two cows here.

Marx based his philosophy on a desired result.

You're drawing conclusions of the behavior involved in the application of the two philosophies, but still have not provided a rationale for why Pauvre is or is not entitled to one or more of Riche's cows.

He didn't earn it.
No one is entitled to a free ride or another persons property.

Agreed.

But why is no one entitled to another person's property?

it's stealing.

 

[Foxfyre]

He didn't earn it.
No one is entitled to a free ride or another persons property.

Agreed.

But why is no one entitled to another person's property?

it's stealing.

Even if Riche has more cows than any one person actually needs?

Even if Pauvre has no cows at all?

Even if the the governor takes one or more of Riche's cows and gives them to Pauvre and calls it a tax?

(Noting between TT and DD, we're getting really close to a solution to the problem here.)

 

[Two Thumbs]

Agreed.

But why is no one entitled to another person's property?

it's stealing.

Even if Riche has more cows than any one person actually needs?

Even if Pauvre has no cows at all?

Even if the the governor takes one or more of Riche's cows and gives them to Pauvre and calls it a tax?

(Noting between TT and DD, we're getting really close to a solution to the problem here.)

It doesn't matter what you call it. P's situation will not improve unless he improves himself. In other words, R will get taxed and taxed again.

There is no such thing as claiming someone has earned to much. Not amoung honest people.

 

[Foxfyre]

it's stealing.

Even if Riche has more cows than any one person actually needs?

Even if Pauvre has no cows at all?

Even if the the governor takes one or more of Riche's cows and gives them to Pauvre and calls it a tax?

(Noting between TT and DD, we're getting really close to a solution to the problem here.)

It doesn't matter what you call it. P's situation will not improve unless he improves himself. In other words, R will get taxed and taxed again.

There is no such thing as claiming someone has earned to much. Not amoung honest people.

Bravo. You just won a small Christmas turkey.

I think we can all agree that there are those who acquire their wealth through unethical or dishonest means. Saddam Hussein would be an excellent example for that.

Riche however acquired his honorably through time, patience, hard work, risk taking, and personal sacrifice.

Still, there are some among us who think there is a limit to how much wealth Riche should be able to accumulate, and that the governor should take the 'excess' and distribute to people like Pauvre who have so little.

 

[Foxfyre]

By the way, would it be questioning mod action to inquire why this thread got put into general discussion? I can see it being reassigned to economics or taxes or congressional policy, but 'general discussion'???????

 

[Ravi]

It was amusing to follow the rightwingloon circle jerk that served no purpose but to confirm their own confirmation bias.

Locke did believe property ownership was an inherent right and that a government could not take someone's property arbitrarily and without their consent. He also believed that having more property than you needed was an abomination against nature. So he became a fan of money, which he believed would not spoil or go to waste as too many cows were capable of doing.

But he failed to take into consideration that the government guarantees monetary value and therefore without this government guarantee money can spoil and become worthless.

In effect, he has created a hypocritical philosophy embraced by the rightwingloons that believe they are self made "men" that owe no allegiance to their country in return for said guarantees.

He also failed to consider that by agreeing to not renounce your American citizenship and moving to a country with no government protections, for instance Somalia, you are giving a tacit agreement to be taxed.

I wonder how he would feel about tax breaks for people that have children. Would he believe that would just encourage people to keep having children to benefit off of Americans that didn't?

 

[Sheldon]

Even if Riche has more cows than any one person actually needs?

Even if Pauvre has no cows at all?

Even if the the governor takes one or more of Riche's cows and gives them to Pauvre and calls it a tax?

(Noting between TT and DD, we're getting really close to a solution to the problem here.)

It doesn't matter what you call it. P's situation will not improve unless he improves himself. In other words, R will get taxed and taxed again.

There is no such thing as claiming someone has earned to much. Not amoung honest people.

Bravo. You just won a small Christmas turkey.

I think we can all agree that there are those who acquire their wealth through unethical or dishonest means. Saddam Hussein would be an excellent example for that.

Riche however acquired his honorably through time, patience, hard work, risk taking, and personal sacrifice.

Still, there are some among us who think there is a limit to how much wealth Riche should be able to accumulate, and that the governor should take the 'excess' and distribute to people like Pauvre who have so little.

Come on, Fox. Like that wasn't obvious from your OP?

I'm curious to know who those people are that want to put a limit on how much wealth someone can have.

 

[Sheldon]

It was amusing to follow the rightwingloon circle jerk that served no purpose but to confirm their own confirmation bias.

Locke did believe property ownership was an inherent right and that a government could not take someone's property arbitrarily and without their consent. He also believed that having more property than you needed was an abomination against nature. So he became a fan of money, which he believed would not spoil or go to waste as too many cows were capable of doing.

But he failed to take into consideration that the government guarantees monetary value and therefore without this government guarantee money can spoil and become worthless.

In effect, he has created a hypocritical philosophy embraced by the rightwingloons that believe they are self made "men" that owe no allegiance to their country in return for said guarantees.

He also failed to consider that by agreeing to not renounce your American citizenship and moving to a country with no government protections, for instance Somalia, you are giving a tacit agreement to be taxed.

I wonder how he would feel about tax breaks for people that have children. Would he believe that would just encourage people to keep having children to benefit off of Americans that didn't?

Notice how the scenario functions on two over-played stereotypes: the hardworking rich person, and the gluttonous foolish poor person. It's those stereotypes that inform and reinforce the Reganomics sycophancy of many on the right.

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't matter what you call it. P's situation will not improve unless he improves himself. In other words, R will get taxed and taxed again.

There is no such thing as claiming someone has earned to much. Not amoung honest people.

Bravo. You just won a small Christmas turkey.

I think we can all agree that there are those who acquire their wealth through unethical or dishonest means. Saddam Hussein would be an excellent example for that.

Riche however acquired his honorably through time, patience, hard work, risk taking, and personal sacrifice.

Still, there are some among us who think there is a limit to how much wealth Riche should be able to accumulate, and that the governor should take the 'excess' and distribute to people like Pauvre who have so little.

Come on, Fox. Like that wasn't obvious from your OP?

I'm curious to know who those people are that want to put a limit on how much wealth someone can have.

It comes from several different threads, usually in a non sequitur context, Sheldon, and what people think about wealth or the accumulation of it, or who should be taxed for whose benefit is all part of the governor's decision, or should be, in the minds of those who think there should be a limit to how much wealth one should accumulate or even be allowed to accumulate.

The OP brings it down to the simplest equation. If one person has a lot and another person little, on what basis doe the government take from one in order to give it to another.

I have found conservatives don't have much problem with the problem.

Most liberals cannot or will not even deal with it, but will do as some do, accuse the conservatives of being greedy and uncaring as if that is an answer to the question. Sort of as you just did.