"Social Justice" Claim

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I saw this earlier today in someone’s Facebook status:

I can’t believe the multimillionaire investment behind the f****** soccer world cup, while millions today starve to death... when that money could be used to build millions of houses, educate millions of children, hire millions of workers… The injustice is unconceivable.

How would you respond to this statement?

[Maximus]

I wouldn't. This person is not worth my time.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I wouldn't. This person is not worth my time.

Fine, let's assume this has to be analyzed for an assignment, or that this is someone of value, like a friend or family member, who has only been exposed to the wrong ideas, or whatever. There. Now you can post an actual argument, if you like.

Edited March 28, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[The Lonely Rationalist]

Are you saying that you can't think of a correct response to the claim, or are you asking how we would respond to this person's statement alone?

If the former, I'd say that those investing in the World Cup have every right to do it because it's THEIR money. If he wants more money to help the poor, then let him earn the money with which to do it, rather than bitching that those smarter than him aren't using their money for his whims.

If the latter, I'd agree with Maximus. There are millions (If not billions) of morons who say stuff like this without thinking about the issues. There's no point talking to them, they'll never change.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Are you saying that you can't think of a correct response to the claim, or are you asking how we would respond to this person's statement alone?

If the former, I'd say that those investing in the World Cup have every right to do it because it's THEIR money. If he wants more money to help the poor, then let him earn the money with which to do it, rather than bitching that those smarter than him aren't using their money for his whims.

If the latter, I'd agree with Maximus. There are millions (If not billions) of morons who say stuff like this without thinking about the issues. There's no point talking to them, they'll never change.

Yes, I can think of a proper response. I know this is a tremendous case of context-dropping, but I can't just explain the entire Objectivist ethics and politics to this person in a Facebook post, so I was just looking for a more direct and short response to her statement. I'm not interested in the person per ser. The person is completely irrelevant, I just took her status as an example. I'm interested in the claim, because I hear it all the time, and wanted to hear some good ways to address it.

Edited March 28, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[The Lonely Rationalist]

Yes, I can think of a proper response. I know this is a tremendous case of context-dropping, but I can't just explain to this person the entire Objectivist ethics and politics in a Facebook post, so I was just looking for a more direct and short response to her statement. I'm no interested in the person per ser, I'm interested in the claim, which I hear all the time.

You won't be able to come up with a short response.

If you said "It's THEIR money," they'd say something along the lines of "And they have a duty to help the poor because (X)." Then you'd have to deny that claim, and they'd make more arguments for you to deny, and so on. So in the end, you'd have to explain the entire Objectivist ethics.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, maybe this is just by accident, but he isn't totally off base. You have to agree with him that there is massive injustice going on in South Africa. But he's placing the blame on European, Asian and South American soccer fans for it, instead of on the South African leadership.

Another big injustice here is the fact that the Cup is being held in South Africa in the first place. In reality, FIFA, had it not been turned into an organization resembling the UN more than a business venture aimed at providing fans with great entertainment (with corrupt national representatives trading favors for votes, instead of acting in the interest of the sport as a whole), could have chosen any one of dozens of countries better equipped to host the World Cup.

That said, don't forget to show him some justice as well, by pointing out that his statement was the mental fart of an imbecile, and next time he should spend some time thinking about what he is saying, or else you will block him and forget he exists.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Dante]

I saw this earlier today in someone’s Facebook status:

How would you respond to this statement?

Well, there's a reason that there are millions of homeless people in Africa while there are far fewer in developed nations like America. Individual rights and the ability to pursue profit is the reason that rich nations are rich. You just have to look, not at the poor countries, but at those who have lifted themselves out of poverty to see that charity writ large is not a viable solution to poverty.

EDIT: Also, I would inquire who exactly is investing this money. Is it western corporate sponsors who earned the money, or is the South African government taxing money away from its people in order to host a lavish event to raise its standing among world countries? Because the second would most definitely be an injustice. However, the person would still be off base, because taxing money away from citizens isn't only wrong if they're starving and homeless; it's wrong simply because the money belongs to them, no matter what you'd judge their need for the money to be.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Dante

[L-C]

You have to agree with him that there is massive injustice going on in South Africa. But he's placing the blame on European, Asian and South American soccer fans for it, instead of on the South African leadership.

Yep, as if the differences between Western and other civilizations are accidental.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Another one from some other guy:

Someone please answer me this:

If Carlos Slim or Bill Gates, who have more than 53 billion dollars each, gave away one million dollars to each person on Earth (supplying the basic needs of any intelligent human being for a long time), they would still have 460 000 million dollars left!!… Why the hell they don’t do it?????????

Jeez, maybe because they would go bankrupt? In any case...

Edited March 28, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Maximus]

Fine, let's assume this has to be analyzed for an assignment, or that this is someone of value, like a friend or family member, who has only been exposed to the wrong ideas, or whatever. There. Now you can post an actual argument, if you like.

You stated that this was a person on a Facebook page originally. That was my response regarding some stranger on a Facebook page. I've noticed you tend to get "smart" with people you disagree with here, O' person-with-a-lot-of-numbers-for-a-username.

Someone I valued would require gentle persuasion so as to not turn them off.

[Alfred Centauri]

How would you respond to this statement?

Injustice? By what standard?

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

You stated that this was a person on a Facebook page originally. That was my response regarding some stranger on a Facebook page. I've noticed you tend to get "smart" with people you disagree with here, O' person-with-a-lot-of-numbers-for-a-username.

Someone I valued would require gentle persuasion so as to not turn them off.

Yeah. Maybe I should've phrased my question a little better. I wasn't asking anyone to go and personally debate with her. I was just asking for some short analysis or any thoughts on the argument, rather than the person, and your answer was simply a dismissive non-answer. So that's why I tried to clear that up, so that you could give a proper response. But you're right, I should rephrase that.

[Tyco]

Without getting into the morality of it, the obvious point to make is that hosting a World Cup brings enormous trade benefits to the country through tourism. I read a statistic recently which said every month since Germany last hosted the World Cup (2008), they have taken an additional X million dollars (it was a lot) from tourists, over and above what the previous monthly average was.

[rebelconservative]

If Carlos Slim or Bill Gates, who have more than 53 billion dollars each, gave away one million dollars to each person on Earth (supplying the basic needs of any intelligent human being for a long time), they would still have 460 000 million dollars left!!… Why the hell they don’t do it?????????

that is a great idea, why don't they do that? then we'd all be happy forever, because of course, prices would remain as they are and scarcity would be eliminated... sigh...

[Tenzing_Shaw]

[if Carlos Slim or Bill Gates, who have more than 53 billion dollars each, gave away one million dollars to each person on Earth (supplying the basic needs of any intelligent human being for a long time), they would still have 460 000 million dollars left!!… Why the hell they don’t do it?????????

Well, first of all...

100 billion - ~6 billion * 1 million != 460 billion

[Black Wolf]

Well, first of all...

100 billion - ~6 billion * 1 million != 460 billion

Second of all,

53 billion < 460 000 million (which would be 460 billion, I would have to presume).

Politely tell them that if this basic mathematics is so hard for them, that they probably shouldn't be judging who can afford to give what.

[Hotu Matua]

When I find myself talking to people complaining about why Slim or Gates don't give out some of their wealth, I asked them

How many pair of shoes do you have?

They then say a number. Then I asked them why they are keeping more than one pair of shoes. In the end of the day, we all have just one pair of feet. To survive, we need just one pair of shoes. Million of people prove that it is possible to walk through life with just one pair of shoes at a time. So, by keeping in their closet any number >1 pair of shoes, our dear altruist friends are depriving other person in extreme poverty of their shoes.

When confronting them with what they do, and not just with what cliches they reproduce from someone else, they just can't explain why they enjoy what they enjoy. Altruism is just not a livable philosophy. Nobody can practice it, and when somebody tries to practice it he goes insane, and tries to drive other people mad. You can read it in Mother Teresa's infamous letters.

"Go and sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and then come back and follow me" said Jesus to the rich man who wanted to be his follower.

The instruction is there. Who wants to follow?

Edited March 29, 2010 by Hotu Matua

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

When I find myself talking to people complaining about why Slim or Gates don't give out some of their wealth, I asked them

How many pair of shoes do you have?

They then say a number. Then I asked them why they are keeping more than one pair of shoes. In the end of the day, we all have just one pair of feet. To survive, we need just one pair of shoes. Million of people prove that it is possible to walk through life with just one pair of shoes at a time. So, by keeping in their closet any number >1 pair of shoes, our dear altruist friends are depriving other person in extreme poverty of their shoes.

I like that. Too bad that it doesn't work when your opponent has only one pair of shoes.

Edited March 29, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[gags]

I like that. Too bad that it doesn't work when your opponent has only one pair of shoes.

You need to start having conversations with people who are little more successful in life.

[Black Wolf]

You need to start having conversations with people who are little more successful in life.

"I have enough time and resources to go online and get into heated arguments with people while declaring my self-righteousness, but I don't have enough time to maybe acquire more income"

[Cmac19]

Injustice? By what standard?

Excellent response... this is exactly how I would go about it

ask them what their understanding of "justice" is and then point out that what they really mean is not "justice" but equality and when they inevitably ask, point them to a dictionary or a pair of textbooks, one law and one sociology, and show them that no they are not the same things.

[Jake_Ellison]

Excellent response... this is exactly how I would go about it

ask them what their understanding of "justice" is and then point out that what they really mean is not "justice" but equality and when they inevitably ask, point them to a dictionary or a pair of textbooks, one law and one sociology, and show them that no they are not the same things.

Objectivism defines justice in the context of Ethics, not Law or Sociology.

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

You need to start having conversations with people who are little more successful in life.

I hope that you're only saying this as a joke.

"I have enough time and resources to go online and get into heated arguments with people while declaring my self-righteousness, but I don't have enough time to maybe acquire more income"

I have only one pair of shoes. Are you implying this is something bad? And who are you trying to quote here? You don't even know him/her to come up with this sort of clever "deductions." Are you saying that because someone can somehow have access to the internet and engage in debates, without any context or any knowledge of his situation whatsoever, therefore he must by nature be a "succesful" man with the purchasing power to go around shopping for shoes, regardless of his needs, priorities or interests? What on Earth is the relation between discussing ideas and having more than one pair of shoes? Can you elaborate on this? Because your statement is nothing more than a typical ad hominem argument.

Edited March 29, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[Black Wolf]

Damn, you got me.

Reality: 1

Jokes: 0