Capitalist Philosophers And Fundamentalist Protestants

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you presume to decide who "deserves" what is given to them and who does not, which is exactly where you claim "capitalist philosophers" go wrong.

Ergo, you are a hypocrite. QED.

[David Sklansky]

I'm not deciding anything. 90% of those who I would categorize as obviously not deserving their wealth would themselves agree with me.

I think that his is all pretty much common sense. But if need be I can come up with a more rigorous definition of what I, and almost everyone else, means by "undeserved". And it isn't related to whether the money was freely given to them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not deciding anything. 90% of those who I would categorize

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you categorize without deciding?

[ QUOTE ]
as obviously not deserving their wealth would themselves agree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[ QUOTE ]
I think that his is all pretty much common sense. But if need be I can come up with a more rigorous definition of what I, and almost everyone else, means by "undeserved". And it isn't related to whether the money was freely given to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.

Furthermore, I would be interested to know exactly which "capitalist philosophers" you've been reading, because frankly, to quote a great man, deserves got nothin' to do with it.

[hmkpoker]

I figured it would be for different reasons.

Sklansky made his fortune through gambling (read: screwing people out of their money), and then selling books that teach other people how to do the same. Professional gamblers produce valuable nothing for society, by any stretch of the imagination. They aren't providing "entertainment," they just create a hole of -EV at the table that would otherwise result in everyone else having more money.

While I fully support the right of a professional poker player to make his living (as I am a capitalist, and no one is forcing the grown men sitting at the table to hurl money away), you can't decry professional athletes and rock stars for making millions because people want to give them money and support professional gambling.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I figured it would be for different reasons.

Sklansky made his fortune through gambling (read: screwing people out of their money), and then selling books that teach other people how to do the same. Professional gamblers produce valuable nothing for society, by any stretch of the imagination. They aren't providing "entertainment," they just create a hole of -EV at the table that would otherwise result in everyone else having more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. The professionals often form the core around which the games coalesce. Without the pros many games would not exist for the recreational player to sit down at. The mere existence of prop players demonstrates this.

[chezlaw]

underserving as DS is of defense after his random spewage against philosophers who are the least likely group to rationalise their good fortune, I'm going to do it anyway.

Unless he believes he deserves his good fortune then his not being hypocritical at all. He may be wrong but apart from the philosopher bit I think his basically right. Not the feeling disgust bit, better to be a bit more sangine imo especially as our good fortune is aided by those who think they deserve theirs.

I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

chez

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
underserving as DS is of defense after his random spewage against philosophers who are the least likely group to rationalise their good fortune, I'm going to do it anyway.

Unless he believes he deserves his good fortune then his not being hypocritical at all. He may be wrong but apart from the philosopher bit I think his basically right. Not the feeling disgust bit, better to be a bit more sangine imo especially as our good fortune is aided by those who think they deserve theirs.

I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

First, claiming that someone is "undeserving" is just as arbitrary and subjective as claiming that someone is "deserving", hence DS is a hypocrite.

Second, Sklansky is not simply saying that individuals are "lucky" or "unlucky" in their birth. He is saying that (apparently some) people do not "deserve", i.e. they are undeserving of, that which others have voluntarily given to them. Such a position is arbitrary and subjective. Who is David Sklansky to decide who deserves what? Which brings us right back to the first point.

Lastly, as I said, "deserve" doesn't actually have anything to do with capitalist philosophy. So attacking capitalist philosophers by claiming that they are rationalizing keeping what they don't "deserve" is a strawman. It shows a lack of understanding of capitalist theory, and causes me to doubt whether or not DS has actually read any.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see the problem with the 'deserve' idea. I was born into reasonable affluence in a sustained period of relative peace and economic prosperity. That's lucky for me, I didn't deserve it anymore than people who are born into suffering deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't the problem with the 'deserve idea' the deserve idea? Iow, if you don't believe in a force that goes around handing out dollops of 'deserve credits', where does the idea of an objective 'deserve' grab a toe hold on reality.

That you were forunate/lucky doesn't translate into deserving or not deserving, which is a totally different concept ??? 'Deserve' seems to dictate that there are some promises or implied promises of some specific result arising from some specific act or circumstance. "I cut the lawn, I deserve to get paid."
But being born doesn't come with any of those, we're born naked and whining, and adjusting to life entails moving away from both of those conditions.
'Deserve' is a property of social contract, not an inherent property of newborns.
what am I missing?

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course. You can always come up with arbitrary subjective definitions of who "deserves" what. And that is what they will always be, arbitrary and subjective. Your arbitrary and subjective definition won't be, indeed cannot be, better than anyone else's crazy scheme of who "deserves" what.


[/ QUOTE ]

We could "vote" on it. Oh wait, that's kind of what we're doing when we decide where to spend our money. Never mind.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

This is false. The professionals often form the core around which the games coalesce. Without the pros many games would not exist for the recreational player to sit down at. The mere existence of prop players demonstrates this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never thought of this before (I'm so used to Party Poker :P). If this is true I partially retract my statement.