Why "Axiom" Questions -Plus 3 More

[Syberduh]

In any case, the overall supply of money is not increasing. The trillion dollars isn't created out of thin air, it comes from the rich guy's bank account (I won't question how a billionaire can come up with a trillion dollars). If the rich guy had been hiding that money in his mattress (how big a mattress is needed to hold a trillion dollars is hundreds?) then there might be some inflationary effect, but if he had it invested in stocks or the money market then there might well be a deflationary effect as most of the trillion dollars would be entering local/informal economies in the developing world and might never re-emerge.

[Magic_Man]

On a related note, I agree with your claim that when an argument comes down to axioms, it is pointless going any farther. In the SMP forum we talk about "First Cause" all the time. It goes like this:

Theist: Everything has a first cause. The Universe is a thing, so the cause is God.
Atheist: What is God's first cause?
Theist: God needs no first cause.
Atheist: Then the Universe needs no first cause.

The bolded statements boil down to axioms, and so I think this discussion, which probably goes on every day somewhere in the world, is getting pretty old and pointless.

[Vex]

[ QUOTE ]

1. An eccentric millionaire comes up to you and offers you 100K to spit in your face...

2. A mad scientist has invented two types of pixie dust ...

3. Similar to #2. An eccentric multibillionare gives you a few choices...


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, rather than answer these directly, I'll answer what axioms these reduce to for me. The answer is actually the same in all three cases: independence and social reliance.

To me, that spectrum extends everywhere. It's the difference between anarchy and socialism, or Libertarianism versus Fascism. It's the difference between science and religion, or between logic and faith. It's selfishness versus selflessness.

Or also misanthropy versus philanthropy.

If you say that "independence" trumps "social reliance" then you are free to say "yes" to #1, and you are more likely to prefer the money and magic dust to stay local, because each time you are receiving the most personal benefit at the least risk or cost.

If you say that "social reliance" is more important, then you are less likely to be able to rationalize prostituting yourself, and you would be more likely insist that the Happy Dust and the money go to the whole world because the aggregated benefit to everyone is greater than the individual benefit to your family or your country.

I, personally, tend towards the misanthropic side. In my opinion, most people suck (including some in my own extended family). I'm willing to help people help themselves, but only when I've seen that they don't suck, and in any case I'm not going to just give anything away. So I'm gonna take the money for my family and the happy powder for my country.

As far as the spitting-and-wanking thing, I'd probably go for it. Spit is just spit, and somebody getting off on spitting in someone's face is so far from what I would call "arousing" that I'd hardly feel dirty for letting the guy do it. He probably sucks anyway, and if he's gonna come off that much cash for some weird fetish like that then the money is certainly better off in my hands anyway.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming you are 30, married, have two kids, and have a net worth of 300K. An eccentric millionaire comes up to you and offers you 100K to spit in your face, while masterbating. Assume no chance for disease and no chance anyone else will ever know. Would you do it?

[/ QUOTE ] No.

It might have been a consideration if I was dying from some disease, and not looking forward to many more times of having to look at myself in the mirror.

[ QUOTE ]
A mad scientist has invented two types of pixie dust and you decide which one he will use. Type one is sprinkled only above your country and will make everyone 30% more happy indefinitely, whatever that means. Just a mood enhancer with no other effects. Type two is sprinkled over the whole world and makes eveyone ten percent happier. Which do you choose?

[/ QUOTE ] 10% for everyone, for practical reasons.

Me and my country would most probably be more secure in eveyrbody having 10% more happiness than just us having 30% more hapiness, which would cause jealousy and problems down the road.

[ QUOTE ]
Similar to #2. An eccentric multibillionare gives you a few choices. (Again you are 30 with 300K). He will give your family one million. Or he will give your extended family say twenty aunts, uncles and cousins, including your family, a total of two million to be divided equally. Or he will give to you and 100 people of your choice 3 million to be divided equally. Or he will give those people plus your whole neighborhood of 1000 people a total of 10 million. Or your whole state 100 million. Or your country 10 billion. Or the 20 countries most friendly to us 100 billion. Or the whole world one trillion.

[/ QUOTE ]I'll take the million and skip town.

...And I think I solved the hidden quiz too: The choice "you and 100 people of your choice [get] 3 million to be divided equally" is the choice that doesn't fit with the others. It's the only choice where you get to select the specific people who get the prize.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the spitting-and-wanking thing, I'd probably go for it. Spit is just spit, and somebody getting off on spitting in someone's face is so far from what I would call "arousing" that I'd hardly feel dirty for letting the guy do it.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you think your opponent at the soccer game spitting at your body is the same thing as your lover spitting at your body in bed

Second question: If letting, for $$$ money, someone spit at you for him to get sexual satisfaction does not bother you, where do you draw the line? There are hundreds of sexual "perversions" not involving penetration by the penis. I could detail them all here, but I'd suggest instead that people read 120 Days at Sodom. So, how many of those would you not mind going through for $$$ money?

OK, see y'all at the Brandi thread. And, remember, she's the whore.

Mickey Brausch

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a friend 20 some odd years ago who loved these. His favorite was would you give a guy a blow job or take it up the ass?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your friend was gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Or the whole world one trillion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distributing money evenly to the whole world will change nothing, because the prices will go up immediately. It's just another form of inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true if the money is evenly divided. It is true if the money is proportionally divided (i.e. everyone's bank account dobules). Even distribution is advantageous to the poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prices would still go up, because the optimal point where people become indifferent to buying or not buying would go up. In other words, if people have more money, you not only can charge them more, you should.

[valenzuela]

1. no
2. my country( chile only has 14 million ppl, but im one of them)
3. the world one trillion.

happiness and money are not the same.

[Bibigon]

[ QUOTE ]
happiness and money are not the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money can buy happiness.

It's like money and hot dogs are not the same thing. Sure - they're not, but money can be used to purchase hot dogs. Money can be used to purchase some things which make one happier.

[jtollison78]

For #2: The world. I fear 30% happiness is too great a competitive disadvantage.

John