| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What motivates you?? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 1 2009, 04:08 AM (1,049 Views) | |
| Allesandra | Nov 2 2009, 02:10 PM Post #51 |
![]()
Only Girl Actively Participating in Threads
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm motivated by my family, friends and the desire for a successful future. Usually a challenge can seriously push me to do something to its fullest extent rather than trying to half-ass it. And usually I am motivated by the horrible examples other people perform in their lives, pushing me to do better. |
![]() |
|
| Ulgania | Nov 2 2009, 02:18 PM Post #52 |
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
|
I like how there's a slight paradox in capitalism. The self made man. You come from nothing, and you end up on top of the world. But then, as discussed there's the idea of family merit. In capitalism, isn't there supposed to be social/class mobility? Then you have Europe, which, while not as a socialist leaning as it was, still has these notions of class immobility. I had a point but I forgot what it was. |
![]() |
|
| flumes | Nov 2 2009, 02:28 PM Post #53 |
![]()
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
|
There is social/class mobility? |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Nov 2 2009, 02:35 PM Post #54 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The "self made man" is actually a genre of picaresque literature, not an economic concept. Capitalism is supposed to be about private property; beyond that the cards fall where they may and whether or not social/class mobility exists works itself out. |
![]() |
|
| East Anarx | Nov 2 2009, 04:08 PM Post #55 |
|
Anarchitect
![]()
|
You're not my enemy, E-D. You're not a member of the ruling class, no matter how much you may identify with them. You're a fellow victim. The fact that you, like so many other victims of archons, consumed by cognitive dissonance, have convinced yourself of the benevolence of your oppressors, (or at least the necessity of their existence,) has caused me not to fear you, or hate you, but simply pity you. You "refuse to submit to Anarchist views"? Good. I ask not for your submission. Also, wtf are you talking about, "when it comes down to it (ellipses)"? When what comes down to what? |
![]() |
|
| Eleytheria-Duo | Nov 2 2009, 06:10 PM Post #56 |
|
Resident Bystander
|
If you honestly think I would not join the ruling class if I were given the opportunity, you are dead wrong. And if you think I would criticize the tax system and denounce the enforcement of laws, you are gravely mistaken. Sure, I haven't been born into the graces of the "Ruling class" and I have no desire in attempting to pursue such a path on my own, but the only thing separating me from them is who is holding the power.
And really? I'm a victim? :rolleyes: Under those definitions, I guess I like being tortured and tormented, and enjoy observing others suffering the same ills then. Pity me all you like, maybe I deserve it- your pity means absolutely nothing to me.
Anyone who does not conform to your views are unenlightened and/or evil that needs to be destroyed (You yourself stated [in the past] Government officials should be hanged, they are not going to do this for you.) So you argue to these unenlightened individuals Anarchism is the only proper way to live, and spurn those who do not agree with you.
Its really quite simple. When it comes to our point of conflict, I could never side with you and you could never side with me; This puts us at disagreement. And if, as you say, your Anarchist revolution is inevitable, I foresee violence as a result. Nothing else could dismantle an entire Government and prevent it from reforming itself in some way. I believe its very clear whom each of us shall be supporting. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Nov 2 2009, 06:41 PM Post #57 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
What really motivates me is wanting to put E and ED up against a wall, bound and blindfolded, and then getting my 45-70! |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 2 2009, 07:16 PM Post #58 |
|
Deleted User
|
Anger is my prime motivation. Otherwise, I'm overtaken by laziness. When I get pissed about something, then I try pretty damn hard to fix whatever pisses me off. But I haven't given too much thought about motivation besides that. I guess if anything strikes my fancy, I will work towards it until I get bored. |
|
|
| flumes | Nov 2 2009, 07:29 PM Post #59 |
![]()
CLEVELAND ROCKS!
|
This is me, to answer my own question. I'm lazy, until I get pissed. Then, look out. Honestly, I wish I was pissed more often. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 2 2009, 07:32 PM Post #60 |
|
Deleted User
|
If i was pissed all the time, then I could be the next Gandhi or MLK. Edit: 999th post |
|
|
| Sedulius | Nov 2 2009, 09:59 PM Post #61 |
|
Field Marshal
|
What does that make me? :lol: I readily recognize the evil of the oppressors, and I would relish seeing them overthrown. Our difference lies in what we would institute after the overthrow. If I do right in such a position, then I would not be an oppressor, would I? I suppose the key is finding out what is right, but that shouldn't be too hard for one who carries right action in their heart. So the true key is getting myself back to such a status. I would be content to be an emperor or a pauper so long as I had love in my life. Such is why I am not content. Perhaps it is the desire for love that truly motivates me. But methinks it is something more. What would you do if someone became emperor over the territories in which you reside, but he ruled benevolently? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 3 2009, 12:18 AM Post #62 |
|
Deleted User
|
:rolleyes: Hypocritical? |
|
|
| Al Araam | Nov 3 2009, 12:36 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Demigod of Death & Inactivity
![]()
|
I'm afraid I don't see your point. I know that economically pertinent traits can be passed from parents from their children. That's fine. That idea doesn't seem to undermine my argument at all. After all, these traits are inherited by individuals and, having more merit, these individuals should be allowed to succeed on the basis of their own merit. However, if an individual doesn't inherit the economically pertinent traits of his parents, I see no reason why he should be given preferential treatment over anyone else who didn't inherit these economically pertinent traits. If I am a no-good lout and my brother or my mother or my father is a genius, I still should not have a greater lot in life because of that. Your argument about motivation is a valid one, but it seems to be at least partially predicated upon something that would not exist under the system I would like to see. Lower-class parents do work harder because they want their children to succeed. But in a lot of cases their children, no matter how brilliant, aren't going to succeed to the level of someone of lesser capabilities born to upper-class parents. In other words, it doesn't matter how hard they work. Family is a powerful motivator, but there are plenty of other powerful motivators out there. Like starvation for instance. Anarcho-capitalism, and that is where my arguments were aimed, cannot help but endorse starvation as a motivator. There are a lot of undesirable jobs in the world that must be done. If the most qualified people are allowed to fill the most demanding and high-paying jobs, that means somebody will have to fill those jobs generally considered to be undemanding, which are thus low paying. They could choose not to do them, but what is their alternative? Starvation. After all, they're certainly not going to be able to rely on family wealth or a cushy inheritance to break their fall. That brings up a second point: the idea of familial merit doesn't always serve as a motivator. It can have quite the opposite effect, actually. How often do we here about degenerate heiresses who spend their time buying ridiculously priced clothes, getting shit-faced, and making fools of themselves. Tell me, how much are they really contributing to society? Would they have the option to do so if they weren't allowed to live of the just rewards their father received from our capitalist system for his merits? |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Nov 3 2009, 02:46 AM Post #64 |
|
Science and Industry
|
My point is that traits tend to run in families, and, having more "merit", some felicitous families justly pass their accumulated material wealth to their progeny generations. The notion that an individual should be allowed to fail or succeed on the basis of his own merit is grounded in practicality and biological reality, but the notion that families should also be allowed to influence, to whatever degree, the failure or success of individuals is likewise grounded in practicality and biological reality. Consider that neither "personal merit" nor "familial merit" is an uncompromisingly perfect concept. Who is to say a particular successful individual succeeded purely because of his "personal merit" and not without big helping hands from Luck and Fate? Is one intelligent, hardworking farmer in Florida more meritorious than another intelligent, hardworking farmer in California, if the Californian's orchards were destroyed by a freak unseasonable frost, when there was no frost in Florida? Likewise, who is to say louts won't benefit from the accumulated wealth of his meritorious ancestors? But this state of affairs, the ruined harvests in California and the louts coming into inheritances, are the least inequitous out of much more inequitous and damaging possibilities out there (at the risk of sounding Panglossian). Our disagreement stems from having different reference points. You don't appear to believe in the continuity of generations on ethical and practical grounds, while I do believe in that- also on ethical and practical grounds. From a practical perspective, the involvement of the family unit is absolutely essential to fostering economic stability and ensuring sustainable growth, and removal of the familial social framework can only lead to the unintended consequences that you warned about in your earlier posts.
In that example, you should have a greater lot in life because your parents wanted you to and worked for it. Even if you're terminally ill and have no chance of "contributing" anything to society, your parents should be allowed to allocate vast resources to your healthcare because they wanted you to have it and worked for it.
This state of affairs is the least inequitous out of all the inequitous possibilities out there. Redistribution of wealth to equalize everyone at birth is not sustainable for a variety of reasons, least of which are the declines in motivation and even declines in childbirth such a policy would cause. To prevent that outcome individuals and families should be allowed to keep and dispose of their fatefully earned rewards as they will, and in a peaceful society the involvement of "personal merit" and "familial merit" naturally complement each other in all individuals for maximal economy-wide sustainability. Furthermore you can advance your same particular argument on behalf of the world's seriously ill children who will never succeed to the level of the healthy population, unless vast economic resources are forcibly redistributed to maintain their health. But such an arrangement is simply unsustainable and will impoverish everyone, and through impoverishing everyone lead to even more suffering. Similarly, redistributing and equalizing resources for the population at large are also unsustainable for the long run and impoverish everyone, leading to compounded suffering in the long run. Even the examples of social democracy in Europe and Japan bear this out; they may appear superficially comfortable today but Europe's and Japan's budgetary excess and sociological defects condemn their societies to catastrophe.
The bogeyman of starvation has always been, and can always be, avoided if technological advancements are allowed to fluorish by maximizing economic efficiency. Throughout the world less and less workers are constantly able to feed more and more people, whether through a hard earned meal or through a soup kitchen. There has never been starvation in the history of America, and the only sustainable, permanent way to cure starvation in other parts of the world is technological innovation, not the short-term, short-sighted policies of wealth redistributionism.
I would argue that getting shit-faced and being a whore are the result of a general society-wide trend toward libertinism and feminism brought about by certain damaging legal innovations. Vast wealth does not shit-faced whores make; the moral degeneracy of today's rich women probably does not occur at a greater rate than among middle-class or lower-class women; in other words, today, degenerate, disgusting women abound from all classes. In the past heiresses to great fortunes, and women in general, were not lewd like today's tabloid headlines are. Finally, I'd like to question what you mean generally by "contributing to society". Does spending money on ridiculously priced clothes, driving around in a pink Ferrari, and consuming other luxury goods necessarily not "contribute to society"? There are many people employed by the high-end luxury goods sector, ranging from menial workers to artists to engineers to janitors to car mechanics and sweatshop workers. Their livelihoods depend on the economic activity of luxury goods consumption. As you've always correctly stated, social and economic ramifications of any policy decision are intractably complex, and something as righteous as clamping down on the luxury goods market can have many unintended consequences and disturb the lives of many people. When an indulged 19-year old girl is driving her daddy's Ferrari, she's contributing to the economic livelihoods of hundreds of unsung individuals. She should give up being a shit-faced whore, but she need not give up her Ferrari or her expensive clothes. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Nov 3 2009, 10:35 PM Post #65 |
|
Science and Industry
|
I came to another realization Araam. If you are resistant to the concept of "familial merit" it's still valid to consider inherited wealth as a "personal merit" in the same class as intelligence, physical attractiveness, and other such traits that an individual inherited from his parents and had limited or no control over, but which all of which are resources that the individual can choose to take advantage of over the course of his life. Conversely another person is born with birth defects, low intelligence, or other handicaps that he had limited or no control over. You are correct that a poor person may have a challenging time exceeding a very rich person. But similarly, an unintelligent person, no matter how hard he works is not likely to excel a hardworking, intelligent person. There are many fortunes and misfortunes a person is born into, not just in regards to financial wealth. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Nov 4 2009, 03:27 PM Post #66 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Success should be a value aspired to. Man should work towards success. The successful must therefore be paragons. The spoiled heiress is a paragon of degeneration. The society that lauds them is a society that encourages the break down of social values and eventual implosion. The successful idiot is a paragon of beligerance. The society that makes the savant everyman its President lauds stupidity and bull-headedness. Such is folly. The successful genious is a paragon of intelligence. The society that lauds intelligence is the one that promotes reason. The society that places intelligence on a pedestal encourages intelligence in every man. In no society will everyman be a paragon. But it is better to promote intelligence through inequality than idleness. (As it is better to promote strength over obesity, attractiveness over political correctness and sociability over psychopathy.) People are not equal. People are not born equally. People have advantages and disadvantages. This is fact. Society should be shaped in a way where objectionally desirable traits are advantages. Currently society is shaped in a way that rewards the lazy minority and the circumstantially rich over the industrious and intelligent. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Nov 4 2009, 10:44 PM Post #67 |
|
Science and Industry
|
The well-being of his offspring can be considered a measure of man’s success, if he chooses to consider it that and chooses to aspire to it.
Please explain how a wealthy heiress is degenerate? A mentally unstable, alcoholic, disloyal woman (whether rich or not), may be a “paragon of degeneration”, but a merely wealthy heiress is not a paragon of degeneration.
The idleness of others may be self-affirming for the lazy but does not affect the morale of the industrious.
This is true in regards to certain affirmative action quotas. But this isn’t true in regards to voluntary economic exchanges, in which capital is constantly transferred from the lazy and the incompetent to the industrious and the intelligent. When a circumstantially rich person spends a million dollars on alcohol, nice clothes, and sports cars, he is losing his capital while all the industrious bartenders, alcohol manufacturers, the clothing-makers and tailors, and the car engineers and car mechanics are gaining capital. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Nov 5 2009, 01:59 AM Post #68 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Fixed that for you. Would any of the industrious not wish to give up their trade in order to exchange places with the undeserving rich? Offer any man a winning lotto ticket and you'll not see it turned down. It is not, in this society, better to be hardworking than to be rich. **** The wealthy heiress represents nothing but the downward spiral of loss of capital (as nicely demonstrated by your original example above). Casually flittering away money does not improve society. Even the movement of capital away from the unworthy heiress to the industrious money makers does little to benefit society when that money is spent on luxuries - it serves only to turn economic production away from products which are useful to man and society and towards unneccessary things (which can only drive up prices of necessities due to decreased supply). As more and more of societies resources are spent pleasing the heiress, the more she rises in esteme. The more she rises in esteme the more "Super-Sweet 16" parties get held - the more women are taught that it is their place to spend money and be spoiled. And when the heiress makes sex tapes, or wears the latest fashions in slut-ware girls are taught to imitate that as well. As for idleness, allow me to counter your point with the words of others: Once upon a time, on a farm in Virginia, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, ‘If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?’ ‘Not I,’ said the cow. ‘Not I,’ said the duck. ‘Not I,’ said the pig. ‘Not I,’ said the goose. ‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. ‘Who will help me reap my wheat?’ asked the little red hen. ‘Not I,’ said the duck. ‘Out of my classification,’ said the pig. ‘I’d lose my seniority,’ said the cow. ‘I’d lose my unemployment compensation,’ said the goose. ‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread. ‘Who will help me bake the bread?’ asked the little red hen. ‘That would be overtime for me,’ said the cow. ‘I’d lose my welfare benefits,’ said the duck. ‘I’m a dropout and never learned how,’ said the pig. ‘If I’m to be the only helper, that’s discrimination,’ said the goose. ‘Then I will do it by myself,’ said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, ‘No, I shall eat all five loaves.’ ‘Excess profits!’ cried the cow. ( Nancy PelosI) ‘Capitalist leech!’ screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer) ‘I demand equal rights!’ yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson) The pig just grunted in disdain. (Jimmy Carter) And they all painted ‘Unfair!’ picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then a government agent came. He said to the little red hen, ‘You must not be so greedy.’ ‘But I earned the bread,’ said the little red hen. ‘Exactly,’ said the agent. ‘That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.’ And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, ‘I am grateful, for now I truly understand.’ But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread, because she joined the ‘party’ and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. ‘Fairness’ had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared … so long as there was free bread that ‘the rich’ were paying for. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 5 2009, 02:07 AM Post #69 |
|
Deleted User
|
and you call yourself a liberal :lol: |
|
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Nov 5 2009, 04:34 AM Post #70 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Is a rich heiress truly undeserving of her inherited wealth? Is a rich heiress any more undeserving of her wealth than a prodigy is undeserving of his superior genes of intelligence, which he inherited from his parents through no effort of his own? Is a rich heiress any more undeserving of her wealth than a beautiful woman is undeserving of her superior genes of beauty, which she inherited from her parents through no effort of her own? In this world, above all else, it is best to make the most of every opportunity you have, whether wealth or genetic advantages or even modest financial security. That does not mean one shouldn't have pity for those who were born with nothing, or who are born with disadvantages and illnesses. Give alms but don't give up the possibility to work for your children's financial well-being, so that they may enjoy more advantages than you did. As an aside - work, labor, and exertion are not the highest ideals and shouldn't be. We only work to emancipate ourselves from work, so that we may have leisure, though for some lucky people their work and their leisure are the same thing. We aren't in the Garden of Eden any more, but we want to get back to it - to the laborless, blissful, infinite existence. That is the only reason the post-Fall civilization exists. That is the only reason for all our toil and technologies and complexities and hassles in life.
How is capital lost in my example? I can only see new capital produced where there was nothing before. I see new factories, new technologies, new arts and crafts, new inventions, new endeavors.
Nag, when capital and productive energy are directed toward luxuries, necessities don't become more expensive. Rather, luxuries become necessities - luxuries become cheap, plentiful, and widely available. But if capital is not directed toward the luxuries, there will be no incentive for profit-driven entrepreneurs to improve, mass-produce, and disseminate those luxuries. 20 years ago you could decry a rich snob buying useless $5,000 computers for his house, when there were children in this world who did not even have access to books! Today you have a computer, possibly many computers, in your home. 100 years ago you could decry the rich enjoying excessively fabulous banquets, while people in the streets starved. Today you can go to an ordinary buffet restaurant and eat better-tasting foods in greater quantities than Kings and Emperors ever did in the past. 400 years ago you could decry the rich wearing breezy, airy garments imported from across oceans, while most people owned a few wool outfits. Today you could wear any type of clothing you want, in any color or style or material you wish. Do you, the respected gentleman from London, England, UK, have supernatural knowledge of what is "unnecessary" and what is "necessary"? Is what is "unnecessary" today "unnecessary" for all time to come and in all possible situations and permutations in all the universe? (Note that if you answer "yes" to these questions I won't hold it against you, since I personally do believe in supernatural knowledge) Are Xbox's necessary? Is beer necessary? Is anything necessary beyond a sleeping bag and tasteless gruel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I said when capital is directed toward "luxuries", the "necessities" don't become more expensive. That's because capital - vast amounts of it - is always directed toward the necessities. Indeed, the necessities have become cheaper and more available than ever. For example, consider that food has become so widely available that humankind entered the most unprecedented, unimaginable population boom in the history of our species!
That is rich. (no pun intended) You have it backwards again. The modern day tabloid slut rises in esteem because certain philosophers such as yourself have made many attempts to rationalize the "sexually liberated" lifestyle with the seemingly respectable veneer of philosophical speculation. Money does not a shit-faced whore make. Instead she is the product of a great sea-change in morality that has occurred. Why is it that upper-class women in past centuries were prudes confined to their homes by their fathers and husbands? How come an upper-class woman in past centuries had people following her all the time to ensure beyond a doubt that she did not stray from her marriage? How come wealth did not notably corrupt upper-class women for 5,000 years?* *with a few isolated temporary exceptions Nag, tabloid heiresses became sluts because you told them that it was OK to. Today it's OK to "experiment with her sexuality". You even got into her daddy's head. You convinced her daddy that he has no right to judge his daughter. You convinced her daddy that he should be proud of her strong-willed daughter. Today it's OK for her to make her own choices about who, and how many, men she will sleep with. Today everything is OK. It has nothing to do with the money.
That story made no sense in the context of what we're discussing. Edited by Tristan da Cunha, Nov 5 2009, 04:45 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Nov 5 2009, 09:01 AM Post #71 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Then open your eyes! It was perfect. |
![]() |
|
| Aelius | Nov 5 2009, 10:56 AM Post #72 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
I think we got threadjacked again. :P Most of what motivates me is just eventually finding happiness and peace and doing what is necessary to get it. I've always wanted to get to the point where I could just travel on a whim with no consequences. Hypothetically, writing and publishing a best-selling novel would be the fastest way to achieve that goal, but not necessarily the easiest. If I can just find a middle-to-upper middle class living with a decent wife and maybe one or two kids and live a life a raise of family without struggle, doing a job that doesn't disgust me, I think I could be pretty content. In a roundabout way, I would guess that the future motivates me. |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Nov 5 2009, 02:57 PM Post #73 |
|
Field Marshal
|
You know what, enough with the fucking hypocrite bullshit. I'm not giving anymore "I'm only human" speeches. |
![]() |
|
| Tristan da Cunha | Nov 5 2009, 03:14 PM Post #74 |
|
Science and Industry
|
Will you also stop giving the "have mercy and forgiveness but if the law would permit then I'm going to break some bones" speeches, or will you keep giving those speeches? |
![]() |
|
| Sedulius | Nov 5 2009, 03:30 PM Post #75 |
|
Field Marshal
|
Point being, everyone has different natures to them. I try to be a good man, but it's hard. There's no need to rub it in. Calling me a hypocrite isn't going to help. I have my own standards. I use those standards to advise others, not to judge others. I would say more, but I don't have time for this. So until next time, anyone who is blatantly trying to anger me, don't. I don't need this right now. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |















11:32 AM Jul 13