"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message ...
Charles Momsen wrote:


Why is it selfish to want to keep something one has earned and it's not
selfish to want something someone else has earned?


Nope, I'm asking a straight forward question.

No, you asked a rather abstract question.

Usually abstract questions have fairly simple, concise answers. That's
because they deal with principles, not specifics.


Until you add specifics, the question of "ownership" is vague.

Once you understand the meaning of "selfish", which I think you do, the
answer is quite obvious. I believe you know the answer but are trying these
contortions to evade it.


For instance, if you don't pay your taxes do you deserve to own anything?

If you don't own anything, why pay taxes?






You done of very poor job of trying to address the first half while
completely ignoring the second half.

If a burglar breaks into your house, steals your tv, sells it and uses
the money to feed the poor did he commit a crime?

Is that what you're really talking about? If so can you give an example
of of a case where someone claimed it was not a crime?

I tried to be a bit more specific since you had difficulty with
abstractions. I'm just trying to see if you recognize the abstraction of the
principles of law and property. If someone tried to explain the universe to
you, would you ask for at least two examples?



Are you being selfish for wanting your tv back?

Are you being selfish in demanding the burglar be prosecuted?

Ah! So you're advocating for prosecuting BushCo.

No, I'm just trying to understand why people who earn something and want to
keep it are labelled "selfish" and those who haven't earned it but want it
aren't "selfish".



Is it not a crime if you can easily afford a new tv?


So, do you have a real point?

Yes Jeff, I do. Those people who want something they haven't earned are
beyond selfish, they are greedy. They form a majority (mob) and go and take
want they want by force, claiming it is for the betterment of all (but
really themselves). They claim that those who actually create the wealth are
selfish or even worse but yet they hold no moral standard to themselves. My
point is that the original question was intended to show hypocrisy of their
statements and actions. I also believe you knew what my point was it's just
that you had no argument against it. People are selfish and they act in
their own best interest. The problem here is that those "generous" people as
opposed to those "selfish" people are acting in their very short term best
interest - just like polluters do. Dump a barrel of PCB's in the river, no
one will notice and you make a hundred extra bucks. A few years or decades
down the road lawsuits arrive or the polluter's kid is born with a deformed
head, was it worth the hundred bucks?

One more question for you - what was your point?