The Root of All Evil?

This is what has been said of money in general, all too many times. But is it true? I myself suspect it may be somewhat evident in those who surround my hometown. The majority of the kids that go to my school pride themselves on the fact that mommy and daddy have the money to buy them whatever they want. The parents, quite possibly, can be just as bad. I myself have met a few people who thought simply because they had a greater monetary amount in their bank account, that they had more importance over another human being, does this seem wrong to anyone else besides me? It's kind of sickening how people think nowadays.

This is indeed. Look at us; we're fortunate, able to use computers, go to school, but there are people all over the world starving, dying, struggling; & we do nothing.

That's one point.

Another one is greed. This probably chases back to the natural competition we have with each other as spieces of the human race; but with money nowadays, its absurd. We should help each other [The Communist way:) ]. But just look all the major countries today. America, U.K., Japan, China, etc. etc. all rely on their stock exchanges. Once the economy goes down, it brings down everyone.
We've become too dependent on money.
The world has become a 'I want to make more than you' world. Just look at all the different fields of Business, Commerce, Accountancy, & whatnot.

That's a second point.

However, money has become a world constant in today's age. It is comprehendable all around the world. It is what we use to comment each other and our accomplishments, and others as well.

To sum up my ideas, yes, money is evil. However, as more & more people become educated, especially in this age of education & technology, I believe we will see more of a [I]Left Wing view towards politics.

I disagree, money is not evil. What makes it seem evil is guilt - not greed. The desire to see the starving fed while you have worldly goods doesn't make greed or money evil.

The fact is not everyone is a humanitarian. I work damn hard to take care of myself and my wife. Someday that may include kids of my own. I do not feel guilty nor greedy. Do I wish people were not starving in Africa (and everywhere else), of course.

I would also point out that the left-wing view towards politics has nothing to do with education and income. Most of the time, churches are considered the far right wing and they do more for the needy of the world then any other organization, bar none. My biggest problem with the left is they have no problem taking and spending my earnings. Its one thing to help those in need (mentally ill as and example). Its another to help the lazy (chronically on welfare).

Originally posted by YogsVR4
My biggest problem with the left is they have no problem taking and spending my earnings.

Well, that's with corrupt Communists, like Stalin, and etc. In an ideal society, Communism would insure that everyone has equal opportunities.

Originally posted by NSX


... In an ideal society...

There in lies the problem, there is no such thing as an ideal society, No matter what you try to do, there will always be some form of corruption that disrupts the seemingly undauntable stature of a so called "Perfect place"

Originally posted by boingo82


:rolleyes: If I had a dollar for every time someone said that...

"Money" as we call it is nothing more than a standardized work exchange program. I work at a newspaper. Rather than they pay me by giving me 71,568 newspapers per year as pay (that's what my wage converts to in subscriptions) they pay me in "money", which enables me to trade my work at the newspaper for tangible goods and or services produced elsewhere. Do you have a better idea?? Like maybe we can do things commune-style, everyone doing what they're best at and sharing in the common wealth? Yeah, that'll work. Everyone will just sit around on their lazy asses because there would be no direct incentive for them to work.

Know what's the root of all evil? Life.

I agree with me. :) Like Yogs, my problem with liberals and the people who want to FORCE me to help others, is that while I'm working to produce tangible goods, they are taking my hard-earned money by force, skimming a little off the top, and passing the rest on to those too lazy to get a damn job. Neither the liberals or the bums are contributing to society in a positive manner.

Are 100% of the homeless/welfare people lazy corrupt bastards? No. But the system unfortunately encourages that type of people to remain dependent, so they make up the majority.
It's trickle-down economics. I produce some tangible product, which I get paid for, then I use that money to pay someone else for their product, then they use that money to pay someone else for their product, etc. This is why one of the best things rich people can is to spend their money, because then we ALL get a piece of it. Only right now, the amount of money passed on gets smaller and smaller as it gets taxed with every transaction, and gets spend on "National Horseshoe Month" and other such bullshit.

Many of the poor, starving nations are in such a state because the government imposes such a state on themselves, by overtaxing the population.

Actually, now that I think of your arguments, I see the flaws in mine. You guys are right, money is more like a catalyst. Evil will always exist, it's just that money allows it to be, how do you say, more efficient.

Originally posted by YogsVR4
I disagree, money is not evil. What makes it seem evil is guilt - not greed. The desire to see the starving fed while you have worldly goods doesn't make greed or money evil.

The fact is not everyone is a humanitarian. I work damn hard to take care of myself and my wife. Someday that may include kids of my own. I do not feel guilty nor greedy. Do I wish people were not starving in Africa (and everywhere else), of course.

I would also point out that the left-wing view towards politics has nothing to do with education and income. Most of the time, churches are considered the far right wing and they do more for the needy of the world then any other organization, bar none. My biggest problem with the left is they have no problem taking and spending my earnings. Its one thing to help those in need (mentally ill as and example). Its another to help the lazy (chronically on welfare).

I agree with you, YogsVR4, except on the left wing politics. Your "left wing" democrats would make our slightly right wing Federal Liberal Party look like Communist revolutionaries. I like the quote "The Republicans screw the poor, and the Democrats pretend to be guilty about screwing the poor."

I believe in a social democracy that includes a good free post secondary education, and universal health care. I'm willing to pay higher taxes for these benefits, because it ensures that every citizen will be healthy, and well educated if they choose to be.

When I consider that the people who benefit the most from right wing politics are the people who have more money than they will ever spend, it saddens me. When lower middle class people vote Republican because "The Democrats want to take away their guns, and support freeloaders" it saddens me much more. If you're not grossing more than $1 million a year, the Democrats are much more likely to take care of your interests.

Of course, preventing people who are out of work from getting a free ride is more important than having a high standard of living, isn't it.

Originally posted by boingo82


I agree with me. :) Like Yogs, my problem with liberals and the people who want to FORCE me to help others, is that while I'm working to produce tangible goods, they are taking my hard-earned money by force, skimming a little off the top, and passing the rest on to those too lazy to get a damn job. Neither the liberals or the bums are contributing to society in a positive manner.


By society, you mean everyone, or just the richest 10%? The government doesn't skim anything, except their salaries, which are of little consequence, compared to the money that goes through them. The same is true of the "bums", who are receiving minor handouts to stay alive. I'll compare them with the rich in a minute.

Originally posted by boingo82

It's trickle-down economics. I produce some tangible product, which I get paid for, then I use that money to pay someone else for their product, then they use that money to pay someone else for their product, etc. This is why one of the best things rich people can is to spend their money, because then we ALL get a piece of it. Only right now, the amount of money passed on gets smaller and smaller as it gets taxed with every transaction, and gets spend on "National Horseshoe Month" and other such bullshit.


This is a carefully propagated lie you have been led to believe. You work, and are paid for your work by your employer, who is making more money off of your work than he is paying you for, to make a profit. Fair enough. You spend your money on consumable products, making you a consumer. You labour for money, to buy products. The product goes through a chain of supply of successively richer merchants, each link of which "skims" some money in the form of profit, putting it into their profit. Then it reaches the manufacturer, who actually produces the product. He has his cost to make the product, the gross he makes selling it, and the difference is his profit. His costs are the maintenance of his facilities, wages of his employees, but mostly the raw materials, which in an operation of any major scale, which would be producing the products you consume, will be a major corporation as well.

Every step of this takes some profit, until you hit the oil well where the plastics came from, the mine where the metal came from, and the forests where the wood came from. In essence, the people who are really taking money out of your pocket are not the freeloaders who get $300 a month to cover food, rent, clothing and health care, but the wealthy owners of the corporations that produce the products you consume.

The worst part is, these are the people who have more money than they will ever spend on anything consumable. Instead, they invest their money in making more money, which in a small way helps the economy. These are the same people with a combination of ambition and wealth that have powerful lobbies in the Washington, and make generous contributions to the two political parties in the US. Means, motive, and opportunity.

Now pay close attention to this if you're just skimming.

The basis of the lie is that if we give the rich more money, they will spend it, and this will stimulate the economy. The fact is, they're already spending as much money as they want to. If you give someone with $500 million another $5 million a year, it's not going to influence his spending on consumables in the least. He'll still buy the same Rolls Royce, Ferrari, and new house every 5 years he already does. The difference? He'll have more money. The poor, OTOH, spend every dollar they get, otherwise they wouldn't be poor. If you give someone who makes $30,000 a year, and is $100,000 in debt, $3,000 a year more, he is nearly guaranteed to spend that money, which goes directly back into the economy. Someone on welfare or unemployement insurance is guaranteed to spend every dollar they have, because they aren't given enough to live decently in the first place. Every dollar you give someone on welfare goes DIRECTLY into the economy, which benefits it greatly.

Originally posted by boingo82

Many of the poor, starving nations are in such a state because the government imposes such a state on themselves, by overtaxing the population.

That is an ignorant statement, and it makes me ashamed to be an afluent western person.

BTW, the original quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil"

That is a lot more accurate than "Money is the root of all evil", don't you think?

Originally posted by Cbass
BTW, the original quote is "The love of money is the root of all evil"

That is a lot more accurate than "Money is the root of all evil", don't you think?

Yes it is.
That's what I've just realised.

I think thermodynamics is the root of all evil. Of course, 'evil' is a tricky beast to define. ;)

Originally posted by Cbass
...
By society, you mean everyone, or just the richest 10%? The government doesn't skim anything, except their salaries, which are of little consequence, compared to the money that goes through them. The same is true of the "bums", who are receiving minor handouts to stay alive. I'll compare them with the rich in a minute.


I disagree. By society, I mean that our economic system works via everyone producing tangible goods, services, or ideas, and trading those via money for others' goods, services, or ideas. The people who are solely on pubic aid are not contributing to the economic system by means of production, only by means of spending. Those "minor handouts" aren't so minor when a large number of people are subsisting on them, and I happen to think the gov'm't salaries are of great consequence.

Originally posted by Cbass
...
This is a carefully propagated lie you have been led to believe. You work, and are paid for your work by your employer, who is making more money off of your work than he is paying you for, to make a profit. Fair enough. You spend your money on consumable products, making you a consumer. You labour for money, to buy products. The product goes through a chain of supply of successively richer merchants, each link of which "skims" some money in the form of profit, putting it into their profit. Then it reaches the manufacturer, who actually produces the product. He has his cost to make the product, the gross he makes selling it, and the difference is his profit. His costs are the maintenance of his facilities, wages of his employees, but mostly the raw materials, which in an operation of any major scale, which would be producing the products you consume, will be a major corporation as well.

Every step of this takes some profit, until you hit the oil well where the plastics came from, the mine where the metal came from, and the forests where the wood came from. In essence, the people who are really taking money out of your pocket are not the freeloaders who get $300 a month to cover food, rent, clothing and health care, but the wealthy owners of the corporations that produce the products you consume.

The worst part is, these are the people who have more money than they will ever spend on anything consumable. Instead, they invest their money in making more money, which in a small way helps the economy. These are the same people with a combination of ambition and wealth that have powerful lobbies in the Washington, and make generous contributions to the two political parties in the US. Means, motive, and opportunity.

Now pay close attention to this if you're just skimming.

The basis of the lie is that if we give the rich more money, they will spend it, and this will stimulate the economy. The fact is, they're already spending as much money as they want to. If you give someone with $500 million another $5 million a year, it's not going to influence his spending on consumables in the least. He'll still buy the same Rolls Royce, Ferrari, and new house every 5 years he already does. The difference? He'll have more money. The poor, OTOH, spend every dollar they get, otherwise they wouldn't be poor. If you give someone who makes $30,000 a year, and is $100,000 in debt, $3,000 a year more, he is nearly guaranteed to spend that money, which goes directly back into the economy. Someone on welfare or unemployement insurance is guaranteed to spend every dollar they have, because they aren't given enough to live decently in the first place. Every dollar you give someone on welfare goes DIRECTLY into the economy, which benefits it greatly.
....

I don't have time to argure every single point tonight, I'll try later, but I think you've misunderstood my fundamental argument, which is that we shouldn't GIVE money to anybody. I don't advocate giving money to the rich any more than I advocate giving it to the poor.
I have been that lower percentage, as I was raised in a family of 8 who, in our worst year, made $11,000, and now, in good times, my father makes around $40,000. We never took government aid. My parents carry no debt other than a mortgage which will be paid in a mere 7 years. In the USA, MOST of the poor that I have encountered are not poor because they don't get enough handouts, they are poor because they are frivolous and bad at managing money. I have had quite a few personal experiences with this type of people.

Originally posted by Cbass
...
That is an ignorant statement, and it makes me ashamed to be an afluent western person.

Must be nice. :)

Originally posted by boingo82


I disagree. By society, I mean that our economic system works via everyone producing tangible goods, services, or ideas, and trading those via money for others' goods, services, or ideas. The people who are solely on pubic aid are not contributing to the economic system by means of production, only by means of spending. Those "minor handouts" aren't so minor when a large number of people are subsisting on them, and I happen to think the gov'm't salaries are of great consequence.


But they are contributing, they are just a middle man in the government subsidizing industry, and a rather minor one, considering the scale of US gov't subsidies.

I believe one of the fundamental things that makes us human is how we take care of our fellow man, whether they be starving, sick, or disadvantaged to the point where they cannot support themselves. What sort of people would we be if we let the unemployed starve to death on the street?

Originally posted by boingo82

I don't have time to argure every single point tonight, I'll try later, but I think you've misunderstood my fundamental argument, which is that we shouldn't GIVE money to anybody. I don't advocate giving money to the rich any more than I advocate giving it to the poor.
I have been that lower percentage, as I was raised in a family of 8 who, in our worst year, made $11,000, and now, in good times, my father makes around $40,000. We never took government aid. My parents carry no debt other than a mortgage which will be paid in a mere 7 years. In the USA, MOST of the poor that I have encountered are not poor because they don't get enough handouts, they are poor because they are frivolous and bad at managing money. I have had quite a few personal experiences with this type of people.


While your ideals may be that everyone takes care of themself, when you get laid off, and you run out of EI because their are not enough jobs, and your economy is in a recession, it would be nice to have a $300 check to at least keep a roof over your head, and food in your stomach, wouldn't it? These "handouts" are not there so that the poor can become middle class, they are there to keep the poor from starving and resorting to knocking over convenience stores and robbing little old ladies, which is what they would do, if they were starving to death on the street.

I grew up poor too, with 2 brothers. My parents worked hard to support us, and now in their 50s, they have a net worth of $30K in Canadian dollars, which is about $20K USD. They have never taken goverment aid, but they are poor.

Originally posted by boingo82

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cbass
...
That is an ignorant statement, and it makes me ashamed to be an afluent western person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Must be nice. :)

It is, and you should appreciate it. You have a place to live, food to eat, a car to drive... What more could you ask for? Jewelery, a nicer car? A bigger house? You don't have to sew clothes together for 50 cents an hour, and you should count youself lucky for that.

Originally posted by Cbass
But they are contributing, they are just a middle man in the government subsidizing industry, and a rather minor one, considering the scale of US gov't subsidies.

I believe one of the fundamental things that makes us human is how we take care of our fellow man, whether they be starving, sick, or disadvantaged to the point where they cannot support themselves. What sort of people would we be if we let the unemployed starve to death on the street?

I agree that it is constructive for people to help their neighbors, friends, and relatives in tough times, but I'd prefer to see charity administrated at a local level, rather than national. That way, for the donater, they take pride in their donation as they see it doing good. And for the donatee, since they are being helped directly at a local level, they appreciate the donation more. They also feel more obligated to help others once they're back on their feet. People have a much easier time taking charity from a faceless government than from their neighbors, and this also encourages those who are able to help themselves out of a bad situation. In addition, it would be easier to administer help in the form of helping the people obtain jobs, homes, etc. Pouring money on poor people may help the problem on the surface, but does not prevent it from happening again.

Originally posted by Cbass
While your ideals may be that everyone takes care of themself, when you get laid off, and you run out of EI because their are not enough jobs, and your economy is in a recession, it would be nice to have a $300 check to at least keep a roof over your head, and food in your stomach, wouldn't it? These "handouts" are not there so that the poor can become middle class, they are there to keep the poor from starving and resorting to knocking over convenience stores and robbing little old ladies, which is what they would do, if they were starving to death on the street.
...

The problem here is that that $300 check has to come from somewhere, and it is being indirectly stolen from the convenience store owners and the little old ladies, as it is being taken by force. The biggest problem I have with the welfare system today, is that it does not encourage people to solve their problems at the base level, which is that they don't have a job, or a good-enough paying job because of _______, or can't manage their money because they haven't learned how, etc. Instead it tries to solve the secondary problem, which does not prevent the situation.

Originally posted by Cbass
It is, and you should appreciate it. You have a place to live, food to eat, a car to drive... What more could you ask for? Jewelery, a nicer car? A bigger house? You don't have to sew clothes together for 50 cents an hour, and you should count youself lucky for that.

Don't you dare think for a second that I'm not grateful for where I am. The bulk of the time I was growing up, I did not know how poor we were. I thought my mom was a tightwad (she had to be) because there were periods when I'd go 3-4 years without new clothes. All our clothes were purchased at garage sales, handed down from neighbors or relatives, or given by relatives as xmas/bday presents. My parents drove the same car for 14 years and I didn't know why. Only recently did I find out how bad it really was and it only deepened my admiration for my parents. I aim to be like them. By spending money carefully my dad now stretches an income that's considered low enough for free school lunches, and the family lives well. They have 1997 and 2001 cars, paid with cash. They have only 7 years left on the mortgage for their house, and own another house outright (a fixer-upper). I am working towards paying off my high-interest car loan (I wanted to finance on my own credit) and have been entirely self-sufficient since the age of 18. I paid for my last car, cash, with money I'd earned working after school. My point is, I'm working hard to make it on my own, and I appreciate what I've got, BECAUSE I worked hard for it.

Originally posted by boingo82


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cbass
But they are contributing, they are just a middle man in the government subsidizing industry, and a rather minor one, considering the scale of US gov't subsidies.

I believe one of the fundamental things that makes us human is how we take care of our fellow man, whether they be starving, sick, or disadvantaged to the point where they cannot support themselves. What sort of people would we be if we let the unemployed starve to death on the street?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree that it is constructive for people to help their neighbors, friends, and relatives in tough times, but I'd prefer to see charity administrated at a local level, rather than national. That way, for the donater, they take pride in their donation as they see it doing good. And for the donatee, since they are being helped directly at a local level, they appreciate the donation more. They also feel more obligated to help others once they're back on their feet. People have a much easier time taking charity from a faceless government than from their neighbors, and this also encourages those who are able to help themselves out of a bad situation. In addition, it would be easier to administer help in the form of helping the people obtain jobs, homes, etc. Pouring money on poor people may help the problem on the surface, but does not prevent it from happening again.


That would be admirable to see, but not everyone has friends and neighbours they can ask for help in tough times. Gov't welfare really isn't taking money out of the goverment, it's like the government subsidizing the economy by putting money back into it. People on welfare don't have enough money to waste it.

I come from Canada, and I know quite a few people on welfare. While it's true that some are deadbeats, the overwhelming majority are people in hard times. 2 million jobs have disappeared in the US in the last few years, and have not been replaced. That's the net change, 2 million full time positions. There just aren't enough jobs to support everyone, which is why it is the duty of those of us who do work to help the little guy, even if it's just by a little.

It's not pouring money on them, it's giving them a chance. A chance to find work, so that they don't starve. It's not likely they'll be getting a job if they're living on the street and eating out of dumpsters and soup kitchens.

Originally posted by boingo82

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cbass
While your ideals may be that everyone takes care of themself, when you get laid off, and you run out of EI because their are not enough jobs, and your economy is in a recession, it would be nice to have a $300 check to at least keep a roof over your head, and food in your stomach, wouldn't it? These "handouts" are not there so that the poor can become middle class, they are there to keep the poor from starving and resorting to knocking over convenience stores and robbing little old ladies, which is what they would do, if they were starving to death on the street.
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The problem here is that that $300 check has to come from somewhere, and it is being indirectly stolen from the convenience store owners and the little old ladies, as it is being taken by force. The biggest problem I have with the welfare system today, is that it does not encourage people to solve their problems at the base level, which is that they don't have a job, or a good-enough paying job because of _______, or can't manage their money because they haven't learned how, etc. Instead it tries to solve the secondary problem, which does not prevent the situation.


Yes, that check has to come from taxes collected from the people, but think of it as insurance, if you're out of work, you can either have friends support you, which is a lot to ask of them, go on welfare, or you can starve. I'd rather go on welfare, considering my friends hardly have enough to support themselves.

Being on welfare is not pleasant, and you can be assured most people on it are quite motivated to find work. The problem is, it's hard to find work when there isn't enough to go around. You are pretty much guaranteed a certain percentage of people are going to have to be on welfare. It's the reality of the system. They are not capable of solving the primary problem, because they have no impact on the economy, which is what has put them in this position in the first place.

Originally posted by boingo82

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cbass
It is, and you should appreciate it. You have a place to live, food to eat, a car to drive... What more could you ask for? Jewelery, a nicer car? A bigger house? You don't have to sew clothes together for 50 cents an hour, and you should count youself lucky for that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't you dare think for a second that I'm not grateful for where I am. The bulk of the time I was growing up, I did not know how poor we were. I thought my mom was a tightwad (she had to be) because there were periods when I'd go 3-4 years without new clothes. All our clothes were purchased at garage sales, handed down from neighbors or relatives, or given by relatives as xmas/bday presents. My parents drove the same car for 14 years and I didn't know why. Only recently did I find out how bad it really was and it only deepened my admiration for my parents. I aim to be like them. By spending money carefully my dad now stretches an income that's considered low enough for free school lunches, and the family lives well. They have 1997 and 2001 cars, paid with cash. They have only 7 years left on the mortgage for their house, and own another house outright (a fixer-upper). I am working towards paying off my high-interest car loan (I wanted to finance on my own credit) and have been entirely self-sufficient since the age of 18. I paid for my last car, cash, with money I'd earned working after school. My point is, I'm working hard to make it on my own, and I appreciate what I've got, BECAUSE I worked hard for it.


That wasn't my point, I'm sure you have worked your ass off to get where you are, as did your parents. My point was that even by our poverty standards, your parents and yourself had better opportunities than 95% of people in developing countries. You have the opportunity to work at a job that pays enough for you to own a car, rent a home, and buy all the luxuries you currently enjoy.

I personally think that the root of all evil is ourselves. It all depends on what we think and do.

I personally think that "Evil" is a ridiculous concept... nothing is inherently evil.

Everything is relative...

I believe that envy is the root of conflict. May it be envy for material goods or intangible qualities such as reputation or physical appearances, it is in my belief that envy is the motive for 'evil' actions. As stated in earlier posts, evil is relative and is subjective to any one point of view. Personal life experiences shape such perceptions.

However, envy may not be such a bad thing. Let me qualify my point. Envy allows oneself to reexamine themself in terms of goals and ambitions. These coupled with perseverence may drive one to better themselves.

I also agree that nothing is for free and that Welfare should not be a 'free lunch'. People are smart and will learn to 'work' the system in their favor. In my opinion, the concept of Welfare is fundamentally flawed. The government provides subsidies to 'underpriviledged' individuals who may not necessarily have to 'produce' anything to receive such aid. The government is effectively rewarding such actions by providing aid to those that are doing nothing more but just sit at home and recieve a check. You have to 'reward' those that are constructively bettering themselve and moving along a path towards financial independence.

Reward the desired action or response. One example of rewarding the wrong behavior would be to look at the recent stock scandals on Wall Street. The compensation that the CEOs receive are based largely in part on stock options. The premise for this is to align the CEO's interests to that of the company. As we all know, the stock market is always in a state of flux. Given that stock prices should reflect the financial health of the coropration, one must realize that the stock price is only a financial snapshot of the company in any given point in time. With this reward system set in place, the focus for the CEOs shift not on the long term health of the company, but on short term gains of the company's stock price (resulting in our affectionately coined 'Enron Syndrome'). Tying this example to Welfare, reward the action that you desire. In this case, grant aid to those proven to utilize that aid towards financial independence. The govenment is merely addressing a symptom of financial distress by providing monteary aid while mildly addressing any root cause.

In my province, the government makes you jump through hoops for welfare. They need proof that you are attending their job search programs, and looking for work.

The best thing the goverment can do to help people find work is to actually set up programs that provide them with jobs.

Originally posted by appleseed
I believe that envy is the root of conflict. May it be envy for material goods or intangible qualities such as reputation or physical appearances, it is in my belief that envy is the motive for 'evil' actions. As stated in earlier posts, evil is relative and is subjective to any one point of view. Personal life experiences shape such perceptions.

However, envy may not be such a bad thing. Let me qualify my point. Envy allows oneself to reexamine themself in terms of goals and ambitions. These coupled with perseverence may drive one to better themselves.

I also agree that nothing is for free and that Welfare should not be a 'free lunch'. People are smart and will learn to 'work' the system in their favor. In my opinion, the concept of Welfare is fundamentally flawed. The government provides subsidies to 'underpriviledged' individuals who may not necessarily have to 'produce' anything to receive such aid. The government is effectively rewarding such actions by providing aid to those that are doing nothing more but just sit at home and recieve a check. You have to 'reward' those that are constructively bettering themselve and moving along a path towards financial independence.

Reward the desired action or response. One example of rewarding the wrong behavior would be to look at the recent stock scandals on Wall Street. The compensation that the CEOs receive are based largely in part on stock options. The premise for this is to align the CEO's interests to that of the company. As we all know, the stock market is always in a state of flux. Given that stock prices should reflect the financial health of the coropration, one must realize that the stock price is only a financial snapshot of the company in any given point in time. With this reward system set in place, the focus for the CEOs shift not on the long term health of the company, but on short term gains of the company's stock price (resulting in our affectionately coined 'Enron Syndrome'). Tying this example to Welfare, reward the action that you desire. In this case, grant aid to those proven to utilize that aid towards financial independence. The govenment is merely addressing a symptom of financial distress by providing monteary aid while mildly addressing any root cause.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say, only you've expressed it so much more eloquently. Thank you.

i agree with Cbass there realy is no purely evil thing
money isnt the root of all evil
money is the root of all stupidity

Originally posted by Cbass
I personally think that "Evil" is a ridiculous concept... nothing is inherently evil.

Everything is relative...

Indeed, anything can be viewed as evil by any one person, but he/she cannot say directly so that it in fact IS evil. It all comes down to opinions.

humans are the root of all evil..
we are the ones who cause it.. and the ones who judge what evil is..