10-17-2015, 05:28 PM
(10-17-2015, 05:06 PM)2NaFish Wrote: I said greed should not remain unbridled
You said 'you want to restrict people'.
I said that greed is not a person.
That's how it relates. Greed can be mitigated without restricting people. People don't exist in a vaccum, so no one can ever be left to their own devices. That's impossible.
You haven't said that the only way to influence people is to restrict, true, but it's the only option you've put forward as to how any sort of change is brought about.
Whether it's to directly restrict or is indirectly coercive as a means of bringing change it is still restrictive. You're saying that being more content helps bridle greed, all I've argued is that all consuming greed is a matter for the individual and may not even be apparent to them when in the pursuit of such unbridled greed, therefore awareness of unbridled greed is likely to only come about from outside influence and would therefore be considered coercive.
Unbridled means unrestricted, as soon as you say greed can't be unbridled you are saying that greed must be restricted. I'm not saying you've suggested to what extent this must be done or what methods would be used (something that libertarian parentalism might cover).
My view is that if someone wants to act entirely within self-interest and act with unrestricted greed they should be free to do so and will have no choice but to deal with the consequences of such behaviour.