I’m saying that if you take away people’s incentive to work then they’ll work as little as possible - which will harm society as a whole.
Here’s a question for you, Fenris. Why does Robert’s being a hypocrite invalidate his argument? So he doesn’t practise what he preaches? So what? How does that prove that what he preaches isn’t worth practising? After all, if a serial killer were to craft an argument explaining why murder is wrong, the fact that he’s a hypocrite wouldn’t invalidate the argument, would it?
I really don’t understand what the OP sees in that Little Pony movie; and the fact that his moviegoing causes little babies to die is repulsive. 
OP: Do you ever wonder what happens to the money when someone buys a 100K car? Who gets the money, and what does he do with it?
Go ahead and express your opinions directly.
But don’t be surprised when people you’re calling immoral get offended.
If people agreed with the OP’s notion of moral behaviour, wouldn’t they have that incentive?
The problem, Robert, is that you’ve chosen to adopt a morality that applies to other people. There’s no real ethical stand in declaring that people who happen to spend more money than you do spend too much money. If you want to take a real stand against excessive spending, apply it to your own life. Find something in your life that you are spending money on but that you can live without. Give it up and donate the money to somebody poorer than you are. Then maybe you can ask other people to join you.
No, because while they may agree in theory, it’s damn hard to be a saint 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year. After a while you start cutting corners.
Well, you seem to think that a $100K car is excessive luxury, but I’m guessing that a $30K car would be fine. I am suggesting that you have that attitude because you are surrounded by $30K cars and see them as being normal.
What is different between that and someone else who feels that listening to a storyteller as being normal and going to a theater and seeing a movie as being excessive luxury? You are as much a morally bankrupt asshole as the guy with the 100K car, but that’s OK in your mind, since the $15 movie is something you want and the 100K car isn’t.
And if you are going to attack people, you can’t be surprised when they take a swing back at you, point out your own hypocrisy.
No one needs a $15 movie ticket. For a number of years, I almost never went to the movies - I’d wait until it was available on DVD or tape (!). Now I go maybe three times a year to a real movie theatre. Go to the movies once a month and that’s nearly $200. That will feed someone for a month or two in the U.S. In parts of Asia and Africa, it will feed a family for an entire year.
We don’t have cable, haven’t for years. $100 a month for television! Thats a luxury I don’t need in my life and can think of better things to do with my money. That’s a few months worth of rent over the course of a year.
We can play this game all day, and it comes down to a matter of degrees. To someone living in a aluminum shack in Brazil, a Starbucks latte is an incredible luxury (and another I don’t indulge in myself) and if Americans would only give up their trip through the coffee drive through, we could probably feed the entire slums of Rio. Luxury is just a matter of degree and what you value.
That would seem to be true for any incentive and any job, excluding those who genuinely love what they do, I suppose.
It’s because you haven’t defined “excessive.” Look, kid, you’re out of your league here. Give it up, try to understand what everybody else is saying, and reformulate your philosophy based on additional information. Learn something before shooting your mouth off. And quit sponging off your folks before you call anybody morally corrupt. Your black and white view of things leaves you in the position where you must be an ascetic giving all your time and worldly goods to help the poor if you wish any moral high ground from which to condemn anyone else.
Since when is it immoral to have something that other people don’t?
I have a place to live. Am I acting immorally because I haven’t turned it into a homeless shelter? I have a car. Am I acting immorally because I don’t pick up hitchhikers?
Who is the arbiter of these morals, and why should I give a shit what he or she thinks is moral or not?
Then you state so directly, however you must do so with the awareness that even some people may agree the current society is too materialist/consumerist will disagree with the implication that at some price point (or for some specific category of good or service) luxury becomes per se immoral just by existing. And even more will challenge you on what is that inflection point. Is it absolute or relative to the peron’s income?
Besides, even in our corrupt world there is already a dominant social moral angle that frowns upon living for luxury. If you use your power and wealth to rub it in people’s faces and ostentatiously flaunt your bling, that’s looked down upon. OTOH if you are circumspect and understated about it and put your capital into productive use (both charitable AND investment), that’s respected. But in both cases, the person may be driving the same car, so THAT is not a measure of immorality.
Man. I’ve never been so glad I only spent $99K on my car.
Granted, but working for yourself and for people you know and love is a much bigger motivator than working for strangers, especially strangers you might suspect are perhaps taking advantage of you.
But if people believed in the same moral theory as the OP, wouldn’t that shift their motivations? And the taking advantage of part also wouldn’t seem to be limited to that view. I’ve heard plenty of people say that they don’t believe they’re paid, or treated, by their full worth to their workplace.
So, in the interest of ruling out envy: what do you do for a living? How much do you make?
And in the interest of seeing if you practice what you preach, what percentage of your hard cash do you keep and what percentage do you donate to the poor?
Do you own a car? What kind?
Do you have a cell phone? What kind?
Do you live in a house/apartment? What kind? How many people live there? How many bedrooms?
Do you have a TV? How many?
Do you have cable/FIOS/Dish network? How many channels?
How often do you buy new clothing?
Do you have pets? What do you spend on them?
Where do you buy your food? Supermarket, TJ’s, Whole Foods, farmers’ market?
[/At Midnight reference]
We have a name for that around here.
Once again, your idea of “excess” and my idea of “excess”* are all relative. What about a person who buys a $300 climbing tree for their cat? Or do I really need those diamond earrings, when a pair of cubic zirconia ones will do? Why buy season tickets – I don’t have to go to EVERY game. Seriously, you keep harping on that car. But to someone who’s living in a third world nation, a $15 movie ticket is indeed excess luxury. After all, you could just wait until it comes out on DVD/Blue Ray.
How can I defend it? Because it’s not hurting anyone. Besides, perhaps that person who bought a $100,000 car also donated half a mil to charity, as well as regularly spending his time volunteering with disabled children. What then? Or maybe that car is safer, or more environmentally efficient.
Did anyone here say they were?
You keep saying it’s wrong. But you haven’t shown how it’s wrong, or how it hurts anyone. And there’s a lot of stuff we could do without. But there are far, far more important things to worry about than people buying mega-expensive cars and mansions.
*To me, “excess” is when you start spending money you don’t actually have, going into major debt, or get that money by exploiting others (paying your employees a substandard wage, violating labor laws, cheating customers, etc).