Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About XV44

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  • Astrology Sign
  • Brain Dominance


  • Interests
    Philosophy, History, Art of War
  • Gender
  • Personal Text
    Vita est militia super terram.-
  1. Everything alright, J?

  2. Would seem so easy to understand: Person A makes 100$ Person B makes 1000$ Apply a flat rate of 10% Person A pays 10$ Person B pays 100$ The person who earns more is paying more anyway as you pointed out. (assuming you close all loopholes and excemptions) What some people call Social justice I call Social resentment/revenge. If we consider that society is a group of beings, each with their own self-interest in mind (the instinct of self preservation that derives from the condition of existing) coming together to enhance their respective self-interests through the benefits of cooperation, it makes little to no sense that anyone would voluntarily agree to enter this agreement under the understanding that he/she would be treated worse simply by "virtue" of achieving financial success/possessing more. The possition implies that you are pre-judged negatively for being successful, or by the ammount of wealth you possess. And this is considered the foundation of a more just and "modern" society? Hmm... It can be called many things, but to call that justice is absurd. In the broader sense of economic objectives, it also begs a variety of questions, not least of which is: if you are judged negatively for achieving financial success, then is the ultimate goal of society and government to promote financial failures? An exercise in the profoundly absurd if you ask me, but the world has seemed unable to get past the issue over the past 200 years.-
  3. http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=4684255&postcount=1904

    What was the pic in the top picture? I didn't manage to see it

  4. How are you, J?

  5. Give me time before i can reply your PM. lots of issues i want to tackle in there

  6. well said, J. Welcome back, and stay longer this time please ;)

  7. I don't think any one person can be deserving or undeserving objectively. It will all depend on the moral filter you wish to apply in order to judge whether someone is within the parameters a given society might deem fit as deserving or undeserving. It's something that varies from culture to culture, and even within a single culture, from one moment in time to another. I am not a believer that there are any objective values in nature, which is not to say that we don't need to create them. We would not be able to have an organized society otherwise, but it's really just a construct which a sufficient ammount of people agree to abide by. On the other hand, there are given points at which these constructs do intersect with nature, but mainly from a purely utilitarian perspective. In your example of the lions, they will refuse to help the selfish because that behavior will be the least useful to the group, and therefore it will not add to the chances of survival of the whole. I think this relates more to convenience than to adherence to any ideal though.-
  8. A Socialist? I might as well spread nuclear radiation throughout the earth. No way.-
  9. Embrace privileges, they are only ever transfered by one group to another anyway.-
  10. The perfect political system would be one who's primary aim would be to bring all social classes together, instead of consciously trying to set them against each other (class warfare). Social harmony as the ultimate goal. Essentially, one that could dispense justice regardless of class, something that has proved rather elusive throughout the course of human history. First, because wealth was equated with privilege, and therefore afforded favorable treatment, in so-called "modern" times, the opposite, which is equally bad. (You are judged more harshly for HAVING wealth, where once you were judged for lacking it). Even in the most egalitarian systems there will always be a richer class, and this is something that modern "intellectuals" often fail to account for. There simply cannot be any form of social order without hierarchy, and this inevitably entails some forms of privilege (therefore rupturing any naive notions of perfect equality). As others have said, perhaps the most effective form of government would come from a dictatorship, but good luck finding a benevolent one who will not cater to the snobbery of the rich, nor the resentment of the poor. Nothing good comes from either of those extremes.-
  11. After a quest that took place over a span of 20+ years through several countries and continents, I can safely answer that question: No.-
  12. That makes two of us ;)

  13. Haha, weeeell... ;)

  14. Yeah, the turtleneck just screams "I operate a laser torture chamber 9-5"