In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Did you read it? Please tell me what the point of the intro sentence is so I don't have to go looking through my phone to find the longer quote and post it here. Both volumes explore the relationship between democracy and equality, including its tensions. But to cite a man's views on limited government, written at a time of great relative equality in a burgeoning new country with plenty of land for the taking, now, at a time when we have academic studies concluding that the US resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy and inequality is reaching record levels is to ignore historical context in favor of political distortion.
Your constant rallying cry against big government is nothing but fear mongering. You baselessly assert that expanded federal redistribution programs lead to suppression of rights and the creation of a dependent class. There's a false equivalence going on here between expanded government surveillance, corporate influence, and police state with relatively benign programs like SNAP and SS. Please explain what those programs, specifically, do to suppress rights without invoking the spectre of 1984 and other legitmately concerning usurpations of power (NSA, military industial complex, financial industrial complex, expanded police state). Your other rallying cry against soft lazy dependents is disconnected from reality. You think government programs create people who are in need of assistance? That if we just never had these programs the needy people would have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps by getting a job? Well let's see. We aren't experiencing a labor shortage by any stretch of the imagination, as unemployment remains high and wages haven't risen since the 70s. It is absurd to think that people receiving government assistance just lack the motivation to make up the difference themselves because they've grown soft in their state of dependency.
When de Tocqueville was writing America had a chronic labor shortage and strog national growth which led to rising wages for workers and plenty of work or land for those who wanted more. The situation now is the polar opposite.
On April 26 2014 13:43 IgnE wrote: Did you read it? Please tell me what the point of the intro sentence is so I don't have to go looking through my phone to find the longer quote and post it here. Both volumes explore the relationship between democracy and equality, including its tensions. But to cite a man's views on limited government, written at a time of great relative equality in a burgeoning new country with plenty of land for the taking, now, at a time when we have academic studies concluding that the US resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy and inequality is reaching record levels is to ignore historical context in favor of political distortion.
Your constant rallying cry against big government is nothing but fear mongering. You baselessly assert that expanded federal redistribution programs lead to suppression of rights and the creation of a dependent class. There's a false equivalence going on here between expanded government surveillance, corporate influence, and police state with relatively benign programs like SNAP and SS. Please explain what those programs, specifically, do to suppress rights without invoking the spectre of 1984 and other legitmately concerning usurpations of power (NSA, military industial complex, financial industrial complex, expanded police state). Your other rallying cry against soft lazy dependents is disconnected from reality. You think government programs create people who are in need of assistance? That if we just never had these programs the needy people would have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps by getting a job? Well let's see. We aren't experiencing a labor shortage by any stretch of the imagination, as unemployment remains high and wages haven't risen since the 70s. It is absurd to think that people receiving government assistance just lack the motivation to make up the difference themselves because they've grown soft in their state of dependency.
When de Tocqueville was writing America had a chronic labor shortage and strog national growth which led to rising wages for workers and plenty of work or land for those who wanted more. The situation now is the polar opposite.
It's like you need to quote chapter and verse of a Marxist interpretation of Alexis de Tocqueville just to try to spin what he wrote. It's not some relationship between democracy and equality, it's how democracy may fail to tyranny if its citizens value security above all else. The preachers of equality of state use that construction to justify the security gained at the cost of liberty and that's how a free citizenry might vote it in. You do the philosopher injustice by asserting his time of writing taints his reasoning. He argues it out, if you would actually view it, from the human condition and the trends of power. "We have academic studies concluding" is the last cry of the man forgetting history that dooms himself to relearn it lessons.
You have quite the cynical view of any writer, like the human mind is enslaved by circumstances and thrashed when they changed. Oh he wrote in this time or that time; therefore he's wrong and we know why! This is the man that wrote, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money" and "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." I guess if you're too far ahead of your time, you're always thought of as a lunatic.
Can you comprehend the idea without trying to twist the historical environment during which he wrote it to avoid answering his argument? I can well guess you consider the soft tyranny he wrote about to not be the present state of affairs. Would you ever recognize a state of affairs where the citizen is the subject and government his king? He is not permitted to choose for himself insurance of one kind, but for the king's consent. He and his advisors at court are the enlightened rulers and know better. He has contrary views to the King's Edicts, therefore he must pay penance and forfeit his job. He has not valued the King's IOU's, preferring instead sound funding, and must be ostracized for not respecting the crown.
I didn't say he was wrong so much as that you misunderstand him. Although I will point out that at the end of the second volume he decries the demise of the precipitous heights and dismal lows of aristocratic societies before coming around and saying that the rough equality in democracy has as its great and beautiful (in god's eyes) virtue of justice.
When I have access to a computer again and his text in front of me I can make a more full-throated defense. He viewed a strong active government as a necessity in a democratic nation and says as much. If you don't think that the relative equality that he seemed to observe was an essential component of the the thriving democracy he describes I'm not sure that you and I are reading the same volumes. He expressly says that it is desirable in democracy to prevent inheritance of wealth so that people rise and fall within a narrower ambit of wealth and prestige on their own merits. To see de Tocqueville quoted by such ardent opponents of wealth and inheritance taxes is incredible.
Many ideas bleed into other sections , for the record.
One of his most famous quotes, which Danglers provided, talks of soft tyranny [volume 2, part 2, ch 6].
Volume 2, part 4, chapter 4:
The attraction of administrative powers to the centre will always be less easy and less rapid under the reign of kings who are still in some way connected with the old aristocratic order, than under new princes, the children of their own achievements, whose birth, prejudices, propensities, and habits appear to bind them indissolubly to the cause of equality. I do not mean that princes of aristocratic origin who live in democratic ages do not attempt to centralize; I believe they apply themselves to that object as diligently as any others. For them, the sole advantages of equality lie in that direction; but their opportunities are less great, because the community, instead of volunteering compliance with their desires, frequently obeys them with reluctance. In democratic communities the rule is that centralization must increase in proportion as the sovereign is less aristocratic. When an ancient race of kings stands at the head of an aristocracy, as the natural prejudices of the sovereign perfectly accord with the natural prejudices of the nobility, the vices inherent in aristocratic communities have a free course, and meet with no corrective. The reverse is the case when the scion of a feudal stock is placed at the head of a democratic people. The sovereign is constantly led, by his education, his habits, and his associations, to adopt sentiments suggested by the inequality of conditions, and the people tend as constantly, by their social condition, to those manners which are engendered by equality. At such times it often happens that the citizens seek to control the central power far less as a tyrannical than as an aristocratical power, and that they persist in the firm defence of their independence, not only because they would remain free, but especially because they are determined to remain equal. A revolution which overthrows an ancient regal family, in order to place men of more recent growth at the head of a democratic people, may temporarily weaken the central power; but however anarchical such a revolution may appear at first, we need not hesitate to predict that its final and certain consequence will be to extend and to secure the prerogatives of that power. The foremost or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle.
Equality isn't bad (he likes it! Though I'm not sure you and him have the same criteria for what is equality, so let's be careful) but it is a tool used to reach despotism.
He preached against permanent classes- something conservatives agree with. His criticisms of the exploitation of industrial workers he viewed as the exception, not the rule [Vol.2, Pt 3, Ch7.]
He also advocated a powerful yet narrow central authority [numerous places, including the cite I gave before:Volume 1, part2, ch 8]- exactly what the Constitution was meant to be after the Articles. He never advocated that people's wealth be taken from them, so far as I know. There should be no guarantee of success. To try and spin him into a high taxing, high regulation advocate just shows you using your very warped lens in viewing him. Just because he didn't like primogeniture doesn't mean he would march the state in to take it.
I think your primary misunderstanding is that he emphasized the citizen of the US, not the state. He talked of many ills, but how were they to be prevented? With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
You could pick out every quote on equality from him and I doubt find any sort of backing for the type of action you want taken.
Thanks for making me look back at my book- I've been itching to read it again.
The attraction of administrative powers to the centre will always be less easy and less rapid under the reign of kings who are still in some way connected with the old aristocratic order, than under new princes, the children of their own achievements, whose birth, prejudices, propensities, and habits appear to bind them indissolubly to the cause of equality. I do not mean that princes of aristocratic origin who live in democratic ages do not attempt to centralize; I believe they apply themselves to that object as diligently as any others. For them, the sole advantages of equality lie in that direction; but their opportunities are less great, because the community, instead of volunteering compliance with their desires, frequently obeys them with reluctance. In democratic communities the rule is that centralization must increase in proportion as the sovereign is less aristocratic. When an ancient race of kings stands at the head of an aristocracy, as the natural prejudices of the sovereign perfectly accord with the natural prejudices of the nobility, the vices inherent in aristocratic communities have a free course, and meet with no corrective. The reverse is the case when the scion of a feudal stock is placed at the head of a democratic people. The sovereign is constantly led, by his education, his habits, and his associations, to adopt sentiments suggested by the inequality of conditions, and the people tend as constantly, by their social condition, to those manners which are engendered by equality. At such times it often happens that the citizens seek to control the central power far less as a tyrannical than as an aristocratical power, and that they persist in the firm defence of their independence, not only because they would remain free, but especially because they are determined to remain equal. A revolution which overthrows an ancient regal family, in order to place men of more recent growth at the head of a democratic people, may temporarily weaken the central power; but however anarchical such a revolution may appear at first, we need not hesitate to predict that its final and certain consequence will be to extend and to secure the prerogatives of that power. The foremost or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle.
Equality isn't bad (he likes it! Though I'm not sure you and him have the same criteria for what is equality, so let's be careful) but it is a tool used to reach despotism.
He preached against permanent classes- something conservatives agree with. His criticisms of the exploitation of industrial workers he viewed as the exception, not the rule [Vol.2, Pt 3, Ch7.]
He also advocated a powerful yet narrow central authority [numerous places, including the cite I gave before:Volume 1, part2, ch 8]- exactly what the Constitution was meant to be after the Articles. He never advocated that people's wealth be taken from them, so far as I know. There should be no guarantee of success. To try and spin him into a high taxing, high regulation advocate just shows you using your very warped lens in viewing him. Just because he didn't like primogeniture doesn't mean he would march the state in to take it.
I think your primary misunderstanding is that he emphasized the citizen of the US, not the state. He talked of many ills, but how were they to be prevented? With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
You could pick out every quote on equality from him and I doubt find any sort of backing for the type of action you want taken.
Thanks for making me look back at my book- I've been itching to read it again.
All reading is an interpretation tho. I've always read Tocqueville as a rich noble kid, who suffered to see the end of his reign (like Balzac in a sense). He clearly considered the desire for equality as the base for any democratic society (does that makes Danglars anti democratic ?), and just find this sloppy argument that, at the end of the road, equality and freedom might conflict.
The attraction of administrative powers to the centre will always be less easy and less rapid under the reign of kings who are still in some way connected with the old aristocratic order, than under new princes, the children of their own achievements, whose birth, prejudices, propensities, and habits appear to bind them indissolubly to the cause of equality. I do not mean that princes of aristocratic origin who live in democratic ages do not attempt to centralize; I believe they apply themselves to that object as diligently as any others. For them, the sole advantages of equality lie in that direction; but their opportunities are less great, because the community, instead of volunteering compliance with their desires, frequently obeys them with reluctance. In democratic communities the rule is that centralization must increase in proportion as the sovereign is less aristocratic. When an ancient race of kings stands at the head of an aristocracy, as the natural prejudices of the sovereign perfectly accord with the natural prejudices of the nobility, the vices inherent in aristocratic communities have a free course, and meet with no corrective. The reverse is the case when the scion of a feudal stock is placed at the head of a democratic people. The sovereign is constantly led, by his education, his habits, and his associations, to adopt sentiments suggested by the inequality of conditions, and the people tend as constantly, by their social condition, to those manners which are engendered by equality. At such times it often happens that the citizens seek to control the central power far less as a tyrannical than as an aristocratical power, and that they persist in the firm defence of their independence, not only because they would remain free, but especially because they are determined to remain equal. A revolution which overthrows an ancient regal family, in order to place men of more recent growth at the head of a democratic people, may temporarily weaken the central power; but however anarchical such a revolution may appear at first, we need not hesitate to predict that its final and certain consequence will be to extend and to secure the prerogatives of that power. The foremost or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle.
Equality isn't bad (he likes it! Though I'm not sure you and him have the same criteria for what is equality, so let's be careful) but it is a tool used to reach despotism.
He preached against permanent classes- something conservatives agree with. His criticisms of the exploitation of industrial workers he viewed as the exception, not the rule [Vol.2, Pt 3, Ch7.]
He also advocated a powerful yet narrow central authority [numerous places, including the cite I gave before:Volume 1, part2, ch 8]- exactly what the Constitution was meant to be after the Articles. He never advocated that people's wealth be taken from them, so far as I know. There should be no guarantee of success. To try and spin him into a high taxing, high regulation advocate just shows you using your very warped lens in viewing him. Just because he didn't like primogeniture doesn't mean he would march the state in to take it.
I think your primary misunderstanding is that he emphasized the citizen of the US, not the state. He talked of many ills, but how were they to be prevented? With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
You could pick out every quote on equality from him and I doubt find any sort of backing for the type of action you want taken.
Thanks for making me look back at my book- I've been itching to read it again.
This argument is completely stupid and is one of the dumbest that was used by neo cons. Never in history socialism and/or equality favored by a government led to despotism.
Most dictators came into power in times of distress and economical problems. Hitler and Stalin (that one wasn't a Marxist and even less a Marxian) didn't have any socialist idea because the core principles of socialism are social justice and a reduction of the inequalities of condition. They were just dictators that used popular slogans and troops to take power. USSR was not a socialist state, you just have to look at the legacy of the soviet nomenclatura (the soviet elite who controlled everything and were living like rich Westerners) : rich Russians spending their money outside of their country while the rest is still in deep shit and can't really get out of it because the social ladder is tough.
Now it's just completely dumb to say that striving for more social justice means dictature; yes some individuals and companies are less powerful, less influential, have less money so the power of the state is bigger and he can control things more. But it doesn't mean despotism because it is the opposite of social justice. Social justice wants to reduce inequalities of condition and status, to reduce inequalities of chances between everyone. And even if the state could be all too powerful, the deciders would still be elected democratically and they would be less likely to be influenced by egoistic forces like the powerful markets or companies (who would be less influential and more controlled), and they would be more likely to act for their country and its people.
On April 26 2014 18:40 Introvert wrote: Many ideas bleed into other sections , for the record.
One of his most famous quotes, which Danglers provided, talks of soft tyranny [volume 2, part 2, ch 6].
Volume 2, part 4, chapter 4:
The attraction of administrative powers to the centre will always be less easy and less rapid under the reign of kings who are still in some way connected with the old aristocratic order, than under new princes, the children of their own achievements, whose birth, prejudices, propensities, and habits appear to bind them indissolubly to the cause of equality. I do not mean that princes of aristocratic origin who live in democratic ages do not attempt to centralize; I believe they apply themselves to that object as diligently as any others. For them, the sole advantages of equality lie in that direction; but their opportunities are less great, because the community, instead of volunteering compliance with their desires, frequently obeys them with reluctance. In democratic communities the rule is that centralization must increase in proportion as the sovereign is less aristocratic. When an ancient race of kings stands at the head of an aristocracy, as the natural prejudices of the sovereign perfectly accord with the natural prejudices of the nobility, the vices inherent in aristocratic communities have a free course, and meet with no corrective. The reverse is the case when the scion of a feudal stock is placed at the head of a democratic people. The sovereign is constantly led, by his education, his habits, and his associations, to adopt sentiments suggested by the inequality of conditions, and the people tend as constantly, by their social condition, to those manners which are engendered by equality. At such times it often happens that the citizens seek to control the central power far less as a tyrannical than as an aristocratical power, and that they persist in the firm defence of their independence, not only because they would remain free, but especially because they are determined to remain equal. A revolution which overthrows an ancient regal family, in order to place men of more recent growth at the head of a democratic people, may temporarily weaken the central power; but however anarchical such a revolution may appear at first, we need not hesitate to predict that its final and certain consequence will be to extend and to secure the prerogatives of that power. The foremost or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle.
Equality isn't bad (he likes it! Though I'm not sure you and him have the same criteria for what is equality, so let's be careful) but it is a tool used to reach despotism.
He preached against permanent classes- something conservatives agree with. His criticisms of the exploitation of industrial workers he viewed as the exception, not the rule [Vol.2, Pt 3, Ch7.]
He also advocated a powerful yet narrow central authority [numerous places, including the cite I gave before:Volume 1, part2, ch 8]- exactly what the Constitution was meant to be after the Articles. He never advocated that people's wealth be taken from them, so far as I know. There should be no guarantee of success. To try and spin him into a high taxing, high regulation advocate just shows you using your very warped lens in viewing him. Just because he didn't like primogeniture doesn't mean he would march the state in to take it.
I think your primary misunderstanding is that he emphasized the citizen of the US, not the state. He talked of many ills, but how were they to be prevented? With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
You could pick out every quote on equality from him and I doubt find any sort of backing for the type of action you want taken.
Thanks for making me look back at my book- I've been itching to read it again.
This argument is completely stupid and is one of the dumbest that was used by neo cons. Never in history socialism and/or equality favored by a government led to despotism.
Most dictators came into power in times of distress and economical problems. Hitler and Stalin (that one wasn't a Marxist and even less a Marxian) didn't have any socialist idea because the core principles of socialism are social justice and a reduction of the inequalities of condition. They were just dictators that used popular slogans and troops to take power. USSR was not a socialist state, you just have to look at the legacy of the soviet nomenclatura (the soviet elite who controlled everything and were living like rich Westerners) : rich Russians spending their money outside of their country.
Now it's just completely dumb to say that striving for more social justice means dictature; yes some individuals and companies are less powerful, less influential, have less money so the power of the state is bigger and he can control things more. But it doesn't mean despotism because it is the opposite of social justice. Social justice wants to reduce inequalities of condition and status, to reduce inequalities of chances between everyone. And even if the state could be all too powerful, the deciders would still be elected democratically and they would be less likely to be influenced by egoistic forces like the powerful markets or companies (who would be less influential and more controlled), and they would be more likely to act for their country and its people.
I don't agree at all, Lenin was a communist, and so was Mao. It's true that they could never achieve what they wanted to, because of some specific problems (war being the biggest). Communism is more than social justice, there is an utopia in communist, going way back to Rousseau, that sees in private property the roots of most problems and wants to reform it. Socialism, at that time, was basically the same, but socialist always had a different point of view on the way to get there.
It is true that the shortcuts that sees any communist or socialist adventure as "despotic" is stupid, but you can't say Lenin was not a communist.
On April 26 2014 18:40 Introvert wrote: Many ideas bleed into other sections , for the record.
One of his most famous quotes, which Danglers provided, talks of soft tyranny [volume 2, part 2, ch 6].
Volume 2, part 4, chapter 4:
The attraction of administrative powers to the centre will always be less easy and less rapid under the reign of kings who are still in some way connected with the old aristocratic order, than under new princes, the children of their own achievements, whose birth, prejudices, propensities, and habits appear to bind them indissolubly to the cause of equality. I do not mean that princes of aristocratic origin who live in democratic ages do not attempt to centralize; I believe they apply themselves to that object as diligently as any others. For them, the sole advantages of equality lie in that direction; but their opportunities are less great, because the community, instead of volunteering compliance with their desires, frequently obeys them with reluctance. In democratic communities the rule is that centralization must increase in proportion as the sovereign is less aristocratic. When an ancient race of kings stands at the head of an aristocracy, as the natural prejudices of the sovereign perfectly accord with the natural prejudices of the nobility, the vices inherent in aristocratic communities have a free course, and meet with no corrective. The reverse is the case when the scion of a feudal stock is placed at the head of a democratic people. The sovereign is constantly led, by his education, his habits, and his associations, to adopt sentiments suggested by the inequality of conditions, and the people tend as constantly, by their social condition, to those manners which are engendered by equality. At such times it often happens that the citizens seek to control the central power far less as a tyrannical than as an aristocratical power, and that they persist in the firm defence of their independence, not only because they would remain free, but especially because they are determined to remain equal. A revolution which overthrows an ancient regal family, in order to place men of more recent growth at the head of a democratic people, may temporarily weaken the central power; but however anarchical such a revolution may appear at first, we need not hesitate to predict that its final and certain consequence will be to extend and to secure the prerogatives of that power. The foremost or indeed the sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced as it were to a single principle.
Equality isn't bad (he likes it! Though I'm not sure you and him have the same criteria for what is equality, so let's be careful) but it is a tool used to reach despotism.
He preached against permanent classes- something conservatives agree with. His criticisms of the exploitation of industrial workers he viewed as the exception, not the rule [Vol.2, Pt 3, Ch7.]
He also advocated a powerful yet narrow central authority [numerous places, including the cite I gave before:Volume 1, part2, ch 8]- exactly what the Constitution was meant to be after the Articles. He never advocated that people's wealth be taken from them, so far as I know. There should be no guarantee of success. To try and spin him into a high taxing, high regulation advocate just shows you using your very warped lens in viewing him. Just because he didn't like primogeniture doesn't mean he would march the state in to take it.
I think your primary misunderstanding is that he emphasized the citizen of the US, not the state. He talked of many ills, but how were they to be prevented? With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
You could pick out every quote on equality from him and I doubt find any sort of backing for the type of action you want taken.
Thanks for making me look back at my book- I've been itching to read it again.
This argument is completely stupid and is one of the dumbest that was used by neo cons. Never in history socialism and/or equality favored by a government led to despotism.
Most dictators came into power in times of distress and economical problems. Hitler and Stalin (that one wasn't a Marxist and even less a Marxian) didn't have any socialist idea because the core principles of socialism are social justice and a reduction of the inequalities of condition. They were just dictators that used popular slogans and troops to take power. USSR was not a socialist state, you just have to look at the legacy of the soviet nomenclatura (the soviet elite who controlled everything and were living like rich Westerners) : rich Russians spending their money outside of their country while the rest is still in deep shit and can't really get out of it because the social ladder is tough.
Now it's just completely dumb to say that striving for more social justice means dictature; yes some individuals and companies are less powerful, less influential, have less money so the power of the state is bigger and he can control things more. But it doesn't mean despotism because it is the opposite of social justice. Social justice wants to reduce inequalities of condition and status, to reduce inequalities of chances between everyone. And even if the state could be all too powerful, the deciders would still be elected democratically and they would be less likely to be influenced by egoistic forces like the powerful markets or companies (who would be less influential and more controlled), and they would be more likely to act for their country and its people.
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism in pursuit of equality? You're in essence declaring bar none that the changes are innocuous, but are blind to their nature. What about the diminishing of the successful people of the economy? They're sacrificed at your altar. You equate some people being less powerful and influential, but you're substituting a far greater master with far advanced powers. These men and women are no less likely to be influenced by egoistic forces; even companies must produce products that people want to buy in order to make money. Your new powerful state has no competition and rules with an iron fist. The leaders are more likely to legislate by the political power of the special interests telling them what to do based on how many votes they may sway for or against them. They are not more likely to act for their country than a CEO, again comparing these leaders before your social justice empowerment to what they exist as after. They still exist as individuals susceptible to the same vices of the aggregate population, with powers better left absent or apportioned amongst the states.
On April 26 2014 22:14 Liquid`Drone wrote: he did say Stalin, not Lenin, and I do believe there are big differences between the two.
Yes, but Stalin just took and pursued what Lenin made. Lenin theorized the idea of "communism of war" and created the infrastructure for it (the tcheka first and foremost, and the goulag) but nobody was able to go back when the state of war ended.
With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
And people wonder why I mention things like this. After a a tirade on how dangerous equality is, you instead support 'A strong moral and religious society.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Are you really trying to suggest that if only more people worshiped bread and wine as literal 'pieces of Jesus' (as in his body and blood) we would be better off than rational attempts to give people a more fair shot?
Believing 'that' is a core tenet of the Catholic religion and if you don't believe it you're not supposed to take communion and by extension not a very good catholic.
I am just flabbergasted that someone would suggest that Catholicism somehow doesn't suffer at minimum the same problems as any attempt at equality, and find it silly after your tirade on the 'dangers of equality'
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism
Can you not see that Catholicism accepts despotism?
Nothing patriarchal about Catholicism though right? Can't say a more 'moral and religious' society (particularly in a catholic vein) bodes well for women who want to be represented in leadership though huh?
I guess you would prefer if the congress (and the Science committee) had more "strong moral and religious" type men like this?
Talk about forgetting history do you guys not remember the Crusades? Yeah religions the solution..../sigh
If California companies want to keep paying their CEO’s a hundred times better than their workers, they could face higher tax rates. A bill to impose higher tax rates on companies with excessively high CEO-to-worker pay ratios passed its first legislative hurdle on Thursday, advancing out of a state Senate committee on a 5-2 vote.
If SB1372 were to become law, which its authors told the Associated Press is unlikely, the state’s current flat-rate corporate income tax would be replaced by a sliding scale. Most companies would pay an income tax rate ranging from 7 percent to 13 percent depending on the ratio between their top executive’s earnings and what their median employee earned in the same year. Financial companies would face a scale from 9 percent to 15 percent.
The high end of those scales would only affect firms that pay their top executives 400 times better than their median employee. The current fixed rates of 10.84 percent for financial firms and 8.84 percent for others would disappear, meaning companies with CEO-to-worker pay ratios below 100 would see a tax cut from the measure. It’s not clear how how many companies would see a tax cut and how many would pay more in California, but nationwide, the ratio between CEO and worker pay has skyrocketed over the past few decades, hitting 273-to-1 in 2012. That data relies upon average pay rather than the median figures that California’s law uses.
The bill’s passage out of committee comes alongside slow-but-ongoing federal efforts to bring transparency and accountability to corporate CEO pay nationwide. A Securities and Exchange Commission rule requiring publicly-owned companies to disclose their pay ratios was finally approved in the fall, but it leaves companies substantial wiggle room in how they calculate the median worker’s compensation. The rule requires only disclosure and features no monetary incentive or penalty to curb pay ratios.
See that sounds to me like a great way of encouraging companies to themselves distribute profits more evenly, which is imo much preferable to redistribution through taxation and government benefits.
On April 27 2014 03:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: See that sounds to me like a great way of encouraging companies to themselves distribute profits more evenly, which is imo much preferable to redistribution through taxation and government benefits.
I think most reasonable people are open to lots of ideas for peaceful (non-tyrannical) corrective forces; it's only the most stubborn among us who refuse to even see a problem, or try to paint any attempt to address the issue as signs of the apocalypse. (<---You can fill in whatever phrase to this tune you want from conservatives/libertarians.[Inevitable 'soft tyranny', Communism, Socialism, 'despotism', 'killing innovation' etc...])
the brand of 'social justice' practiced by bolshevikism is quite distinct. it's antagonistic and warlike in how it characterized the capitalist class. to use this extreme example and paint all 'social justice' as tyranny is just pants on head stupid.
With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
And people wonder why I mention things like this. After a a tirade on how dangerous equality is, you instead support 'A strong moral and religious society.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Are you really trying to suggest that if only more people worshiped bread and wine as literal 'pieces of Jesus' (as in his body and blood) we would be better off than rational attempts to give people a more fair shot?
Believing 'that' is a core tenet of the Catholic religion and if you don't believe it you're not supposed to take communion and by extension not a very good catholic.
I am just flabbergasted that someone would suggest that Catholicism somehow doesn't suffer at minimum the same problems as any attempt at equality, and find it silly after your tirade on the 'dangers of equality'
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism
Can you not see that Catholicism accepts despotism?
Nothing patriarchal about Catholicism though right? Can't say a more 'moral and religious' society (particularly in a catholic vein) bodes well for women who want to be represented in leadership though huh?
I guess you would prefer if the congress (and the Science committee) had more "strong moral and religious" type men like this?
Talk about forgetting history do you guys not remember the Crusades? Yeah religions the solution..../sigh
Somehow it was so predictable that you would jump upon this particular point. I don't know if you have actually read DiA, but if you haven't then there is no reason to respond to the bizarre, irrelevant criticism you posited here.
I suppose you disagree, but it's being claimed by Tocqueville that the Christian set of values (which of course you don't believe them to have, e.g., tolerance, care for their fellow man, avoiding the vices) are a core attribute of the American people that help the republic function, partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires (IgnE, you listening?). The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny. But when a people do this of their own free will it fosters openness. He was not the last to claim this, either.
It's not to say Christianity has a perfect past, but your view is, as usual, incredibly narrow (progressivism has never had any failures, right?). It's like all of your opinions are from things you heard from Bill Maher, or something. You consider your opponents so stupid that it's not even worth your time to understand their side. Which is really too bad, because religious discussion is banned in the thread so you can say these things ad nauseum. It's obnoxious to have to pick out the stuff worth reading from your posts.
You may not believe any of the above, but perhaps you should read the thing before you launch into the same tired routine again. I'll bet you didn't even read the section I cited.
I think most reasonable people are open to lots of ideas for peaceful (non-tyrannical) corrective forces; it's only the most stubborn among us who refuse to even see a problem, or try to paint any attempt to address the issue as signs of the apocalypse. (<---You can fill in whatever phrase to this tune you want from conservatives/libertarians.[Inevitable 'soft tyranny', Communism, Socialism, 'despotism', 'killing innovation' etc...])
I have never painted "any attempt" in the way you describe. I just think your solutions are the ones inevitably resulting in some form and degree of tyranny, while you believe mine won't work (perhaps because they are too small), or that what I advocate is some other sinister form of tyranny. But I've never opposed any fix.
look at your post and see if it's a general statement or not.
your solution just has no amount of thought behind it besides "i don't like more structured solutions. keep the idyllic small town thing alive".
as for this idea of inevitable tyranny, are you saying some kind of effective estate tax coupled with tighter control over shell entities through which people smuggle income overboard, and a tax reform, will lead to great tyranny?
In state capitals across the country, legislators are debating proposals to roll back environmental rules, prodded by industry and advocacy groups eager to curtail regulations aimed at curbing greenhouse gases.
The measures, which have been introduced in about 18 states, lie at the heart of an effort to expand to the state level the battle over fossil fuel and renewable energy. The new rules would trim or abolish climate mandates — including those that require utilities to use solar and wind energy, as well as proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants.
But the campaign — despite its backing from powerful groups such as Americans for Prosperity — has run into a surprising roadblock: the growing political clout of renewable-energy interests, even in rock-ribbed Republican states such as Kansas.
The stage has been set for what one lobbyist called “trench warfare” as moneyed interests on both sides wrestle over some of the strongest regulations for promoting renewable energy. And the issues are likely to surface this fall in the midterm elections, as well, with California billionaire Tom Steyer pouring money into various gubernatorial and state and federal legislative races to back candidates who support tough rules curbing pollution.
The multi-pronged conservative effort to roll back regulations, begun more than a year ago, is supported by a loose, well-funded confederation that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and conservative activist groups such as Americans for Prosperity, a politically active nonprofit organization founded in part by brothers David and Charles Koch. These groups argue that existing government rules violate free-market principles and will ultimately drive up costs for consumers.
On April 27 2014 08:49 oneofthem wrote: look at your post and see if it's a general statement or not.
your solution just has no amount of thought behind it besides "i don't like more structured solutions. keep the idyllic small town thing alive".
as for this idea of inevitable tyranny, are you saying some kind of effective estate tax coupled with tighter control over shell entities through which people smuggle income overboard, and a tax reform, will lead to great tyranny?
What you just posted was a general statement.
But I never claimed to be advocating comprehensive policy, just using certain principles in guiding policy. In my opinion, the states have vast leeway in what they can do constitutionally, so that's why I would move it there. If the great European systems work, then do it in the states. We have states like CA that are bigger than some of these countries, so there it should work, yes? (I don't think so, but I say let them try). De-centralize as much as possible.
As someone who doesn't like cronyism, where the biggest offenders get to make the law, I say we do need good tax reform that simplifies and lower taxes to keep people here, etc. I'm all for going after flat out lawbreakers, but if these moves are legal, than make them illegal, while simplifying taxes.
This might run counter to some conservatives/libertarians, but I would advocate a strictly enforced, yet simple system. No/few loopholes/tax credits, but not 9745165 pages of taxes to be imposed, either. (Some libertarians would argue for loopholes, since in the end it results in the government taking less of someone's money.)
With a just, Judeo-Christian value system, Catholics in particular. (Volume 1, part 2, chapter 9.). Not an all powerful central government. He also considered culture and morality of utmost importance. So much of his book comes back the idea that America needs a strong moral, religious society.
And people wonder why I mention things like this. After a a tirade on how dangerous equality is, you instead support 'A strong moral and religious society.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever" (John 6:53–58).
Are you really trying to suggest that if only more people worshiped bread and wine as literal 'pieces of Jesus' (as in his body and blood) we would be better off than rational attempts to give people a more fair shot?
Believing 'that' is a core tenet of the Catholic religion and if you don't believe it you're not supposed to take communion and by extension not a very good catholic.
I am just flabbergasted that someone would suggest that Catholicism somehow doesn't suffer at minimum the same problems as any attempt at equality, and find it silly after your tirade on the 'dangers of equality'
Can you not see that social justice accepts despotism
Can you not see that Catholicism accepts despotism?
Nothing patriarchal about Catholicism though right? Can't say a more 'moral and religious' society (particularly in a catholic vein) bodes well for women who want to be represented in leadership though huh?
I guess you would prefer if the congress (and the Science committee) had more "strong moral and religious" type men like this?
Talk about forgetting history do you guys not remember the Crusades? Yeah religions the solution..../sigh
Somehow it was so predictable that you would jump upon this particular point. I don't know if you have actually read DiA, but if you haven't then there is no reason to respond to the bizarre, irrelevant criticism you posited here.
I suppose you disagree, but it's being claimed by Tocqueville that the Christian set of values (which of course you don't believe them to have, e.g., tolerance and care for their fellow man) are a core attribute of the American people that help the republic function, partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires (IgnE, you listening?). The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny. But when a people do this of their own free will it fosters openness. He was not the last to claim this, either.
It's not to say Christianity has a perfect past, but your view is, as usual, incredibly narrow (progressivism has never had any failures, right?). It's like all of your opinions are from things you heard from Bill Maher, or something. You consider you opponents so stupid that it's not even worth your time to understand their side. Which is really too bad, because religious discussion is banned in the thread so you can say these things ad nauseum. It's obnoxious to have to pick out the stuff worth reading from your posts.
You may not believe any of the above, but perhaps you should read the thing before you launch into the same tired routine again. I'll bet you didn't even read the section I cited.
I think most reasonable people are open to lots of ideas for peaceful (non-tyrannical) corrective forces; it's only the most stubborn among us who refuse to even see a problem, or try to paint any attempt to address the issue as signs of the apocalypse. (<---You can fill in whatever phrase to this tune you want from conservatives/libertarians.[Inevitable 'soft tyranny', Communism, Socialism, 'despotism', 'killing innovation' etc...])
I have never painted "any attempt" in the way you describe. I just think your solutions are the ones inevitably resulting in some form and degree of tyranny, while you believe mine won't work (perhaps because they are too small), or that what I advocate is some other sinister form of tyranny. But I've never opposed any fix.
America needs a strong moral, religious society.
Yeah what could of led me there?
partially because it helps keep people from acting purely from their base desires...The government cannot enforce this- that's tyranny.
This is always a balance... We don't expect morals to prevent all the things we have police and security forces for...Are all laws and enforcement of them against things like money laundering or extortion tyrannical too? Perhaps financial disclosure and truth-in-advertising laws are tyrannical too Or maybe if a state wants to make it legal the feds can only prosecute if they do it interstate?
To your point religion is a moral crutch. Particularly religions with heavens, hells, intervention, and vengeful gods. The influence of believing in a potential for an eternal reward or punishment, by an omniscient being sitting in judgment over your every action kind of changes the concept of morality anyway. So when it comes to morality I don't think religion should have anything to do with it (It's actually one of the most dangerous aspects of religion ['immorality'])
Your insinuation toward the necessity of religion is a big deal, and you can't just slip it in passing and assume it will just be ignored. Or pretend that you are not using it to support your position implicitly. (You act as if your just analyzing literature as opposed to using it for an argument)
Trust me if there was no religion in politics it wouldn't come up, but the fact that it is cited almost daily by politicians and constituents as justification for various positions means it's currently inseparable. The video I posted is a member of the damn Science Committee?!? If you don't think that's a bit ridiculous you're probably a lost cause anyway.
I actually haven't specifically said I support any particular 'solution' to the issues of inequality (particularly the oligarchical inheritance area).
It was until a few pages ago unsettled that it was anything more than a pointless talking point to mention anything about the oligarchical nature of our government or the reality of the trends of inequality or various other aspects. (probably still is for Jonny and Danglers) It seems you at least see some of that and see inequality as an issue that needs improvement.
I am sincerely curious as to what you think some solutions could be? I just want to see which ones posted here or elsewhere meet your standards for potential solutions? (I'm not looking for a silver bullet just what you think can/should be on the table) I get you want the federal government limited to tax collection and national defense (maybe some other things) I gather? And just that somehow that leads to more equality?
What forms of redistribution do you think are functional on a federal level? What types of solutions do you have to correct the influence of inherited wealth vs earned wealth? I ask to see if there are some things we can agree on?
EPT
