|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On February 21 2014 04:04 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 23:07 KwarK wrote:
You think the left hate success and want everyone to be poor? I think the left thinks it's alright to look with disdain upon the productive and wealthy because of it but not politically correct to look with disdain upon the people who create no value and are poor because of it.
Not everybody in the left thinks that... People envision the left - and I'm not saying that you do, of course - as some sort of force that seeks to take away money from the wealthy and give it all to poor people. While higher state control almost necessarily will do that, the mechanism of redistribution as well as the degree to which it will occur is highly variable. The typical "everyone in the class gets a C!" argument demonstrates this fundamental misunderstanding.
Personally I find lazy people that neglect to plan for their future and seek ever increasing handouts detestable, and I am swayed by the left quite heavily. Although the left has become more hippy and feminist (third-wave feminist, at that) since socialism and communism have fallen out of style, that doesn't mean there aren't still some people who are more traditionally left.
|
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it.
|
On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it.
I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it).
I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from.
|
On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from.
No I know, but I think this is often on the minds of most American "left". (Since Wolfstan was attempting to describe what the left thinks)
|
On February 21 2014 04:30 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2014 23:20 nunez wrote:@wengandi 'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true. The latest rich dude to compare critiques of inequality to violent National Socialism is venture capitalist Tom Perkins – he of the $150 million yacht and the 5,500 square foot San Francisco penthouse. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal editor, this Silicon Valley billionaire bewailed supposed “parallels” between “fascist Nazi Germany’s war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews” and “the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’” Citing rising angst over tech-driven gentrification in San Francisco, he concluded: “This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” sorucei thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal. here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies. In this ongoing story (which Pando has been aggressively covering), party labels don’t really tell the whole story. For every Republican trying to wield subsidies for the GOP’s anti-union agenda, and for every Democratic official endorsing stadium subsidies and tax handouts to tech companies, there are Republican lawmakers earnestly trying to shut down the most egregious subsidies and there are Democratic lawmakers publicly berating their fellow Democrats for handing out goodies to the corporate class. source Yes, we are more radical, in the sense where radical is defined as 'striking at the root'. However, there were quite a few CL's who were far more radical than most libertarians today (e.g. Dunoyer, Bastiat, etc.). Also, what do you mean economic freedom is the end all be all? Are you saying libertarians don't hold passionate positions on other issues? For instance, libertarians started the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey), Anti-Imperialist League, protests against WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and yes, the Iraqi & Afghanistan Wars. We're bee-line staunch on all issues concerning human liberty. You'll notice that we're as much against the offenses of Nixon as we were Bush and Obama, and Wilson and Lincoln before them. We're not partisan hacks like a lot of so-called 'Progressives' and we understand the true consequences of Progressive policies like say...New Leftists (e.g. Gabriel Kolko, et. al. vis a vis Progressivism as the useful idiot for Corporate crack-down on competition and property rights). Anyways, at least you understand that both parties stand for the same non-sense. Little difference between them. Too many people pay attention to rhetoric and acting. They're conned by the shell-game and are played like rubes. Bicker between your fellow people while they steal all your property and liberties. NSA grows. CIA grows. CFR grows and the regular Joe is squeezed. Police Militarization and increased MIC largesse. Funnel money from around the country into DC and its suburbs. Meanwhile, average Joe in Montana or Idaha, or Vermont, or Maine see less of their property every pay-check. This is the real Class Warfare. Between those who live off taxation, and those who stolen from via taxation. This is the Classical Liberal idea of Class Warfare which was 'stolen' and co-opted by Marxists. Libertarians still believe in the old ideas. Of the tax-parasites, vs. the tax-payers. Between those who wield power and those who have little voice. Those who work for a living and those who live off the work of others (and no voluntary agreements are not *living off the work of others*)
While I agree with much of your disdain for the status quo, your fondness for radical libertarianism based in the Austrian school seems to miss the point. Libertarianism suffers from the same defects of crony capitalism in that power is free to aggrandize and impose its will. I would ask you for some shining practicing exemplars of your philosophy but I don't think you have any. How is your view any different from a brutish Hobbesian world where might makes right?
|
On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from.
The problem is that conservatives tout this like we are some special country where this is a core value and it's easier here than anywhere else. Unfortunately, it's actually harder to do that in the U.S. than in just about every other 1st world country, even Denmark, one of the most socialized and advanced nations in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States
Not only that, but you mention free education and free health care, and, I'm sorry, but you're just way off. People still have to pay for this stuff, and the token "help" that we give people doesn't change the fact that educational and healthcare-related debt crushes a massive part of the U.S. population. Sure, you can give out $2500 in grants, but when it costs $20,000 a year to go to school anyway, those grants don't end up mattering much. And in what world are the extremely poor getting free treatments for cancer, diabetes, long-term physical injuries, and the like?
|
On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from.
Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt.
|
On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from.
But... but, those devilish rich people! How they have more wealth than I, must have acquired them through trampling of poor and weak! Give me some of their wealth because I so deserve it. I am sick and tired of making $10 an hour for the rest of my life!
|
On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt.
The so called "poor" need to get out of US and start living in other countries, especially in SE Asia. Then, they will realize what "poor" really means.
|
On February 21 2014 10:33 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt. The so called "poor" need to get out of US and start living in other countries, especially in SE Asia. Then, they will realize what "poor" really means.
everyone should shut up because their lives could always be worse.
|
On February 21 2014 10:33 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt. The so called "poor" need to get out of US and start living in other countries, especially in SE Asia. Then, they will realize what "poor" really means.
Ah you're one of the smart ones aren't you.
"It's worse elsewhere so why make it better here?"
Impeccable logic.
|
Excellent. You'll know you've gotten through when the language starts to look reminiscent of something Bill the Butcher would say.
|
On February 21 2014 10:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. The problem is that conservatives tout this like we are some special country where this is a core value and it's easier here than anywhere else. Unfortunately, it's actually harder to do that in the U.S. than in just about every other 1st world country, even Denmark, one of the most socialized and advanced nations in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_StatesNot only that, but you mention free education and free health care, and, I'm sorry, but you're just way off. People still have to pay for this stuff, and the token "help" that we give people doesn't change the fact that educational and healthcare-related debt crushes a massive part of the U.S. population. Sure, you can give out $2500 in grants, but when it costs $20,000 a year to go to school anyway, those grants don't end up mattering much. And in what world are the extremely poor getting free treatments for cancer, diabetes, long-term physical injuries, and the like?
You are right that mobility in the US is poor. I'm just saying that people tend to polarize themselves completely when it comes to political topics, and that the polarized leftist opinion that everything that the left wants to fix is in fucking shambles is just not true - and it's not true from the right's view either. As far as education goes, I'm not saying it's free, but there are lots of ways to fund tertiary education as an individual that are commonly ignored (btw 20,000 a year at a state school with no financial aid, maybe. starting at a community college and then spending two years at a university (where you can get finaid) or pursuing a trade are much cheaper). I am of the opinion that tertiary education should be free yet selective, fwiw. And I think healthcare for things like cancer, type 1 diabetes etc should also be free, but there is a lot that is provided for free already that some make out to be a fucking pittance when it is not.
On February 21 2014 10:24 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 09:32 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 09:11 Roe wrote:
Not upon the productive and wealthy, but those who screw over the whole country or their fellow man just to get a few extra bucks. They also look with disdain on those who sit in lavish luxury while there are empoverished dying in the streets, and the rich tell them to work harder. The left in this regard holds human dignity and justice higher than 'liberty' (in Plato's Republic definition). The "war on success" is just a drummed up piece of propaganda used to excuse those with power who misuse it. I think you are going a little too far with the whole "empoverished dying in the streets" thing. There are also objectively plenty of ways for poor people to lift themselves out of poverty in this country, and that's not something that changes whether you are conservative or liberal. Also, arguing for human dignity is kind of misplaced considering that the people now in poverty in the US own cell phones, watch television, have free education (through secondary school, and then benefits like Pell and tuition assistance and third-party scholarships when in tertiary ed), free healthcare (below a certain income level), have many ways to eat and live for a free or reduced cost... I'm not saying these should be taken away, but I'm not saying that the poor in this country are truly suffering either (except for a small portion that either is unable to get help or would rather suffer than not ask for it). I mean, you are not entirely wrong but I think it is best to remember that hyperbole is kind of bad no matter who it comes from. Have you tried living on minimum wage in this country? People who question whether the poor are truly suffering seem to lack a very basic social awareness. Probably because they are insulated in affluent suburban communities financed by mortgage debt.
No. I imagine it would be difficult. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE FIXED but rather that the poor in the US don't really have it that bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, worrying about how to pay your electric bill for the month may seem like a big problem for us, but imagine how trivial that actually is to plenty of other problems. Fact of the matter is that there is always going to be an underclass that is treated worse than part of the population - we can fix things all we want but we can never fix the problem that some people will live better lives than others.
|
On February 21 2014 10:49 Chocolate wrote:
No. I imagine it would be difficult. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE FIXED but rather that the poor in the US don't really have it that bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, worrying about how to pay your electric bill for the month may seem like a big problem for us, but imagine how trivial that actually is to plenty of other problems. Fact of the matter is that there is always going to be an underclass that is treated worse than part of the population - we can fix things all we want but we can never fix the problem that some people will live better lives than others.
And that is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to continued suffering. You are free to throw your hands up in the air and profess apathy, but simply pointing out that "the poor in the US don't really have it that bad" is either incredibly banal or despicably disingenuous. What you really seem to be saying is that you don't think the poor have it bad enough for you personally to care, or for anyone to do anything to rectify the situation. Especially if that something involves upending the comfortable social order you find yourself ensconced in.
It's subtle little arguments like this one that undermine any arguments against change. The order has a vested interest in preserving the status quo, so it's not that surprising to hear such arguments trotted out, but it's difficult to figure out what you are saying if not the obvious platitude: things could always be worse.
|
On February 21 2014 11:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 10:49 Chocolate wrote:
No. I imagine it would be difficult. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE FIXED but rather that the poor in the US don't really have it that bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, worrying about how to pay your electric bill for the month may seem like a big problem for us, but imagine how trivial that actually is to plenty of other problems. Fact of the matter is that there is always going to be an underclass that is treated worse than part of the population - we can fix things all we want but we can never fix the problem that some people will live better lives than others. And that is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to continued suffering. You are free to throw your hands up in the air and profess apathy, but simply pointing out that "the poor in the US don't really have it that bad" is either incredibly banal or despicably disingenuous. What you really seem to be saying is that you don't think the poor have it bad enough for you personally to care, or for anyone to do anything to rectify the situation. Especially if that something involves upending the comfortable social order you find yourself ensconced in. It's subtle little arguments like this one that undermine any arguments against change. The order has a vested interest in preserving the status quo, so it's not that surprising to hear such arguments trotted out, but it's difficult to figure out what you are saying if not the obvious platitude: things could always be worse.
Of course things could always be worse. No, things will never actually get better due to two things: hierarchy and the hedonic treadmill.
Humans, as primates, are inherently hierarchical. There will always be a hierarchy, and this has been based on wealth for quite a while. It's only in the past few hundred years where humans have felt the need to try to address this hierarchy. Living standards have thus increased, but they have only done so in response to increasing living standards from the wealthy. For example, once it became common for upper-middle class boys to get education (upper class was doing it for a while, though), people started clamoring for free and accessible primary, and then secondary, education. Once feeding yourself and acquiring housing became easy for the middle class in the US, the poor desired means of getting this for themselves. Once upper-class women began receiving respect for their ideas and works (though admittedly with some resistance from the old guard), the middle-class women of the time also began demanding respect and power through suffrage and equal rights. Recently, tertiary education became quite available and common among the middle class (of my mother's generation, in the 80's), so employers' standards rose and programs were created to let more and more and more people go to college. And now there are also programs to help poor people get phones. The hedonic treadmill (humans' rapid adjustments to improvements in living condition so as to render them, beyond survival, almost innefective) simply means that the cycle will continue.
There are plenty of other examples such as social security, healthcare, education, etc. that are ongoing.
Basically I wrote this all to illustrate that, while I do think welfare and a universally adequate standard of living are important, people of lower class have always wanted to receive the benefits of people of higher class. It's just human nature. Nobody wants to be on the bottom of the totem pole. However, if you are somehow able to remove yourself from the hedonic adjustment of society I hope you can understand that, with the advent of democracy and widespread suffrage, welfare will never end without a fundamental shift not in the contents of the dole but the reasons that we desire and have a dole in the first place.
Increased welfare and benefits and accessibility is a bandaid solution that the average joe believes will fix something, while yet another problem will invariably rise to take the "solved" problem's place.
|
Pointing out that poor people in the US have it better than poor people in other countries is just sad.
Look at how much wealth the US has compared to those other countries. Liberia has 1/100 as many people as the US, but 1/9000th the wealth.
|
On February 21 2014 11:24 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 11:07 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 10:49 Chocolate wrote:
No. I imagine it would be difficult. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE FIXED but rather that the poor in the US don't really have it that bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, worrying about how to pay your electric bill for the month may seem like a big problem for us, but imagine how trivial that actually is to plenty of other problems. Fact of the matter is that there is always going to be an underclass that is treated worse than part of the population - we can fix things all we want but we can never fix the problem that some people will live better lives than others. And that is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to continued suffering. You are free to throw your hands up in the air and profess apathy, but simply pointing out that "the poor in the US don't really have it that bad" is either incredibly banal or despicably disingenuous. What you really seem to be saying is that you don't think the poor have it bad enough for you personally to care, or for anyone to do anything to rectify the situation. Especially if that something involves upending the comfortable social order you find yourself ensconced in. It's subtle little arguments like this one that undermine any arguments against change. The order has a vested interest in preserving the status quo, so it's not that surprising to hear such arguments trotted out, but it's difficult to figure out what you are saying if not the obvious platitude: things could always be worse. Of course things could always be worse. No, things will never actually get better due to two things: hierarchy and the hedonic treadmill. Humans are inherently hierarchical. There will always be a hierarchy, and this has been based on wealth for quite a while. It's only in the past few hundred years where humans have felt the need to try to address this hierarchy. Living standards have thus increased, but they have only done so in response to increasing living standards from the wealthy. For example, once it became common for upper-middle class boys to get education (upper class was doing it for a while, though), people started clamoring for free and accessible primary, and then secondary, education. Once feeding yourself and acquiring housing became easy for the middle class in the US, the poor desired means of getting this for themselves. Once upper-class women began receiving respect for their ideas and works (though admittedly with some resistance from the old guard), the middle-class women of the time also began demanding respect and power through suffrage and equal rights. Recently, tertiary education became quite available and common among the middle class (of my mother's generation, in the 80's), so employers' standards rose and programs were created to let more and more and more people go to college. And now there are also programs to help poor people get phones. The hedonic treadmill (humans' rapid adjustments to improvements in living condition so as to render them, beyond survival, almost innefective) simply means that the cycle will continue. There are plenty of other examples such as social security, healthcare, education, etc. that are ongoing. Basically I wrote this all to illustrate that, while I do think welfare and a universally adequate standard of living are important, people of lower class have always wanted to receive the benefits of people of higher class. It's just human nature. Nobody wants to be on the bottom of the totem pole. However, if you are somehow able to remove yourself from the hedonic adjustment of society I hope you can understand that, with the advent of democracy and widespread suffrage, welfare will never end without a fundamental shift not in the contents of the dole but the reasons that we desire and have a dole in the first place.
The hedonic treadmill has very little to do with the sorrow and misery of poverty. It has much more to do with the unhappiness present in the rich and very rich. You seem to have conflated a general modern malaise of spirit as the primary complaint against the grinding reality of poverty. This couldn't be further from the truth. To the contrary, maximizing real freedoms substantially increases overall happiness. Doing things like increasing autonomy, mastery, and novelty in people's productive lives does a whole lot towards increasing happiness.
Your argument assumes a kind of fundamental consumerist perspective. I reject that perspective.
|
On February 21 2014 11:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 11:24 Chocolate wrote:On February 21 2014 11:07 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2014 10:49 Chocolate wrote:
No. I imagine it would be difficult. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE FIXED but rather that the poor in the US don't really have it that bad in the grand scheme of things. I mean, worrying about how to pay your electric bill for the month may seem like a big problem for us, but imagine how trivial that actually is to plenty of other problems. Fact of the matter is that there is always going to be an underclass that is treated worse than part of the population - we can fix things all we want but we can never fix the problem that some people will live better lives than others. And that is exactly the kind of attitude that leads to continued suffering. You are free to throw your hands up in the air and profess apathy, but simply pointing out that "the poor in the US don't really have it that bad" is either incredibly banal or despicably disingenuous. What you really seem to be saying is that you don't think the poor have it bad enough for you personally to care, or for anyone to do anything to rectify the situation. Especially if that something involves upending the comfortable social order you find yourself ensconced in. It's subtle little arguments like this one that undermine any arguments against change. The order has a vested interest in preserving the status quo, so it's not that surprising to hear such arguments trotted out, but it's difficult to figure out what you are saying if not the obvious platitude: things could always be worse. Of course things could always be worse. No, things will never actually get better due to two things: hierarchy and the hedonic treadmill. Humans are inherently hierarchical. There will always be a hierarchy, and this has been based on wealth for quite a while. It's only in the past few hundred years where humans have felt the need to try to address this hierarchy. Living standards have thus increased, but they have only done so in response to increasing living standards from the wealthy. For example, once it became common for upper-middle class boys to get education (upper class was doing it for a while, though), people started clamoring for free and accessible primary, and then secondary, education. Once feeding yourself and acquiring housing became easy for the middle class in the US, the poor desired means of getting this for themselves. Once upper-class women began receiving respect for their ideas and works (though admittedly with some resistance from the old guard), the middle-class women of the time also began demanding respect and power through suffrage and equal rights. Recently, tertiary education became quite available and common among the middle class (of my mother's generation, in the 80's), so employers' standards rose and programs were created to let more and more and more people go to college. And now there are also programs to help poor people get phones. The hedonic treadmill (humans' rapid adjustments to improvements in living condition so as to render them, beyond survival, almost innefective) simply means that the cycle will continue. There are plenty of other examples such as social security, healthcare, education, etc. that are ongoing. Basically I wrote this all to illustrate that, while I do think welfare and a universally adequate standard of living are important, people of lower class have always wanted to receive the benefits of people of higher class. It's just human nature. Nobody wants to be on the bottom of the totem pole. However, if you are somehow able to remove yourself from the hedonic adjustment of society I hope you can understand that, with the advent of democracy and widespread suffrage, welfare will never end without a fundamental shift not in the contents of the dole but the reasons that we desire and have a dole in the first place. The hedonic treadmill has very little to do with the sorrow and misery of poverty. It has much more to do with the unhappiness present in the rich and very rich. You seem to have conflated a general modern malaise of spirit as the primary complaint against the grinding reality of poverty. This couldn't be further from the truth. To the contrary, maximizing real freedoms substantially increases overall happiness. Doing things like increasing autonomy, mastery, and novelty in people's productive lives does a whole lot towards increasing happiness. Your argument assumes a kind of fundamental consumerist perspective. I reject that perspective.
You guys are being a bit hard on Chocolate I think. Chocolate's pointed seemed to be simply that Roe was "going a little too far with the whole 'empoverished dying in the streets' thing," which seems like a fair point to me. Millions of people are struggling to get by in this country, and hunger is a very real problem. However death by starvation is rare in the US and extreme rhetoric doesn't serve either side.
|
On February 21 2014 10:12 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2014 04:30 Wegandi wrote:On February 20 2014 23:20 nunez wrote:@wengandi 'stop saying rich are nazi's' reminded me of this article! godwin's law holds true. The latest rich dude to compare critiques of inequality to violent National Socialism is venture capitalist Tom Perkins – he of the $150 million yacht and the 5,500 square foot San Francisco penthouse. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal editor, this Silicon Valley billionaire bewailed supposed “parallels” between “fascist Nazi Germany’s war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews” and “the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’” Citing rising angst over tech-driven gentrification in San Francisco, he concluded: “This is a very dangerous drift in our American thinking. Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendent ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now?” sorucei thought libertarians were more radical than your classical liberals? economic freedom is the end all be all, unlike your classic liberal. here's a relevant piece on your point on subsidies. In this ongoing story (which Pando has been aggressively covering), party labels don’t really tell the whole story. For every Republican trying to wield subsidies for the GOP’s anti-union agenda, and for every Democratic official endorsing stadium subsidies and tax handouts to tech companies, there are Republican lawmakers earnestly trying to shut down the most egregious subsidies and there are Democratic lawmakers publicly berating their fellow Democrats for handing out goodies to the corporate class. source Yes, we are more radical, in the sense where radical is defined as 'striking at the root'. However, there were quite a few CL's who were far more radical than most libertarians today (e.g. Dunoyer, Bastiat, etc.). Also, what do you mean economic freedom is the end all be all? Are you saying libertarians don't hold passionate positions on other issues? For instance, libertarians started the NAACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorfield_Storey), Anti-Imperialist League, protests against WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and yes, the Iraqi & Afghanistan Wars. We're bee-line staunch on all issues concerning human liberty. You'll notice that we're as much against the offenses of Nixon as we were Bush and Obama, and Wilson and Lincoln before them. We're not partisan hacks like a lot of so-called 'Progressives' and we understand the true consequences of Progressive policies like say...New Leftists (e.g. Gabriel Kolko, et. al. vis a vis Progressivism as the useful idiot for Corporate crack-down on competition and property rights). Anyways, at least you understand that both parties stand for the same non-sense. Little difference between them. Too many people pay attention to rhetoric and acting. They're conned by the shell-game and are played like rubes. Bicker between your fellow people while they steal all your property and liberties. NSA grows. CIA grows. CFR grows and the regular Joe is squeezed. Police Militarization and increased MIC largesse. Funnel money from around the country into DC and its suburbs. Meanwhile, average Joe in Montana or Idaha, or Vermont, or Maine see less of their property every pay-check. This is the real Class Warfare. Between those who live off taxation, and those who stolen from via taxation. This is the Classical Liberal idea of Class Warfare which was 'stolen' and co-opted by Marxists. Libertarians still believe in the old ideas. Of the tax-parasites, vs. the tax-payers. Between those who wield power and those who have little voice. Those who work for a living and those who live off the work of others (and no voluntary agreements are not *living off the work of others*) While I agree with much of your disdain for the status quo, your fondness for radical libertarianism based in the Austrian school seems to miss the point. Libertarianism suffers from the same defects of crony capitalism in that power is free to aggrandize and impose its will. I would ask you for some shining practicing exemplars of your philosophy but I don't think you have any. How is your view any different from a brutish Hobbesian world where might makes right?
Your inability to differentiate voluntary power (consumer preference in market coordination) to involuntary power (politcs, coercion, etc.), leads you to draw erroneous conclusions. Similarly, my fondness for 'radical' libertarianism is based on ethics, morality, and logic, not some slavish deference to a certain school of economics. Not all libertarians are even Austrian. While I do prefer their body of work, methodology, and conclusions, it doesn't follow that my libertarianism comes from this. First and foremost I am a proponent of self-propriety and Non-proviso Lockean homesteading. That's the foundation of my belief, regardless of whatever you may posit as conjecture. Similarly, this means I am a non-consequentialist. While I do believe and it is important that market forces are best at alleviating human suffering and condition, that's not my zeal. I am more concerned with liberty, its ethics and moral foundation, than economic condition. For instance, I'd rather be poor and free, than rich and despotic. As for economics I also happen to enjoy some of the stuff put out by the Public Choice folks too, and hell even some Neo-classicals get it right every now-and-then.
As for shining examples? Why is this important? Or, should I say, relevant? There was a time in the world where every '1st' world country had slaves, and considered them a foundation for societal enrichment. People mocked the classical liberals who espoused market principles to show to people how the human condition could be bettered both materially and spiritually (liberty) by renouncing slavery and its other institutions. At the time there were no countries who were successful without it. Would you crow to them to show you an example of a successful society without slavery? Then pounce and scoff and continue to support said institution 'because it has always been so'? This is a funny remark from Progressives (progressive...lol).
Anyways, there is a continuum of liberty. For instance, legalization is preferable to criminalization, wouldn't you say? More liberty has shown to raise more people out of the dumps than less. So, there is your consequentialist argument.
Also, I just have to laugh at this Hobbes non-sense. Might makes right? Lol...that's the entire premise of the State. Libertarianism is the complete opposite. You need to go to some of your local eminent domain council meetings then you might get some perspective on who is 'might makes right' and who is 'morality trumps might', folks. There's also the little fact that communists, socialists, and other 'leftists' are so quick to label the opposition for death, repression, and persecution. Let me know when you see this from libertarians. The only people we're quick to do so are the people instigating the aggression in the first place (The State and its appendiges). You're free to have communism and socialism in libertarian world, but you can't say the same for communism and socialist worlds letting libertarians have their world. Tolerance? Egalitarianism? Lol.
|
On February 21 2014 11:34 SnipedSoul wrote:
Pointing out that poor people in the US have it better than poor people in other countries is just sad.
Look at how much wealth the US has compared to those other countries. Liberia has 1/100 as many people as the US, but 1/9000th the wealth.
That's the attitude I feel the left frames things, People somewhere else are worse off, and the successful should feel guilty about it. I take the perspective that the US is doing things right and should be a goal worth striving for, and Liberia has some self inflicted, fundamental problems that are keeping them poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
