|
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 27 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +I care about wealth because I have empathy for and understand the plight of the working poor. Economic exploitation takes a serious toll on life satisfaction and health. I am for a fully human life experience, one that values reproductive life endeavors as much as productive ones. That requires a world where people aren't constantly selling their labor for slave wages so that capitalists can reap the surplus wealth. People who are worked into the ground, pinching every penny, and dulling their pain with alcohol, cheap sugar, and other drugs, are not able to contribute to the flowering of society. You fail to understand that people working 2 or 3 jobs don't have the energy or time to cultivate a good life. That is not freedom at all. Freedom is a commodity that is bought and sold on the markets just like everything else. If you win the birth lottery you have the resources and opportunity to buy some measure of freedom such that you aren't constantly working soulless jobs just to make ends meet. If there was any summary of the two sides in this argument, it really stems from the bolded part. I hear people like you say quite compassionately that they empathize with the poor--understand aspects of their plight and day-to-day life. I wonder then why they suggest policies that hurt the poor, that keep more people poor compared to the lack of the policies, that reflect callousness to the disastrous effects of those policies. In many conversations on my alternate ideas, the accusation surfaces that mine reveal personal indifference to the plight of the poor, and an apathetic worldview. I saw the Zizek earlier, so maybe I may put in this: One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results... The people who go around talking about their soft heart — I share their — I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have.
The problem with the idea to judge a policy by its result is that : results are up to negociations. You're the biggest exemple of that, as most of your points are based on false empirical observations (but you don't care). Everything you say is alwsays tainted with an ideological background, and altho you try to put it in a mantle of objectivity, you always tend to distort reality.
For exemple, implying that everything that goes with the state is hurting the poor, while the US is both the occidental country with the least developped welfare and the highest poverty rate : "but who fucking cares, I tell you ACA (you can change obamacare with any other governmental initiative here) will hurt you !".
When you study something in detail you see that everything is always made up, in part at least, as human behavior does not follow rules and objectivity or rationality is only "a flashlight in an eternity of darkness" (I don't remember the exact deleuze quote but it's close to that). Is it really the state that is responsible for this unemployment ? Debt ? Or anything else ? Fact is, most of the time it's not entirely possible to rationally explain the cause of any social fact. In all that, values are the only rock you'll only get in life, so let's judge intentions, despite their irrationality.
I prefer someone who has value and who stick to them rather than someone that present me death as the best, objective and (economically) rational way to give healthcare to everyone.
|
On February 27 2014 19:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2014 18:46 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2014 18:23 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2014 17:48 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2014 17:36 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2014 17:30 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2014 17:22 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2014 17:14 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2014 17:09 IgnE wrote:On February 27 2014 17:03 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
We've gone over this before. Everything you want requires a powerful state. I know that working 3 jobs leaves you no time for anything else. My point is that the state isn't going to improve the situation.
Things will get better if we take the right approach, obviously. I am not of the illusion that things necessarily move "forward." The progressive movement has taught us this much, not to mention the rest of human history.
When it comes to the "hellholes," I'd say that getting involved with the world economy is a good way out of poverty. Not dropping things on them. "Here you go!" Everyone strives to do better, if someone judges that to be wealth and you take it from them, then what is the incentive? What is the incentive on the part of the recipient? What % of blacks in this country are still on welfare? A better economy does them good, not an endless line of care packages.
So that's really the point. You haven't talked much about government, but it's the only mechanism for achieving your goals. Thus, it is highly relevant to the discussion. That's why I say that what you want, even if I agreed with it philosophically, would be impossible to do. That's false, a confederation of revolutionary individuals would serve just as well as a government. If that were true, they would never stay that way. Some sort of structure would emerge. You think we could redistribute wealth from the entire Western world without some sort of governmental structure? I think we've reached the terminus of this conversation. When we start talking about a (presumably large) number of (hopefully) nonviolent revolutionaries, there doesn't seem like much more to talk about... I am curious how you think this would actually work, however. I would maintain that even were such an event to occur, some sort of government or managing body would emerge, and it must have enormous power. That would place us back in the same predicament. You are conflating corruption of government with the contradictions of capital. It confuses a lot of people. ok, then enlighten me. I'm saying that all governments are prone to increase their own power and are subject to corruption. Whether they can be corrupted with cash or with teddy bears won't change the one way slide to totalitarianism that every government slowly goes for. There will never be a government (or a large enough set of individuals) to enforce this system without having it increase in size and power. How could you think otherwise? So when I referenced anarcho-syndicalism earlier you had no idea what I was talking about? What about social anarchism? You are missing like some basic concepts in your political vocabulary. I forgot about that. In previous conversations we have discussed government, and you seemed to defend its role. But my point was that it doesn't matter. ANY power structure is going to work for it's own good. And a power structure always will emerge. We are back to these models that (I personally think) are impossible. People are flawed and ambitious, so every theory is unworkable in the long run, and must be re-tooled. But it seems to me that those systems which emphasize less action on the part of the governing body will be the best, even if they don't last as long. Like democracies. Even true anarchy itself is only possible for a short time, as someone will always arise to lead and establish order. People are flawed, ambitious, and like order. All of these things will thus carry out to any structure designed by men. It's what makes governing bodies both necessary and dangerous. Edit: if you want to keep asking me about particular theories, then there isn't much to say. It's not really part of current discourse... bringing up a whole bunch of other ideologies you might not even like isn't helpful. You don't seem to know much about them and so you are missing the point. Here is your argumentation so far: Liberals wants us all to have equal wealth. But government is bad, and I think we should be able to strive for great wealth. I say: Your political and economic framework is immoral, billions of people are cursed to economic slavery, brains and lives are being wasted. You say: But government. It's bad. The only solution is less of it. I say: There are plenty of viable political frameworks that aren't monolithic guardians of capitalism and that are based on more just principles to save billions of people from grinding poverty, while providing greater freedom for people to be more fully human. You say: But all power structures are eventually corrupted. I want democracy because . . . it's corrupt too. But it's what we got so let's just stick with it. . . . You argue for anarchism before saying that anarchism eventually morphs into not-anarchism. Therefore let's do nothing. This is working well enough. But it's not working well enough. The system is broken. You can't argue that we can't change anything because all government is bad. You want just enough anarchism so that you can hold onto your private property, barricade yourself in your walled exurb, and live comfortably, while the wailing of the unfortunate is drowned out by mindless distractions. You should just come right out and say that you don't mind the violence of economic exploitation, so long as we have a government strong enough to protect those who own things. You shun actual physical violence, while perpetuating slavery. It's a nice interpretation of Rousseau's "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Anarcho-syndicalism is democratic. Social anarchism is democratic. People have direct input into the community decisions that affect them. This isn't about government per se. This is about the economic assumptions that undergird every single thought you seem to have. I know it's hard to imagine a world where the mode of production is different from the American-led, but not entirely American-practiced, neoliberalism of the last 30 years, but you really lack imagination here. On February 27 2014 18:16 Danglars wrote:I care about wealth because I have empathy for and understand the plight of the working poor. Economic exploitation takes a serious toll on life satisfaction and health. I am for a fully human life experience, one that values reproductive life endeavors as much as productive ones. That requires a world where people aren't constantly selling their labor for slave wages so that capitalists can reap the surplus wealth. People who are worked into the ground, pinching every penny, and dulling their pain with alcohol, cheap sugar, and other drugs, are not able to contribute to the flowering of society. You fail to understand that people working 2 or 3 jobs don't have the energy or time to cultivate a good life. That is not freedom at all. Freedom is a commodity that is bought and sold on the markets just like everything else. If you win the birth lottery you have the resources and opportunity to buy some measure of freedom such that you aren't constantly working soulless jobs just to make ends meet. If there was any summary of the two sides in this argument, it really stems from the bolded part. I hear people like you say quite compassionately that they empathize with the poor--understand aspects of their plight and day-to-day life. I wonder then why they suggest policies that hurt the poor, that keep more people poor compared to the lack of the policies, that reflect callousness to the disastrous effects of those policies. In many conversations on my alternate ideas, the accusation surfaces that mine reveal personal indifference to the plight of the poor, and an apathetic worldview. I saw the Zizek earlier, so maybe I may put in this: One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results... The people who go around talking about their soft heart — I share their — I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well, because the fact is that the programs that are labeled as being for the poor, for the needy, almost always have effects exactly the opposite of those which their well-intentioned sponsors intend them to have. That's just the Fox news mis-summary of what you think I've been saying because you weren't really listening. If that's all you took from my argument then this is hopeless. My primary point was that what you want is impossible. My secondary point is that wealth is not bad. That's a moral judgement and thus there is not much ground to be gained. so when you say I say: There are plenty of viable political frameworks that aren't monolithic guardians of capitalism and that are based on more just principles to save billions of people from grinding poverty, while providing greater freedom for people to be more fully human. You are missing the point. Capitalism is not the point of what I was saying. I am contending that your statement is simply wrong. When you put a structure in place with few rules but lots of "action" going on you are just as subject to a form of tyranny as being under a monarch. I'll keep repeating it because it's relevant: people are flawed, ambitious, and like order. You cannot change this. So a system that ignores these traits is worse than one that doesn't because the end result is worse than the alternative. You argue for anarchism before saying that anarchism eventually morphs into not-anarchism. Therefore let's do nothing. This is working well enough. But it's not working well enough. The system is broken. You can't argue that we can't change anything because all government is bad. You want just enough anarchism so that you can hold onto your private property, barricade yourself in your walled exurb, and live comfortably, while the wailing of the unfortunate is drowned out by mindless distractions. You should just come right out and say that you don't mind the violence of economic exploitation, so long as we have a government strong enough to protect those who own things. You shun actual physical violence, while perpetuating slavery. It's a nice interpretation of Rousseau's "man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
Anarcho-syndicalism is democratic. Social anarchism is democratic. People have direct input into the community decisions that affect them. This isn't about government per se. This is about the economic assumptions that undergird every single thought you seem to have. I know it's hard to imagine a world where the mode of production is different from the American-led, but not entirely American-practiced, neoliberalism of the last 30 years, but you really lack imagination here. I'm not arguing for doing nothing. To the contrary, I'm here arguing for a return to Constitutional principles. So I agree, the system is broken! But why replace it with a more tyrannical and less competent system? One that ignores the flaws inherent in humanity and the problems of mob rule? Here you have the great advantage of idealism vs reality. My view has been more closely followed (though still not followed much recently) than yours. You imagine some place where seemingly everyone is free and works the perfect amount, and the group controls individuals that get in the way. That system is A) prone to corruption more than a Constitutional system, and B) easily susceptible to a single charismatic individual or group that gains popularity in hard times. My arguments are based on a foundational principle of increasing the overall freedoms of humanity. You mean increasing your preferred freedoms of humanity. Where everyone thinks the same and does the same. No real freedom, but at least everyone on earth can afford an iphone! You are the one that seems to think that no other way can lift people from poverty, that it's nothing but exploitation that got us here. Your view is NOT FEASIBLE. You can complain all you want about what we have (I certainly do!) but your solutions simply appear as fantasy that starts out nice but descends to something worse than what we have. Revolution is only tyranny to those who are being overthrown. You can't say that a socialist revolution is necessarily tyranny unless you grant that our constitution is born of tyranny. As for the rest of your arguments you seem to be arguing against communism (stalinism) or something. I can't really discuss anything with you if you think that I'm arguing for some kind of world "where everyone thinks the same and does the same." These aren't really hard concepts to understand. There is literally nothing I've said that should lead you to believe that I encourage or condone these outlandish claims. It's almost as if someone doesn't agree with what you think, they must all "think the same and do the same, or else they are handled." Notice how I don't use the same argument against you? Except in reality, almost everyone in the west does think the same. You are apparently incapable of imagining an end to capitalism.
Not quite.
I didn't say a revolution IS tyranny by necessity, but that the kind you advocate leads there by virtue of human nature. A revolution that steals from the rich because they earned their wealth by "theft" is tyranny. But are you ok with that? The answer for you is yes, and for me it's no. If you could convince all the rich people that wealth was bad and that they should give it up, fine. Do that.
When I talk about the rest of it I am referring to the idea if uniformity. If someone doesn't share your values, they won't pursue your goals. But to avoid inequality, what people do (and by extension what they value and think) must be constrained in a more narrow box. This seems especially true of a system that purports to be less government and more individual action in the manner that the anarchy-X uses. For everyone to be free yet relatively similar, they must "freely" chose the same thing. That's not going to happen.
|
Just googled anarcho-syndicalism and I find it to be a repulsive pipe dream. The most valuable path to prosperity a government can give its citizens is a strong "rule of law" with proper checks and balances and inclusive democratic process. Better citizens will always win in the long run, no matter you much revolutionaries want to change the rules, hardworking, intelligent, networked, strong, patient people will always come ahead in the game of life.
|
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years.
|
On February 28 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years.
Avoidance of misfortune is not the goal on the right. My concern is protecting the ability to excel, not so much the fear of avoiding misfortune.
An abundance of paths to prosperity are desirable goals allowing citizens to achieve happiness.
If you are smarter than your neighbours, you can succeed.
If you are better looking than others, you can get yours.
If you work harder than your peers you can achieve your goals.
If you are more talented, your can get rich off your strengths.
If you take risks, those risks can yield results.
If you are patient with strong willpower, the accumulation of your restraints is yours to enjoy.
Anything that discourages or eliminates these opportunities, I and many on the right will vehemently oppose.
|
On February 28 2014 04:37 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years. Avoidance of misfortune is not the goal on the right. My concern is protecting the ability to excel, not so much the fear of avoiding misfortune. An abundance of paths to prosperity are desirable goals allowing citizens to achieve happiness. If you are smarter than your neighbours, you can succeed. If you are better looking than others, you can get yours. If you work harder than your peers you can achieve your goals.
If you are more talented, your can get rich off your strengths.If you take risks, those risks can yield results. If you are patient with strong willpower, the accumulation of your restraints is yours to enjoy. Anything that discourages or eliminates these opportunities, I and many on the right will vehemently oppose.
This is bullshit, and there are so many proof about that that I don't even know where to start. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't state bullshit as facts please, it's embarrassing.
The two I bolded are absolutly stupid. Getting rich off your strengths ? Haha amazing. In basket ball maybe...
|
United States43957 Posts
I guess if it's can as in "it's theoretically possible under the right conditions" then that's not wrong, just entirely meaningless.
|
On February 28 2014 05:33 KwarK wrote:
I guess if it's can as in "it's theoretically possible under the right conditions" then that's not wrong, just entirely meaningless.
Take a different look at the problem. Is it possible for you to be completly white if both your parents are black ? Yes, and that's a skin disease.
Social determinism is determinism too, if you look at the macro level, things like a guy failing when he is coming from a rich familly, or a poor becoming rich playing off "his strength" are rare, like skin disease, even if they do happen. But, at the macro level, you can make statistics, and see that the bigger the inequality are, the less people tend to actually succeed more than their fathers.
Those are facts, what piss me off people is that, in reality, most of the time bright kids coming from poor famillies completly fail at school just because they don't have the environment to help them succeed (as a teacher I have a private experience on the matter).
|
On February 28 2014 05:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 04:37 Wolfstan wrote:On February 28 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years. Avoidance of misfortune is not the goal on the right. My concern is protecting the ability to excel, not so much the fear of avoiding misfortune. An abundance of paths to prosperity are desirable goals allowing citizens to achieve happiness. If you are smarter than your neighbours, you can succeed. If you are better looking than others, you can get yours. If you work harder than your peers you can achieve your goals.
If you are more talented, your can get rich off your strengths.If you take risks, those risks can yield results. If you are patient with strong willpower, the accumulation of your restraints is yours to enjoy. Anything that discourages or eliminates these opportunities, I and many on the right will vehemently oppose. This is bullshit, and there are so many proof about that that I don't even know where to start. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't state bullshit as facts please, it's embarrassing. The two I bolded are absolutly stupid. Getting rich off your strengths ? Haha amazing. In basket ball maybe...
There is a difference between an opportunity and a guarantee of success. Not everyone who tries has to succeed. I assume you are trying to defend the guy who "works hard" shows up everyday, and goes home with a sore back as opposed to the CEO who plays golf from 9 to 5?
Edit: Basketball players getting rich is a good thing about our system we have set up, I don't see Jordan getting as wealthy as he has under the lefts proposed ruleset.
|
On February 28 2014 05:38 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 05:13 WhiteDog wrote:On February 28 2014 04:37 Wolfstan wrote:On February 28 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years. Avoidance of misfortune is not the goal on the right. My concern is protecting the ability to excel, not so much the fear of avoiding misfortune. An abundance of paths to prosperity are desirable goals allowing citizens to achieve happiness. If you are smarter than your neighbours, you can succeed. If you are better looking than others, you can get yours. If you work harder than your peers you can achieve your goals.
If you are more talented, your can get rich off your strengths.If you take risks, those risks can yield results. If you are patient with strong willpower, the accumulation of your restraints is yours to enjoy. Anything that discourages or eliminates these opportunities, I and many on the right will vehemently oppose. This is bullshit, and there are so many proof about that that I don't even know where to start. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't state bullshit as facts please, it's embarrassing. The two I bolded are absolutly stupid. Getting rich off your strengths ? Haha amazing. In basket ball maybe... There is a difference between an opportunity and a guarantee of success. Not everyone who tries has to succeed. I assume you are trying to defend the guy who "works hard" shows up everyday, and goes home with a sore back as opposed to the CEO who plays golf from 9 to 5? Edit: Basketball players getting rich is a good thing about our system we have set up, I don't see Jordan getting as wealthy as he has under the lefts proposed ruleset.
It's not a question of "opportunity" it's a question of facts. Fact is, our society needs to reproduce itself. Fact is, when you are rich you have more opportunities, fact is the history is full of amazing people who could not give what they could to the society just because they were poor, fact is 99% of rich people comes from rich famillies.
If you want to give opportunity to everyone, then make sure they all get a good education (with public school ?), make sure that the patrimony is less important in your society through taxation (something the US has less problem with because patrimony is less valuable - more space), and most of all make sure everybody is represented politically and not only rich kids who think their success was the result of their "hard" work.
|
So i've done a little reading on the web about anarcho-communism after this conversation and this was stated "Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations."
Can someone help explain that thought to me in a different way and how they reached that conclusion. This was in regards to abolishing wage labor.
Also, can someone help with the concept between personal and private property. I understand how personal property (belongings) would be protected but I didn't really understand how housing and stuff like that would work in regards to ownership. There was something about it being considered temporary personal property, when would it stop being so and how would this not lead to passing of property along by the same family continuously.
It seems like the lack of continuous specialization on a trade would be a problem with this theory. If we expect society to do useful things for mutual aid and ideally people wouldn't have to do the same acts that are less pleasurable, wouldn't there be less mastery. Is that just the tradeoff for certain people to not do as crappy of tasks?
|
On February 28 2014 05:45 Livelovedie wrote:
So i've done a little reading on the web about anarcho-communism after this conversation and this was stated "Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations."
Can someone help explain that thought to me in a different way and how they reached that conclusion.
Basically it says that it is impossible to say which guy is more valuable than the other in a society, because a society is a collective construction.
Let's take, for exemple, a factory building a car. You have various people working together to build the car. In our society we would tend to value some actions and not others : for exemple, designing the car is more "valuable" than just putting two pieces together. An anarcho communist would say that the car is and will always be the result of the work of both the guy designing and the putting the two pieces together : you cannot value the action of one guy and not the action of the other because the two are bind.
Or, to say it in another way, the car is the result of the action of both people : it is a social construct.
On February 28 2014 05:45 Livelovedie wrote:
Also, can someone help with the concept between personal and private property. I understand how personal property (belongings) would be protected but I didn't really understand how housing and stuff like that would work in regards to ownership. There was something about it being considered temporary personal property, when would it stop being so and how would this not lead to passing of property along by the same family continuously.
This is a broad question. Communists always tended to believe deep down that a place without any form of private property would be a utopia - and this utopia exist since Rousseau. But in reality they never frankly questionned the private property of house or goods, they were first and foremost questionning the property of the means of production.
It's the anarchists who considered that all properties were "theft" (Pourdhon). Anarcho-communism never completly responded to this matter because they are torn between those two sides.
|
Norway28789 Posts
But wealth actually reproduces more based on heritage than based on the hard work/talent criteria. You may say that ability to work hard/talent rather than network/environment is why this is the case, but I'd call bs.
sports is kind of the exception in the sense that success is arguably more "personal accomplishment" based, but then again no because injuries are pretty random, and sports is an example of horrible wealth prioritizing anyway. It's not a good thing that Jordan, or basically any other top 500++ paid athletes, make as much as they do.
|
So essentially it is just rejecting the concept of scarcity as the means to determine value? I added some more questions if you're bored and want to further educate  .
|
On February 28 2014 05:42 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 05:38 Wolfstan wrote:On February 28 2014 05:13 WhiteDog wrote:On February 28 2014 04:37 Wolfstan wrote:On February 28 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years. Avoidance of misfortune is not the goal on the right. My concern is protecting the ability to excel, not so much the fear of avoiding misfortune. An abundance of paths to prosperity are desirable goals allowing citizens to achieve happiness. If you are smarter than your neighbours, you can succeed. If you are better looking than others, you can get yours. If you work harder than your peers you can achieve your goals.
If you are more talented, your can get rich off your strengths.If you take risks, those risks can yield results. If you are patient with strong willpower, the accumulation of your restraints is yours to enjoy. Anything that discourages or eliminates these opportunities, I and many on the right will vehemently oppose. This is bullshit, and there are so many proof about that that I don't even know where to start. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't state bullshit as facts please, it's embarrassing. The two I bolded are absolutly stupid. Getting rich off your strengths ? Haha amazing. In basket ball maybe... There is a difference between an opportunity and a guarantee of success. Not everyone who tries has to succeed. I assume you are trying to defend the guy who "works hard" shows up everyday, and goes home with a sore back as opposed to the CEO who plays golf from 9 to 5? Edit: Basketball players getting rich is a good thing about our system we have set up, I don't see Jordan getting as wealthy as he has under the lefts proposed ruleset. It's not a question of "opportunity" it's a question of facts. Fact is, our society needs to reproduce itself. Fact is, when you are rich you have more opportunities, fact is the history is full of amazing people who could not give what they could to the society just because they were poor, fact is 99% of rich people comes from rich famillies.
So what amendments can be made to the system to even out the playing field so that fathers can't impart wisdom, genes, work-ethic, assets, opportunities, values and love to their sons? "Glorious revolution" is not going to stop the son of a welder from becoming a welder himself. There is definitely needed state intervention needed to prevent a beggar imparting beggar habits upon his offspring. There is a line though, the state cannot remove the child arbitrarily from his father but allow the child an education and exposure to the values of the society he is part of. The idea that attacking the elite class with the idea it will solve the child's situation is a connection i'm not able to make.
|
On February 28 2014 05:49 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But wealth actually reproduces more based on heritage than based on the hard work/talent criteria. You may say that ability to work hard/talent rather than network/environment is why this is the case, but I'd call bs.
sports is kind of the exception in the sense that success is arguably more "personal accomplishment" based, but then again no because injuries are pretty random, and sports is an example of horrible wealth prioritizing anyway. It's not a good thing that Jordan, or basically any other top 500++ paid athletes, make as much as they do.
You can't train height.
|
I think there's a big problem with the idea that a certain social ideology must be universally true for all times and all countries as long as the universe exists. Economy and politics aren't physics. Maybe free market capitalism was great in post war times to get the economy growing, and maybe today, in times of diminishing resources and great social inequality it's not.
This unhistorical ideological approach to politics is, at least in my opinion, not the smartest idea.
|
On February 28 2014 05:56 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 05:42 WhiteDog wrote:On February 28 2014 05:38 Wolfstan wrote:On February 28 2014 05:13 WhiteDog wrote:On February 28 2014 04:37 Wolfstan wrote:On February 28 2014 02:56 farvacola wrote:
It truly is astounding how flimsy the rhetoric of the Right is these days. To suggest that hard-working people categorically avoid misfortune is to literally know nothing about how humans have lived for hundreds of years. Avoidance of misfortune is not the goal on the right. My concern is protecting the ability to excel, not so much the fear of avoiding misfortune. An abundance of paths to prosperity are desirable goals allowing citizens to achieve happiness. If you are smarter than your neighbours, you can succeed. If you are better looking than others, you can get yours. If you work harder than your peers you can achieve your goals.
If you are more talented, your can get rich off your strengths.If you take risks, those risks can yield results. If you are patient with strong willpower, the accumulation of your restraints is yours to enjoy. Anything that discourages or eliminates these opportunities, I and many on the right will vehemently oppose. This is bullshit, and there are so many proof about that that I don't even know where to start. You can believe in whatever you want, but don't state bullshit as facts please, it's embarrassing. The two I bolded are absolutly stupid. Getting rich off your strengths ? Haha amazing. In basket ball maybe... There is a difference between an opportunity and a guarantee of success. Not everyone who tries has to succeed. I assume you are trying to defend the guy who "works hard" shows up everyday, and goes home with a sore back as opposed to the CEO who plays golf from 9 to 5? Edit: Basketball players getting rich is a good thing about our system we have set up, I don't see Jordan getting as wealthy as he has under the lefts proposed ruleset. It's not a question of "opportunity" it's a question of facts. Fact is, our society needs to reproduce itself. Fact is, when you are rich you have more opportunities, fact is the history is full of amazing people who could not give what they could to the society just because they were poor, fact is 99% of rich people comes from rich famillies. So what amendments can be made to the system to even out the playing field so that fathers can't impart wisdom, genes, work-ethic, assets, opportunities, values and love to their sons? "Glorious revolution" is not going to stop the son of a welder from becoming a welder himself. There is definitely needed state intervention needed to prevent a beggar imparting beggar habits upon his offspring. There is a line though, the state cannot remove the child arbitrarily from his father but allow the child an education and exposure to the values of the society he is part of. The idea that attacking the elite class with the idea it will solve the child's situation is a connection i'm not able to make.
Perhaps that is because you seem unable to conceive of anything the left days or does as anything but an attack.
Edit: when I'm at home with a keyboard in front of me I'll throw my 2 cents into the whole communism discussion 
|
On February 28 2014 05:55 Livelovedie wrote:So essentially it is just rejecting the concept of scarcity as the means to determine value? I added some more questions if you're bored and want to further educate .
Well I could write a lot to respond to this question and I might go so far that I would lost you, so I will stick to Ossowski's distinction (in the famous book Class structure in the social consciousness). For communism, a society is made of social class. The bigger difference between stratification (a hierarchy of various social group from the bottom to the top, in the form of a pyramid) and social class, is that the first one is a "scheme of gradation" while the other is a "scheme of dependancy".
Implying that scarcity determine value only have sense from a stratification standpoint : there are fewer people at the top, thus their skills are more valuable. From a social class standpoint, the hearth of the theory is the idea that all social group a dependant upon another. A society is the result of the action of all of its members, and it is impossible to actually isolate the "skill" of one member.
It's a core distinction, that seems quite ridiculous from a microeconomic standpoint (I can clearly see that some skill are more useful than others in specific situation) but very interesting from a macroeconomic standpoint (is it possible for me to evaluate the productivity of one member ? of a specific group of people ? No, because their actions are always intertwined with the action of others, making a society).
I'm not sure I responded to the question.
|
On February 28 2014 06:04 Nyxisto wrote:
I think there's a big problem with the idea that a certain social ideology must be universally true for all times and all countries as long as the universe exists. Economy and politics aren't physics. Maybe free market capitalism was great in post war times to get the economy growing, and maybe today, in times of diminishing resources and great social inequality it's not.
This unhistorical ideological approach to politics is, at least in my opinion, not the smartest idea.
I actually agree with this. Which is why our system has levers for change through democratic, social, regulatory and constitutional amendments through participation. A bunch of guys 2000 or 200 years ago creating systems and values is definitely not a one size fits all way of life but those are also not to be summarily dismissed through revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
