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 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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
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.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
The above ought to already be self-evident given what the likes of Wolfstan and Danglars have said; by repeatedly pointing at opportunity as though it is already available in abundance is to effectively blame the unsuccessful for their misfortune.
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.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
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.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Ah ok, thanks for taking the time to respond. Still a hard concept to grasp but I'll spend some time thinking about it haha.
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.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Ah ok, thanks for taking the time to respond. Still a hard concept to grasp but I'll spend some time thinking about it haha.
Think from a pratical standpoint. For exemple, when I use 500€ and produce 3000 €, the productivity of my 500€ is 3000/500 = 6 per €. I can do the same for an office, where the production is a beautiful 15 000 € car. So I can, indeed, evaluate the productivity of the said office (let's say to produce this car we put 10 000 hours of work ?). But, if I want to evaluate the productivity of the designer, and only him, how can I evaluate this, since the car is sold out completly built and not just the design ?
As you say, there are no "everything equal" respond to that.
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.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Ah ok, thanks for taking the time to respond. Still a hard concept to grasp but I'll spend some time thinking about it haha.
Think from a pratical standpoint. For exemple, when I use 500€ and produce 3000 €, the productivity of my 500€ is 3000/500 = 6 per €. I can do the same for an office, where the production is a beautiful 15 000 € car. So I can, indeed, evaluate the productivity of the said office (let's say to produce this car we put 10 000 hours of work ?). But, if I want to evaluate the productivity of the designer, and only him, how can I evaluate this, since the car is sold out completly built and not just the design ?
As you say, there are no "everything equal" respond to that.
Wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist reject the notion that a surplus could exist in the first place? Since you can't quantify wage labor? Wouldn't it be impossible to evaluate the production of the laborer since his work has no value with the design or a purpose?
So in your valuation and social examples are there borders and fences around protecting your production? Does a car produced in Detroit affect/share the production in Germany? Does the value of a car in Detroit made by a team get shared with the carpenter who built a deck in Detroit. Should it be possible to not agree with the evaluated sum of your production participation? How many loopholes do you have to close to keep stopping people from winning?
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.
Height is part of the "talent" equation just like "natural intelligence" is. Magnus Carlsen becoming #1 chess player in the world isn't more of a personal accomplishment than Jordan being #1 at basketball.
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.
Ah ok it gets back to the point that you cannot isolate someone from externalities. You can measure productivity but not with all things equal sort of thing? I hope that's essentially what I was suppose to take away .
You can (in economy) measure productivity for an entire factor (capital, labor, or both) but not for a specific man.
Ah ok, thanks for taking the time to respond. Still a hard concept to grasp but I'll spend some time thinking about it haha.
Think from a pratical standpoint. For exemple, when I use 500€ and produce 3000 €, the productivity of my 500€ is 3000/500 = 6 per €. I can do the same for an office, where the production is a beautiful 15 000 € car. So I can, indeed, evaluate the productivity of the said office (let's say to produce this car we put 10 000 hours of work ?). But, if I want to evaluate the productivity of the designer, and only him, how can I evaluate this, since the car is sold out completly built and not just the design ?
As you say, there are no "everything equal" respond to that.
Wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist reject the notion that a surplus could exist in the first place? Since you can't quantify wage labor? Wouldn't it be impossible to evaluate the production of the laborer since his work has no value with the design or a purpose?
Well, we are mixing two different subject. I was just merely saying that whatever the tool you take, it is indeed impossible to objectively isolate the participation of a specific man to the production.
Are we talking about anarcho communism or anarcho capitalism ? I don't have a lot of knowledge on the second (it's basically libertarian). For anarcho communism, only in capitalism something is produced only in order to be traded. They do not necessarily criticise the idea that you can give value to goods, but that the monetary value given in capitalism to a goods is hiding the social construct that is needed in order to produce the good.
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
A fairer assessment of "right vs left" on this matter: the left believes that greater socioeconomic mobility can be achieved by weakening natural social constructs, while the right believes greater socioeconomic mobility can be achieved by inspiring people to be better and punishing those that do worse.
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
The above ought to already be self-evident given what the likes of Wolfstan and Danglars have said; by repeatedly pointing at opportunity as though it is already available in abundance is to effectively blame the unsuccessful for their misfortune.
I would much rather have the unsuccessful blame themselves for their misfortune, get back up and try harder. I do not want the unsuccessful to blame the successful, luck, or society for misfortune. I do not think the successful should blame themselves for the misfortunes of the unsuccessful.
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
A fairer assessment of "right vs left" on this matter: the left believes that greater socioeconomic mobility can be achieved by weakening natural social constructs, while the right believes greater socioeconomic mobility can be achieved by inspiring people to be better and punishing those that do worse.
It's a fake tho. Right has never been about achieving greater socioeconomic mobility (only now because that's the current dominant desire in our society). In reality, the right is conservative, they are all about protection the old society, the patrimony, the history and culture. I'm not saying all that as a critic, as I personally consider that history is important and that some things needs to be protected. I don't even believe in the idea of socioeconomic mobility anyway. But "libertarian" are not historical "right", they're just an american construct.
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
The above ought to already be self-evident given what the likes of Wolfstan and Danglars have said; by repeatedly pointing at opportunity as though it is already available in abundance is to effectively blame the unsuccessful for their misfortune.
I would much rather have the unsuccessful blame themselves for their misfortune, get back up and try harder. I do not want the unsuccessful to blame the successful, luck, or society for misfortune. I do not think the successful should blame themselves for the misfortunes of the unsuccessful.
but why would you want the "unsuccessful" to blame themselves when its actually not their fault. and why would you want them to try harder, instead of adressing the real issues. your point view is pretty far from reality. luck is the the main reason why some people are "successful" and others are not
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
The above ought to already be self-evident given what the likes of Wolfstan and Danglars have said; by repeatedly pointing at opportunity as though it is already available in abundance is to effectively blame the unsuccessful for their misfortune.
I would much rather have the unsuccessful blame themselves for their misfortune, get back up and try harder. I do not want the unsuccessful to blame the successful, luck, or society for misfortune. I do not think the successful should blame themselves for the misfortunes of the unsuccessful.
but why would you want the "unsuccessful" to blame themselves when its actually not their fault. and why would you want them to try harder, instead of adressing the real issues. your point view is pretty far from reality. luck is the the main reason why some people are "successful" and others are not
because brutalizing the poor is a central tenant of certain ideologies.
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.
The point isn't to stop a welder's son from becoming a welder. The point is to make it so that it's possible for the welder's son to do something else, should he choose, as opposed to society forcing him to do that because it isn't economically feasible for him to do anything else.
In a general term, the left wants social mobility to be possible, whereas the right claims that this is their aim but actively works to make it harder.
Unfortunately, the 1st world country where conservatives probably have the strongest hold (the U.S.) is also the 1st world country with some of the worst social mobility statistics out there. Tangible evidence actively contradicts the idea that conservatives are working for the "work hard and you will get rewarded" ideology. Conservative ideology in this country merely oppresses the masses so that the very few can have a chance to get obscenely rich.
Let's say that again; this isn't just an ideological split where each side thinks that their ideology helps the poor out more; statistical evidence shows that more socialized countries than the U.S. give their citizens 1) a better quality of life and 2) more social mobility/chance to actually work hard to earn more.
The above ought to already be self-evident given what the likes of Wolfstan and Danglars have said; by repeatedly pointing at opportunity as though it is already available in abundance is to effectively blame the unsuccessful for their misfortune.
I would much rather have the unsuccessful blame themselves for their misfortune, get back up and try harder. I do not want the unsuccessful to blame the successful, luck, or society for misfortune. I do not think the successful should blame themselves for the misfortunes of the unsuccessful.
but why would you want the "unsuccessful" to blame themselves when its actually not their fault. and why would you want them to try harder, instead of adressing the real issues. your point view is pretty far from reality. luck is the the main reason why some people are "successful" and others are not
That mentality is abhorrent to progress, learning from mistakes, building character, self improvement and striving for perfection. I really only have a bunch of ideological quotes and musings that are so ingrained and part of my life to shape my views and form arguments with. So unfortunately I disagree with your idea of "real issues" and the definition of "luck" and the role it plays with our score in life. So you need to define these "real issues" and how policy or revolution as opposed to personal responsibility and individual actions that affect their own lives is the answer to what ails America.
if we are talking about the brutality or viciousness of exploitation, then the ancient world has us beat. but in other ways our modern world is similarly stratified, and this modern inequality is not totally accounted for by simple power exploitation.
the true saying of rich gets richer is basically how modern inequality works and it's largely about the return of capital being higher than labor and human capital.
On February 28 2014 07:27 oneofthem wrote: if we are talking about the brutality or viciousness of exploitation, then the ancient world has us beat. but in other ways our modern world is similarly stratified, and this modern inequality is not totally accounted for by simple power exploitation.
the true saying of rich gets richer is basically how modern inequality works and it's largely about the return of capital being higher than labor and human capital.
Just read a pretty brilliant book on the subject : The capital in the XXI century from Thomas Piketty. It's a 1000 page long book on the capital today and its evolution since XVII century in all occidental countries. I highly recommend it (altho, aside from the historical fact it is presenting, and the pedagogical approach Piketty decided to display, I still think it is pretty poor from a purely economical theorical standpoint - Piketty is just too affraid to take a position). He made some kind of lecture at harvard.
EPT
.
