|
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 April 01 2014 10:28 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 10:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 09:53 Roe wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. That is predicated by the sentence preceding it... The sentence with an "if" in front of it? "Well, we tried to be greedy and obstinate and the whole of humanity payed for it, but at least we tried" -- that's a write off if I've seen one.
No, the write off would be to condemn billions to be poorer than they need to be out of ignorance and fear.
It's an endless circle of complaining with you guys. Countries are poor, and we have to bitch about how that's unfair. Then they get richer, and we have to complain about the impending Malthusian nightmare. It's just endless complaining while ignoring massive progress.
|
A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA misled the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques.
The report, built around detailed chronologies of dozens of CIA detainees, documents a long-standing pattern of unsubstantiated claims as agency officials sought permission to use — and later tried to defend — excruciating interrogation methods that yielded little, if any, significant intelligence, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed the document.
Source
|
The government needs to save money anyways; that report sounds like a good reason to fire some people.
|
On April 01 2014 10:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +A report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concludes that the CIA misled the government and the public about aspects of its brutal interrogation program for years — concealing details about the severity of its methods, overstating the significance of plots and prisoners, and taking credit for critical pieces of intelligence that detainees had in fact surrendered before they were subjected to harsh techniques.
The report, built around detailed chronologies of dozens of CIA detainees, documents a long-standing pattern of unsubstantiated claims as agency officials sought permission to use — and later tried to defend — excruciating interrogation methods that yielded little, if any, significant intelligence, according to U.S. officials who have reviewed the document. Source
I don't really understand. If it wasn't necessary, then why fight so hard for it?
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — Beating expectations, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans for health insurance on deadline day Monday, government officials told The Associated Press.
The 7 million target, thought to be out of reach by most experts, was in sight on a day that saw surging consumer interest as well as vexing computer glitches that slowed sign-ups on the HealthCare.gov website.
Two government officials confirmed the milestone, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an official announcement.
Seven million was the original target set by the Congressional Budget Office for enrollment in taxpayer-subsidized private health insurance through new online markets created under Obama's signature legislation.
That was scaled back to 6 million after the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov last fall. Several state-run websites also had crippling problems.
Source
|
On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism...
I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim.
|
On April 01 2014 13:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — Beating expectations, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul was on track to sign up more than 7 million Americans for health insurance on deadline day Monday, government officials told The Associated Press.
The 7 million target, thought to be out of reach by most experts, was in sight on a day that saw surging consumer interest as well as vexing computer glitches that slowed sign-ups on the HealthCare.gov website.
Two government officials confirmed the milestone, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter ahead of an official announcement.
Seven million was the original target set by the Congressional Budget Office for enrollment in taxpayer-subsidized private health insurance through new online markets created under Obama's signature legislation.
That was scaled back to 6 million after the disastrous launch of HealthCare.gov last fall. Several state-run websites also had crippling problems. Source
So all the scaling back of expectations and worries about what the early troubles would mean for the website turned out to be completely overblown and in the end they will probably exceed there original number by a couple hundred thousand when its all finished and tabulated.
I am actually impressed by the American public on this one not having the same overreaction that the media had to the early problems that every big website has.
|
The current American media intentionally overreacts to everything, because it sells more. Rather annoying to me.
the actual people are more moderate.
|
On April 01 2014 13:31 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism... I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim.
"The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world."
Source
"in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person."
Source
PS: Don't bother wasting a post undermining the sources unless you have some counter examples please.
The precision of the measures is not the most pressing issue either. So attacking nuances in measurements is relatively pointless without presenting the alternative measures and how they significantly change the interpretation.
|
Norway28675 Posts
On April 01 2014 06:50 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad. That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system.
Really? There are people who think it's good that hundreds of millions of people live lives in hopeless poverty and starvation? I'm not talking about inequality in the west here - I understand that there are people who believe that every poor american is to blame for it themselves, but I've never seen anyone who thinks that the ethiopian child who starves to death at the age of 5 is to blame for his own undoing, this is just considered like, somewhere between a current inevitability and a tradeoff they are willing to make, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is actually like, fine/ideal. I can agree that many downplay this aspect because it becomes hard to justify current political action (but then I think it's far more common for people to be like johnny; the current system while it produces some inequalities that are bad, it does a better job than any other tried system and it does actually cause progress even for the poor starving ethiopian. )
And I think that's fair enough. I don't personally agree, but I don't think that this opinion is downright immoral - I think me and johnny's differing opinions relate more to our perception of what currently happens, what causes this and how the future is likely to be if we continue down the road we're currently paving, rather than us having different opinions on whether starving african children are bad or not.
Anyway, to expand a little on what inequality I personally think is good; Me and my older brother are people with nearly identical social backgrounds and skillsets. Yet, we are very different in what we want out of life. He cares much more about material wealth, or rather, about having top of the line products, be it food, wine, clothing, whatever. So he has been working probably about twice as many hours as me for the past decade, and he has also made about twice as much money. I think this, that me and him have the options to pursue different life paths depending on how we want our lives to be, is good. Even with him consistently making about twice as much as me for the past decade, I think this is entirely fair, he has also worked much harder, and I also make enough to make myself happy - but where I am certainly more limited economically than he is. This inequality, where I can directly see that what he wants out of life motivates him to work harder than I personally want to, is good. If, however, he was making five times as much as me, this would from my perception be both wasteful (he certainly has enough now) and unjust (he's working harder than me for sure - but certainly not five times as hard). And this would be the type of inequality I oppose politically, where I think there's a big discrepancy between what I consider just/fair and reality, and where I would consider his wealth accumulation to be wasteful.
|
On April 01 2014 21:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 06:50 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 06:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
oh, I wasn't trying to argue that everyone agrees that all inequality is bad. even I, as a certified "leftist" think that not all inequality is bad. But I really think that everyone can agree that the gross global inequality we see today IS bad. That's what I'm trying to say, really not everybody thinks that. Obviously, there is some good in inequality for motivation and distinction (in fact, I think a lack of inequality between the poor and middle class today causes social unrest). However, some ALWAYS see it and treat it as the outcome of a (mostly) fair system. Really? There are people who think it's good that hundreds of millions of people live lives in hopeless poverty and starvation? I'm not talking about inequality in the west here - I understand that there are people who believe that every poor american is to blame for it themselves, but I've never seen anyone who thinks that the ethiopian child who starves to death at the age of 5 is to blame for his own undoing, this is just considered like, somewhere between a current inevitability and a tradeoff they are willing to make, but I've never seen anyone argue that this is actually like, fine/ideal. I can agree that many downplay this aspect because it becomes hard to justify current political action (but then I think it's far more common for people to be like johnny; the current system while it produces some inequalities that are bad, it does a better job than any other tried system and it does actually cause progress even for the poor starving ethiopian. ) And I think that's fair enough. I don't personally agree, but I don't think that this opinion is downright immoral - I think me and johnny's differing opinions relate more to our perception of what currently happens, what causes this and how the future is likely to be if we continue down the road we're currently paving, rather than us having different opinions on whether starving african children are bad or not. Anyway, to expand a little on what inequality I personally think is good; Me and my older brother are people with nearly identical social backgrounds and skillsets. Yet, we are very different in what we want out of life. He cares much more about material wealth, or rather, about having top of the line products, be it food, wine, clothing, whatever. So he has been working probably about twice as many hours as me for the past decade, and he has also made about twice as much money. I think this, that me and him have the options to pursue different life paths depending on how we want our lives to be, is good. Even with him consistently making about twice as much as me for the past decade, I think this is entirely fair, he has also worked much harder, and I also make enough to make myself happy - but where I am certainly more limited economically than he is. This inequality, where I can directly see that what he wants out of life motivates him to work harder than I personally want to, is good. If, however, he was making five times as much as me, this would from my perception be both wasteful (he certainly has enough now) and unjust (he's working harder than me for sure - but certainly not five times as hard). And this would be the type of inequality I oppose politically, where I think there's a big discrepancy between what I consider just/fair and reality, and where I would consider his wealth accumulation to be wasteful.
I admit, it would be hard to find somebody that was fine with kids dying at 5 due to starvation and/or preventable disease, but they usually find a way to justify it as a failure of the third world government. You have to understand, I'm surrounded by people that think this, so it's not as shocking, and I get to hear lots of justification.
As for your personal anecdote, not a lot of people would disagree with that or call it unfair.
On April 01 2014 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 13:31 aksfjh wrote:On April 01 2014 09:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 01 2014 08:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 01 2014 02:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 31 2014 15:19 IgnE wrote:On March 31 2014 14:55 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2014 14:03 oneofthem wrote:
wats teh philosophical sense of an atom guys. it's indivisible!
lets just go with that for a thousand years
So? I could be wrong. So far, attempts at forced equality have failed. You go with the best you have. You could be wrong too, so I'm not sure what your statement is supposed to say. You don't find inequality inherently evil because you seem to hold onto a narrow individualist worldview, that views people as ultimately responsible for their own actions and possessing a radical kind of free will that is separate from circumstance but somehow governed by something you might call "character" or moral essence.
If you viewed things from a situationist perspective, in which human beings are rooted in a dynamic environment that affects and is affected by human choices, then you might view things differently. Human beings and their decisions are heavily influenced by environment, but even what might be considered the fundamental core of who a person is, is mostly decided by chance. No one asks to be born, let alone born where and when and how and as who they are born as.
The argument against inequality roughly comes down to which worldview you find to be more persuasive, which you find more descriptive of the reality you find yourself in. Are you holding onto antiquated views about the nature of mind and man, rooted in a dualistic conception of free will tied to an immaterial soul? Or do you appreciate the messy material reality of man, rooted in a tangible world, governed by physical processes? Inequality is immoral because we should be striving to create a world where everyone has access to the most freedom to realize his or her self. This must take into account that, regardless of what you think about free will, no one chooses to be born where, or when, or how, or who they are. Obviously equality in every dimension is not the goal. But the outrageous inequality seen today, at such vast scales, is grossly immoral by almost any moral accounting, since no one is responsible for their birth circumstance. The advantages accrued to certain individuals, born in poverty, are nowhere near the advantages accrued by other individuals, who happened to be born in first world countries. Participating in a capitalistic system that perpetuates these circumstances is a form of violence committed against those who are being chewed up in capitalism's satanic mill. First: I actually hold to a mixed view, but one that leans towards the individual. I would be something closer to an anarchist or libertarian if I viewed things as you say I do. Humans as social creatures are influenced by their culture, but not exclusively. But I do view people as ultimately responsible for the large majority of their choices and circumstances. Just because it is hard to come out from poverty doesn't make wealth evil. Those tribal societies you mentioned are perfect examples of what I mean, which could be why you dropped it. They are oh-so-equal there. But I am willing to bet you wouldn't trade places with one of them. All the poor in China are pretty equal, too! I think it an equally large folly to believe that some all knowing power could "fix" the bad circumstances without doing untold damage to the rights of people (I view people as holding rights as individuals, and not as groups, generally.) Moreover, I don't think it could succeed at all. There is no reason to think we would be where we are (in terms of relative wealth, knowledge, and advancing culture) if we viewed things the way you would view them. you would spend so much time enforcing the myriad of rules and general "inequality" you would have time for nothing else. Men are imperfect, so the more concentrated power you give them, the more imperfect the system will be. So no system is perfect, but I say take advantage of how people behave, instead of trying to force change on them. And capitalism has made more people better off than any other system, in terms of overall wealth (again, I don't value equailtiy nearly as much as you do.) And I'm not defending the crony, power hungry government we have now. I just think that attempts at equality are far more likely to end up in this way then they are to result in the equality filled utopia you wish for. I think history bears this out as true, as well. So i'm not the strict idealist- that's you. All you have to go on are untested ideas. You spend so much time blasting the current system we have now, but you never talk at length about what you would do- because you have no examples to draw from. I am not the one sitting in a high tower dreaming. Let me know how you would deal with the "human condition" then we can start instituting your ideas. The "all the poor in China are pretty equal too!" argument is really stupid. The choices are not: typical college-educated American life or poor worker at Foxconn. Nor are poor Chinese wage slaves a requirement to sustain my lifestyle in particular. You would do everyone a favor, including yourself, if you stopped using this stupid argument. Your more general argument implicitly assumes that the way capitalism has worked in the United States for the last 60 or 70 years is how it can continue to work throughout the rest of the world. That is, that Chinese tech workers and Bengladeshi garment workers can eventually rise to an American level of wealth and consumption. To anyone who has analyzed modern capitalism in any meaningful way, that is, by engaging with its critics, this is an obvious falsehood. Bangladeshi garment workers look very similar to US garment workers at the turn of last century. I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening. Well the problem of simply not having the resources to support 100's of millions more people consuming/living like the US to start. Despite conservative fairy tales, it's not true that our resources are unlimited. Energy, food, clean water etc...There are all sorts of problems with the idea that we can just all be "Americas" No one's claiming that resources are unlimited, just that the barriers that exist can be overcome as they have many, many times in the past. If it does turn out that we can't.. well, at least we tried. Seems much better than writing billions off as expendable. "One person taking a bigger slice doesn't make someone else's piece smaller" or any of the common conservative variations...? It implies an unlimited pie. I mean if you are oblivious to all the reasons what you're suggesting is totally impossible I'm not going to hold your hand through it. It's pretty obvious why it wouldn't work with any basic understanding of earth's resources and current consumption patterns...But sure we can just go with your fantasy capitalism... I missed this earlier. Please, enlighten me how our consumption pattern is somehow at odds with Earth's natural resources. Show me the "obvious" data that backs up your claim. "The average rates at which people consume resources like oil and metals, and produce wastes like plastics and greenhouse gases, are about 32 times higher in North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australia than they are in the developing world." Source"in 2008 the Earth's total biocapacity was 12.0 billion gha, or 1.8 gha per person. However, Mankind's Ecological Footprint - what was actually consumed - was 18.2 billion gha, or 2.7 gha per person." SourcePS: Don't bother wasting a post undermining the sources unless you have some counter examples please. The precision of the measures is not the most pressing issue either. So attacking nuances in measurements is relatively pointless without presenting the alternative measures and how they significantly change the interpretation.
So, we take "excess" consumption (at least in your view) and extrapolate it across the entire world and call it "unsustainable." This conclusion is probably inline with a 3rd grader's analysis. There's no adjustments based on complex statistical findings, like price adjustments to scarcity or incentives to increase efficiency of resource utilization that go along with it. It's the same "overpopulation" arguments we've been hearing for decades that were proven to be false when we analyzed population growth rates in developed and developing countries and noticed there is a birthrate drop-off. Now there's another boogieman, big surprise.
|
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points.
|
On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points.
I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future...
|
On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future...
You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed.
Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable.
You did exactly what I requested you not do, which was provide (a poor) attempt to undermine the information without providing any measures or reports of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution?
|
On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do which was attempt to undermine the information without providing any of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution?
Just because you propose statistically bogus data does not mean that I must counter you with ("valid") data. Likely, there isn't any academically rigorous data on the subject at hand (like in many fields) simply because it isn't actually a problem (yet). Like I pointed out, though, it has the same signs of the "Population growth is unsustainable!" mantra of the 90s and early 2000s, which was debunked when actual scientists began studying the numbers (and people started listening to them).
Contrast this with income/wealth inequality, where it's beginning to look like more and more of a problem. Now we have some hard numbers and some very rigorous studies, which are establishing some very knowledgeable experts on the subject. This is a topic worth debating, with real data, real arguments, and valid interpretations of findings. WhiteDog and Jonny can point to graphs and figures of established standards to argue their points, itsjustatank can do real statistical analysis on verifiable data (as can some others) to strengthen/nullify arguments based on that same data.
I personally don't have the time or desire to argue with people that source 3rd grade level research and data analysis. If your only defense is deflection, then you fit that category perfectly.
|
On April 02 2014 02:03 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 02 2014 00:43 aksfjh wrote:On April 02 2014 00:15 Roe wrote:
Johnny assumed that the whole world could sustain the level of excess consumption seen in the first world. You weren't paying attention to the class discussion, -1 points. I doubt very much that he meant right this second those countries could consume like the West. If I'm not mistaken, he's been saying that developing countries have the potential to consume just as much as developed after decades of economic growth and increased gains in efficiency. He's talking about a gradual process and you guys are extrapolating the current baseline scenario 50-100 years into the future... You just didn't follow the conversation at all, then chimed in with a snarky question and comment that doesn't really have any bearing on what was being discussed. Johnny was saying that "I don't see why these countries can't develop to our level, particularly when the data suggest that's exactly what's happening." referring to China and Bangladesh. My point was that if developing countries 'advanced' to 'our level' it would be unsustainable. You did exactly what I requested you not do which was attempt to undermine the information without providing any of your own. Since you seem pretty confident that your assumptions are correct how about showing some of the research that refutes my assertions and supports yours, like I requested before your inane contribution? Just because you propose statistically bogus data does not mean that I must counter you with ("valid") data. Likely, there isn't any academically rigorous data on the subject at hand (like in many fields) simply because it isn't actually a problem (yet). Like I pointed out, though, it has the same signs of the "Population growth is unsustainable!" mantra of the 90s and early 2000s, which was debunked when actual scientists began studying the numbers (and people started listening to them). Contrast this with income/wealth inequality, where it's beginning to look like more and more of a problem. Now we have some hard numbers and some very rigorous studies, which are establishing some very knowledgeable experts on the subject. This is a topic worth debating, with real data, real arguments, and valid interpretations of findings. WhiteDog and Jonny can point to graphs and figures of established standards to argue their points, itsjustatank can do real statistical analysis on verifiable data (as can some others) to strengthen/nullify arguments based on that same data. I personally don't have the time or desire to argue with people that source 3rd grade level research and data analysis. If your only defense is deflection, then you fit that category perfectly.
So what I'm understanding is that you should of just not said anything at all, since you have nothing of substance to add?
You continue to dismiss hundreds if not thousands of scientists, yet can't seem to find a single piece to substantiate your position? It should be easy to find SOMETHING to support your assertion? I'd love to see the studies debunking overpopulation (a likely source of your wrongheadedness), I'm sure they don't do anything like use incomplete or flawed data...
Or you could just count on others to provide any significant contribution, and you can just continue sniping on a "3rd grade level" from the sideline...
If your only defense is deflection, then you fit that category perfectly. Was this you talking to yourself?
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is rolling out an updated budget plan that would slash $5.1 trillion in federal spending over the coming decade. The Republican proposal also would balance the government's books by cutting food stamps, health care for the poor and working class, and programs like Pell Grants for low-income college students and pensions for federal workers.
Ryan's plan steers away from cuts to benefits for senior citizens, at least in the short term, but reprises a voucher-like Medicare program for future retirees that provides the basis for GOP claims that the measure would drive down government debt over the long term.
The plan promises a balanced budget within a decade and should skate through the Budget Committee on Wednesday. Floor action next week is less certain.
Source
|
On April 02 2014 02:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is rolling out an updated budget plan that would slash $5.1 trillion in federal spending over the coming decade. The Republican proposal also would balance the government's books by cutting food stamps, health care for the poor and working class, and programs like Pell Grants for low-income college students and pensions for federal workers.
Ryan's plan steers away from cuts to benefits for senior citizens, at least in the short term, but reprises a voucher-like Medicare program for future retirees that provides the basis for GOP claims that the measure would drive down government debt over the long term.
The plan promises a balanced budget within a decade and should skate through the Budget Committee on Wednesday. Floor action next week is less certain. Source
Oh Paul Ryan, you made a halfhearted attempt at making cuts, realized that there really wasn't much low-hanging fruit, and then immediately went back to slashing every single social safety net within arm's reach.
|
I wonder if they'll (GOP leadership) realize at some point that taxes are just really low right now. Or if instead they'll keep going after social programs people actually like/use.
|
How many people have signed up for private coverage under Obamacare? 7,041,000, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced Tuesday afternoon.
That number is likely to rise: It does not include the Monday sign-ups in the 14 states operating their own marketplaces. In addition, the enrollment deadline was relaxed for people having trouble completing the process, so some people could still sign up in the next two weeks.
The figure does not account for how many people have paid their first premium, formally initiating their coverage. Independent analysts have also estimated that about 9 million people have enrolled directly through their insurer.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
