|
On November 16 2011 08:20 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 07:41 Housemd wrote:
Even though I agree with the general idea that America needs to be changed, I do not believe that this is the way to do it. We need to have a much more organized protest (sort of like the Civil Rights Movement) where there is strong unified leader. I'm not sure how to feel about the court decision, I don't know why people are for that...it basically hinders the right for people to protest in a society that is supposed to all "freedom of speech".
EDIT: Didn't know the park was private property. That just makes the protests and overnight stays ridiculous. a strong unified leader would just label it as a political movement which allows news and political parities to divide and conquer, you already seem branding and demonizing of it from sources like fox cable. As far as the 2nd part it really depends who owns the park if it's owned by the 1% it's only fitting.
I guess I agree with this. Fox News is obviously biased and ignorant in almost all of their views and they support the %1 with ridiculous statements such as "anyone can became the 1%". I wonder if the protesters are purposely not setting a leader for the reasons you mentioned.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On November 16 2011 08:38 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:32 Logo wrote:On November 16 2011 07:44 mechavoc wrote:On November 16 2011 07:26 NB wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK.... reading this thread actually make me not regretting going to canada instead of US... wow some of you guys are unbelievable....
no wonder US is where they are today :-/ fucking ignorance and afraid of changes not gona get humankind anywhere... Change is not always for the better. It would be a faulty leap to assume a desire for stability stems from ignorance and fear. Perhaps you need to look from a different point of view and appreciate that there is already a mechanism in place to make changes. If 51% of the people (or heck even 99%) of the people want a socialist system, they can elect such a government. Compare this to the Occupy Syria event where the government users tanks and warplanes to discourage the sharing of alternate views. Protesting is part of that system for what it's worth. You are right, but every group needs to follow the rules which includes not camping overnight simple as that.
I don't know. To some extent a protest means that the current system is not working and so you are going outside the system. Something like no overnight stay is meant to keep out squatters and for ease of security (Very straight forward enforcement. Someone's there, you wake them up and kick them out.)
But it's a sort of rule that could be broken for a cause I think. Furthermore, what you're asking is logistically very difficult as the protesters would have to use rent hotels or similar. In addition, the group solidarity is dispersed to some extent when the people themselves are force to spread out.
You seem to allow that people can protest, but put such limitations on what a protest 'ought to be' that would undercut the protest itself. Certainly they shouldn't be vandalizing or robbing and those sorts of things. But it seems that protests are by their nature skirting the edge of legality and so a rule like no overnight stays is a reasonable rule to break from the standpoint of a protester. From the standpoint of the government, they want to clear the streets, but no government likes a challenge to their authority outside the normal channels of operation.
|
There will be no revolution in america exactly because people voice their feelings right now. In France at the moment there is a really bad feeling, it's the shit, everybody is unhappy and frustrated, this can lead to a revolution. We had so many revolutions because we have no way to voice our concern (due to the way the political system is made, the education too).
Talking about revolution for america is, in my opinion, not serious.
|
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
|
On November 16 2011 08:53 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:43 Krikkitone wrote:On November 16 2011 08:36 dolvlo wrote:On November 16 2011 08:32 Logo wrote:On November 16 2011 07:44 mechavoc wrote:On November 16 2011 07:26 NB wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK.... reading this thread actually make me not regretting going to canada instead of US... wow some of you guys are unbelievable....
no wonder US is where they are today :-/ fucking ignorance and afraid of changes not gona get humankind anywhere... Change is not always for the better. It would be a faulty leap to assume a desire for stability stems from ignorance and fear. Perhaps you need to look from a different point of view and appreciate that there is already a mechanism in place to make changes. If 51% of the people (or heck even 99%) of the people want a socialist system, they can elect such a government. Compare this to the Occupy Syria event where the government users tanks and warplanes to discourage the sharing of alternate views. Protesting is part of that system for what it's worth. Not revolution though, which is what most of these hipster scum want. Revolution is strictly opposed to our constitution and frankly un-American at that. Opposed to the Constitution, yes...un-American no (although a 'local revolution' against central power is more American than a 'popular revolution' , revolution is what the country was born under and includes the Civil War..as well as what gave us Texas (rebellion from Mexico)) We haven't had as many revolutions as say France in the past 300 years, but un-American not really. frankly jefferson's writings point to the constitution to change with the people instead of being a sacrosanct document there are even clauses in our constitution to facilitate that change all but a few parts of it is allowed to be changed.
Yes the constitution can Change, however it is currently opposed to revolution (ie violent overthrow of the government). (Now you could have a 'pro-revolution amendment' establishing the right of people to kill political opponents... but it is not in the Constitution currently, and it would be opposed to the concept of constitutional government)
Now Jefferson was pro-revolution (one of the reasons it is not an un-American concept). But he didn't persuade the rest of the founding fathers to put a 'pro-revolution clause' in.
The closest thing we have to a pro-revolution clause is the Second Amendment (which doesn't allow revolution, just the means for revolution)
So Revolution=against the constitution
Protest=not against the Constitution
Voting to change legislators/executive or the Constitution itself, also not against the constitution
|
Whom can I trust to fix our country, if the people just think voting will solve everything. Oh let me pick a candidate, and hope they have a solution for our problems. That is many American mindsets. People tell me to vote. For whom? Who seriously does give a fuck about my generation or my parent's generation in the higher ups. Who is considered actually substantial for advocating for true healthcare reform, before the current one collapses? I'm starting to not give a shit of what my countrymen want or do anymore, the occupy wall street people have no goal, and the arrogance of those who just easily dismiss others as filth gale me (I'm looking at you, people who just label people as hobos or hippies or nuisances). Fuck it, it's not worth fixing for a stand alone society.
|
I'm positive that even if they protested in "shifts" so that people were constantly peacefully protesting in the streets the police would still have behaved violently. And plenty of people would feel that it was deserved. The camps are nice because they allow an excuse for police aggression but what about the multiple examples of police aggression prior to last night's raid? These are somehow justified as disturbing the peace or not listening to police officers. So my question is, do we as Americans have the right of peaceful assembly or do we not?
One day on the streets with posters isn't going to do anything. Several months of protest can though. You have to ask yourself regardless of your political beliefs, should the police be able to break up a peaceful assembly? When the OWS people return and continue their protest should they be stopped?
|
Canada11607 Posts
On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
Well under progressive tax system, the rich are in fact richer than the poor. That is their reward. If you make millions and millions, you still will. You just have a few less and yet you are still obscenely richer than the single mother on welfare. Based on the work hard= you should be rewarded model we might as well argue that the rich should pay no taxes at all. And for their industriousness, we should reward them further by getting more money from the government as a bonus for being the most hardworking Americans ever.
It's not like anyone is advocating a hard cap system where you can only make 150K and all the rest disappears to the government. The rich remain rich which is it's own reward. They just happen to pay more taxes. Even Adam Smith, Mr Free Market, himself wrote something to that extent: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more in proportion."
|
On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
Sure, but there's also reasonable levels of reward. Very few people (anywhere) argue that hard work shouldn't pay off.
Anyway, to answer your question more generally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
|
On November 16 2011 09:01 WhiteDog wrote:
There will be no revolution in america exactly because people voice their feelings right now. In France at the moment there is a really bad feeling, it's the shit, everybody is unhappy and frustrated, this can lead to a revolution. We had so many revolutions because we have no way to voice our concern (due to the way the political system is made, the education too).
Talking about revolution for america is, in my opinion, not serious.
Give it a couple more years when the majority of people don't have healthcare anymore. I have the utmost faith that the American people will continue to do nothing to address the issues when the Demos and Repubs just do their usual power struggle in the Congress, and suddenly people find themselves with no way to pay for hundreds of dollars for one pill bottle. I see it happening now.
See I wouldn't have a problem with our current system if something was done FOR CHRISTS SAKE. We spend so much time arguing that nothing is done, whether for good OR bad.
|
On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
best argument for why we shouldn't have a head tax (ie everyone pays $5,000 a year for the privilege of being an American citizen) is that the person making $500,000 per year gets more benefit from police, armies, firemen to protect his stuff than someone making $25,000 a year (insurance on a $1 million home more than on a $100,000 home).. they also get more benefit from roads that their purchases can travel on and laws that allow a common market..since they buy/sell more stuff.
There is also the practical issue of what you do with people that don't pay the tax because they can't. (they make less than $5,000 per year.. and that is all in handouts.
Now if you want to talk about why tax should be progressive and not a fixed rate (ie person making $25,000 is charged ~$100 in taxes 4% overall, then should a person making $500,000 also pay 4% ie $20,000 or should they pay more 5%, 15%, 50%, 95%?)
Admittedly you Don't want a system where someone who is working harder has Less total take home pay, but that is avoidable
The justifications for a progressive tax scheme generally have to do with ability to pay... if you are making $1,000 a year, that is not enough to support yourself (you can't pay for food), so at that level you pay 0% [and actually the government will give you Some free money/food/housing under those circumstances, if you fill out the necessary paperwork/do what they ask]... and as you increase the income, people are more and more able to meet needs Other than food.
Other justifications have to do with people who Aren't working any harder for the money, but are making more money because they inherited it or because they 'inherited' better circumstances, than someone else working equally as hard.
Basically someone with a base income of $500,000 per year will have more take home than someone with a base income of $400,000 who will be more than someone with $300,000, etc. (this is leaving off Special exemptions, etc.) as long as the top tax rates are not 100%.
......................
As for revolution in America, I seriously doubt it... our system Is designed to try and stop the government from doing anything, but if enough people agree, then something will eventually get done. (good or bad)
|
On November 16 2011 09:15 Reaper9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 09:01 WhiteDog wrote:
There will be no revolution in america exactly because people voice their feelings right now. In France at the moment there is a really bad feeling, it's the shit, everybody is unhappy and frustrated, this can lead to a revolution. We had so many revolutions because we have no way to voice our concern (due to the way the political system is made, the education too).
Talking about revolution for america is, in my opinion, not serious.
Give it a couple more years when the majority of people don't have healthcare anymore. I have the utmost faith that the American people will continue to do nothing to address the issues when the Demos and Repubs just do their usual power struggle in the Congress, and suddenly people find themselves with no way to pay for hundreds of dollars for one pill bottle. I see it happening now. See I wouldn't have a problem with our current system if something was done FOR CHRISTS SAKE. We spend so much time arguing that nothing is done, whether for good OR bad.
I'm pretty sure a revolution will happen if my generation doesn't improve. We have four year degrees and most of us are working at fast food joints or as bank tellers with no hope of ever paying off our debt unless the economy improves and we can get proper jobs.
Slave-like debt is a good way to piss people off enough to want to overthrow the system.
|
On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
I think that there is more to this than just "working hard" and I think here in lies a lot of peoples frustrations. Is working 3 separate minimum wage jobs not hard work? I feel as though many conservatives, and maybe all people in general, have the idea that poor people should just be working harder. But I think it is often the poor people who are working the hardest and working multiple jobs to support themselves and their families.
|
On November 16 2011 09:21 overt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 09:15 Reaper9 wrote:On November 16 2011 09:01 WhiteDog wrote:
There will be no revolution in america exactly because people voice their feelings right now. In France at the moment there is a really bad feeling, it's the shit, everybody is unhappy and frustrated, this can lead to a revolution. We had so many revolutions because we have no way to voice our concern (due to the way the political system is made, the education too).
Talking about revolution for america is, in my opinion, not serious.
Give it a couple more years when the majority of people don't have healthcare anymore. I have the utmost faith that the American people will continue to do nothing to address the issues when the Demos and Repubs just do their usual power struggle in the Congress, and suddenly people find themselves with no way to pay for hundreds of dollars for one pill bottle. I see it happening now. See I wouldn't have a problem with our current system if something was done FOR CHRISTS SAKE. We spend so much time arguing that nothing is done, whether for good OR bad. I'm pretty sure a revolution will happen if my generation doesn't improve. We have four year degrees and most of us are working at fast food joints or as bank tellers with no hope of ever paying off our debt unless the economy improves and we can get proper jobs. Slave-like debt is a good way to piss people off enough to want to overthrow the system.
There are specific situation where situations can happen, the demography is a good exemple of that. People like Samuel Huntington in the Clash of civilisations for exemple already forsaw a revolution in the middle east based on their demography (high reproduction rate, a lot of young from 15 to 25).
I don't really know about the US, but most of occidentals country are full of old guys.
|
On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well.
The idea of a progressive tax stems from the concept that everyone's tax burden should be as close to equal as possible. In short, the "fair" way to provide tax is that is that individuals' tax expense should be relatively equal as compared to their buying power. The reason this makes the most sense is because 10% of $20,000 is more important per-dollar than 10% of 200,000. If you tax on an equal rate then the burden of tax regresses as compared to income. When I go the grocery store my trip is not 6.5% of my yearly wages it's a flat figure based on what I buy.
The common argument against a progressive tax scheme generally ignores that $1 is less valuable the more money you have. A tax rate is more or less a non-sequitor when discussing income tax because it ignores the more important factor of what the burden any specific rate actually is. It's the same way interest rates are less important in receiving a car loan as compared to the APR of the loan.
As a final note: the rate itself isn't irrelevant - it does matter; however, it's less important than the burden. Think of rate like interest rate and burden like APR.
|
On November 16 2011 08:58 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:38 mechavoc wrote:On November 16 2011 08:32 Logo wrote:On November 16 2011 07:44 mechavoc wrote:On November 16 2011 07:26 NB wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK.... reading this thread actually make me not regretting going to canada instead of US... wow some of you guys are unbelievable....
no wonder US is where they are today :-/ fucking ignorance and afraid of changes not gona get humankind anywhere... Change is not always for the better. It would be a faulty leap to assume a desire for stability stems from ignorance and fear. Perhaps you need to look from a different point of view and appreciate that there is already a mechanism in place to make changes. If 51% of the people (or heck even 99%) of the people want a socialist system, they can elect such a government. Compare this to the Occupy Syria event where the government users tanks and warplanes to discourage the sharing of alternate views. Protesting is part of that system for what it's worth. You are right, but every group needs to follow the rules which includes not camping overnight simple as that. I don't know. To some extent a protest means that the current system is not working and so you are going outside the system. Something like no overnight stay is meant to keep out squatters and for ease of security (Very straight forward enforcement. Someone's there, you wake them up and kick them out.) But it's a sort of rule that could be broken for a cause I think. Furthermore, what you're asking is logistically very difficult as the protesters would have to use rent hotels or similar. In addition, the group solidarity is dispersed to some extent when the people themselves are force to spread out. You seem to allow that people can protest, but put such limitations on what a protest 'ought to be' that would undercut the protest itself. Certainly they shouldn't be vandalizing or robbing and those sorts of things. But it seems that protests are by their nature skirting the edge of legality and so a rule like no overnight stays is a reasonable rule to break from the standpoint of a protester. From the standpoint of the government, they want to clear the streets, but no government likes a challenge to their authority outside the normal channels of operation.
It may be (though unlikely) that it is sort of a leniency issue. Sort of like, if we let the protesters do this, what will they do next. The city wants to hold their ground similar to the protesters. Eventually, more and more protesters may step over larger boundary lines and get into clashes with police which may lead to deaths, something both sides do not want.
|
On November 16 2011 09:02 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:53 semantics wrote:On November 16 2011 08:43 Krikkitone wrote:On November 16 2011 08:36 dolvlo wrote:On November 16 2011 08:32 Logo wrote:On November 16 2011 07:44 mechavoc wrote:On November 16 2011 07:26 NB wrote:
WHAT THE FUCK.... reading this thread actually make me not regretting going to canada instead of US... wow some of you guys are unbelievable....
no wonder US is where they are today :-/ fucking ignorance and afraid of changes not gona get humankind anywhere... Change is not always for the better. It would be a faulty leap to assume a desire for stability stems from ignorance and fear. Perhaps you need to look from a different point of view and appreciate that there is already a mechanism in place to make changes. If 51% of the people (or heck even 99%) of the people want a socialist system, they can elect such a government. Compare this to the Occupy Syria event where the government users tanks and warplanes to discourage the sharing of alternate views. Protesting is part of that system for what it's worth. Not revolution though, which is what most of these hipster scum want. Revolution is strictly opposed to our constitution and frankly un-American at that. Opposed to the Constitution, yes...un-American no (although a 'local revolution' against central power is more American than a 'popular revolution' , revolution is what the country was born under and includes the Civil War..as well as what gave us Texas (rebellion from Mexico)) We haven't had as many revolutions as say France in the past 300 years, but un-American not really. frankly jefferson's writings point to the constitution to change with the people instead of being a sacrosanct document there are even clauses in our constitution to facilitate that change all but a few parts of it is allowed to be changed. Yes the constitution can Change, however it is currently opposed to revolution (ie violent overthrow of the government). (Now you could have a 'pro-revolution amendment' establishing the right of people to kill political opponents... but it is not in the Constitution currently, and it would be opposed to the concept of constitutional government) Now Jefferson was pro-revolution (one of the reasons it is not an un-American concept). But he didn't persuade the rest of the founding fathers to put a 'pro-revolution clause' in. The closest thing we have to a pro-revolution clause is the Second Amendment (which doesn't allow revolution, just the means for revolution) So Revolution=against the constitution Protest=not against the Constitution Voting to change legislators/executive or the Constitution itself, also not against the constitution
Well it's interesting article 5 deals with changing of the constitution and the 2nd amendment allows the state to essentially have it's only defense though a state ran militia, atleast that's the original idea for it. But if you feel that the states are just as corrupt as the federal government both of those clauses are for state's overthrowing federal government not really the people.
|
On November 16 2011 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:
This thread is so full of brain washed right wing bullshit it's amazing. You shall not protest because "small business and commerce" suffer from it. When a a judge issue an injunction that goes with the protest, then it's a "bullshit injunction" and the judge is just biaised. Yeah who cares if he is representing the law, if he help the protest in any way then he must but a "little OWSer at heart".
But damn, when people are arrested, they just get what they wanted for not "respecting the law".
Another guy wants protests to become illegal, and then say revolutions are "un-american"... So making protests illegal is american ? Give the lady of Liberty to someone else, feel like you are not deserving it anymore.
The shit is not serious. Just say you are okay with the way the wealth is redistributed right now, and move on. Stop polluting the thread.
Just because people have a diffent view doesn't mean they are brainwashed.
France has a long and proud history of protesting. They may be the worlds greatest protestors.
So you would think it should be the best place to live with the people speaking so loudly and so often with all of those demonstrations and sit-ins and farmers blocking the chunnel .
So shall we compare things like per capita GDP, Inflation, Unemployment rate?
|
On November 16 2011 09:47 mechavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:50 WhiteDog wrote:
This thread is so full of brain washed right wing bullshit it's amazing. You shall not protest because "small business and commerce" suffer from it. When a a judge issue an injunction that goes with the protest, then it's a "bullshit injunction" and the judge is just biaised. Yeah who cares if he is representing the law, if he help the protest in any way then he must but a "little OWSer at heart".
But damn, when people are arrested, they just get what they wanted for not "respecting the law".
Another guy wants protests to become illegal, and then say revolutions are "un-american"... So making protests illegal is american ? Give the lady of Liberty to someone else, feel like you are not deserving it anymore.
The shit is not serious. Just say you are okay with the way the wealth is redistributed right now, and move on. Stop polluting the thread. Just because people have a diffent view doesn't mean they are brainwashed. France has a long and proud history of protesting. They may be the worlds greatest protestors. So you would think it should be the best place to live with the people speaking so loudly and so often with all of those demonstrations and sit-ins and farmers blocking the chunnel . So shall we compare things like per capita GDP, Inflation, Unemployment rate?
Your post doesn't make any sense. I was saying some are brainwashed because their argument are not coherent : "let's remove their right to protest !", this judge is "an OWSer at heart". We are not talking about the subject, just about : can you or can you not protest, why are the protesters "scum", how did the protest arm people, etc.
It's just an indirect way to deny their right to protest, to tell them: "you should not protest". It's just polluting the thread. Talk about the real subject : are those revendication serious ? What are the protester talking about ? In what way are you against or okay with those revendications ? Like what people are discussing since one or two page, this is interesting. Not the obvious agressivity that comes out of some comments.
You know nothing about France by the way, and the end of your post is ridiculous. At what point in my post did I even imply the fact that more protest = more happiness ? And what is the link with the economical shit you are trying to throw at me ? Do you think capita GPD, inflation or unemployment rate are the best way to understand what is the "best place to live" ?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 16 2011 09:12 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 09:02 Superiorwolf wrote:
I've been arguing with conservatives a lot and their one main argument is that if someone works hard, they deserve to be making more money and not paying more taxes. He argued that corruption and lobbyism aside, someone like an anesthesiologist who has worked hard through medical school and residency and such deserves to be making $500,000 a year and should not be taxed more. What's the best counterargument to that? I agree that those who work harder should be rewarded more as well. Sure, but there's also reasonable levels of reward. Very few people (anywhere) argue that hard work shouldn't pay off. Anyway, to answer your question more generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
Is this Rousseau's social contract because that is probably the epitome of an unscalable social construct. It's curious at the level of a district or town, stretched thin at the size of a city, barely plausible for 5 million people, and completely ridiculous for 300 million. You might be a popular person and have good relations with 10,000 people and that's still not scratching 1/100 of one percent of everyone that you are "supposed to care about." The dominate relationship is indifference, not some imaginary sensation that we're all in it together and everyone bar none is going to be acting with both generosity and good faith.
It's like forcing 100 total strangers to come up with ways to care about each other while prohibiting them from ever ever seeing each other once in their lifetime. Then muddy the waters with issues of race and religion, toss in some stereotypes of rednecks, liburals, repub, grifters, and greedy bastards, and then watch "caring" happen. Besides, there'll be plenty of people taking advantage of the imagined up generosity and good faith. The bailouts were passed under the guise of the common good or greater good and look how happy people are about that.
But discussing distributive justice is still worthwhile. It's a nice ideal to build society towards, and the world would be hell of a lot better if people acted with both generosity and good faith. Distributive justice, however, is not actionable via an imaginary social contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
