Economic Equality and Social Injustice

[Chris]

You can't achieve equality by unequal means.

Economic Equality and Social Injustice (http://fee.org/blog/detail/economic-equality-and-social-injustice-video)


From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently....
We do not object to equality as such.... Our objection is against all attempts to impress upon society a deliberately chosen pattern of distribution, whether it be an order of equality or of inequality.

- FA Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jceN4BYsxKc

[Common]

I believe thats true chris, but let me ask you how do people on the bottom in todays world of outsourcing and no jobs get out of the economic and social hole they are in without any help at all.

Be honest have you ever been other than just riding past but acutually in an economically depressed high crime shithole a neighborhood. I have half my life and I dont know how most could possibly rise up out of it without help.

I truly believe BILLIONAIRES wouldnt be hurt one bit paying even double the taxs they pay. They made their money off the rest of us, they could give a minute amt back to help the bottom rung of america.

Chris I live by If I have a 50cts and I gave you a quarter I just gave you half of all I have.
If im a billionaire and I give you a quarter what did I give you ?

America needs to fix this huge inequality that has grown in leaps in bounds in the last 20 yrs. People need to have the ability if not EDUCATED to work up to a decent job, thats impossible to day for most americans all the jobs they used to work up to are in china and elsewhere.

America needs to figure this out

[Chris]

All that injustice you assume with so much emotional appeal and we'll poisoning, common, isn't solved by unjust means.

[Common]

Whats the just means then chris

[Peter1469]

The problem is current spending. We could take 100% of the 1%'s wealth and not have enough money to run one year's budget. What then?

[Cigar]

The problem is current spending. We could take 100% of the 1%'s wealth and not have enough money to run one year's budget. What then?

I bet those 1% will still need American Infrastructure to meet their bottom line.

[Peter1469]

I bet those 1% will still need American Infrastructure to meet their bottom line.

I bet you are correct. Now respond to my post if you have an on-topic opinion about it.

[Chris]

Whats the just means then chris

Each person takes action according to his or her self-interest and government gets out of the way other than to protect rights. In short, work.

[Chris]

I bet those 1% will still need American Infrastructure to meet their bottom line.

They would pay for it like they used to before they found they could get government to tax us to find it.

[Chris]

Each person takes action according to his or her self-interest and government gets out of the way other than to protect rights. In short, work.

Elaboration. The question is what is just. Answer, life imposes on us at least the need to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. You can act to do that in one of two ways: You can work in exchange for those things, or you can take it by force or fraud, and it matters little whether you yourself take or you have government take for you. Only one means is just. Don't overcomplicate this, keep it simple.

[Chris]

Beyond those basics is the need to establish property rights, and that means removing obstacles and hindrances and red tape making owning property difficult. Property rights will establish rule of law, that is, equal treatment of all under the law, from rich man to poor, from powerful to weak.

One of the most outspoken advocates of this is Hernando de Soto. As Hernando de Soto: Property Rights, Not Just Capitalism (http://blog.acton.org/archives/76478-hernando-de-soto-property-rights-not-just-capitalism.html) explains:


...David Freddoso profiled de Soto earlier this week at Investor’s Business Daily.



Informality is a central concept in de Soto’s work on poverty. It describes the realm to which the Third World’s poorest are relegated — banished from their nations’ official economies to what he has called “the grubby basement of the precapitalist world.”

He argues that their exclusion — the product of a lack of enforceable property rights — holds back them and the entire world economy. It’s why capitalism, despite its triumph over communism and its wealth generation in America and Western Europe, has failed elsewhere.

Nicholas Eberstadt, an American Enterprise Institute expert on economic development, lauds de Soto for demonstrating how property rights — often disparaged by left-leaning intellectuals as an instrument of the privileged — help the poor: “He has helped explain to convincible readers how radically egalitarian the rule of law and property rights are. Plutocrats, strongmen — they have their muscle. They can take what they choose in lawless situations. But the poor and weak are protected by the rule of law and property rights.”

In de Soto's own words, from Hernando de Soto — Property Rights & Rule of Law (http://www.povertycure.org/voices/hernando-de-soto/):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzpx75RezI

Private Property Rights Breaking the Back of Poverty and Privilege

“ When you look at 19th century America or 18th and 16th century Europe, all of a sudden it’ll become clearer that … the thing that broke the back of poverty and privilege in developed countries in the past was when property rights came around and destroyed feudal title.”

Property Rights vs. Sovereignty

“ The Spaniards, in many cases, didn’t give people property rights; they gave them sovereignty: ‘You’re such-and-such a tribe; you get this.’ In the States you did the same thing. You gave this to the Sioux, you gave this to the Navajos. You created Indian Reservations. Instead of their property rights, you gave them sovereignty and they lost all of it…. A property right as opposed to sovereignty means that it doesn’t have a flag. It belongs to smaller groups of people, and it’s functional. It can be sold, it can be bought. So say you’re not given a property right. Let’s look at all the indigenous people of the Americas who never got a property right so that they couldn’t lose it, they couldn’t drink it away, they couldn’t do a bad investment. Did they keep it? No, they’ve lost it much more than those who are getting property rights today. So, in each case, what we should do is to go to these indigenous people and say, “What do you want?” Sovereignty so that the Indian Chief decides what’s going to happen? Or property rights? I can tell you the answer right away. But they are not generally given those options. [More on Private Property Rights]”

Property Right Initiating the Rule of Law

“ A property right initiates the rule of law … makes people interested in the rule of law. The first thing that they understand … is that everybody on this earth lives on a plot of land.”

Effect of Private Property Rights in Peru

“ In the case of Peru you can clearly see that where titling takes place, education is better immediately because more people can get jobs, they feel secure about their homes; they are ready to make more investments in the homes. More kids go to school because many people keep their kids at home just simply to indicate that they have a stake in that place. And now all of a sudden the security is replaced with law. Law has also that function.”

Inclusive Capitalism

“ Two-thirds of the world’s population - four billion people - are locked out of the capitalist system. It’s important to let them in.”

“ We’ve got to understand that either we quickly make capitalism friendly to the majority. Or they will always be on the outside looking in, and every day as they see the disparities of wealth they’ll get angrier and angrier.”

No Silver Bullets

“ Creating the rule of law is of course, not a silver bullet. Development is very complex, like life itself. You’ve got education that’s involved, you’ve got health that’s necessary, you’ve got enforcement that is all part of it. But if you do not have an order that tells you who owns what, who is where, and who is accountable for what, none of the rest work.”

[Common]

They would pay for it like they used to before they found they could get government to tax us to find it.


So how do we fix it chris the just way

[Chris]

So how do we fix it chris the just way

I've given answer, common, respond to what I've posted rather than blindly repeat your demand. Work is just, private property is just. Rule of law is just.

[kilgram]

Each person takes action according to his or her self-interest and government gets out of the way other than to protect rights. In short, work.
And if they cannot. I remember you XIX Century and early XX century.

If you want to recover the strong socialist fight and the strong worker unions, for me ok. You will be closer to the social revolution. For me that's fine ;)

Now, don't cry for the awful consequences of what you are asking.

[kilgram]

I've given answer, common, respond to what I've posted rather than blindly repeat your demand. Work is just, private property is just. Rule of law is just.
As always you've not said anything. That is not an answer:

Each person takes action according to his or her self-interest and government gets out of the way other than to protect rights. In short, work.

[Chris]

As always you've not said anything. That is not an answer:

Each person takes action according to his or her self-interest and government gets out of the way other than to protect rights. In short, work.




It's not all I posted.

[kilgram]

It's not all I posted.
I've seen now the last post of the last page.

Well, it is not an answer yet. It has the same problem. If I am not able to get a job.

The question is when there are more workers than job offers.

And I tell you a fact, this will happen more and more.

[Chris]

And if they cannot. I remember you XIX Century and early XX century.

If you want to recover the strong socialist fight and the strong worker unions, for me ok. You will be closer to the social revolution. For me that's fine ;)

Now, don't cry for the awful consequences of what you are asking.


If they cannot then family, friends, community is there to help. Are these rather simplistic challenges necessary, there's obvious answers.


If you want to recover the strong socialist fight and the strong worker unions, for me ok.

That would be detrimental to prosperity. From Krugman, Labor Unions, and Employment (http://cafehayek.com/2015/03/krugman-labor-unions-and-employment.html):


http://i.snag.gy/IAv4i.jpg

...While not proof positive – few such proofs are available in any science whose subject matter is empirical reality – these data are strong evidence in support of the standard economics conclusion that artificially raising firms’ costs of employing some kinds of workers causes firms over time to employ fewer such workers than they would otherwise have employed.

It appears that the social forces and political power that affect the market for labor do not do so in ways that render inapplicable the laws of supply and demand....


Speaking of consequences.

[Chris]

kilgram, do you dare comment on the topic? I doubt it.

[Chris]

I've seen now the last post of the last page.

Well, it is not an answer yet. It has the same problem. If I am not able to get a job.

The question is when there are more workers than job offers.

And I tell you a fact, this will happen more and more.


It's not an answer to you, I suppose. It doesn't fit your propagandist definitions. So what.

[Chris]

Now, don't cry for the awful consequences of what you are asking.

Of work? The awful consequences of work? That was my answer. Surely you jest. Or do you hate work so much, as much as you hate family, religion, society?

[kilgram]

If they cannot then family, friends, community is there to help. Are these rather simplistic challenges necessary, there's obvious answers.



That would be detrimental to prosperity. From Krugman, Labor Unions, and Employment (http://cafehayek.com/2015/03/krugman-labor-unions-and-employment.html):




Speaking of consequences.
Yes let's speak of consequences:

- 8 hours
- Maternity and paternity leave
- Holidays pay
- Minimum wage
- Higher wages than the non-union workers
- More worker protection and/or job security

Hey, they are bad. Obviously a corporation in his egotist interest prefers a non-union worker because they can exploit them more. Pay less, give less rights and they have less defense against corporations.

Some stats from 2011:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

Another one:

http://www.seiu.org/a/ourunion/research/union-advantage-facts-and-figures.php

Everything has its pros and cons.

[kilgram]

Of work? The awful consequences of work? That was my answer. Surely you jest. Or do you hate work so much, as much as you hate family, religion, society?
No Chris, the awful consequences would come because you want to emulate the XIX century's society.

I've never considered working bad.

I don't hate society. I was attacking your "social order", idea loved by the dictators.

[The Sage of Main Street]

We could take 100% of the 1%'s wealth and not have enough money to run one year's budget. What then? The net worth of the 1% is 73 trillion dollars. If I have been misinformed, then tell me what the real figure is. Remember, this isn't about salary. So anyone here who thinks he's in the 1% because he makes 250K is probably way out of it.

Also, my figure implies that there is 3 trillion a year available in inheritance. The dead don't own it; the heirs didn't earn it, so that would fund any kind of government. Or would you rather tax the living than tax the dead?

[Chris]

Yes let's speak of consequences:

- 8 hours
- Maternity and paternity leave
- Holidays pay
- Minimum wage
- Higher wages than the non-union workers
- More worker protection

Hey, they are bad. Obviously a corporation in his egotist interest prefers a non-union worker because they can exploit them more. Pay less, give less rights and they have less defense against corporations.

Some stats from 2011:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

Everything has its pros and cons.


Consequences of what? I really have no idea what you're talking about.


Could you address the topic: You can't achieve equality by unequal means.

[Chris]

No Chris, the awful consequences would come because you want to emulate the XIX century's society.

I've never considered working bad.

I don't hate society. I was attacking your "social order", idea loved by the dictators.



Could you address the topic: You can't achieve equality by unequal means.

If you want to harass me with your propaganda, start a new thread.

[kilgram]

Could you address the topic: You can't achieve equality by unequal means.

If you want to harass me with your propaganda, start a new thread.
You can't achieve equality by doing nothing.

It is your proposal.

Now am I harassing you because I don't agree with you? LOL.

[Peter1469]

$73T may be an accurate figure for net worth of all Americans, but not only the top 1%. I did find some numbers of WIKI from 2000 that had the net worth of all Americans at $44T. I however did use the term wealth when I should have used the term income.

Sorry, I don't see how your money goes to the State when you die. Your kids may not have earned it, but it doesn't belong to the government.


The net worth of the 1% is 73 trillion dollars. If I have been misinformed, then tell me what the real figure is. Remember, this isn't about salary. So anyone here who thinks he's in the 1% because he makes 250K is probably way out of it.

Also, my figure implies that there is 3 trillion a year available in inheritance. The dead don't own it; the heirs didn't earn it, so that would fund any kind of government. Or would you rather tax the living than tax the dead?

[Chris]

You can't achieve equality by doing nothing.

It is your proposal.

Now am I harassing you because I don't agree with you? LOL.



Precisely. You, I, everyone must work. That was my argument. But that undermines your communist egalitarianism.

What was my proposal other than work, and then when common wanted more, property and rule of law.

I didn't propose doing nothing. Why would you make that up?

Oh, wait, I think I get it. Like common, you want to change society. But my solutions seek to change government. That's incomprehensible to the left who want to change society.


The harassment has to do with your propagandist techniques to redefine what I say to its opposite and then show how your made up nonsense is wrong. But it's wrong because it's made up nonsense. And, yes, that's just what you did again, you take a proposal to work and reverse it to a proposal to do nothing. It's the same with your attempt here once again to redefine free markets to their opposite--but we're not even talking free markets here.

[Bob]

The net worth of the 1% is 73 trillion dollars. If I have been misinformed, then tell me what the real figure is. Remember, this isn't about salary. So anyone here who thinks he's in the 1% because he makes 250K is probably way out of it.

Also, my figure implies that there is 3 trillion a year available in inheritance. The dead don't own it; the heirs didn't earn it, so that would fund any kind of government. Or would you rather tax the living than tax the dead?

When I was a Democrat, I did not understand that kind of thinking. As a Republican, I still don't understand the love of Government you have. And it is not your government.

[kilgram]

Precisely. You, I, everyone must work. That was my argument. But that undermines your communist egalitarianism.

What was my proposal other than work, and then when common wanted more, property and rule of law.

I didn't propose doing nothing. Why would you make that up?

Oh, wait, I think I get it. Like common, you want to change society. But my solutions seek to change government. That's incomprehensible to the left who want to change society.


The harassment has to do with your propagandist techniques to redefine what I say to its opposite and then show how your made up nonsense is wrong. But it's wrong because it's made up nonsense. And, yes, that's just what you did again, you take a proposal to work and reverse it to a proposal to do nothing. It's the same with your attempt here once again to redefine free markets to their opposite--but we're not even talking free markets here.
And what undermines my communist egalitarianism? That of everybody must work undermines my communist egalitarinaism? Yes, obviously it does, I never thought of it. You've destroyed every argument I could have :greatjob:

Change government does not do anything when the problem is the system or society.

And society changes. So, I don't see the problem of changing it, if it leads to more freedom and equality.

We, humans as social beings and intelligent beings we can break any barriers that prevent us to improve ourselves as society and individuals.

You don't want to do anything. You want to keep the things as they are now. And therefore continue with the same problems, even increase them as I pointed in my first post when I said you wanted to go back to the XIX's society. And I pointed you that you would get again all the problems that society generated. I never went offtopic.

Like always I say, you are unable to go further the theory. See the consequences of your decisions.

I don't redefine anything. You don't like my opinion about your ideology. You cannot understand how somebody can see very different the consequences of a decision. I see inequality, poverty and extreme power in hands of the means of production owners. You can disagree with my conclusion, but I am not distorting your point of view. I know perfectly what you are saying. Just I absolutely disagree with your conclusions. Your only argument against my opinion is that I distort your vision and I don't understand it. Maybe sometimes I can make that mistake, but not always.

I've never redefined the free markets to the opposite. I pointed consequences of free market. You disagree with my opinion. Right. But I've not changing the meaning of free markets.

And we are talking about something very similar. It is inside your economic ideology. And, the answer to the OP is when there is inequality, the weakest have to get advantages to be equal to the stronger.

It is like a race with children and adults. If you want equality and equal conditions, children must start first, start front of the adults, or make the adults start behind them.

[Chris]

Change government does not do anything when the problem is the system or society.

And society changes. So, I don't see the problem of changing it, if it leads to more freedom and equality.

Right, but when the problem is government, as it is here, you change government, or you abolish it.

But you want to change society to fit your ideals, your utopian vision. You don't like society. And, by implication, you would use government to change society.

And I thought you were an anarchist, lol.

[kilgram]

Right, but when the problem is government, as it is here, you change government, or you abolish it.

But you want to change society to fit your ideals, your utopian vision. You don't like society. And, by implication, you would use government to change society.

And I thought you were an anarchist, lol.
Who said using government to change society?

I think this will help you:

Work and fight for the Revolution.

And using my avatar:

Farmworker fight and work.

And I remember you, my position is simple:

- The problem is the system

- Abolishing government only increases the problem and makes it more severe. Because you won't eliminate inequality, you will increase it.

And, is it hard to understand? I am anarchist. I want the social revolution. Change all the structures, eliminate all the structures of power. End with the authoritarism. Anarchism, Chris.

[Chris]

Who said using government to change society?

I think this will help you:

Work and fight for the Revolution.

And using my avatar:

Farmworker fight and work.

And I remember you, my position is simple:

- The problem is the system

- Abolishing government only increases the problem and makes it more severe. Because you won't eliminate inequality, you will increase it.


You want to change society to your utopian ideals. How else you going to do it but through government? History shows that's what communists do.

Right, work and fight for the revolution to form a new government to force your utopian vision on society.


Abolishing government only increases the problem and makes it more severe. Because you won't eliminate inequality, you will increase it.

And you call yourself an anarchist!

"Who said using government to change society?" You did, again.

[kilgram]

You want to change society to your utopian ideals. How else you going to do it but through government? History shows that's what communists do.

Right, work and fight for the revolution to form a new government to force your utopian vision on society.



And you call yourself an anarchist!

"Who said using government to change society?" You did, again.
I call myself anarchist because I am Anarchist.

I've not said anything about using government. Nothing. Don't put words on me.

And you dare to accuse me of distorting your words. When you are doing exactly that with me.

PS: I am not Marxist. (This sentence has many implicit meanings to your post).

[MisterVeritis]

Elaboration. The question is what is just. Answer, life imposes on us at least the need to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. You can act to do that in one of two ways: You can work in exchange for those things, or you can take it by force or fraud, and it matters little whether you yourself take or you have government take for you. Only one means is just. Don't overcomplicate this, keep it simple.
What we usually see is an increase in the amount of legal plunder until those who are able move on to some other place. We have arrived at that point in our history. Usually bloodletting occurs shortly after we reach the point we find ourselves today.

[MisterVeritis]

The net worth of the 1% is 73 trillion dollars. If I have been misinformed, then tell me what the real figure is. Remember, this isn't about salary. So anyone here who thinks he's in the 1% because he makes 250K is probably way out of it.

Also, my figure implies that there is 3 trillion a year available in inheritance. The dead don't own it; the heirs didn't earn it, so that would fund any kind of government. Or would you rather tax the living than tax the dead?
This is Marxism at its ugliest. What I have worked for is mine to pass on as I see fit. It does not belong to you Marxist. It never did. You have not earned it or it would be yours Marxist.

If you want more then become worth more. The hate in your heart is palpable. You prefer theft to honest effort. People who believe as you do are a poison to society.

[Captain Obvious]

This is Marxism at its ugliest. What I have worked for is mine to pass on as I see fit. It does not belong to you Marxist. It never did. You have not earned it or it would be yours Marxist.

If you want more then become worth more. The hate in your heart is palpable. You prefer theft to honest effort. People who believe as you do are a poison to society.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/pengzhou-china-farmer-carrying-water-buckets-14886277.jpg

[Chris]

I call myself anarchist because I am Anarchist.

I've not said anything about using government. Nothing. Don't put words on me.

And you dare to accuse me of distorting your words. When you are doing exactly that with me.

PS: I am not Marxist. (This sentence has many implicit meanings to your post).


You said you want to change society. That's done through government, existing or revolutionary. Period.

No, you're not Marxist, you say, but you look at anarchism the same way, you want to change society, and will use force and fraud to do it. Again, look at the history of communism. Look at Russian, Cuba, North Korea.

Your communism is different, yea, right.

No, I am citing and using YOUR words, YOUR arguments. I am no changing them, I am not redefining them, I am not creating strawmen--like you do. You're a propagandist. I'm plain spoken.

Here's an example: "PS: I am not Marxist. (This sentence has many implicit meanings to your post)." You twist what I said. I compared your strategy to Marx's.

[Chris]

And what undermines my communist egalitarianism? That of everybody must work undermines my communist egalitarinaism? Yes, obviously it does, I never thought of it. You've destroyed every argument I could have :greatjob:

Change government does not do anything when the problem is the system or society.

And society changes. So, I don't see the problem of changing it, if it leads to more freedom and equality.

We, humans as social beings and intelligent beings we can break any barriers that prevent us to improve ourselves as society and individuals.

You don't want to do anything. You want to keep the things as they are now. And therefore continue with the same problems, even increase them as I pointed in my first post when I said you wanted to go back to the XIX's society. And I pointed you that you would get again all the problems that society generated. I never went offtopic.

Like always I say, you are unable to go further the theory. See the consequences of your decisions.

I don't redefine anything. You don't like my opinion about your ideology. You cannot understand how somebody can see very different the consequences of a decision. I see inequality, poverty and extreme power in hands of the means of production owners. You can disagree with my conclusion, but I am not distorting your point of view. I know perfectly what you are saying. Just I absolutely disagree with your conclusions. Your only argument against my opinion is that I distort your vision and I don't understand it. Maybe sometimes I can make that mistake, but not always.

I've never redefined the free markets to the opposite. I pointed consequences of free market. You disagree with my opinion. Right. But I've not changing the meaning of free markets.

And we are talking about something very similar. It is inside your economic ideology. And, the answer to the OP is when there is inequality, the weakest have to get advantages to be equal to the stronger.

It is like a race with children and adults. If you want equality and equal conditions, children must start first, start front of the adults, or make the adults start behind them.



What undermines your egalitarianism? You didn't watch the video, did you. You rush in here to argue other things and do't keven look at the OP. The point of the video was you can only archive equal outcomes by unequal means, but unequal means cannot result in equality. If you treat people differently, the outcomes will be different.


Change government does not do anything when the problem is the system or society.

And society changes. So, I don't see the problem of changing it, if it leads to more freedom and equality.

Again, you want to leave government in place because you see it as the means to achieve your agenda. You deny this but keep saying it.


You don't want to do anything.

You started with this lie, and now you return to it. How can work, property rights and rule of law be nothing? You simply make no sense at all.


It is like a race with children and adults. If you want equality and equal conditions, children must start first, start front of the adults, or make the adults start behind them.

If you treat people differently, the outcomes will be different, not equal. You are essentially stealing from adults to give children something for nothing. Yes, they may all finish the race at the same time, but each will learn something different. The children that they need not work to achieve what they want, the adults that they will not be rewarded for their work, that they can act like children and still get rewarded.

You have effectively argued yourself right into the OP video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jceN4BYsxKc

[Chris]

What we usually see is an increase in the amount of legal plunder until those who are able move on to some other place. We have arrived at that point in our history. Usually bloodletting occurs shortly after we reach the point we find ourselves today.

That's what Kilgram advocates. It's really little different that the left's liberal progressive agenda. They have the same source.

[MisterVeritis]

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/pengzhou-china-farmer-carrying-water-buckets-14886277.jpg
And your relevant comment? Where should I look for that?

[MisterVeritis]

That's what Kilgram advocates. It's really little different that the left's liberal progressive agenda. They have the same source.
We do agree. I wish we could rid ourselves of this nation's internal enemies. Nearly all school teachers would have to be fired from about grade 6 through the college. Many are hateful Marxists.

We need a completely new method for educating our children. Turning them over to people who hate the US has clearly not worked.

[Captain Obvious]

And your relevant comment? Where should I look for that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-a9qIxPEXQ

[Captain Obvious]

We do agree. I wish we could rid ourselves of this nation's internal enemies. Nearly all school teachers would have to be fired from about grade 6 through the college. Many are hateful Marxists.

We need a completely new method for educating our children. Turning them over to people who hate the US has clearly not worked.

Duct tape, fixes everything.

[Peter1469]

We do agree. I wish we could rid ourselves of this nation's internal enemies. Nearly all school teachers would have to be fired from about grade 6 through the college. Many are hateful Marxists.

We need a completely new method for educating our children. Turning them over to people who hate the US has clearly not worked.

We need a purge.

[MisterVeritis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-a9qIxPEXQ
I watched. Speaking in riddles CNN?

You had no point. I understand.

[MisterVeritis]

Duct tape, fixes everything.
I was thinking of using the Internet for most education. We do not need to pay leftists to damage our children.

[Captain Obvious]

We need a purge.

We need an epidemic.

People are sharper, healthier, smarter when they're under duress.

Nobody is under duress now, so we're fat, lazy and disinterested.

Except in shit like Kardashian's ass.

[Captain Obvious]

I was thinking of using the Internet for most education. We do not need to pay leftists to damage our children.

Sure, pay RushBeck to indoctrinate your children.

His sponsors will love that idea.

[MisterVeritis]

Sure, pay RushBeck to indoctrinate your children.

His sponsors will love that idea.
You lack imagination. I suspect you are a leftist.

[Captain Obvious]

You lack imagination. I suspect you are a leftist.

Yeah, I'm a regular fascist.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, I'm a regular fascist.
I cannot tell if you are a fascist or not. I will take your word for it.

[William]

I dunno - why is it such a bad idea to tax people with loads of money more? Like nobody who is a billionaire earned all that money by hard work - don't they owe some of that success to society? There are no billionaires on deserted islands.

And it seems to me the purpose of taxing people is not to punish them, but so that society can run in a fair and efficient way. So if you tax everyone equally the poor man with a family to feed can no longer do that, while the rich man will not even notice the tax he has to pay. And no society where there are people starving and without shelter or medical care, while there are other people who live in mansions and have yachts and Learjets, is going to work well. Isn't it better that people who already have loads, have a little less, and everyone else has at least enough?

And I think Kilgram has a good point about the 19th century - has anyone read anything by Dickens? Do we really want to go back there?

[Captain Obvious]

I dunno - why is it such a bad idea to tax people with loads of money more? Like nobody who is a billionaire earned all that money by hard work - don't they owe some of that success to society? There are no billionaires on deserted islands.

And it seems to me the purpose of taxing people is not to punish them, but so that society can run in a fair and efficient way. So if you tax everyone equally the poor man with a family to feed can no longer do that, while the rich man will not even notice the tax he has to pay. And no society where there are people starving and without shelter or medical care, while there are other people who live in mansions and have yachts and Learjets, is going to work well. Isn't it better that people who already have loads, have a little less, and everyone else has at least enough?

And I think Kilgram has a good point about the 19th century - has anyone read anything by Dickens? Do we really want to go back there?

Because the establishment has brainwashed the dim of wit into believing that they will take all our jobs and roads and bridges away if we tax them.

That's why most of us have, collectively, sacrificed our dignity for a few table scraps.

[Captain Obvious]

William - look at history, at no point in time, at no spot on the planet has there ever been a system who's wealth and power haven't been controlled by a vast minority.

Not in your country, not in mine, not ever.

These mindless zombies will cry "marxist" because that's all they've been trained to do. It's not a democracy/communism/marxism thing either, all of these systems have produced class driven societies where a minority enjoy the majority of wealth and power.

I know you're a thinker, I bet you get this. Most mindless clones don't.

[Peter1469]

Because the establishment has brainwashed the dim of wit into believing that they will take all our jobs and roads and bridges away if we tax them.

That's why most of us have, collectively, sacrificed our dignity for a few table scraps.

We do tax the rich. In 2012 the top 5% paid 58.95% (http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes)of the federal income taxes. I suspect their property taxes were not free either. But that is just a wild guess on my part.

[Captain Obvious]

We do tax the rich. In 2012 the top 5% paid 58.95% (http://www.ntu.org/foundation/page/who-pays-income-taxes)of the federal income taxes. I suspect their property taxes were not free either. But that is just a wild guess on my part.

The wealthy have very little earned income, you have to consider total tax and total gains.

[William]

@William (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1351) - look at history, at no point in time, at no spot on the planet has there ever been a system who's wealth and power haven't been controlled by a vast minority.

Not in your country, not in mine, not ever.

These mindless zombies will cry "marxist" because that's all they've been trained to do. It's not a democracy/communism/marxism thing either, all of these systems have produced class driven societies where a minority enjoy the majority of wealth and power.

I know you're a thinker, I bet you get this. Most mindless clones don't.

I totally agree - we did the history of the Industrial Revolution, and while that was great for making stuff, it also made just a few people very rich, and made lots of people into slaves. I think things are not so different now from Feudal times. There is still the Lord of the Manor and the serfs, we just call them different things now.

But I also think we can change the way society works. Australia is no different from anywhere else, but I like the way Aussies call people who are disadvantaged 'battlers' instead of 'losers'. Even I know that it is not always their fault that people are poor. I grew up in the UK, and one of my friends from the North will have to leave school next year cos his dad had a stroke and his family needs the income. None of that was John's fault or his dad's fault. His dad will get a social services pension, but it won't be enough cos John has two younger brothers. That totally sucks, but it would be much worse in a society that didn't have a disability pension (like most of the non-European world).

I just don't get the people (even here in Oz) who say the poor choose to be poor cos of (a) bad decisions, or (b) cos of all the free stuff they get. And defending the humungously rich from paying more tax is totally Bodmin. :shocked:

[Peter1469]

The wealthy have very little earned income, you have to consider total tax and total gains.

We can try to find those figures. But is it a valid comparison to pick the federal income tax and see who pays what. And if you are correct that the rich pay very little income taxes, that very little was still 58.98% of the total federal income taxes paid in 2012.

In a sense this is a snipe hunt. The US does not have a tax revenue problem. It has a tax spending problem. In the 2008 election cycle the hard left was really pushing the concept of very high tax increases. The most radical plans (which the American people would have revolted over) would have raised an estimated $220B per year. And those figures were based off static models. Meaning taking that much money out of the economy would not affect the economy whatsoever (right!).

Deficits in that year were more than double that amount. So those tax increases would do nothing for the deficit.

We have a spending addiction.

[Peter1469]

I totally agree - we did the history of the Industrial Revolution, and while that was great for making stuff, it also made just a few people very rich, and made lots of people into slaves. I think things are not so different now from Feudal times. There is still the Lord of the Manor and the serfs, we just call them different things now.

But I also think we can change the way society works. Australia is no different from anywhere else, but I like the way Aussies call people who are disadvantaged 'battlers' instead of 'losers'. Even I know that it is not always their fault that people are poor. I grew up in the UK, and one of my friends from the North will have to leave school next year cos his dad had a stroke and his family needs the income. None of that was John's fault or his dad's fault. His dad will get a social services pension, but it won't be enough cos John has two younger brothers. That totally sucks, but it would be much worse in a society that didn't have a disability pension (like most of the non-European world).

I just don't get the people (even here in Oz) who say the poor choose to be poor cos of (a) bad decisions, or (b) cos of all the free stuff they get. And defending the humungously rich from paying more tax is totally Bodmin. :shocked:

I don't know about Down Under, but in the US the number of rich generally has increased every year since the Industrial Revolution. Are your numbers shrinking?

[Guerilla]

Beyond those basics is the need to establish property rights, and that means removing obstacles and hindrances and red tape making owning property difficult. Property rights will establish rule of law, that is, equal treatment of all under the law, from rich man to poor, from powerful to weak.

One of the most outspoken advocates of this is Hernando de Soto. As Hernando de Soto: Property Rights, Not Just Capitalism (http://blog.acton.org/archives/76478-hernando-de-soto-property-rights-not-just-capitalism.html) explains:



In de Soto's own words, from Hernando de Soto — Property Rights & Rule of Law (http://www.povertycure.org/voices/hernando-de-soto/):



So, in each case, what we should do is to go to these indigenous people and say, “What do you want?” Sovereignty so that the Indian Chief decides what’s going to happen? Or property rights?

I don't see why we can't have property rights and an indian chief. Why do all the Indians have to submit to get property rights?

The way rule of law is explained in the video, I don't see why rule of law can't be achieved with social norms in an anarchistic or communitarian setting. Maybe the law could be that you own the land that you can and do utilize.


He argues that their exclusion — the product of a lack of enforceable property rights — holds back them and the entire world economy. It’s why capitalism, despite its triumph over communism and its wealth generation in America and Western Europe, has failed elsewhere.


Maybe capitalism did so well here because the Europeans came and stole a bunch of prime property, and then used slaves and super cheap labor to develop it all and get things started.

All hail the invisible hand though.

[William]

I don't know about Down Under, but in the US the number of rich generally has increased every year since the Industrial Revolution. Are your numbers shrinking?

TBH, I dunno - I don't think there are statistics saying who is rich and who isn't. Rich or poor are defined in relative terms. Someone who is considered really poor in Australia or the US, may be looked at as rich in Bangladesh. But if you are saying that the standard of living has increased steadily since the Industrial Revolution - no argument. :smiley:

I'm not talking about the US, or Australia, or one political party or another. I'm just saying what I see as a good and fair way to run any society.

[Peter1469]

TBH, I dunno - I don't think there are statistics saying who is rich and who isn't. Rich or poor are defined in relative terms. Someone who is considered really poor in Australia or the US, may be looked at as rich in Bangladesh. But if you are saying that the standard of living has increased steadily since the Industrial Revolution - no argument. :smiley:

I'm not talking about the US, or Australia, or one political party or another. I'm just saying what I see as a good and fair way to run any society.


Many times in history when people decided that fair was the most important thing in society, a lot of people ended up in mass graves.

[kilgram]

You said you want to change society. That's done through government, existing or revolutionary. Period.

No, you're not Marxist, you say, but you look at anarchism the same way, you want to change society, and will use force and fraud to do it. Again, look at the history of communism. Look at Russian, Cuba, North Korea.

Your communism is different, yea, right.

No, I am citing and using YOUR words, YOUR arguments. I am no changing them, I am not redefining them, I am not creating strawmen--like you do. You're a propagandist. I'm plain spoken.

Here's an example: "PS: I am not Marxist. (This sentence has many implicit meanings to your post)." You twist what I said. I compared your strategy to Marx's.
All anarchists wanted to change society from Proudhon or Godwin to Kropotkin, Bakunin or Stirner....

I told you I am not Marxist. And as I expected you didn't understand what I meant, and I am not going to help you.

But, again I am not talking about government. And please, leave to distort my words.

Believe what you want, chris. I don't care. You can believe that I am the devil with horns, a communist that will enslave everybody and will fuck their children, or whatever. I don't care anymore. I know that you are better than that.

[kilgram]

I was thinking of using the Internet for most education. We do not need to pay leftists to damage our children.
Obviously, leftists are the evil incarnate.

Hey, what is that of different opinion of how things should work.

Ah, I remember you that in Internet you would find a lot of leftists ;) Much more, but maybe people can access to people from other countries where the leftist ideas are even much more common. For example to people from Europe.

[kilgram]

I don't know about Down Under, but in the US the number of rich generally has increased every year since the Industrial Revolution. Are your numbers shrinking?
And the breach between rich and poor is increasing.

But that is irrelevant.

[Peter1469]

And the breach between rich and poor is increasing.

But that is irrelevant.

The income gap is overstated in the US. Anyway the important thing is how well off the middle class and poor are.

[Reason10]

You cannot achieve equality, outside of equality of misery.

[Chris]

I dunno - why is it such a bad idea to tax people with loads of money more? Like nobody who is a billionaire earned all that money by hard work - don't they owe some of that success to society? There are no billionaires on deserted islands.

And it seems to me the purpose of taxing people is not to punish them, but so that society can run in a fair and efficient way. So if you tax everyone equally the poor man with a family to feed can no longer do that, while the rich man will not even notice the tax he has to pay. And no society where there are people starving and without shelter or medical care, while there are other people who live in mansions and have yachts and Learjets, is going to work well. Isn't it better that people who already have loads, have a little less, and everyone else has at least enough?

And I think Kilgram has a good point about the 19th century - has anyone read anything by Dickens? Do we really want to go back there?


If the aim is to treat people equally, how do achieve that by treating people unequally?

How does taxing for purposes of redistribution of wealth lead to efficiency? How does government know where to take the wealth and where to redistribute it? Why don't you trust people to do that with their own wealth?

Kilgram does not have a point. He read something somewhere, without understanding it, and merely repeats it. He like that Reason dude who spouts Rush.

And what of Dickens? So many see him as an anti-capitalist. But he wasn't. From Was Dickens Really a Socialist? (http://fee.org/freeman/detail/was-dickens-really-a-socialist)


We are used to thinking of Dickens as an enemy of capitalism largely because of his timeless lampooning of certain men of business. What he was really doing, however, was attacking the vice of greed. In Our Mutual Friend he blasts the Lammles, who marry each other solely for money (only to find out that neither has any). In the same novel he forced the “mercenary” Bella Wilfer to undergo a transformation before finding happiness. In Martin Chuzzlewit relatives of the title character are ridiculed for their scheming at inheritance.

And then there is the prototype of the heartless capitalist—Ebenezer Scrooge. But as with other characters, Dickens does not attack Scrooge as a capitalist but as a miser. As Daniel T. Oliver put it in The Freeman (December 1999):
Scrooge’s character defect is not so much greed as miserliness. He hoards his money even at the expense of personal comfort. While many remember the single lump of coal that burns in the cold office of his assistant Bob Cratchit, the fire in Scrooge’s own office is described as “very small.”. . . Dickens gives us no reason to believe that Scrooge has ever been dishonest in his business dealings. He is thrifty, disciplined, and hard-working. What Dickens makes clear is that these virtues are not enough.

And what of Dickens himself? Charles Dickens, Capitalist (http://blog.independent.org/2012/01/23/charles-dickens-capitalist/)


Stephen Marcus has called Dickens “the first capitalist of literature” in the sense that he worked within apparently adverse conditions to take advantage of new technologies and markets, creating, in effect, an entirely new role for fiction. In Charles Dickens and His Publishers, Robert Patten quotes Oscar Dystel (president and chief executive of Bantam Paperbacks) on the three “key factors” in his development of a successful paperback line: availability of new material, introduction of the rubber plate rotary press, and development of magazine wholesalers as a distribution arm.

[Chris]

I don't see why we can't have property rights and an indian chief. Why do all the Indians have to submit to get property rights?

The way rule of law is explained in the video, I don't see why rule of law can't be achieved with social norms in an anarchistic or communitarian setting. Maybe the law could be that you own the land that you can and do utilize.



Maybe capitalism did so well here because the Europeans came and stole a bunch of prime property, and then used slaves and super cheap labor to develop it all and get things started.

All hail the invisible hand though.


I don't see why we can't have property rights and an indian chief. Why do all the Indians have to submit to get property rights?

Historically that's exactly what was. First off, the notion of Indian Chief is white man's conception. Indian Tribe's weren't organized as states. Second, typically the tribe owned the land and parcelled it out to families, families kep the land for generations as long as the family maintained it. When the family died out, the land went back to the tribe who parcelled out again.

Private property has the norm in Western civilization. Prior to say the Enlightenment however, property as familial and not individual.


The way rule of law is explained in the video, I don't see why rule of law can't be achieved with social norms in an anarchistic or communitarian setting. Maybe the law could be that you own the land that you can and do utilize.

It certainly could and prior to the state always was. However, that last bit there says you might be misconstruing rule of law: Rule of law does say there must be private property, it is not any specific law, it is simply applying the law to all: Everyone is subject to the same law, whatever the law. That's that way is should be in government, is the way it works in society.


Maybe capitalism did so well here because the Europeans came and stole a bunch of prime property, and then used slaves and super cheap labor to develop it all and get things started.

If you read your history you will find that generally settlers did not steal land, they traded for it. That was true from the Pilgrims to the Wild, Wild West. Theft was generally an act of the government. Rich investors in the railroads for example needed right of way and the government gave them that right through settler's land and Indian's land. Again, society tends to follow rule of law, government not.


All hail the invisible hand though.

To understand the invisible hand you need to read not Smith's Wealth but his Moral Sentiments. You will find it's simply the rule of thumb that to get what you want by economics means you have to give other what they want--division of labor, specialization and trade--self-interest by the invisible hand is social interest.

That's sort of paradoxical. But no more paradoxical that the fact most socialist/communist/syndicalist interest are by the visible hand self-interested. There is in Cuba, for instance, a rich ruling class over a country of poor.

[Chris]

All anarchists wanted to change society from Proudhon or Godwin to Kropotkin, Bakunin or Stirner....

I told you I am not Marxist. And as I expected you didn't understand what I meant, and I am not going to help you.

But, again I am not talking about government. And please, leave to distort my words.

Believe what you want, chris. I don't care. You can believe that I am the devil with horns, a communist that will enslave everybody and will fuck their children, or whatever. I don't care anymore. I know that you are better than that.


And they all failed because most of them ended up authoritarian--read Max Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism. They were not content to persuade society to change, in frustration they attempted to coerce change. If they had you ability to explain their views, i can see why.

Again, I didn't say you were a Marxist. I said your plan to force your views (you said fight) is similar to what happened to Marx.

You are talking force. That's government.

[Chris]

And the breach between rich and poor is increasing.

But that is irrelevant.


Yet everyone is getting richer. That's what the left tends to leave out.

[MisterVeritis]

Obviously, leftists are the evil incarnate.

Hey, what is that of different opinion of how things should work.

Ah, I remember you that in Internet you would find a lot of leftists ;) Much more, but maybe people can access to people from other countries where the leftist ideas are even much more common. For example to people from Europe.
If you prefer we can use the better term, authoritarian statists.

I prefer individual liberty and freedom to collectivism. Your mileage may vary.

[kilgram]

And they all failed because most of them ended up authoritarian--read Max Nettlau's A Short History of Anarchism. They were not content to persuade society to change, in frustration they attempted to coerce change. If they had you ability to explain their views, i can see why.

Again, I didn't say you were a Marxist. I said your plan to force your views (you said fight) is similar to what happened to Marx.

You are talking force. That's government.
I am revolutionary.

I am not talking force neither government.

And why are you lying?

Ok, and what about you? you choose authoritarian governments like monarchies over less authoritarian like democracies. You choose systems where the pyramidal system and the class system is pretty alive and where the wealthy will have absolute power over the rest. And you dare to talk me about government? When you are the one with your "free market" ideal defend a system where we won't have anything to envy to the feudalism.

And about that I am repeating things without understanding is an insult to me and my intelligence that I won't tolerate anymore. I tell you that you are defending ideas that were already defended in the XIX century and proved absolutely a failure.

About anarchism. You don't have no idea and how they were authoritarian? Can you give me an argument? Except inventing things? Can you explain me how government can exist in my ideas. And you dare to talk to me about using my preconceived ideas to lie about your "free market" ideas. Chris, you are doing it even much more that I could do it. And in difference, I am trying to be honest.

[Chris]

I am revolutionary.

I am not talking force neither government.

And why are you lying?

Ok, and what about you? you choose authoritarian governments like monarchies over less authoritarian like democracies. You choose systems where the pyramidal system and the class system is pretty alive and where the wealthy will have absolute power over the rest. And you dare to talk me about government? When you are the one with your "free market" ideal defend a system where we won't have anything to envy to the feudalism.

And about that I am repeating things without understanding is an insult to me and my intelligence that I won't tolerate anymore.


Government is force, it has monopoly on force. --At least I can explain what I'm saying and why.


I choose monarchies over democracies, and have given many reasons, AND anarchies over monarchies, that has always been clear despite your attempts to distort.


Then don't repeat what you cannot explain or defend. Don't insult yourself. I'm merely describing your posts.

[kilgram]

If you prefer we can use the better term, authoritarian statists.

I prefer individual liberty and freedom to collectivism. Your mileage may vary.
Authoritarian statists are not leftist. There are many in the right.

Collectivism is not opposite to freedom neither to individual freedom.

[kilgram]

Government is force, it has monopoly on force. --At least I can explain what I'm saying and why.


I choose monarchies over democracies, and have given many reasons, AND anarchies over monarchies, that has always been clear despite your attempts to distort.


Then don't repeat what you cannot explain or defend. Don't insult yourself. I'm merely describing your posts.
What cannot I explain?

I've never defended government. And yes government is a force. But not the only one. In free market system you would have other forces, and all of them much more authoritarian because they would be out of any control.

And your preferences about democracy, monarchy and anarchism indicate how twisted is your ideology. Prefering a totalitarian system over a less authoritarian system is twisted. And from my point of view, you are a typical liberal.

And I've explained you, many times the consequences of your ideology. That would lead to more poverty, inequality and social injustice.

And yes, you are insulting me while you are twisting my words. I've never talked in favor or against government in this thread. And you know that I am against it, whatever you say.

So please, try not putting words in my mouth that I have not said.

I've defended every idea. And if I cannot do such thing I admit it. I am not afraid doing that.

[Chris]

Authoritarian statists are not leftist. There are many in the right.

Collectivism is not opposite to freedom neither to individual freedom.


The way even Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism speaks of it, there is libertarianism and there is authoritarianism on both left and right. His main criticisms are of authoritarians on the left.

http://i.snag.gy/K8s0B.jpg


Collectivism is not opposite to freedom neither to individual freedom.
MisterVeritis, meet kilgram, famous for redefining words, a great propagandist technique.

Two passages from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:


To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink.

---

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

[Chris]

What cannot I explain?

I've never defended government. And yes government is a force. But not the only one. In free market system you would have other forces, and all of them much more authoritarian because they would be out of any control.

And your preferences about democracy, monarchy and anarchism indicate how twisted is your ideology. Prefering a totalitarian system over a less authoritarian system is twisted. And from my point of view, you are a typical liberal.

And I've explained you, many times the consequences of your ideology. That would lead to more poverty, inequality and social injustice.

And yes, you are insulting me while you are twisting my words. I've never talked in favor or against government in this thread. And you know that I am against it, whatever you say.

So please, try not putting words in my mouth that I have not said.

I've defended every idea. And if I cannot do such thing I admit it. I am not afraid doing that.


You explain nothing, you make claims.

Think not? Explain how voluntary exchange is force. Explain how you can achieve equal ends by unequal means.

[kilgram]

The way even Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism speaks of it, there is libertarianism and there is authoritarianism on both left and right. His main criticisms are of authoritarians on the left.

http://i.snag.gy/K8s0B.jpg


@MisterVeritis (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1287), meet kilgram, famous for redefining words, a great propagandist technique.

Two passages from Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four:
Chris, can you please stop lying about me?

I've not read Max Nettlau, and I am not going to read him. Please leave to bother me with him.

And stop believing that your vision is the only right. If you want to discuss with someone else, you must take in consideration their ideas and question the yours. I've done it to discuss with you. Even I've admitted reasonings that I disagreed with, but for consensus and understanding I did. You've never did anything of that and obviously I've stopped doing that.

[Chris]

Chris, can you please stop lying about me?

I've not read Max Nettlau, and I am not going to read him. Please leave to bother me with him.



Great explanation, kilgram.

[kilgram]

You explain nothing, you make claims.

Think not? Explain how voluntary exchange is force. Explain how you can achieve equal ends by unequal means.
And what is your explanation? You've made worst claims than me.

Voluntary exhange is not force. I've never said that. Equality is achievable helping the weakest. If you don't help them, and normally equality will be achieved going to a system that is inherently more equal and does not empowers class hierarchy.

[kilgram]

Great explanation, kilgram.
I am tired, chris.

When you show me a little respect, I am going to bother to make some explanation.

And maybe I change of idea about some of your recommendations. Until then, don't bother to tell me what I have to read, because it will go to the list of things-to-never-do.

Yes it is childish, but I remember you (however I've never said it) that I've always used these forums (all the English forums where I've participated) with two goals:

- Practice English
- Play/Entertainment

[Chris]

I am tired, chris.

When you show me a little respect, I am going to bother to make some explanation.

And maybe I change of idea about some of your recommendations. Until then, don't bother to tell me what I have to read, because it will go to the list of things-to-never-do.

Yes it is childish, but I remember you (however I've never said it) that I've always used these forums (all the English forums where I've participated) with two goals:

- Practice English
- Play/Entertainment


This always happens when you are challenged to explain what you claim. You get upset, you pretend insult and injury, you take you ball and bat and stomp away to pout.

It is tiresome.

[kilgram]

This always happens when you are challenged to explain what you claim. You get upset, you pretend insult and injury, you take you ball and bat and stomp away to pout.

It is tiresome.
You've not challenged anything.

My claim is simple:

The consequences would be:

- social unrest
- inequality
- revolts
- socialist recovery and more pressence of revolutionary worker unions

Like it happened during the XIX century and the XX century.

More power of the wealthy
- Less power of negotiation of the workers
- Lower wages
- less rights
- Associations of means of production owners would control all the resources without stopping
- More privileges for the ones having greater adquisitive power

Things already happen, but those would be increased.

I've explained with the example of the race why inequality cannot be reduced by ignoring the problem or the source of the inequality. And the inequality is because of the economic system, not because the government.

So if you want to reduce inequality, you must use methods to help the ones in disavantage. They cannot be left alone. Is responsibility of the whole society to protect them.

Now that I've made a summary. We can restart the discussion.

[Bob]

I believe thats true chris, but let me ask you how do people on the bottom in todays world of outsourcing and no jobs get out of the economic and social hole they are in without any help at all.

Be honest have you ever been other than just riding past but acutually in an economically depressed high crime shithole a neighborhood. I have half my life and I dont know how most could possibly rise up out of it without help.

I truly believe BILLIONAIRES wouldnt be hurt one bit paying even double the taxs they pay. They made their money off the rest of us, they could give a minute amt back to help the bottom rung of america.

Chris I live by If I have a 50cts and I gave you a quarter I just gave you half of all I have.
If im a billionaire and I give you a quarter what did I give you ?

America needs to fix this huge inequality that has grown in leaps in bounds in the last 20 yrs. People need to have the ability if not EDUCATED to work up to a decent job, thats impossible to day for most americans all the jobs they used to work up to are in china and elsewhere.

America needs to figure this out

I will explain this one more time.

For things to change, YOU must CHANGE

Rather than my lecture of how I took a shitty staff of salesmen selling real estate and in several months molded them into a super high production team, let me one more time offer a video.

Listen to this man.

You are the sole person who can change your life. Chris is correct.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDazFiCXtaw

[Guerilla]

Yet everyone is getting richer. That's what the left tends to leave out.

The thing is, I really don't care about how rich the richest guy is. I'm more focused on a safety net, which most on the left and right would agree with. Except I want the net a little bigger. I want the people at the bottom to be at a certain level. If you look at maslows pyramid, I at least want the bottom step on the pyramid not to be worried about so that people can focus on the more important steps of the pyramid. This is a very logical investment for a society to make.

In a fully capitalist society, many people get stuck at the bottom level trying to get the basics, or, as I have said before, I think it makes them develop a complex that even when they have the basics fulfilled, they continue to stay stuck at that bottom level, mentally. These are CEOs and the like.

[Bob]

I bet those 1% will still need American Infrastructure to meet their bottom line.


Why won't Democrats give any of the credit for states infrastructure to the states? We pay a ton of state taxes and our states promise us infrastructure.

[Chris]

The thing is, I really don't care about how rich the richest guy is. I'm more focused on a safety net, which most on the left and right would agree with. Except I want the net a little bigger. I want the people at the bottom to be at a certain level. If you look at maslows pyramid, I at least want the bottom step on the pyramid not to be worried about so that people can focus on the more important steps of the pyramid. This is a very logical investment for a society to make.

In a fully capitalist society, many people get stuck at the bottom level trying to get the basics, or, as I have said before, I think it makes them develop a complex that even when they have the basics fulfilled, they continue to stay stuck at that bottom level, mentally. These are CEOs and the like.


You're talking the needs of life to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Work is the means to do that, and the just way, see earlier posts on this.

Getting beyond the basics generally requires establishing property rights via rule of law and for the rest getting government out of the way.

Think not, think government is necessary to provide a safety net? How did we ever evolve to the point we invented government? And that statelessness was most of man's existence, and for many still is.

[Bob]

The thing is, I really don't care about how rich the richest guy is. I'm more focused on a safety net, which most on the left and right would agree with. Except I want the net a little bigger. I want the people at the bottom to be at a certain level. If you look at maslows pyramid, I at least want the bottom step on the pyramid not to be worried about so that people can focus on the more important steps of the pyramid. This is a very logical investment for a society to make.

In a fully capitalist society, many people get stuck at the bottom level trying to get the basics, or, as I have said before, I think it makes them develop a complex that even when they have the basics fulfilled, they continue to stay stuck at that bottom level, mentally. These are CEOs and the like.

Getting rich is just like playing tennis. Only you can take up your racquet and aim over the net.

Depending on me to do it for you is what Democrats tell you to do. I am not your solution unless you listen to wise words.

I helped an entire office get a lot more income.

I did not do the job for them.

i showed them how it is done.

They believed and production skyrocketed.

It works for all of us.

We must first decide to change.

It is not them needing to change, it is we. We must change.

[Chris]

You've not challenged anything.

My claim is simple:

The consequences would be:

- social unrest
- inequality
- revolts
- socialist recovery and more pressence of revolutionary worker unions

Like it happened during the XIX century and the XX century.

More power of the wealthy
- Less power of negotiation of the workers
- Lower wages
- less rights
- Associations of means of production owners would control all the resources without stopping
- More privileges for the ones having greater adquisitive power

Things already happen, but those would be increased.

I've explained with the example of the race why inequality cannot be reduced by ignoring the problem or the source of the inequality. And the inequality is because of the economic system, not because the government.

So if you want to reduce inequality, you must use methods to help the ones in disavantage. They cannot be left alone. Is responsibility of the whole society to protect them.

Now that I've made a summary. We can restart the discussion.



We know what you CLAIM to be the consequences of voluntary exchange. You have yet, over dozens of threads, to EXPLAIN how you get from voluntary exchange to those consequences that are the opposite of voluntary exchange.

Your example of the race would make children the equals of adults, which is preposterous.

Society owes you nothing.

Merely repeating your claims is not a summary.

[Guerilla]

You're talking the needs of life to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Work is the means to do that, and the just way, see earlier posts on this.

Getting beyond the basics generally requires establishing property rights via rule of law and for the rest getting government out of the way.

Think not, think government is necessary to provide a safety net? How did we ever evolve to the point we invented government? And that statelessness was most of man's existence, and for many still is.

I'm not saying people shouldn't have to work. But I am saying, that a large safety net for everyone is a logical investment for society to make. Especially if you look at it psychologically.


Getting beyond the basics generally requires establishing property rights via rule of law and for the rest getting government out of the way.
I agree this is probably true. For property rights, I would prefer restrictions on land ownership to that which you are able to utilize.

I don't think you need a state to provide a safety net, but you would need a way to allocate, probably very easy on a communitarian basis.

[kilgram]

You're talking the needs of life to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves. Work is the means to do that, and the just way, see earlier posts on this.

Getting beyond the basics generally requires establishing property rights via rule of law and for the rest getting government out of the way.

Think not, think government is necessary to provide a safety net? How did we ever evolve to the point we invented government? And that statelessness was most of man's existence, and for many still is.
Needs of life that high class have fully covered and without fear to lose them while low class has the knife pending on their heads.

And yes, people has to work. But in a accetable conditions. Work should be only for living. Many people live to work, and that is a problem.

[Chris]

I'm not saying people shouldn't have to work. But I am saying, that a large safety net for everyone is a logical investment for society to make. Especially if you look at it psychologically.

I agree this is probably true. For property rights, I would prefer restrictions on land ownership to that which you are able to utilize.

I don't think you need a state to provide a safety net, but you would need a way to allocate, probably very easy on a communitarian basis.


We could debate property restrictions, I certainly appreciate how Indians treated it.

I agree with a safety net for those who can't work or who are temporarily out of work. And agree, family, friends, community should deal with that, not the federal behemoth. At the local level society sets expectations, wouldn't stand for freeloaders.

[MisterVeritis]

Authoritarian statists are not leftist. There are many in the right.

Collectivism is not opposite to freedom neither to individual freedom.
Authoritarian statist includes all of the tactics used by collectivists to advance the state over the individual. It is a term, in my opinion, superior to left and right that explain nothing other than where people with general beliefs sat in relation to each other.

Collectivism is antithetical to individual liberty and freedom.

[kilgram]

We know what you CLAIM to be the consequences of voluntary exchange. You have yet, over dozens of threads, to EXPLAIN how you get from voluntary exchange to those consequences that are the opposite of voluntary exchange.

Your example of the race would make children the equals of adults, which is preposterous.

Society owes you nothing.

Merely repeating your claims is not a summary.
What the hell is a summary? I've brought all my points to one post. That is a summary.

Seriously, my example of the race is an exagerate example of an inequality and the only way to eliminate it would be what I've said. Giving advantage to the children making them starting before, making start in a more advanced position or making the adults start behind them. But it was an example to explain how equality was only achievable by "inequal means".

About the voluntary exchange, I am going to give you the answer in the other thread.

[The Sage of Main Street]

$73T may be an accurate figure for net worth of all Americans, but not only the top 1%. I did find some numbers of WIKI from 2000 that had the net worth of all Americans at $44T. I however did use the term wealth when I should have used the term income.

Sorry, I don't see how your money goes to the State when you die. Your kids may not have earned it, but it doesn't belong to the government. We allow people to earn a lot of money because that incentive is supposed to make them benefit all of us. Dynasty-building benefits none of the rest of us; it is the hidden cancer that has destroyed all civilizations.


To make a forbidden analogy, are you able to see anything wrong with letting pro athletes pass on their positions to their sons? Not only would it cheat those who would have earned those positions on their own, but it would lower the quality of sports entertainment, i.e., the public's benefit. Except in 1% of the cases, inheritance automatically puts inferior people in superior positions and must be abolished.

You want to persuade us that the State is some outside entity, like saying that I propose we give all inheritances to foreign countries. It is a typical trick to justify the unacknowledged tyranny of the plutocracy, which is a State onto itself. A state hostile to the American people

[kilgram]

Authoritarian statist includes all of the tactics used by collectivists to advance the state over the individual. It is a term, in my opinion, superior to left and right that explain nothing other than where people with general beliefs sta in relation to each other.

Collectivism is antithetical to individual liberty and freedom.
Collectivivism is not anitethical to freedom or individual freedom. For example collectivists like Bakunin, Kropotkin or Malatesta was big defenders of the individual freedom.

[MisterVeritis]

Collectivivism is not anitethical to freedom or individual freedom. For example collectivists like Bakunin, Kropotkin or Malatesta was big defenders of the individual freedom.
We will have to agree to disagree.

[Chris]

What the hell is a summary? I've brought all my points to one post. That is a summary.

Seriously, my example of the race is an exagerate example of an inequality and the only way to eliminate it would be what I've said. Giving advantage to the children making them starting before, making start in a more advanced position or making the adults start behind them. But it was an example to explain how equality was only achievable by "inequal means".

About the voluntary exchange, I am going to give you the answer in the other thread.


Summaries are not mere repetition of claims.

Why would you want children to be equal to adults? Full moral reasoning capacity isn't developed until 25. Do you want 5 years old driving cars and voting? Do away with schools because equals don;t teach equals.

I won't hold my breath on ever seeing an explanation from you.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I call myself anarchist because I am Anarchist.

I've not said anything about using government. Nothing. Don't put words in my mouth.

And you dare to accuse me of distorting your words. When you are doing exactly that with me.

PS: I am not Marxist. (This sentence has many implicit meanings to your post). The fascist aristocracy that their prostitutes stand up for do live in a Utopia. So they can't use that word to mean some impossible dream. But that's the way they use it against whoever threatens their real-life Utopia.

[Chris]

The fascist aristocracy that their prostitutes stand up for do live in a Utopia. So they can't use that word to mean some impossible dream. But that's the way they use it against whoever threatens their real-life Utopia.

Form without function or content.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

[PolWatch]

The perfect political animal:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607992216542839213&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

[Chris]

The perfect political animal:

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.607992216542839213&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

Oxymoron like "real-life Utopia."

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is Marxism at its ugliest. What I have worked for is mine to pass on as I see fit. It does not belong to you. It never did. You have not earned it or it would be yours.

If you want more then become worth more. The hate in your heart is palpable. You prefer theft to honest effort. People who believe as you do are a poison to society. We earned it by providing the infrastructure that you needed to make it. You can be the world's most creative genius, but if you live alone on an island you'll live at a very low level.

You prove that you logically must think your heirs are Marxist for mooching off you. You show your contempt for them because you obviously don't think the dumb little weaklings can make it on their own. Everything you say to me can also be said to your spawn, starting with, "Work your way through college, son. You're 18 and are your own responsibility now. If you can't stand living like that, join the Army."

Your self-obsessed anti-social attitude is the very definition of criminality and must be outlawed. The fact that your guillotine-fodder clique bribes lawmakers and mentors with your own money does not mean we have to let you soft and vastly outnumbered economic elitists continue to survive.

[Chris]

We earned it by providing the infrastructure that you needed to make it. You can be the world's most creative genius, but if you live alone on an island you'll live at a very low level.

You prove that you logically must think your heirs are Marxist for mooching off you. You show your contempt for them because you obviously don't think the dumb little weaklings can't make it on their own. Everything you say to me can also be said to your spawn, starting with, "Work your way through college, son. You're 18 and are your own responsibility now. If you can't stand living like that, join the Army."

Your selfish anti-social attitude is the very definition of criminality and must be outlawed. Bribing the lawmakers and mentors with your own money does not mean we have to let your soft and vastly outnumbered clique continue to survive.


Demonstration the left's collectivism demands conformity.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I dunno - why is it such a bad idea to tax people with loads of money more? Like nobody who is a billionaire earned all that money by hard work - don't they owe some of that success to society? There are no billionaires on deserted islands.

And it seems to me the purpose of taxing people is not to punish them, but so that society can run in a fair and efficient way. So if you tax everyone equally the poor man with a family to feed can no longer do that, while the rich man will not even notice the tax he has to pay. And no society where there are people starving and without shelter or medical care, while there are other people who live in mansions and have yachts and Learjets, is going to work well. Isn't it better that people who already have loads, have a little less, and everyone else has at least enough?

And I think Kilgram has a good point about the 19th century - has anyone read anything by Dickens? Do we really want to go back there? The fact that they believe they have some divine right to set up their sons halfway to the finish line proves that they must have gotten their own wealth through luck or cheating. Why did not even you or kilgram mention the crime of hereditary advantages? Why do we assume even that their Daddies earned their own pile and only asking them not to punish people who didn't have the talent to do that? This ruling class comprises thieves, phonies, traitors, morons, and cowards (W collected the whole set).

Hit them where it hurts these nasty, hollow-souled fanatics the most, which is also their most unprotected clique. Pound Every Preppy's Pampered Piehole Into Pulp.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You cannot achieve equality, outside of equality of misery. Justice is not about equality, although I admit that many of those who've been suckered into believing upper-class Leftists think it is. Justice is about everyone getting what he deserves, no more and no less.

And the unbrainwashed who play sports prove that people naturally think that way. Despite your paranoia about the 99%, they don't resent the fact that the talented play more and get paid more. What they would resent is if sports were structured like our economy is: that the coach plays more those whose Daddies are rich (unearned hereditary advantages) and those who brown-nose by working free around his house for him (indentured servitude college education).

[Chris]

Justice is not about equality, although I admit that many of those who've been suckered into believing upper-class Leftists think it is. Justice is about everyone getting what he deserves, no more and no less.

And the unbrainwashed who play sports prove that people naturally think that way. Despite your paranoia about the 99%, they don't resent the fact that the talented play more and get paid more. What they would resent is if sports were structured like our economy is: that the coach plays more those whose Daddies are rich (unearned hereditary advantages) and those who brown-nose by working free around his house for him (indentured servitude college education).



Justice is about everyone getting what he deserves, no more and no less.

And who decides what that is? Marx?

[MisterVeritis]

We earned it by providing the infrastructure that you needed to make it.
No. That was not you. If you are like most you paid for nothing and received from the taxpayers far more than you ever had taken in taxes. So why do you lie about what you have done?


You can be the world's most creative genius, but if you live alone on an island you'll live at a very low level.
For those who have given us our most important benefits, jobs, maybe we should significantly cut their taxes. Have you ever created jobs? I look to two men who did enormous benefit to the US, Gates and Jobs. They should not have been taxed a dime. But you and the Marxists you delight in would take everything they created.


You prove that you logically must think your heirs are Marxist for mooching off you. You show your contempt for them because you obviously don't think the dumb little weaklings can make it on their own. Everything you say to me can also be said to your spawn, starting with, "Work your way through college, son. You're 18 and are your own responsibility now. If you can't stand living like that, join the Army."
Do you never tire of making dumb arguments? Whether I give my children the fruits of my labor is not your business. Nor is it the business of the state. It is my business. And mine alone. You are not my responsibility. Nor is the loathsome federal government.


Your self-obsessed anti-social attitude is the very definition of criminality and must be outlawed. The fact that your guillotine-fodder clique bribes lawmakers and mentors with your own money does not mean we have to let you soft and vastly outnumbered economic elitists continue to survive.
If you believe you are man enough to come take what you believe is yours them by all means come. But you are not. Marxists are cowards who have the state steal, rape and plunder on their behalf. You can see it in your words above. Wanting to keep what I have created must be outlawed. That is what you meant isn't it.

Just look at the filth you have in your tagline:
"We Won't Live Free Until the Sons of the 1% Live in Fear
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your face, forever."

Isn't this sweet? Sage is a hate-filled, pathetic, Marxist longing for the revolution. But unwilling to act without the backing of the state.

[William]

Many times in history when people decided that fair was the most important thing in society, a lot of people ended up in mass graves.

Maybe - I haven't done the research. But what I read tells me that most times (not always) when people decide that fair is important in society - society gets better.

When society is very unfair (like France before the revolution,) there is often a lot of violence when things are changed. Like if you have all the advantages and power, you will use the army and the state to protect your position (like every dictator does) and a lot of people on both sides will end up in graves.

And it doesn't have to happen that way. According to the IHDI, the top ten 'fairest' societies on earth today, with the highest standard of living, are -

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Netherlands
4. Switzerland
5. Germany
6. Iceland
7. Sweden
8. Denmark
9. Canada
10. Ireland

The UK comes in at 16, and the USA at 28, and it is interesting that the top ten all have some of that big bad bogeyman - socialism, in their systems. :wink:

[Dr. Who]

The income gap is overstated in the US. Anyway the important thing is how well off the middle class and poor are.
I believe that the latter are getting poorer, while the wealthy are getting richer. Since the middle class really supports the country, that is not good news.

[PolWatch]

I believe that the latter are getting poorer, while the wealthy are getting richer. Since the middle class really supports the country, that is not good news.

I can't help but think about when the gap widened in history....how much of the French & Russian revolutions was due to financial inequality?

[zelmo1234]

I can't help but think about when the gap widened in history....how much of the French & Russian revolutions was due to financial inequality?

But our gap is not a wide as it was in the early 1900's so I think that we will be OK.

The problem is more that people feel that they are entitled to everything that everyone else has without putting forth the effort needed to earn them.

[PolWatch]

But our gap is not a wide as it was in the early 1900's so I think that we will be OK.

The problem is more that people feel that they are entitled to everything that everyone else has without putting forth the effort needed to earn them.

That would be valid only if the values and expectations were the same as the 1900's. They are not. How close are people to boiling over? They won't be storming the Bastille with hoes & sticks today.

[zelmo1234]

That would be valid only if the values and expectations were the same as the 1900's. They are not. How close are people to boiling over? They won't be storming the Bastille with hoes & sticks today.

The problem is they are boiling over because of false information being blasted at them everyday and an educational system that teaches they that just because they are alive, they are entitled to the same lifestyle as everyone else.

[The Sage of Main Street]

If you prefer we can use the better term, authoritarian statists. I prefer individual liberty and freedom to collectivism. Unrestricted power for a few, making as much money as they can, any way they can, walking tall by walking all over people. Rugged individuals run everybody else ragged. They are bandits. The people's posse has a legitimate authority to lynch them; that's why these sociopaths call it "authoritarian."

[The Sage of Main Street]

I am revolutionary.

I am not talking force nor government.

And why are you lying?

Ok, and what about you? You choose authoritarian governments like monarchies over less authoritarian ones like democracies. You choose systems where the pyramidal system and the class system are pretty alive and where the wealthy will have absolute power over the rest. And you dare to talk me about government? When you are the one with your "free market" ideal defending a system where we won't have anything to envy the feudalism.

And about that I am repeating things without understanding is an insult to me and my intelligence that I won't tolerate anymore. I tell you that you are defending ideas that were already defended in the XIX century and proved absolutely a failure.

About anarchism. You don't have any idea and how were they authoritarian? Can you give me an argument? Except inventing things? Can you explain to me how government can exist in my ideas? And you dare to talk to me about using my preconceived ideas to lie about your "free market" ideas. Chris, you are doing it even much more that I could do it. The difference is that I am trying to be honest. Welcome to the Christal Experience.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Authoritarian statists are not leftist. There are many in the right.

Collectivism is not opposite to freedom neither to individual freedom. Welcome to the Vicarious Verities of Veritis.

[Chris]

Welcome to the Christal Experience.

Form, no function or content. Jabberwocky.

[Chris]

Welcome to the Vicarious Verities of Veritis.

‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

[Chris]

Maybe - I haven't done the research. But what I read tells me that most times (not always) when people decide that fair is important in society - society gets better.

When society is very unfair (like France before the revolution,) there is often a lot of violence when things are changed. Like if you have all the advantages and power, you will use the army and the state to protect your position (like every dictator does) and a lot of people on both sides will end up in graves.

And it doesn't have to happen that way. According to the IHDI, the top ten 'fairest' societies on earth today, with the highest standard of living, are -

1. Norway
2. Australia
3. Netherlands
4. Switzerland
5. Germany
6. Iceland
7. Sweden
8. Denmark
9. Canada
10. Ireland

The UK comes in at 16, and the USA at 28, and it is interesting that the top ten all have some of that big bad bogeyman - socialism, in their systems. :wink:



Define fairness? How is it measured? Who decides?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Authoritarian statist includes all of the tactics used by collectivists to advance the state over the individual. It is a term, in my opinion, superior to left and right that explain nothing other than where people with general beliefs sat in relation to each other.

Collectivism is antithetical to individual liberty and freedom. The slogan of the few individuals you actually care about is ALL FOR ONE, AND THAT ONE ALL FOR HIMSELF.

[Chris]

I believe that the latter are getting poorer, while the wealthy are getting richer. Since the middle class really supports the country, that is not good news.

And the cause of this what other than poor government policy?

[The Sage of Main Street]

No. That was not you. So why do you lie about what you have done?


For those who have given us our most important benefits, jobs, maybe we should significantly cut their taxes. Have you ever created jobs? I look to two men who did enormous benefit to the US, Gates and Jobs. They should not have been taxed a dime. But you would take everything they created.


If you believe you are man enough to come take what you believe is yours them by all means come. You can see it in your words above. Wanting to keep what I have created must be outlawed. That is what you meant isn't it?

Just look at your tagline:
"We Won't Live Free Until the Sons of the 1% Live in Fear
On the outside, trickling down on the Insiders
Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your face, forever."

Isn't this sweet? Sage is longing for the revolution. Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood. The hereditary plutocratic parasites' mind control hypnotizes us, cuts off any practical independent alternatives to submitting to their demands, and starts sucking the individuality right out of us from childhood on.

[Chris]

Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood. The hereditary plutocratic parasites' mind control hypnotizes us, cuts off any practical independent alternatives to submitting to their demands, and starts sucking the individuality right out of us from childhood on.


Saying that the rich create jobs is like saying that vampires create blood.

Still form without function...other than to make me laugh out LOUD! Thanks!!

[William]

Define fairness? How is it measured? Who decides?

Well usually it's society, so it is not the same in all societies. But in this case it's the Human Development section of the United Nations, so basically it's all the member states. This might help with how it's calculated.


The IHDI takes into account not only the average achievements of a country on health, education and income, but also how those achievements are distributed among its population by “discounting” each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The IHDI is distribution-sensitive average level of HD. Two countries with different distributions of achievements can have the same average HDI value. Under perfect equality the IHDI is equal to the HDI, but falls below the HDI when inequality rises. The difference between the IHDI and HDI is the human development cost of inequality, also termed – the loss to human development due to inequality. The IHDI allows a direct link to inequalities in dimensions, it can inform policies towards inequality reduction, and leads to better understanding of inequalities across population and their contribution to the overall human development cost.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/inequality-adjusted-human-development-index-ihdi

[Howey]

You can't achieve equality by unequal means.

Economic Equality and Social Injustice (http://fee.org/blog/detail/economic-equality-and-social-injustice-video)

Why do you constantly post stuff without a source?

We all know of your libertarian renewal and laissez faire philosophy of dog eat dog society, so don't be shy!

Here it is:

http://fee.org/freeman/

After reading some of the articles on there, I find that it's an intelligent and well-designed libertarian blog that has some well-written articles that bundle together a bunch of big words and unsubstantiated theories to prove absolutely nothing.

Just like Libertarianism.

[Mister D]

Why do you constantly post stuff without a source?

We all know of your libertarian renewal and laissez faire philosophy of dog eat dog society, so don't be shy!

Here it is:

http://fee.org/freeman/

After reading some of the articles on there, I find that it's an intelligent and well-designed libertarian blog that has some well-written articles that bundle together a bunch of big words and unsubstantiated theories to prove absolutely nothing.

Just like Libertarianism.

The blue text indicates a link, Howey, and you didn't read any of the articles.

[Chris]

Well usually it's society, so it is not the same in all societies. But in this case it's the Human Development section of the United Nations, so basically it's all the member states. This might help with how it's calculated.


http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/inequality-adjusted-human-development-index-ihdi



Society? How does society do that? I mean, take traditions, surely society created traditions. But we can't explain how or why.

When you mention some few like Human Development section of the United Nations, I think what you mean by society is some government entity. How do they possibly know what we each value? They're driven by political agendas.

[Chris]

You can't achieve equality by unequal means.

Economic Equality and Social Injustice (http://fee.org/blog/detail/economic-equality-and-social-injustice-video)


Why do you constantly post stuff without a source?

We all know of your libertarian renewal and laissez faire philosophy of dog eat dog society, so don't be shy!

Here it is:

http://fee.org/freeman/

After reading some of the articles on there, I find that it's an intelligent and well-designed libertarian blog that has some well-written articles that bundle together a bunch of big words and unsubstantiated theories to prove absolutely nothing.

Just like Libertarianism.


As D pointed out, the blue text is a link to the source.


We all know of your libertarian renewal and laissez faire philosophy of dog eat dog society, so don't be shy!

Can I get a link for that, for where you find a libertarian free marketer advocating 'dog eat dog society"? Where do you come up with that?


After reading some of the articles on there, I find that it's an intelligent and well-designed libertarian blog that has some well-written articles that bundle together a bunch of big words and unsubstantiated theories to prove absolutely nothing.

One could make the same generalizations about any source. It doesn't say anything.


Just like Libertarianism.

What's just like libertarianism, howey? Do you even know?

[Howey]

As D pointed out, the blue text is a link to the source.



Can I get a link for that, for where you find a libertarian free marketer advocating 'dog eat dog society"? Where do you come up with that?



One could make the same generalizations about any source. It doesn't say anything.



What's just like libertarianism, howey? Do you even know?
You already have the link.

[Chris]

You already have the link.

The link you provided says nothing about dogs, howey. If you don't have a link, just say so, I don't really expect you do.

[Howey]

The link you provided says nothing about dogs, howey. If you don't have a link, just say so, I don't really expect you do.

You already have the link. Read some of the articles in the website you cited. I'm not going to do your work for you. They've often been accused of promoting such.

[Chris]

You already have the link. Read some of the articles in the website you cited. I'm not going to do your work for you. They've often been accused of promoting such.

There's nothing about dogs anywhere there, howey. That's just a typical liberal misrepresentation of the market. That's why I asked you for a link to one of your liberal sites.

I must remark how many words you use to say absolutely nothing.

[Dr. Who]

And the cause of this what other than poor government policy?
I think that it's a combination of poor government policy, advances in technology and increasingly, shareholder owned companies that no longer have a stake in communities.

[Chris]

I think that it's a combination of poor government policy, advances in technology and increasingly, shareholder owned companies that no longer have a stake in communities.

OK, agree on the collusion of government and business.

But just don't see how technological advances harms the middle class. Technology creates jobs.

[Dr. Who]

OK, agree on the collusion of government and business.

But just don't see how technological advances harms the middle class. Technology creates jobs.
Not always. The number of people required to generate the technology that replaces human labor is less than the number of people previously employed in doing those tasks manually. Perhaps one day that relationship may change, but at the moment more people are being displaced - permanently - than those who are gaining employment. Keep in mind that the middle class has also been comprised of well paid factory workers and lower level white collar workers who may not have the aptitude to transcend the technological gulf. Not everyone can be or would even want to be an application developer. Those people formerly employed in factories have largely found employment in the service industry, or trucking, if they have found employment at all. The up and coming kids are competing for those application development jobs and there are more candidates than opportunities and those opportunities that exist tend to be contract positions rather than permanent employment. The market is also already flooded with IT support hopefuls. IT engineering also offers employment, but it only takes one or two persons to maintain a fleet of robot arms in a factory, vs several hundred employees to do the job by hand. We probably have the same number of designers and engineers, but the number of people required to turn those plans into reality are far less than in the past. Construction, truck driving and landscaping may be some of the last bastions unskilled and semi-skilled labor apart from the service industry. It is hard to make middle class money in these occupations unless you run your own company, and if you do, you make middle class money, but your workers do not.

[Chris]

Not always. The number of people required to generate the technology that replaces human labor is less than the number of people previously employed in doing those tasks manually. Perhaps one day that relationship may change, but at the moment more people are being displaced - permanently - than those who are gaining employment. Keep in mind that the middle class has also been comprised of well paid factory workers and lower level white collar workers who may not have the aptitude to transcend the technological gulf. Not everyone can be or would even want to be an application developer. Those people formerly employed in factories have largely found employment in the service industry, or trucking, if they have found employment at all. The up and coming kids are competing for those application development jobs and there are more candidates than opportunities and those opportunities that exist tend to be contract positions rather than permanent employment. The market is also already flooded with IT support hopefuls. IT engineering also offers employment, but it only takes one or two persons to maintain a fleet of robot arms in a factory, vs several hundred employees to do the job by hand. We probably have the same number of designers and engineers, but the number of people required to turn those plans into reality are far less than in the past. Construction, truck driving and landscaping may be some of the last bastions unskilled and semi-skilled labor apart from the service industry. It is hard to make middle class money in these occupations unless you run your own company, and if you do, you make middle class money, but your workers do not.


Right, but you need to look beyond the immediate effect of lost jobs to see that they are really just displaced jobs as the automation generate new wealth invested into innovations and new productivity and new jobs to meet the demand. No one has a crystal ball of course but this has always been the case.

[Dr. Who]

Right, but you need to look beyond the immediate effect of lost jobs to see that they are really just displaced jobs as the automation generate new wealth invested into innovations and new productivity and new jobs to meet the demand. No one has a crystal ball of course but this has always been the case.
I personally think that we have transcended into a totally new paradigm where human labor is becoming less and less necessary and we will never reach the employment levels of the past. If I am right, then what?

[William]

Society? How does society do that? I mean, take traditions, surely society created traditions. But we can't explain how or why.

When you mention some few like Human Development section of the United Nations, I think what you mean by society is some government entity. How do they possibly know what we each value? They're driven by political agendas.

AFIK, the UN isn't a political party or a 'government entity', and its decisions are made democratically. That's the whole point of it. The data and methods of the IHDI are available to anyone, so I don't see the 'political agenda'.

LOL, you remind me of our PM, who claims that the Human Rights Commission is biased when they criticise Australia for the children in illegal migrant detention centres. It's a total cop out to say anyone who doesn't agree with you is politically biased. :grin:

[William]

I personally think that we have transcended into a totally new paradigm where human labor is becoming less and less necessary and we will never reach the employment levels of the past. If I am right, then what?

Then maybe we should ditch the Holy Grail of personal success, and concentrate on what is best for the greatest number of people. The system of billionaires with yachts, alongside homeless people and hungry children is not a good one and should be turfed.

[Chris]

AFIK, the UN isn't a political party or a 'government entity', and its decisions are made democratically. That's the whole point of it. The data and methods of the IHDI are available to anyone, so I don't see the 'political agenda'.

LOL, you remind me of our PM, who claims that the Human Rights Commission is biased when they criticise Australia for the children in illegal migrant detention centres. It's a total cop out to say anyone who doesn't agree with you is politically biased. :grin:


They're a governmental entity. Democratically, what, among it's members? The methods--what's measured and how--define a political agenda. They are biased inasmuch as they cannot possibly represent anyone but themselves.




concentrate on what is best for the greatest number of people

That's called utilitarianism. It failed as there's no way to calculate the best for the greatest number.




What people value is subjective, not objective, it cannot be measure.

[Dr. Who]

Then maybe we should ditch the Holy Grail of personal success, and concentrate on what is best for the greatest number of people. The system of billionaires with yachts, alongside homeless people and hungry children is not a good one and should be turfed.
TBH, I am certainly not the first person to come to the conclusion that as we advance technologically, we are eliminating work. The whole idea about technology has always been to free people from labor. Unfortunately, depending on society, freedom from labor can either mean homelessness and starvation or the dawn of a new age of enlightenment.

[Chris]

I personally think that we have transcended into a totally new paradigm where human labor is becoming less and less necessary and we will never reach the employment levels of the past. If I am right, then what?

Well, then Marx would have been right and we will all live lives of luxury in a post-scarcity world!!!

[Dr. Who]

Well, then Marx would have been right and we will all live lives of luxury in a post-scarcity world!!!
It's a serious question.

[MisterVeritis]

It's a serious question.
Tyrants always promise Utopia. We get chains. How many times must the cycle repeat before you know you are being fooled before the chains go on?

[Chris]

It's a serious question.

It was a serious answer. It won't happen.

[Dr. Who]

It was a serious answer. It won't happen.
Were I a betting person I would wager otherwise.

[William]

They're a governmental entity. Democratically, what, among it's members? The methods--what's measured and how--define a political agenda. They are biased inasmuch as they cannot possibly represent anyone but themselves.

The UN is not a 'governmental entity'. If it is, what government does it represent - there is no world government. What's measured and how it's measured is no different from a scientific analysis - it is just fact, and has no agenda. The UN represents the member nations, it is not a political entity in itself. If enough nations agree on something, it becomes international law, or a security council resolution.


That's called utilitarianism. It failed as there's no way to calculate the best for the greatest number.

Course there is - it's called consensus, and it's the way democracy works.


What people value is subjective, not objective, it cannot be measure.

Doesn't matter - cos if enough people value the same things, it becomes the law. So most people agree that being hungry and homeless is not a good thing, and it doesn't matter if that is being subjective, it still helps people.

[Peter1469]

The UN is most certainly a governmental entity. It is a transnational organization that overseas the actions of member states. Its power is based in the perception of its member states. It has no sovereign authority.


The UN is not a 'governmental entity'. If it is, what government does it represent - there is no world government. What's measured and how it's measured is no different from a scientific analysis - it is just fact, and has no agenda. The UN represents the member nations, it is not a political entity in itself. If enough nations agree on something, it becomes international law, or a security council resolution.



Course there is - it's called consensus, and it's the way democracy works.



Doesn't matter - cos if enough people value the same things, it becomes the law. So most people agree that being hungry and homeless is not a good thing, and it doesn't matter if that is being subjective, it still helps people.

[Chris]

The UN is not a 'governmental entity'. If it is, what government does it represent - there is no world government. What's measured and how it's measured is no different from a scientific analysis - it is just fact, and has no agenda. The UN represents the member nations, it is not a political entity in itself. If enough nations agree on something, it becomes international law, or a security council resolution.



Course there is - it's called consensus, and it's the way democracy works.



Doesn't matter - cos if enough people value the same things, it becomes the law. So most people agree that being hungry and homeless is not a good thing, and it doesn't matter if that is being subjective, it still helps people.


The UN is an attempt at world government--thankfully the world is still anarchistic.

It's agenda is similar to FDR's. See his and their new bill of rights, which are not rights in the sense of self-responsibility but entitlements for what society coerced by government, like the UN, owes you.

Would you say that because the US government represents its people it's not a political entity?

The UN doesn't make law, it passes and acts on resolutions. Remember, the world is still anarchistic.

I know how democracy work: Rule of the majority consensus over the dissent of minorities. A consensus of 1% could rule over all other if no other greater coalition forms--and that 1% could be rich enough to buy government. What we have now. So, tell me, how does that serve the greater good?

So you think that "if enough people value the same things, it becomes the law" that it should become law everyone must shop at WalMart? Should we all by law be forced to buy iPhones?

[Howey]

There's nothing about dogs anywhere there, howey. That's just a typical liberal misrepresentation of the market. That's why I asked you for a link to one of your liberal sites.

I must remark how many words you use to say absolutely nothing.

LIAR.

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/dog-eat-dog-competition

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-two-faces-of-risk

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-case-for-willing-exchange

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/a-race-to-the-bottom

For icing on the cake, here's a like-minded institution:

http://mises.org/library/dog-eat-dog-delusion

[Chris]

LIAR.

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/dog-eat-dog-competition

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-two-faces-of-risk

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/the-case-for-willing-exchange

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/a-race-to-the-bottom

For icing on the cake, here's a like-minded institution:

http://mises.org/library/dog-eat-dog-delusion


Oh, wow, ouch, howey called me a name.

Let's look at what he found, which is supposed support his claim that free market sites like FEE advocate a dog eat dog market.

http://fee.org/freeman/detail/dog-eat-dog-competition says


The charge of "dog-eat-dog" or "cutthroat" competition is not among the heaviest weapons in the anti-capitalist arsenal, but neither is its significance trivial. It was an important factor behind the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, the first major intervention by the Federal government into private business in this country. In the depression of the 1930′s, during Roosevelt’s first term, it was the major impetus behind the attempted cartelization of American business through the National Recovery Administration. It is the primary reasoning behind some statutes of the antitrust laws, especially the Robinson-Patman Act. And it is a not infrequent complaint of businessmen who have gone to Washington to seek subsidies or other forms of government support.

Further, the concept of dog-eat-dog competition is used to support what is one of the heaviest weapons in the anti-capitalist arsenal, the charge that a free economy generates monopolies and monopoly power. Specifically, it is alleged that if left unrestricted, competition will result in firms destroying one another until every industry, and perhaps the entire economy, is dominated by one or a few firms.

But the most important influence of the dog-eat-dog view of competition is in its moral perspective. It projects and implies a view of competition as malicious, degraded and corrupt, and by extension, since competition is the motive power of a capitalist economy, the same view of capitalism. It is this view of competition as vicious, antisocial, destructive behavior that is a significant factor in the willingness of politicians, the courts, and the people generally to forcibly modify competitive action through government law. And the same implicit view of the immoral nature of competition has served to undermine the willingness and ability of those who would defend capitalism. The subject of dog-eat-dog competition therefore is worthy of serious attention.

But wait, that's what I said, the dog-eat-dog view of the market is the misguided view of the left and this article presents an argument against that view.

It's not a dog-eat-dog free market but the misbegotten view of liberals that leads to bad consequences:


It is bitterly ironic that the destructiveness which the dog-eat-dog concept attributes to real world competition has in fact been the consequence of the policies generated by the dog-eat-dog concept. It becomes mind-staggering when one grasps that this is only a minor instance of a process which operates on a global scale. It is a process whereby a charge against capitalism generates government action which creates the evil alleged in the charge (e.g., the charge that capitalism is economically unstable has led to government policies which have destabilized the economy). This perverse sequence of events can be found to have resulted from virtually all the attacks that have been directed against the capitalist system.


Howey, I have to thank you for proving my point. I suggest before you gleefully call names you at least read what you post.

[Chris]

http://mises.org/library/dog-eat-dog-delusion is even better:


When people want to add extra “oomph” to negative depictions of self-owners acting without coercion — that is, market competition under capitalism — they turn to name-calling. One of the most effective forms is describing such competition as dog-eat-dog. When that characterization is accepted, the mountain of evidence in favor of voluntary social coordination can be dismissed on the grounds that it involves a vicious and ugly process so harmful to people that it outweighs any benefits.

Unfortunately, dog-eat-dog imagery for market competition is entirely misleading. It not only misrepresents market competition as having properties that are absent in truly free arrangements, but those properties are essential characteristics of government, the usual “solution” offered to the evils of dog-eat-dog competition. Further, it frames the issue in a way that precludes most people from recognizing why the analogy fails.

To begin with, dog-eat-dog is an odd way to characterize anything. I have never seen a dog eat another dog. I don’t know anyone who has. In fact, some trace the phrase’s origin back to the Latin, canis caninam not est, or “dog does not eat dog,” which says the opposite (and makes more sense, as an animal may try to protect its feeding grounds against competing predators, but it does not eat those competitors). It is nonsensical to rely on an analogy to something that doesn’t actually happen in animal behavior as a central premise toward condemning market systems as ruthless and hard-hearted....


Howey, you slay me. :happy20:

[Peter1469]

I have compared the Invisible Hand, to be capitalism linked with morality. It is not a dog-eat dog world that works. It is a self-interested / group aware combination that works.

I was in Korea in the late 80s and saw how bad capitalism divorced from morality was.

[Chris]

I have compared the Invisible Hand, to be capitalism linked with morality. It is not a dog-eat dog world that works. It is a self-interested / group aware combination that works.

I was in Korea in the late 80s and saw how bad capitalism divorced from morality was.



Agree, in order to compete for what i value in my self-interest, I must cooperate with others in their seeking the same.

[William]

They're a governmental entity. Democratically, what, among it's members? The methods--what's measured and how--define a political agenda. They are biased inasmuch as they cannot possibly represent anyone but themselves.

I've Googled this, and asked some adults about this, and all the information I got is that the UN is not a world government, or a governmental agency of any sort.

This, from their site, may help.


The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.

The UN has 4 main purposes

To keep peace throughout the world;
To develop friendly relations among nations;
To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
To be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations to achieve these goals

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

Nowhere there, or anywhere else, does it talk about the UN being a government, or a government entity.

Chris, I have a lot of respect for you, and for Peter, but neither of you seem to realise that I am not talking about these things in the political right-wing - left-wing sense. I just want things to be fair. So maybe it is better if I don't talk about this subject with you any more. Peace! :smiley:

[Chris]

I've Googled this, and asked some adults about this, and all the information I got is that the UN is not a world government, or a governmental agency of any sort.

This, from their site, may help.


http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

Nowhere there, or anywhere else, does it talk about the UN being a government, or a government entity.

Chris, I have a lot of respect for you, and for Peter, but neither of you seem to realise that I am not talking about these things in the political right-wing - left-wing sense. I just want things to be fair. So maybe it is better if I don't talk about this subject with you any more. Peace! :smiley:


I'm not trying to say if constitutes a world government but that it is a governing body and attempts to govern what is otherwise internationally anarchy.

Perhaps we say the same things differently.

I don't really see much value in left/right either. What's important to me is the continuum between authority and liberty.

[Peter1469]

International organizations such as the UN do not have sovereign powers. But they do influence what nation-states do.

[Chris]

William, one might loosely liken the UN to the states under the Aritcles of Confederation, under which government the states were organised but which had very little authority over them. Some would I'm sure love to turn the UN into a US with greater powers.