What is fair?
Which of these theoretical statements do you agree with if any:
(Think of the assertions as objectively evaluated to be valid by our societal standards, and that everything was acquired/achieved in a legal manner. Also a better standard of life can mean a more luxurious lifestyle, education, property, salary, food, etc - whatever else that means in our American society.)
1. It is fair for the people who do more valuable/important work than others to have a better standard of life. (Doctor vs Janitor)
Read on for more...
2. It is fair for the people who work harder than others to have a better standard of life. (Multiple jobs)
3. It is fair for the people who acquired more education to have a better standard of life. (Professors, Engineers)
4. It is fair for the people who are creative to have a better standard of life. (Inventors, Artists)
5. It is fair for the people who sacrifice more of their safety to have a better standard of life (Police, CIA, Firemen)
6. It is fair for the people who are more business savvy to have a better standard of life. (Businessmen)
7. It is fair for the people who are more financially savvy to have a better standard of life. (Investors, Traders)
8. It is fair for the people who are elected to represent us to have a better standard of life. (Politicians)
9. It is fair for the people who are naturally talented to have a better standard of life. (Basketball player vs Accountant)
10. It is fair for the people who do more glamorous work than others to have a better standard of life (Actors)
11. It is fair for the people who inherit wealth from their relatives to have a better standard of life. (Paris Hilton)
12. It is fair for the people who got lucky to have a better standard of life. (Gamblers, Lottery winners)
13. It is never fair for any person in our society to have a better standard of life than for others.
Can you think of anything else? This list is not random but it also does not necessarily correspond to my moral rankings of fairness. If you partially agreed with this list and not with #13, where does the drop off occur for you and why?
As for myself I agree with the top 12 with varying degrees of enthusiasm somewhat dropping off towards the end. I believe that people should be entitled to the fruits of their labor and that they should be able to do what they please with the money they receive as compensation (including leaving it to their relatives, giving it away). It is also imo fair that if you acquire money by the existing rules of our society (even if not precisely through labor) that you should be able to enhance your lifestyle as you please without encroaching on other people's freedoms to do the same with what they have.
- Ender's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Who get's to judge what is more valuable?
I am talking about societal standards
but in that case the market will do as well. Saving lives and curing people is generally accepted as more important and valuable than sweeping floors. Which leads to disparity in salaries.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The response you're addressing
is exactly what I mean by my post below.
Furthermore, such a response totally ignores the role of wages and prices. They are merely indicators of scarcity of supply vs. demand.
As cold and unsatisfying as that sounds, it's how it works.
It's not different than why you'll find $10,000 to buy a new car but wouldn't spend that a bicycle..even if you had $20,000 in your account.
it is how it works
but you can't ignore a certain moralistic agenda that seeks to regulate the way it works now. My questions are a check of how much people agree with that certain moralistic agenda.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Of course it's fair
The question then becomes who will build the bridges and roads that your 12 prototypes use to have a better standard of life.
I'm only half stupid
don't construction workers
make decent amount of money? And of course those bridges will be designed by people who have a better standard of life as well :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am asking
who will PAY for the bridge to be built that benefits your 12 prototypes.
Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Of course construction workers will do the labor.
I'm only half stupid
thru taxes, obviously
what does that really have to do with anything??
It doesn't obviously have to be
through taxes in this hypothetical example does it John.
Which was the point of my question John.
I'm only half stupid
still,
what does this have to do with the question of it being fair to see some earn more than others.
The only person talking about roads and bridges is you.
The question is about earning levels of an individual vs. another...not taxes and public goods.
You overlook the FACT that
income is earned, in context of infrastructure.
I travel the bridge to make $14 an hour.
You travel the bridge to make $100 an hour.
Even though we both earn a fair, yet unequal wage for our work, we both benefit equally from crossing the bridge.
The bridge, relative to our fair but unequal living wage is, nuetral to the income level of those who travel on it.
So who pays for to maintain the bridge that helps both us earn a fair and living wage.
I'm only half stupid
I'm not stupid, MissL
And I already answered this question...we all pay thru taxes that fund such construction and maintenance.
But I'm still wondering why are you are insisting on making this the issue when it isn't.
Dear John
I assumed Ender's question was theoretical (as it states in the heading) to explore interesting and creative alternatives to how our society functions in light of disparity in income.
I was having fun exploring alternatives to questions about fairness in a civil society that must maintain and build infrastructure for economic viability freedom to earn (fairly and unequally) of its individuals.
What other ways could the bridge be maintain fairly. Are there any.
If the 12 prototypes pool their money to build a bridge how do they do so equitably and fairly.
It is a theoritical question for exploring alternatives to our present system. Why does it so easily offend you?
I'm only half stupid
I'm not offended
I'm just bewildered by your insistence on misreading the intent of the diary.
He asked a simple, straw man question with an obvious answer:
YES.
It's not theoretical, it's real. It's reality. he's simply asking if it's fair that this happens.
Moreover, with that in mind, it's not even implied as being an invitation to explore creative alternatives.
But hey, go ahead. explore away....
I see.
A simple Yes would suffice as the 'right' answer.
Interesting.
Then there is no point in further discussion is there.
What was the point of posting a dairy with only "1" right answer.
Gosh thanks for your permission to explore alternatives.
I'm only half stupid
my questions
were fairly specific as to which fairness I was talking about. It was about fairness of inequality of wealth, income, and standard of living based on the person's livelihood...
To be fair you went off on a not very related tangent and John is pointing that out. Not everything is related to a particular issue of the day.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The question was narrow
Okay.
But you can't have wealth without infrastructure. And someone has to pay for it!
That is a problem I see with conservativism in general. That little piece of the puzzle ALWAYS gets left out, as if everything is always individual effort.
Someone has to pay for the roads that help us make the money so that we can be a free, fair and capitalistic society. That is a group effort.
(And to be an even more horrible liberal generalizing the specific to the broader picture....... this relates to Iraq because, oh well never mind. :+)
I'm only half stupid
umm
but again that all just currently relates to taxation (which is a separate issue) and is happening already. You can't have wealth without air we breathe as well as we'd all die - you can keep bringing up unrelated issues that are a requirement for us to function in general but it will not go far.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I think it is totally material
to the issue at hand.
How and why we redistribute money (which is what you find unfair) is a valid discussion on fairness. 'Air' (which I could see as potentially relevant, but not as much as infrastructure) is understandably a tangent, but not a fair analogy to what she is saying.
How are we supposed to judge fairness if we can only discuss one side of the coin.
Infrastructure (or taxes in general) are valid points if I say that many of the above should be taxed higher than others.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
point taken
but my question did not go as far as to extend to the taxation issue. That is a pretty huge discussion of its own.
My title is perhaps misleading but it was not about fairness in general but only as it applies in the particular examples I used.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You are still restricting
the issue unfairly.
You state 'luxurious lifestyle' as a qualifier for 'better standard of living', which I would say opens a Pandora's box of issues concerning when this luxurious life is still fair in consideration of the 'broader good' i.e. infrastructure.
So if I say 'no' to some of your examples and I cite the above reason, am I taking the issue out of context?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
good point
but I think I was writing this with the assumption that the better standard of living itself would not be the subject of debate. Which is why I tried to leave contentious items like healthcare out of it.
You can take the tangent pretty far with 'luxurious lifestyle' alone :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
RE: You are still restricting
This is funny. Ender wants to ask about some specific thing and you guys argue that he shouldn't even be allowed to ask his own question because even THOSE are unfair.
Bageesus.
You were concerned about thread hijacking the other day. Missliberties question is clearly an example thereof.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4State his specific
question(s).
What does he mean by 'encroaching' in the final paragraph?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
RE: State his specific
See Ender's question was nothing more than ...
Why are you asking me? Ender can probably explain what he meant better than I. Why do you object to his wanting to discuss this topic with being thread-jakced?
EDIT:
I suspect that Ender meant:
We conservatives are funny like that. We rely on words having meanings. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Reading comprehension
helps.
Quoted from Ender's diary:
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
RE: I think it is totally material
See RE: The question was narrow
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4RE: RE: I think it is totally material
See Reading Comprehension
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
RE: The question was narrow
Ignorant strawmen!
And just how did people survive BEFORE roads and bridges were invented? Were there still inequalities of incomes even then?
Conservatives ALWAYS forget about roads and bridges. [ Insert standard reference to Specter's Rule of Bad Inductive Logic. ]
Even so, the is patently false on its face. Please provide references to prominant Republicans advocating letting the roads and bridges deteriorate which is what you are claiming.
Its not necessarily a Societal effort, though. The obvious alternative to public roads and bridges would be privately funded roads and bridges ... which would obviously involve a toll system. This would obviously be a pay as you go system which would be implemented without regard to income level (assuming a typical toll model) but even that could be addressed with either credits or something like an EZPass which could then take your income into account on your bills.
Personally I prefer the pay as you go with a fixed rate model because it minimizes my effective rate of "toll-based taxation". The poor may end up excluded from the use of the roads and bridges if they cannot afoord to pay the tolls, though. Sucks to be poor.
Ah, so you even recognize that you are doing it. Specter must be SOO offended at this point. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"Sucks to be poor"
Wow, I think you nailed the conservative philosophy on the head!
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
You ask the wrong question, Ender
But the answer is obviousy "YES".
Besides, you'd have to really stretch your imagination to say otherwise in an effort to simply quibble and disagree for its own sake.
It's not a matter of "Is it fair?"
The question is if something should be done legislatively to prevent or minimize such occurances. The answer is no.
Interesting that you would suggest
that there is such a thing as a wrong question in your search for a preconceived result.
I would think the question in this limited instance, is how do the 12 prototypes come to grips with individual needs vs group needs, as in who pays for the roads.
I'm only half stupid
What?
Preconceived results?
where is the "vs. needs" part of the question? I didn't see it.
This is about earning levels.
I'm addressing the nature of the question and saying that I think it's the wrong question. I don't think "fair" by some subjective meaning of the word is the correct way to engage this issue.
Doctors making more than dishwashers is not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of scarcity of labor and resources.
Ender's question was nothing more than ...
Is it fair to have disparities in income levels. No roads, no needs, blah blah blah.
Is it in the nature of Democrats to never give a straight answer to obvious questions?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It is in the nature
of democrats in general to have a broader vision. ONe that encompasses are more completely picture....... which is precisely what this country is aching for, a broader vision.
I agree Ender's question was narrow, but I think it is correct to point out that you don't have an opportunity for have wealth, even if unequal, without a civil society and the infrastructure that supports it, including bridges and roads as one small, relevant and timely example.
Every time you flush the toilet you should be grateful to your government that you have a reliable water system and water treatment, that takes care of waste. Without it you might have to go to work to make more money than me smelling like sh*t.
I'm only half stupid
Strictly a matter of opinion
Broader in what terms? BTW, that's a not veiled support of the GOP.
BTW, I think you overstate the value of public goods in these discussions. It's not that great of an accomplishment, not that expensive compared to the other 99+% percent of the budget and it's the very least they can do.
Talk about last place trophy syndrome.
Finally, it's hardly ideological to expect and/or support the proper functioning of basic utilities.
I think this is the problem
the battles we wage today are ideological.
Not all but some Republicans are so stuck an ideology, of no taxes, privatizing all services and govt in general is bad.
We saw this in Minnenapolis when Gov. Pawlenty and his veto pen.
http://minnpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/05/pawlenty-vetoes-transportation-...
http://minnpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/05/pawlenty-vetoes-transportation-...
Public goods is a fantastic accomplishment. We neglect them at our peril. That includes police, jails, water systems, roads, bridges, court buildings, schools, food inspections. These are all things we take for granted everyday.
The ideological battle isn't keeping the commons, it is who is going to pay for them. Republicans never want to raise taxes, but maintaining it costs money. Where will it come from.
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1215760.html
The big veto pen includes striking down money for libraries.
Everyone wants to take advantage of these "trophy" services, yet the gop generally doesn't want to pay for them, while the dems generally do.
Your last statement is really the crux of the difference between the gop and the dems, imho. The gop wants to privatize the functioning of basic utilites, the dems do not.
I'm only half stupid
OK
but keep in mind that privatizing in itself is not bad. The devil is in the details.
If you take one thing to ponder from this, please consider all the state-run utility fiascoes and state-induced fiascoes before saying things like that.
the Problem with utilities is that it can't work like other products since it's not easy to promote competitive forces since most have a regional monopoly that is further tied down with regulations....both good and bad.
RE: It is in the nature
Ha, no it isn't. Just look at the middle east. The democrat's broad vision consists of pulling up our stakes and high-tailing it out of there ASAP. Some broad vision you got going there. I can just tell that you're all imagining the possibilities as we speak.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't think the Middle East debate is a question
of broad or narrow vision.
It may bit in some sense but I think the overriding vision of what to do there is one of different visions all together.
These visions are formed by very different perceptions of what's at stake, what the risks are and what we can accomplish towards a positive end.
And the pro-war crowd, primarily from the GOP, are wrong on their vision IMO and wrong about what to do next. This is mainly because we view the "nature of the beast" quite differently....be it Al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran or whatever.
Fortunately (mainly for me), I'm totally out of juice on this topic and rarely discuss it.
That may all be true ...
and I'm not admitting that it is ...
but GWB clearly had a big vision for changing the face of the middle east and on a far grander scale that anything the Democrats have proposed or tried.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes,
because GWB had a very different vision on what was possible and that was reinforced by a rationale based on a totally different understanding of the Middle East, its machinations and how it can be changed for our benefit.
I called BS the first second he uttered "Iraq". I thought whole undertaking was misguided and plain counterproductive and wrong. Sadly for all of us, I and many others haven't been proven wrong yet and most likely never will.
Neo-Cons and Wilsonian Liberals have a very different vision than I do about how we can influence the world and promote our own well-being and security.
As president, I would utterly obliterate any nation that attacked us. But that's highly unlikely to ever happen. As for rag tag extremists, I'd hunt them down covertly while doing what could be done to isolate them socially and politically among their own people. Their own people would wind up lynching most of them before we did.
See you just did
what I did.
I took this narrow question, of is it fair, relating to income diversity and said that you can't earn wealth without infrastructure that gets you to work, keeps you safe while you are at work, and keeps the lights running while you are working. Laws, courts and police, paid for with your tax dollars, to keep the people in order, so you can make it to work without being shot or robbed.
Rich or poor, fair or unfair we all need basic infrastructrue to generate wealth.
(I say this is the broad view. You can't measure wealth without including this aspect of the civil society we live in.)
So the fairness question comes when you ask how, how much and how do they divide the payment for the infrastructure, that the 12 prototypes use to generate their unequal income.
Then you just went off base and took the whole question overseas. Fine. Let's go overseas.
If you want to compare Iraq to the 12 prototypes, then you have to say that it is glaringly apparent that basic infrastructure and utilities, and govt services are vital to a stable and civil society that provides a safe working environment. The GOP model for Iraq is the experiment of making a govt using only 'the market forces' as motivation. They don't pay taxes in Iraq. So far they are having some trouble with this whole experimental model of govt.
The religon of Islam is much more inclined to view the greater good as a positive. That is in part why Hezbollah has been so successful. They fill a need that the US has been incapable or unwilling to fill.
But that still leaves unaswered the question of who pays for the basic infrastructure in Enders model that helps all of the 12 prototypes generate income by providing the infrastructure that gets you to work.
I'm only half stupid
RE: See you just did
It is only unanswered because it was never part of his original question. AND, I gave you a response to boot.
From RE: The question was narrow:
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah that would be super.
We could have an electronic card swiper on every block to measure the inches that you drive, and on which roads, so that you only pay for the pavement you are actually traveling on.
Or maybe they could just imbed an electronic card swiper in everyone's muffler so that the road automatically takes money out of your bank account for every mile that you drive.
That way you would be sure that you wouldn't have to pay for any inch of roadway that you don't actually use.
I'm only half stupid
I'm glad I'm taking road trips while I'm young...
...if this is the direction that we're going as a country.
I've paid for those roads with my taxes. And I'll be none too happy when all of a sudden they start putting tolls on the roads because the government sold them off to private interests for a quick fix after decades of spendthrift habits in areas other than infrastructure.
From our history in the 20th century, we know that a country can not only maintain a system of free highways from its citizenry, it can CONSTRUCT A FREE NATIONWIDE SUPERHIGHWAY SYSTEM FROM SCRATCH-- a much more intensive proposition than mere maintenance-- without an undue tax burden, and without huge deficits.
Freeways are more convenient and more efficient economically, since there is not the need for building a toll-collecting infrastructure on the highways. Toll roads are less efficient and encourage sub-optimal traffic patterns, such as use of parallel secondary roads by through traffic to avoid tolls.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You mean you are willing
to pay for roads that someone else uses besides you?
You better change that bar back to blue.
Although I see some Republicans have jumped on the populist bandwagon of proposing *gasp* tax hikes to pay for infrastructure, then waited for the sky to fall!
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Bridge_Highway_Spending.html
I'm only half stupid
Well if there's one man in Congress who is familiar with bridges
..it's Don Young:
He knows a lot about roads too...
This guy is asking for more tax money for roads because he treats the transportation budget like his own slush fund.
That's classic. What hubris. Sir, you ARE the problem!
Great find, missliberties.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
This is so rich...
...that I put up a quickie diary
on DK about it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
kpJxkWVyKLviWcaxG
health quotes
jdqj cheap car insurance 
%-) life insurance 
etsznu homeowners insurance 
tauev life quotes 
szmydb
I think
that it is a valid question because these ultimately conflict with the liberal value system and the liberal agenda.
And I am not talking about communism here. Liberals often bring up the concepts of "greater good", "common good", responsibility to society, etc and I believe those ultimately conflict with the basic fairness of inequality of achievement and standard of life.
What I am saying is that inequality is fair (if not necessarily pleasant) and while liberals "usually" point to the extremes in wealth as unfair and in need of regulation - it is a slippery slope. And believe me - legislation is coming.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
No!
The greater good is served by building a road and a bridge for all who reap the fruits of the labor in unequal amounts, to travel on.
Income inequality is not the problem.
The problem is building a bridge benefits your 12 prototypes equally, in spite of the income disparity.
I'm only half stupid
just seizing your last statement
So based on that, wouldn't it be fair for all to pay equal amounts of money (in taxes) for rebuilding it?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That is the crux of my question.
Which I think is the more important question.
It is fair to earn unequal pay, but then how do you decide who pays what for maintaining the bridge, relative to income disparity.
I'm only half stupid
I know.
Believe me. I know what you're getting at. I'm just saying, all things being equal, that it's not the right question.
But hey, carry on...
You mischaracterize
imho, the liberal 'agenda'.
There is no need to legislate income disparity out of existence, which seems to be the end point of your question. It is not immoral for people to earn different incomes.
What is immoral is to collect taxes, and NOT use them in an open and transparent fashion to maintain the basic infrastructure and institutions that maintain a civil society.
It is not fair to give tax subsidies to huge corporate institutions that don't pay their fair share to maintain the countries infrastructure, as if they are put off by any obligation to do so.
Suggesting that 'moralism' is bad is an odd position to take in a society that prides itself on being great nation.
I'm only half stupid
I am not suggesting that
'moralism' is bad but more that the liberal morality sucks. :) Plain enough?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
so you think liberal morality sucks do you?
Do you prefer conservative morality? You know, the kind where conservatives go out and do the very same things that liberals do, but refuse to admit it publically until they're busted for it?
How many adulterers are you going to say represent your morals? How many closeted gay people represent your morals? How many tax cheats and frauds represent your morals?
Liberals don't like adulterers, tax cheats or frauds. But they aren't going to deny that they are there. Liberals address the issues at hand. Conservatives point their fingers at others and call them immoral. Luckily for liberals, conservatives live in glass houses now days too.
So please, don't hate liberals or their values. They're being more honest about stuff than conservatives are.
RE: You mischaracterize
And IMHO he is NOT mischaracterizing anything.
More strawmen:
So you know of now efforts to legislate caps on CEO compensation? Bah.
And this principle is being violated where?
And who says that these corporations are not paying their fair share? How do we determine what's "fair" there? The trucking industry, for example, who is a major user of that infrastructure of which you speak pays huge amounts in taxes just at the pump alone. That makes their payment automatically pro-rated to their use. Why is that not "fair"? They then pass these costs onto the other corporations who make use of their services which is how the distribution of responsibility occurs here.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Teachers
Teachers are a good example to use.
Without teachers, most of whom are paid by tax dollars, you would not have the skills necessary to go on to practice whatever lucrative profession you do that is highly valued by society.
You can't make an obscene salary as a hedge fund manager if you were never taught to read and write and add and subtract.
Teaching salaries are not set by the market. They are determined by the value the community assigns to them through the amount of taxes they are willing to pay.
qui tacet consentire
misdirection here
It is not a requirement for teachers to be paid by tax dollars and teachers in the private sector would do just as well if not better to accomplish the same job. Same for responsible and intelligent parents.
We chose to provide basic education on a mass level through the government but that does not mean it's the only way the system can function. It can of course go through the market.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Garbage
If education was not paid for by tax dollars it would not be available to millions of children.
qui tacet consentire
that's a separate question
of fairness as well but not related.
And education can also be put into the private realm using the tax dollars.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
But
the salaries would still be paid by tax dollars and would not be set by the market.
qui tacet consentire
not if the tax dollars
are used as vouchers for parents to be able to pick private schools on their own (and supplement those vouchers if they so desire). Those private schools would set the salaries themselves.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not to knock teachers
But aside from the basic "how to read" stuff, I think my contribution to my own education was (and is) of equal or greater weight as their contribution.
I can count the good teachers I've had on one hand.
Most of what I learned I learned on my own. Or maybe that's not entirely correct. I learned from books. So should the writers and publishers get paid more than the teacher?
personally I agree
and even there I was reading long before I ever stepped into a school. Of course for most it's not the same.
Generally American public schools provide the basics that any responsible and reasonably intelligent parent can provide (but out of convenience mostly prefers to pay for through taxes and in other cases extra for private).
That is not to slam teachers of public (or private) schools but ultimately it's not individually a terribly important position.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm sorry for you folk.
I can count the number of lousy teachers I had in public school K-12 on one hand. I had some excellent teachers that strove to make me WANT TO LEARN, not just memorize.
Thank god for the public schools in Westchester. But that's why my folks moved out of Yonkers.
It's not that
It's not something to be "sorry" about. I feel (and felt) no emotional value towards that circumstance. It's just my objective assessment of my experience in public schools. It was what it was.
Note that I did not say that all the teachers were lousy. Most were adequate. But very few were good.
No it really is...
something to feel sorry about. Having a really first rate teacher makes a huge difference. This isn't a personal knock against you but clearly that isn't something you experienced and that's unfortunate.
My math teacher in high school was fantastic. He was a successful business man and had plenty of cash. He taught because he liked it and he brought terrific energy and enthusiasm to the subject.
One of my english teachers was similarly terrific. A gray haired wide set woman named Mrs Ryker (we called her "the commander" after the character on Star Trek Next Generation) she was knowledgable on a huge variety of topics. I love collecting rare tidbits of obscure trivia and springing them on people. She consistently not only already knew the things I would bring up but could then go on and add some other detail I had no idea about. I loved that woman.
My high school had an attached day care. I attended that daycare as a child and when (thirteen years later) I attended the high school the teacher who ran the child care classes knew me immediately. She was a great teacher and I owe a lot of my modern day parenting skills to the lessons I learned in her classes about how to interact with children in ways that are neither patronizing nor threatening.
I worked with the disabled kids for a while and the teachers there were just unbelievable in terms of how much of themselves they put into working with those kids with no recognition and no money.
And that's just high school, to say nothing of my middle school biology teacher who got me seriously thinking about marine biology with her passion for the subject, or my various college teachers. My favorite physics professor was a gruff older gentleman who assigned hellish amounts of homework but his classroom lectures and diagrams were polished to an amazing degree. I had dropped out of one of his year long series of classes winter term, and when I came back to retake it the next year he made a point of saying the first day that he was glad to see I'd returned. I'd honestly never been prouder.
A good teacher is an incredible gift.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Agree completely
My senior English teacher was a gem who helped mold me into the person I am today.
qui tacet consentire
good point
We can't disregard that teachers can have both positive and negative effect on young and malleable minds. It is quite possible though that many teachers do not have much effect whatsoever due to the rather basic subject matter (unless they actively engage and try to influence their students).
I do not remember my school teachers at all (that's how much impression they made on me)... Maybe I also did not care enough to pay attention to them (even though I was a good student).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Gee, looking at things from your perspective, though, ...
I can certainly understand why you would have seen so many teachers as being exceptional and inspirational, whereas perhaps others did not! Something to think about. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I'm not saying...
...that there are more good teachers than bad. All I'm saying is that a good teacher makes a huge difference. There's no question that teacher quality varies wildly, and I wish someone would develop a really good method to evaluate teacher competence, so far I haven't seen any criteria that work well.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ha, snuck that one past you!
This was a good natured dig, actually. By "from your perspective" I meant "given your level of intelligence" I can understand why even average teachers "appear" exceptional to you when they don't to others! :)
100% kidding though.
I agree with your original intent.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Liberal Value System....Liberal Agenda.
Please. Stop this foolishness right now. There is no one dogma that is an Agenda.
Are there points of commonality in liberals beliefs? Yes. Why would you call that an agenda? Are there differences in liberals beliefs? Certainly there are. Why aren't you calling that an agenda.
Honestly my difficulty with your premise is that I don't think those, who themselves claim to not be liberal, have any place in trying to define what liberalism is and what liberalism isn't. That's like asking Phaux News to moderate and critique a Democratic Presidential Debate, like asking DKos to moderate and critique a Republican Presidential Debate.
It's more proper to allow liberals to define themselves and it's more proper to allow conservatives to define themselves. Now does that mean anyone has to agree with these groups definitions? Certainly not.
everyone is free
to define how they perceive different ideologies and the ultimate goals/agendas/logical results of those ideologies. You don't have to be a part of something to have an opinion on what the hell that something is all about.
So I'll just disregard what you think is my place to do and continue my personal evaluation of liberalism and liberal values. You are of course free to disagree and such is the nature of debate.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I'm not suggesting a conservative shouldn't try to
define what is and what is not liberal.
I'm questioning the value of that definition.
both insider and outsider
definitions of a particular ideology are incredibly biased in our particular case though I would hope you'd see the problem with the value of the insider definitions of themselves.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
RE: Liberal Value System....Liberal Agenda.
Isn't this just a long winded way of saying that Liberals don't have an agenda? And, by not having an agenda aren't you implying that they tend to be disorganized and wanting for vision?
Even if we accept this notion, doesn't this:
sort of imply that you haven't defined yourselves?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Is it fair?
Does it matter?
I guess that's my take. Searching for fairness in life is a frustrating and IMHO fruitless exercise. Life is not fair. And I have a hard time framing these things in moralistic terms such as "fair." That does not mean I don't rail against fate as much as the next person, when I'm frustrated by it, but I try to keep my perspective.
But to answer your question, in the abstract sense of is it the logical and rational outcome of the forces of reality, then yes. Can it be perceived as benefiting one good and worthy person over another equally good and worthy person? Yes.
Fairness and standard of living
Here's how I'd put it-
Money is a product of government, created to facilitate economic transactions. That being the case those who contribute more to a well functioning society (the goal of a legitimate government) can fairly get a greater share of the money. On the other hand I can't link standard of living to the matter because if a person was capable of producing their own standard of living, without relying on others, then they are entitled to that even though they contribute nothing to society. The only exception to that would be if in the process they cause significant harm to others around them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
"fairness" is immaterial
...a person earns what society is willing to pay him and how scarce his skills are.
The only exceptions are your 11th and 12th examples.
Like Teddy Roosevelt, I feel that passing on wealth to children that had no part in creating it promotes aristocracy.
If my children inherit more than $1, then I either died too soon or planned too poorly. ;-)
One should not be able to live comfortably because of the efforts and worth of their ancestors. Each individual should have to earn their own place in society and live according to their own skill set and worth to society.
It is a natural inclination for parents to want to pass on their wealth to their children.. so that their children can have an easier life than they had. But they are doing their children a disservice when they do that... the Paris Hiltons of the world don't have to contribute anything of value to society to attain their wealth. They are, in fact, modern royalty.... without the responsibility of governance.
A low death tax creates a de facto American aristocracy. Teddy Roosevelt and I think that's a bad thing. ;-)
Now... should the government receive the wealth in the form of a high death tax?
No. Wealth should be able to be willed to the deceased's favorite non-profit organizations. And what is left over should pay down national debt. ;-)
As for lottery winners... they provide no value to society individually in their role as "lottery winners" per se.... but collectively, the people who purchased lottery tickets often do. The proceeds from the lottery go somewhere besides just to the winner. The number of people who have a high standard of living because of winning the lottery is statistical noise. In fact, many winners find themselves bankrupt just a few years after winning, because they have no understanding of how to handle that kind of instant wealth.
The lottery (and gambling in general) is a tax on people who are bad at math, as far as I am concerned. And that's ok.
I survived the Bush Administration
Well--
First of all, as the famous Rolling Stones song goes "It's in the way that one uses it". What people do with their money has an awful lot to do with it also. There's no question that some people are able to live with much higher standards than others due to income, inheritance, or whatever, and nobody should be condemned for wanting to have better standards for themselves or their kids.
However, I also agree that a person who isn't rich or doesn't have an inheritance to fall back on deserves the right to live decently also.
prime said
And I agree. But that is not the same as what you said:
There is no such right to live decently if one does not "earn their own place" but still "lives according to their worth to society" if I can parse it like that. If someone is a lazy bum and does nothing then that individual is not earning anything and does not deserve a "decent living".
You have to do something to deserve good things.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
yes
Which is why you should have no problem with a high death tax. ;-)
Sitting around and lazily living off of a trust fund that daddy left for you should be strongly discouraged. The best discouragement coming in the tax code.
Give what you want to charity, and then a 100% death tax on the remainder. That's my plan. ;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
maybe setup an
offshore charity whose purpose will be to provide for my children? Something like that would do well under your plan.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
heheh
Nice loophole.
Fine... no charity. It all goes to paying down the debt. 100% death tax.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
My Take
First, I'd like to say I was OK with the Fair Points Doctrine mentioned above up until 8, 10, 11, and 12. And on 13, I do agree that it's OK that someone makes more money and lives in bigger spaces than me. I've always said I wanted to be wealthy, but not "too" wealthy where your privacy becomes public domain.
OK, to PM:
I think if we had the choice to pay $7500 in tax money to the government or to local organizations, I would chose local organizations every time. (Be careful not to let any old charity pass though--I could start the Charles J Empowerment Fund tomorrow) However, I would have to be convinced that said organization has accounting principles much better than the government does.
I mean think about it. What would the government do if:
there was a visible mafia-like organization going around taking money from people by force. There would be people involved that you know of course. In addition, they would engage in shady accounting practices where they can then launder the money through obscure projects. You can threaten to expose them, but they simply shut you up by paying money to you or funding an issue/project that's important to you.
Well, that's our government.
With me, if you're gonna force me to pay more because I make more, at least let me see how you're spending the money. Otherwise I should have the right to put my money in an organization who'll have a little more discretion with how they spend. Currently, we don't have that choice.
As for passing on money, I would agree that passing on money should be a good thing and I'm ok if it's taxed at the regular rate--not something absurd like 50-60%. There's no justification for such a high rate. Implicit in this assumption is that there can be no more money, or that it would be concentrated, or that the number of millionaires/billionaires is shrinking, when I think the opposite is true.
Besides, if the children are not good stewards of their parents money, it'll be out of their hands soon enough.
As for the lotto, well, it's an unfortunate reverse redistribution tax: money from the lower class (who buy most of the tickets) eventually is distributed to the upper two classes (usually through education programs). The handful of those who are lucky enough to win deserve what they get, and I see it as quite fair.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
good response
especially this:
Except for I would eliminate the death tax completely as that money has already been taxed for the parents.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
except...
except that none of it was earned by the children.
We're literally giving them "money for nothing".
Like I said earlier... if my daughters end up with more than $1 after I die, then I died too soon or planned too poorly.
I survived the Bush Administration
What about Allowances?
I'm actually interested in how far this should go.. Clearly, taking care of your children cannot be a "business," so it would be hard to justify that you are paying your children for work. So, in the eyes of the government, we could pretty much say that children are given money for "nothing" already, yes? If you're 50 and are paying your children (say they're teenagers) an "allowance," should this be taxed as well?
I wonder how the government handles this? I'm not sure if there is an age limit or an income limit. (I know there is a 10,000 gift tax per taxpayer, but what if you are rich and give your kid a 15,000/year allowance?)
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
Allowances are not "for nothing"
...at least in my house. ;-)
They are payment/reward for meaningful service.
i.e. Mowing the lawn, doing the laundry, washing the dishes, etc.
That's different than giving them millions in a trust fund that effectively eliminates their need to ever earn a living.
The parents and grandparents of the Paris Hiltons of the world do their offspring a severe disservice by allowing them to live a life of luxury, without providing any service to society in any capacity.
This is how aristocracies form. Allowing massive wealth to transfer to children and grandchildren creates an aristocratic class of people in our society. Some call them "old money".
America was founded by the risks and subsequent rewards that resulted in "new money".
My idea is not well formulated and is far from perfect.
But I think there needs to be a way to discourage the creation of a "trust fund" class that are worth millions of dollars that they had no part in creating. That smells of old europe, old world aristocracy. And it is what we as a country got away from 231 years ago.
I survived the Bush Administration
you speak as if
our founders actively tried to block passing on inheritance which is of course nonsense. So you cannot infer that it is what they wanted. The "estate tax" originated in the 20th century to make things "more equitable".
I also do not believe anyone is obligated to render a "service to society" aside from paying taxes on the money (and not overpaying multiple times either).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wrong on the estate tax
Care to back that statement up?
The Estate tax originated during wartime to pay for war. It just so happens that we are at war right now AND running a budget deficit, and yet some people still wish to repeal the tax as if we were in peacetime with a balanced budget.
The "double tax" argument could be made about ANY tax. Name me a tax and I will conjure up a double tax argument. Why is a double tax inherently bad?
If we would implement some of my ideas, like raising the retirement age to 70, allowing drug reimportation for Medicare Part D, and slashing a lot of the big ticket weaponry in the defense budget, we could ease some of the tax pressures that are coming down the pike.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Thanks!
Have you ever done any research on how the US operated before taxes?
It was all tarrifs on imported goods, I believe. It's pretty interesting stuff.
Many of our roads were war related spending, transporting armaments, etc.
(I don't like the retirement age at 70, that is too extreme! Put SS off budget just for a few years, like we do the war, to get us thru the crunch.)
I'm only half stupid
Different times, the old days
Communication and data storage technologies of the olden days precluded big federal government programs. How would it have been possible to run a program like Social Security before some sort of nationwide telecommunication network was in place? You have to have some way of making the data on everybody available to everybody to run that kind of system.
Various technology has also pushed demand for big gvernment infrastructure projects. There was little need for concrete highways during the horse and buggy days-- sure, the ride is a little less dusty or muddy on the concrete, but horse travel on dirt is basically as fast as horse travel on concrete. Then came the car...
And back when there was no real use for electricity, who needed a huge megadam? Back in the old days, a huge dam would only serve to flood valuable farmland. It was only after the electrical revolution, coupled with growing water needs from growing California cities and agricultural interests, that a big government project like Hoover Dam became viable and necessary.
I'm not sure what you mean by taking social security "off budget", but it sounds like accounting fraud to me :-) The war has never been off the budget. It has been passed as emergency supplementals separate from the normal annual appropriations process, but I don't think anybody would say that this has served us to "get us thru the crunch." Spending is spending. Enron accounting isn't going to cut it.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
RE: Different times, the old days
Collect the taxes, send them to local and regional centers, and just hand them out to the poor. Isn't this how Robin Hood got started?
This method is low overhead and can even work within the context of a barter system so we don't have to worry about that new fangled money thing all the time. Goats and chickens work just fine!
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah but what if you move?
I've paid all my taxes into the old local center. The people in the new local center where I've moved to are going to be pretty upset that I get a share of their pool of goats and chickens...
What if I become disabled? Then I start drawing out goats and chickens before I'm expected to in my local center. Other people drawing goats and chickens from my local center have to have their allocations of goats and chickens cut so that I can get mine.
Unless you can spread the risk over a huge pool of people, like Social Security does, you can't come close to making guarantees of a certain sized benefit that people can count on being there when they plan for retirement.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
As with today's Social Security ...
There is no pool. Your current taxes get used to pay current recipients. Its not like they stored that chicken you gave them 20 years ago for you, is it?
You tax people today to pay for today's recipients. Under that system your point is moot. But even IF they still had the 20 year old chicken waiting for you then they, presumably, could send it to your new local distribution center.
As I said, this is moot. You are just another recipient and taxes are adjusted to cover your needs under the program. Note that this is ALSO how it operates today.
I said the taxes were "collected" not that they were "collected regionally or locally". They are collected from across the country and sent to be DISTRIBUTED at a regional and local level.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4well true
It was to help pay for the war and the were looking for other sources of revenue - and found it by making the rich pay more. Not the fairest way of doing it but the tax rates and revenues back then were not in any way comparable to now!
Because we were in WWI and had low revenues - we had to do something quick and they did that. The case now is very different as we have huge revenues from huge tax rates. I like your ideas and would even go for some revamping of the defense budget (we gotta check what the hell is going on there). I would also go through Medicare/Medicaid/SS for fraud and raise the exemption level for taxable SS income. There is money to be found without a need to tax more.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That you, Ender?
Very interesting to see your position on the auditing of defense (as well as domestic) programs. I would half-expect you to vigorously rail against Social Security in general, let alone be open to raising the exemption level for Social Security (which in my mind is like raising a tax). I'm with you though: We should look at domestic and defense programs without people claiming that it would defund the poor/elderly/single mothers/troops/secret anti-terrorists/national security/(fill-in yours here).
The only reason that I'm not so against the estate tax is because I doubt it would seriously hurt anyone (as long as the rate is reasonable--say 35%, like the top tax bracket). I just have a feeling that in a dozen years or so, the Estate Tax will become what the AMT is today--hurting those it wasn't intended to hurt. So we might as well keep it reasonable. I'd rather not have it.
My gf shares your frustration though. Being from a country that taxes its citizens like we used to back in the day (through tariffs on imports), she finds it hard to understand how you can be taxed twice on the same money, yet I explained to her that not only to we get taxed every time money changes ownership, but we have a lot of "hidden" taxes we pay all the time, as you will find here.
I found if funny hearing the (R) candidates debate Sunday on the Fair Tax, and if you listen to Mike Huckabee's "Come to Jesus" Pitch of the Fair Tax, you would almost think its a no-brainer type of tax approach until you hear that Step #1 would be to "Repeal the 16th Amendment."
Taxes are going to be with us, fair or not. The only "fairness" we can have on it is how low the levy is and on whom.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678 Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
I would also go through
This can be done as well. I think we also have to change our approach to health care. Health care should be about making people's lives better and healthier while life is worth living, not about extending life at the very end when people are suffering and life is not all that worth living. I pesonally think that banning cigarettes would reduce healthcare costs by trillions over the long term, but I think that only Brendan is on board with me on that ;-)
That second part sounds like a tax increase to me though.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
umm
no, you are not giving them anything, the parents are. You are talking as if the money belongs to some vague "we" the community. BS. The money is no one's but the parents and in my view they should be free to use it as they please and in the case of the family passing it on without it being retaxed again. I don't care if the children didn't earn it. It is theirs, it is owned already, it is not government's and it is not society's.
If I want to give my children money for nothing I should be free to do so. My damn money :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
heh
Then be prepared to have spoiled-brat children who don't know what it means to produce something and earn their keep.... who think that they're entitled to everything they want while giving nothing in return.
;-)
But of course, that is your choice.
I survived the Bush Administration
I think there are gift tax limits too.
You can give anybody up to $3500 (I think the limit is) without having to file income tax papers. Technically, if you give them more than that, both you and they have to report and claim it on your taxes.
that's not an either or kind of
deal... You can leave a lot of money to your children (when they are obviously already grown) while also teaching them how to produce and create and all the other good values while they are young. You can also leave your children nothing and also with a sense that the world owes them for just being there (Dems do a good job of this).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
IN other words
what you are saying is dems hold a strong value and respect for human life.(just because it's there). Yes thank you! I agree.
I'm only half stupid
lol
yeah that's what I am saying...
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
p.s.
You seem to be in good spirits after your vacation.
I am glad you had a good time, refreshed and recharged your batters :+) and were able to get away!
I'm only half stupid
thanks :)
Yeah I definitely did have a good time. I am still barely aware I am back at work. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
so.....
did anyone ask anyone in particular (gf) an interesting question????
You don't have to answer if you don't feel like it.
I'm only half stupid
no n/t
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
FwBtwitTLHptLJWXGWb
life insurance quotes
8]]] auto insurance 
atq life quotes 
axg home insurance quotes 
qnrt
With all due respect to Teddy ...
Sounds rather communist, actually, but not quite. It does have a flavor of individual responsibility to it. I guess it is because of the presumption that society is more important than individuals, which I contend is implicit in this statement. I disagree with that notion.
So what give you the right to tell other people (a) what they can and cannot do with their own income/wealth, and (b) how they should raise THEIR kids? That's what you are doing here, at least implicitly so.
Again with the heavy socialist and almost communist tone.
The number of people who are Paris Hiltons are statistical noise as well, yet you seek to punish them. These people typically donate millions of dollars to charities on a regular basis so why do you feel the need to confiscate everything from them?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4not communistic at all...
It is the opposite of communist. Marxism's main platitude is "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs."
My statement is almost the opposite... to each according to his means... with no respect to "need" whatsoever.
You are taking my idea and flipping it on its head.
My idea is the celebration of the individual. One gets what one earns.
Ayn Rand-ian Objectivism.
Communism is about what is best for the "collective". I'm arguing that each person owns themselves, and only themselves... and they have the right to earn whatever it is they can, based on their skill set and scarcity.
Passing on great wealth to offspring inspires narcissistic attitudes and creates a de-facto royalty class in a society.
A millionaire's kids have done nothing to earn their windfall when daddy dies, other than winning the gene pool lottery.
They've produced nothing. They've created no wealth themselves.
That's why I'm arguing that parents should not leave their wealth to their kids. They should get their kids the finest educations they can, and then let their kids earn their own fortunes.
Comparing that idea with communism is ridiculous twisting of logic on your part.
If you want to put a name on it.. call it "Extreme Anti-Aristocracism". ;-)
There are members of the Kennedy clan that are set for life financially just because their great-grand-uncle Joe made a lot of money running rum during prohibition. They've produced nothing of value on their own.
I'm arguing against that ethic.
I survived the Bush Administration
RE: not communistic at all...
While I am certainly not averse to stretching things from time to time, in this case there is no need. I am not flipping anything on its head, merely interpretting your statement according to the rules of the English Language and utilizing the standard definitions of the words. Let us parse it in more detail...
This basically puts forth the notion that people should not be able to have any advantages in life. That to have advantages is unfair to the masses. These are very communistic ideals if you ask me.
Further, you later commentary indicates that you favor confiscation of the accumulated wealth and distributing it amongst the poor. You called it donating the wealth to charities, but it amounts to the same thing: confiscation of wealth for what you perceive to be the greater good of society. Again, very communisitic IMHO.
Above you make reference to the "collective" so as to intone a certain Borg-like negativity to the term. However true communists, such as yourself apparently, certainly don't think of the masses as being a "collective". To them "the masses" is synonymous with "society".
From a communists perspective, people are expected to work for the greater good of society, right? How is that really different from saying that they have to earn their place in society? Your statment clearly indicates that everyone is expected to contribute to society, which is again communistic IMHO.
You claim to be arguing for the individual, but only in the context of how they contribute to society. As I said, what you are describing is sort of communist, but not exactly, because you are willing to allow for individual disparity in standards of living according to how much one actually produces. This is what I meant by "flavor of individual responsibility to it."
And again we have the whole "worth to society" meme. If you were truly arguing from the perspective of the individual, you would have no such obligations to society. People would be free to contribute to it or not, to take from it or not, as THEY choose not as your vision dictates. It is this over-arching meme of controlling responsibility to society that makes this so communistic in my view. This view makes people slaves to society, and the only way to improve ones lot in life is measured against your "worth to society". How is that not a fundamentally communist (i.e. communal) perspective?
And as a champion of the individual you should have absolutely no problem with this, yet you do ... as would a communist in the greatest tradition of communists.
And there's that element of control where you try to push your view of how to raise children in your own vision. The true champion of the individual doesn't seek to push his views on anyone. They promote fredom of choice not oppressive dictates such as confiscating accumulated wealth for the good of society.
I completely agree. And is not "Extreme Anti-Aristocratism" not also a pretty reasonable definition for Communism? Isn't that exactly the genesis OF communism in many regards? :)
Which is EXACTLY what is aligning you with the communists. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4lol
that is pretty good man.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
pCoyjlqvdevARPjHV
health insurance quotes
33742 cheap car insurance 
%PPP auto insurance quotes 
bgk health insurance quotes 
yoi
You are being painfully binary again.
Your logic boils down to a simple if this is not A it must be B syllogism. If it isn't capitalism it must be communism, even if it doesn't look or sound at all like communism.
Neither capitalism nor communism support aristocratic hereditary wealth. In both ideologies it is in fact anathema. In communism individuals are not supposed to be hoarding wealth but instead are supposed to get only what they need. In capitalism hoarding wealth means a lack of capital available, wealth is meant to be spent, not hoarded and certainly not given to someone just because they happen to be your offspring.
Your contention that anything that is anti-aristocratic simply has to be communist shows a total disregard for what the philosophy actually entails.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
RE: You are being painfully binary again.
The middle ground is for centrists. I am not a centrist! :)
Not true. I don't consider fascists or anarchists to be communists, for example.
Humbug. Capitalism is NOT anti-wealth accumulation in any way. Bill Gates, George Soros, The Kennedy Clan, The Hiltons, The Rockefellors, etc., etc., etc. are all proof that your statement is flawed.
How naive and ignorant you are sometimes. Hoarding wealth has no effect on capital availability, in fact the hoarding of wealth is a significant SOURCE of captial availability. None of these neo-Aristocrats have millions and millions of $$$$ stuffed into their matresses. It is ALL invested in one way or any other, even the cash they may have sitting around in various bank accounts. It is all being put to use by virtue of being invested in corporations through stocks or home loans or whatever other revenue generating mechanisms are in place. It all finds its way back into the economy. The only thing sitting around is a balance in a ledger somewhere.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4can't you even get your own philosophy right?
Actually it is. Wealth that is hoarded and not used is directly against capitalist ideals.
And as before giving wealth away is considered criminally insane in a hardcore capitalist philosophy. Ask Ayn Rand.
That statement is proof you have no idea what you are talking about. Take Bill Gates for example. The man is a hardcore monopolist which precludes him from being a capitalist by any stretch of the imagination (seeing as how capitalism and monopolies are in opposition).
I refuse to believe you are this dumb that you don't know that taking money out of a system leaves less money in the system. You literally can't be so dumb as to not get the concept of subtraction.
The banks are investing the funds certainly but that is simply a bit of legedermain on the part of merchant banking. Should Soros, Gates, the Kennedys, etc decide to withdraw their funds at once you'd find out to your chagrin that those funds are indeed unavailable.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
RE: can't you even get your own philosophy right?
I understand capitalism just fine, thanks. You seem to be the ignorant one here. :)
Well, I guess we need to be clear on our terms here, so please let me know what you mean by the following:
I was assuming by "hoarding wealth" you meant amassing a large net worth, is this not the case?
I was assuming by "not using wealth" you meant making it unavailable for use within the larger economy, is this not the case?
Under these definitions, it is true that someone such as Bill Gates has "hoarded wealth" but I claim that he is NOT guilty of "not using it" in the sense that I assume you mean it.
So, let me ask you a follow-up question that might help clarify this discussion. Where does Bill Gates keep his money and in what way is that not making it available for use in the larger economy?
If that is not what you mean, then please clarify what you do mean. Thanks.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Crickets, tlaloc?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't keep up with every older thread
Nor do I feel the need to continue abusing you after you've made it clear you're incapable of bringing anything to the conversation.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
In other words, you got nothin'? n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ha
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I said ha right? I've been reading through this post, got to that statement and had to jump in. How exactly is monopoly and the capitalist in opposotion? If anything the capitalists seeks to create monopolies where ever they can. The monopoly over the actual earth (by means of private ownership) is what allows capitalism to exist in the first place!
"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee
I was wondering
if you were still around, and, I figured if you were, this would be the place you would jump in. How do you like this 'debate' on communism? Entertaining, eh?
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
You know me...
...mention socialist or communist and I'll appear (bit like the marxist candy man). Alot of the above is laughable to be honest. This post started as debate on what is "fair" and turned into another argument about the definition of what communism is.
Most of the 12 (bougouise infested) points are fair within the capitalist context (to varying degress), but that would be to assume that capitalism is a fair system. (You can sculpt the venus de milo from manure, but at the end of the day it's still a pile of s**t). I've not really got time to destroy all the arguments so I'll focus on the ones that seem to jump out.
Changing the word society to capitalist would be a more accurate depiction of modern economics. Why is this important? Because it is not society which determines how the wealth is utilised but the owners of land and business'. Although supply and demand are factors in this equation, the potential for profit is a far greater motivator for wealth distribution.
"But society determines what is demanded and capital is thrown into these sectors of industry according to our needs/wants, therefore we get what we ask for."
Nah. Not even close. I'll use the housing market in the U.K as a prime example of profit over use value. In London there is a growing shortage of housing, yet there is land sitting idle with full development rights, why? False supply and demand. The owners of that land know that as the population increases the land becomes more valuable, and selling the land for development now would loose potential profit in the future. The monopoly they have forces the prices of existing homes through the roof (excuse the pun), along with thier own undeveloped property. Of course that's only the case until the land starts being sold, at which point the value decreases as supply falls in line with demand and capital is pulled out of the market bursting the real estate "bubble". Who benefits? Not the homeless or the home owner whose house value falls to a fraction of its' "origanal" value.
The question is how was this wealth, which they so feely donate, aquired in the first place? Money being a purely social phenomena, off the backs of those who contribute to society presumably. In effect these kinds of "donations" are merely a portion of societies wealth being reintroduced to the economy, but only on the "good will" of the wealthy elite. Thanks for giving a percentage of our money back, how generous!
I love Fransico's money speech. Its' such a joy to tere apart. Anyone willing to argue for her "philosophy" step up now.
Lets go Rand again? So if we own only ourselves, who owns that which we create value from, ie; the raw materials of life/society? He who gets there first? He who has more muscle or fire power? Anarco-capitalism basically.
What an amalgamation of crap. Firstly we are living off the backs of everybodies ancestors. The car couldn't be made without the wheel, in fact if you can show me an invention or innovation which DOESN'T have its' origins from society I'll eat my proverbial hat. We owe the ability to invent to the being of society, and therfore the owners should not be any one individual but society as a whole. In this sense the individual matters little, we are all human at the end of the day and we should inhereit all which past generations have created. If the janitor wasn't there to clean the floor the doctor would have less time to find the cure for cancer, and this time decreases as the division of labour regresses. Who is more important then? Without one there wouldn't be the other. Is that not a logical assertion?
"They called me mad, and I called them mad, and damn them, they outvoted me". Nathaniel Lee
my point exactly
The offspring of Gates, Soros, the Kennedy clan, the Hiltons, and the Rockefellors are modern-day aristocrats.
Aristrocrats may produce something of value, but they do not need to in order to maintain their standard of living.
Bill and Melinda Gates' children do not have to work a day in their lives, if they choose not to. They have the capability (and given human nature, a certain level of likelihood) of succumbing to complete and utter narcissism (a la Paris Hilton) and never having to do anything of value to attain the highest standard of living.
By simple act of winning the gene pool lottery, they are set for life. The can choose to be worthless human beings, and not suffer the least for it.
I want them at the same starting line as the rest of us... then, if they attain the status of "independently wealthy", they would have earned it.
Two words sum up my position in the "cult of the individual":
Narcissism bad.
;-)
I survived the Bush Administration
RE: my point exactly
Have I said anything that disagrees with this, and if so how and why?
And this is a bad thing, why?
Which is different from saying that you don't want people to have any advantages how?
I understand that. But the point that I am making is that anyone who was truly part of the "cult of the individual" would never hold this view.
I know what you are railing against perfectly fine. Further explanation isn't necessary from that perspective. I just don't agree that the words you are using mean what you want that them mean.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Um... we have different definitions of "Communism"
Not surprisingly, I disagree wholeheartedly. ;-)
I'm arguing for equal opportunity. Communism is about equal outcomes.
Major, huge difference.
Since you are big on Webster's dictionary... here's the definition of communism:
My argument definitely does not fit definition 1, because I am not arguing that property earned belongs to the state. It's yours as long as you're living... and it can only be yours, and not anyone else's... including your offspring's. After you pass on, if you don't want it going to the state... you can will it to the non-profit organization of your choice. This is not redistribution to the poor, unless that is what you want. You can will it to your local country club if you want. I'm just arguing that it cannot go to any other individual. That each individual's wealth should be earned by that individual.
I'm not arguing for equal outcomes, only an equal starting line.
And obviously, my ideas don't fit definitions 2 or 3 at all.
No, not really. You are misinterpreting my statement. Each individual's worth is defined by what society has deemed it to be worth. Our western society has deemed actors, athletes, and CEOs to be worth more than other individuals. And that's ok.
Your financial worth is defined by the norms of your society.
You are equating the word "society" with "communism", and it is just not so.
Every individual on this planet is part of a "society". Some societies are collectivist in nature (communist/socialist/totalitarian) and some societies are individualistic in nature (capitalist).
We live in an "individualistic society" in the United States, and our financial worth is determined by the value that society has placed on our skill set and characteristics.
Every society has "the masses".... Communistic societies most certainly do consider the masses a "collective", so you are wrong in your declarative.
Capitalistic societies consider "the masses" to be a large group of individual consumers.
Your first sentence is false. I am not arguing that their worth is in the "context of how they contribute to society". I am arguing that their worth is in the context of what their society has deemed them to be worth.
I would argue that actors and athletes in our society are not getting their worth from what they "contribute to society"... but from what society, as a whole, has determined they are worth.
That's not a subtle difference.
The phrase "Contribution to society" is not synonymous with the phrase "Value society assigns to them".
It has nothing to do with their "contribution" to the greater good or some such nonsense. That is where you are misreading what I wrote.
Can you really argue that your financial worth is not determined by what our society has decided to attach to you? I don't know your profession... but whatever you are making, it is because our society has deemed you to be worth about that much.
That has nothing to do with a "communistic ideal".
No, I do not. I have no problem with an individual producing nothing of value. I do have a problem with said individual reaping the rewards of another individual's efforts.
As a self-described member of the "cult of the individual", I want all individuals to have whatever they have earned. I just don't want some individuals having that which they did not earn.
No free rides.
That is hardly a communistic ideal. In fact, it is damn near the opposite of the communistic ideal.
Having a viewpoint about what one should do
is not the same as forcing someone to adhere to that viewpoint.
By that definition, not a single poster on SwordsCrossed could ever be considered a "champion of the individual", including yourself.
We are debating opposing viewpoints on this site... that's the definition of "pushing our views".
Your definition precludes any "champion of the individual" from ever participating in a debate.
Nonsense.
I never said it had to be for the "good of society". I'd prefer that it was. I'd prefer that people spent their wealth on themselves before granting another individual a "free ride".
Buy yourself some extra yachts, big screens, and hookers. Splurge. You earned it.
You do your children a disservice when you give it to them, with no expectations of them to use it to produce more wealth, but to instead be free-loaders.
No. Communism, as practiced in the 20th century regimes, replaced one aristocracy (based on bloodlines) with another (based on loyalty to party).
I am vehemently opposed to both.
My worth is based on the content of myself, and myself alone. My worth has nothing to do with the worth of my ancestors or with my adherence to a collective.
I own myself. That's my point. Or at least the point, I'm trying to get across.
I survived the Bush Administration
RE: Um... we have different definitions of "Communism"
And not surprisingly that puts you on the losing end of the debate. :)
I agree that you are arguing for equal opportunity at an individual level. I do not agree that Communism is only about equal outcomes. Communists don't want people having any advantages either, like you.
Since I have already agreed that you are not arguing for pure communism, but only something close to it or similar to it the textbook definition is a bit moot.
I stand corrected on the underlined part. I had originally thouht you meant charities. If you mean any non-profit organization then my distribution to the poor mean evaporates. Even so, by targetting non-profits you are still arguing for "the greater benefit of society" for the most part, as most non-profits are arguably engaged in those types of activities.
How would you feel about someone setting up a non-profit organization whose sole purpose was to cater to the needs of their children who, upon your death, would have sole control thereof (e.g. The Foundation for the Benefit of Bill and Milinda Gate's Offspring)? Is it OK to will your estate to THAT non-profit? :)
I think that they line up with number 3 pretty well, actually.
No, I am not. I am asserting that communists view "the collective" as you call it (but I doubt that they would) to be synonymous with what their vision of society should be. In other words, communists would not make a distinction between "the collective" and "the masses" and "society". It is all the same thing to them.
Dig up some examples, please, of where the Communists refer to their vision of society as a collective AND distinguish it from a more general notion of society. I maintain that they do not or that even if they do it is still synonymous with "society" in their terminology.
And society determines that worth by what? Their contributions.
You can argue until your a blue in the face but it doesn't make you right on this point. The fact of the matter is that the value of what they contribute to society is exactly what society has determined that they are worth. Any other interpretation is vaccuous, at least from a Capitalist's perspective. Communist mileage may vary.
Society isn't going to determine that they are "worth" any more than they "contribute" almost by definition. When people pay the price required for tickets to sporting events it is because they feel that they are getting comparable value in return. Otherwise they would not buy the tickets. (Yea, they may grumble about the prices but they grumble about a lot of things. Bottom line they decided to fork over the cash.)
I believe that your original phrase was "worth to society". Please define that phrase because by my reading it is pretty much synonymous with "value to society" or "contribution to society". You the value you provide to society IS you contribution to society, is it not? They are essentially the same thing.
Can you really argue that my "worth to society" is not exactly what society has determined it to be? These are both saying the same thing.
Ironically, YOU seem to ALSO be arguing that someone's financial net worth is NOT an indicator of their worth as determined by society. Paris Hilton would be a case in point. She has a huge net worth yet you are arguing that she is worthless to society.
I have to go eat, so this is where I am going to stop this comment. Its not that big of a deal. You can believe what you want. I am just saying that is sounds socialist/communist to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yes but the least of us shd have a living wage
and health care and opportunities to better themselves.
And those who has more should share more so that everyone should at least have a living wage and health care.