Equality

[Lootifer]

... The second is the approach to equality through control and repression, establishing equality by hammering down the achievers and lifting the non-achievers (still subject to control). This is the equality of results option.

You guys have no idea what modern socialism entails...

You guys also like using inflammatory words, grats i guess?

edit: hell it's not even modern socialism, its modern centerist thinking.

[Nobunaga]

... The second is the approach to equality through control and repression, establishing equality by hammering down the achievers and lifting the non-achievers (still subject to control). This is the equality of results option.

You guys have no idea what modern socialism entails...

You guys also like using inflammatory words, grats i guess?

... Refute, or get out. How about you begin with your explanation of what modern socialism entails. I lived in a socialist nation for many years, so no BS.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

... The second is the approach to equality through control and repression, establishing equality by hammering down the achievers and lifting the non-achievers (still subject to control). This is the equality of results option.

You guys have no idea what modern socialism entails...

You guys also like using inflammatory words, grats i guess?

... Refute, or get out. How about you begin with your explanation of what modern socialism entails. I lived in a socialist nation for many years, so no BS.

...

Japan is socialist?

[Lootifer]

My edit is more accurate.

And i'm talking about conceptual ideas rather than what we see in practice.

Anyhoo...

My (probably incorrect) view of modern centre left thought is:
- State control of infrastucture industries where barriers to entry are significant
- State control of industries that underpin basic human rights (health, education, etc)
- Quick and decisive state intevention in cases of market failure
oh and one last one:
- Government regulation preventing shows such as "Keeping up with the Kardashians" being given air time.

(ps that was a joke, har har har?)

[Phatscotty]

... The second is the approach to equality through control and repression, establishing equality by hammering down the achievers and lifting the non-achievers (still subject to control). This is the equality of results option.

You guys have no idea what modern socialism entails...

We have an idea about what freedom is, as well as a penchant for what it means to hold onto freedom and pass it on to our children and the next generation.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.

[Nobunaga]

... The second is the approach to equality through control and repression, establishing equality by hammering down the achievers and lifting the non-achievers (still subject to control). This is the equality of results option.

You guys have no idea what modern socialism entails...

You guys also like using inflammatory words, grats i guess?

... Refute, or get out. How about you begin with your explanation of what modern socialism entails. I lived in a socialist nation for many years, so no BS.

...

Japan is socialist?

... It's a "social democracy", built on the European (German, to be specific) model. And like the European social democracies, Japan is buried in debt in spite of horrendous tax rates. And like its European counterparts the Japanese government "steers" many aspects of daily life through social controls, though this is given little thought by those raised in the system (but it is quite striking to somebody from the states once you get past that, "OMG! Check out that temple!" phase). Politically, it is quite corrupt.

... My favorite example for demonstration as to the extent of government control in Japan is the existence of, and you're going to laugh but I am totally serious, a Balloon Art guild that is supported by the national government. One cannot have a clown come to a kids' party and perform balloon art without the authorization of the National Balloon Art Association. And the performer must be a member. Fees are standardized, nationwide.

... And it gets much worse from there. The criminal underworld (yakuza - often affiliated with organized labor unions) tie-ins to government there are so common that not being "on the take" would make a politician a truly rare bird. Though actually, the Japanese Communist Party is noted for being above board in most matters.

... Transparency does not exist - to even the slightest degree.

...

[Phatscotty]

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

[BigBallinStalin]

Japan is socialist?

... It's a "social democracy", built on the European (German, to be specific) model. And like the European social democracies, Japan is buried in debt in spite of horrendous tax rates. And like its European counterparts the Japanese government "steers" many aspects of daily life through social controls, though this is given little thought by those raised in the system (but it is quite striking to somebody from the states once you get past that, "OMG! Check out that temple!" phase). Politically, it is quite corrupt.

... My favorite example for demonstration as to the extent of government control in Japan is the existence of, and you're going to laugh but I am totally serious, a Balloon Art guild that is supported by the national government. One cannot have a clown come to a kids' party and perform balloon art without the authorization of the National Balloon Art Association. And the performer must be a member. Fees are standardized, nationwide.

... And it gets much worse from there. The criminal underworld (yakuza - often affiliated with organized labor unions) tie-ins to government there are so common that not being "on the take" would make a politician a truly rare bird. Though actually, the Japanese Communist Party is noted for being above board in most matters.

... Transparency does not exist - to even the slightest degree.

...

I'm inclined to believe you... but this is all new to me. I'll be sure to ask some friends from Japan about this.

Thanks for the reply, Nobunaga.

[natty dread]

- Government regulation preventing shows such as "Keeping up with the Kardashians" being given air time.

Now this we can all agree with!

[PLAYER57832]

Loaded question, so I'm not going to bother answering it.

Also they should be a factor of one another; equal opportunity leads to equality in living standards or whatever other results you care to look at.

Your man Friedman just pursues the distinction between the two and then pushes for equal opportunity because it fits with the free market ideals that he supports. It's a self-sustaining argument, which isn't a good thing, arguments should be sustained by supporting rational arguments and fact.

As far as equality goes; it's very easy to tear down the existance of equality in opportunity in a completely free society (which is developed):

- Education: User pays system; the more you pay for education, the better education you recieve. It takes money to get a good education, therefore it takes money to make money. Those with money to begin with have a significantly better opportunity to suceed.

- Wellbeing: A healthy worker is a better worker; but being healthy costs money. Healthy food tends to be more expensive (than unhealthy food), good healthcare is more expensive (than average/poor healthcare), therefore if you have money you are more likely to be healthier, therefore having a better opportunity.

I could go on...

Now I'm not saying these are hard and fixed rules. You can be poor in one generation and turn that around, and be the next Bill Gates. However on average poor families produce a poor next generation, and wealthy families produce a wealthy next generations, therefore the idea that a free market results in equality of opportunity is unsupported.

Add in that there are honest differences in ability, but that society is VERY poor at judging them. While I would expect most CEOs, to be slightly above average in intelligence (possibly, brilliant, however you wish to measure it), they are not at all gauranteed to be smarter than everyone in their employ, including many people who make far less. Its an old story, but Einstein was considered stupid and "uneducable" as a child, due to dislexia. We do a tad batter on that specific problem now, but overall we do a VERY poor job of preparing and judging success. That absolutely applies in school, but it also applies in society. The guy who gets promoted is the one who is friends with the boss more often than the one who really and truly is better at the job or more equipped to do the next job up. BUT, if you ask people about it, they don't see that in themselves.

[Lootifer]

-> Freedom
-> People are allowed to act how freely within the law
-> Those who work the hardest attain wealth
-> Wealth in the free market is the single most important contributor to power
-> The powerful create opportunity
-> This in turn dictates how opportunity is distributed (directly through opporunity creation, or indirectly through choice theory)
... etc

Same shit, different colour.

My questions still apply.

&

My edit is more accurate.

And i'm talking about conceptual ideas rather than what we see in practice.

Anyhoo...

My (probably incorrect) view of modern centre left thought is:
- State control of infrastucture industries where barriers to entry are significant
- State control of industries that underpin basic human rights (health, education, etc)
- Quick and decisive state intevention in cases of market failure
oh and one last one:
- Government regulation preventing shows such as "Keeping up with the Kardashians" being given air time.

(ps that was a joke, har har har?)

^^^^

Edit: And Scotty you didn't answer a single question, you just repeated the same historical assertions as always. Looking for some fundamentally supported argument, not dead americans crapping on about stuff I don't really care to listen to anymore.

[Phatscotty]

-> Freedom
-> People are allowed to act how freely within the law
-> Those who work the hardest attain wealth
-> Wealth in the free market is the single most important contributor to power
-> The powerful create opportunity
-> This in turn dictates how opportunity is distributed (directly through opporunity creation, or indirectly through choice theory)
... etc

Same shit, different colour.

My questions still apply.

&

My edit is more accurate.

And i'm talking about conceptual ideas rather than what we see in practice.

Anyhoo...

My (probably incorrect) view of modern centre left thought is:
- State control of infrastucture industries where barriers to entry are significant
- State control of industries that underpin basic human rights (health, education, etc)
- Quick and decisive state intevention in cases of market failure
oh and one last one:
- Government regulation preventing shows such as "Keeping up with the Kardashians" being given air time.

(ps that was a joke, har har har?)

^^^^

Edit: And Scotty you didn't answer a single question, you just repeated the same historical assertions as always. Looking for some fundamentally supported argument, not dead americans crapping on about stuff I don't really care to listen to anymore.

I have tried twice, and this isn't the first time I have wanted to say this, but I don't know what any of this means. If you could possibly try asking it a different way (maybe our English doesn't match up or something) I will be happy to give it my best shot.

p.s. Is there something better to rely on than history?

Also, this is more than a historical assertion. The person who freed the slaves and gave his life for "all men are created equal" held this philosophy, and it's something to think about.
"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

[PLAYER57832]

- Government regulation preventing shows such as "Keeping up with the Kardashians" being given air time.

Now this we can all agree with!

me, too!
with my tongue firmly in my cheek, of course... if I can listen to a nazis, I suppose we have to put up with the Kardashians

[PLAYER57832]

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

True, but social service does not have to mean any of those things. In fact, a lot of what are being cut in the name of "freedom" and "not taking money from others" are training programs, schools, etc.

I am sorry, but cutting our childrens science curriculum is not going to make this country more productive, more innovative or wealthier. (Nor is cutting arts, because despite the disparaging remarks, art and music ARE tied to "scientific" and "entreprenuerial" type creativity.)

[Phatscotty]

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

True, but social service does not have to mean any of those things. In fact, a lot of what are being cut in the name of "freedom" and "not taking money from others" are training programs, schools, etc.

I am sorry, but cutting our childrens science curriculum is not going to make this country more productive, more innovative or wealthier. (Nor is cutting arts, because despite the disparaging remarks, art and music ARE tied to "scientific" and "entreprenuerial" type creativity.)

We can start with cutting public doggie parks, public bike program commissioners, 900k art commissioned water fountains, flower planting projects all up and down the street around city hall, public money for sports stadiums first. you know this.

[natty dread]

How about cutting back military spending?

[PLAYER57832]

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

True, but social service does not have to mean any of those things. In fact, a lot of what are being cut in the name of "freedom" and "not taking money from others" are training programs, schools, etc.

I am sorry, but cutting our childrens science curriculum is not going to make this country more productive, more innovative or wealthier. (Nor is cutting arts, because despite the disparaging remarks, art and music ARE tied to "scientific" and "entreprenuerial" type creativity.)

We can start with cutting public doggie parks, public bike program commissioners, 900k art commissioned water fountains, flower planting projects all up and down the street around city hall, public money for sports stadiums first. you know this.

I see, so you don't think people should have dogs in cities. I may or may not agree, but I doubt many in cities would.

OR.. you think its appropriate for cities to regulate cars, but bikes, a very energy conscious alternative is just supposed to happen on its own? Per the fountain.. you may or may not have a point. Depends on who is being paid, the use of the fountain (some are actually part of city water recycling programs, cleaning stormwater, just as an example), and the income such things bring. (nice shoppig plazas can attract business.. this doesn't mean they need to be publically funded, though, I agree with that!). I do agree that a lot of so-called public projects that are really private enterprises (like stadiums) can be done without. Either they pay for themselves, make business sense or they do not. If they make sense, local business will invest, doesn't mean tax payers must.

BUT... those, ironically enough are not really the things being cut. A few art projects, sure, but they (ironically enough) are really just small potatoes and actually do provide public benefit in a lot of ways. I put forward, just as an example, that a lot of people thought the creation of Central Park was a total waste of money. Yet... New York would not be anywhere near as great a spot to live without it. It also provided a safety refuge after 9-11.

None of those, though, are the kinds of programs to which your statement referred. Most are not social programs, the programs to which I referred.

[Phatscotty]

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

True, but social service does not have to mean any of those things. In fact, a lot of what are being cut in the name of "freedom" and "not taking money from others" are training programs, schools, etc.

I am sorry, but cutting our childrens science curriculum is not going to make this country more productive, more innovative or wealthier. (Nor is cutting arts, because despite the disparaging remarks, art and music ARE tied to "scientific" and "entreprenuerial" type creativity.)

We can start with cutting public doggie parks, public bike program commissioners, 900k art commissioned water fountains, flower planting projects all up and down the street around city hall, public money for sports stadiums first. you know this.

I see, so you don't think people should have dogs in cities. I may or may not agree, but I doubt many in cities would.

Player, you really must stop that. I don't think that at all. Please, connect the dots that it isn't about dog ownership in cities. It's about using public money to do it. The same money that you are complaining about not going into science programs and art or teachers and schools.....is going to mesquito control labs, shrimps on treadmills, CEO' bonuses.... If someone is cutting education while expanding 4 new doggie parks and a state of the art stadium for a billionaire team owner, then it should be obvious that the people who spend our tax money are corrupt as f*ck and don't give 2 shits about education, right? all I am saying is STOP GIVING THEM MORE! MORE IS NOT THE ANSWER! it's not the people who wan't their money spent resposnibly's fault, its the fault of the politicians and beureucrats with the spending problem.

They aren't going to fix anything if we keep a system that sends them more money the worse the fail.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so you don't think people should have dogs in cities. I may or may not agree, but I doubt many in cities would.

Player, you really must stop that. I don't think that at all. Please, connect the dots that it isn't about dog ownership in cities. It's about using public money to do it.[/quote] Yes, I get your point.

The doggie park bit is a classic example of short thinking. Parks have numerous values for a community. I cannot go into all of it, but having parks in a community is not a "nice fluff item", its a real NEED. Now, if you have a park, you tend to get dogs.. whether allowed or not. Some areas try excluding dogs, but unless there is a seperate area where people can take dogs specifically, it tends to fail. Ergo.. doggie parks. They generally are partially funded by license fees. If not, could be, but that is a tax. Also, if you charge people too large a fee for having dogs, then you just wind up with people keeping them illegally or you get a lot of strays or both.

The same money that you are complaining about not going into science programs and art or teachers and schools.....is going to mesquito control labs, shrimps on treadmills, CEO' bonuses.... If someone is cutting education while expanding 4 new doggie parks and a state of the art stadium for a billionaire team owner, then it should be obvious that the people who spend our tax money are corrupt as f*ck and don't give 2 shits about education, right?

The stadium, I agree with. Teh CEO bonuses.. why on earth would taxes go to that anyway? The mosquito control and shrimp studies, though are both important types of research. (do you have any idea at all how much money malaria costs us even today? OR how important the shrimp fishery is?)

all I am saying is STOP GIVING THEM MORE! MORE IS NOT THE ANSWER! it's not the people who wan't their money spent resposnibly's fault, its the fault of the politicians and beureucrats with the spending problem.

They aren't going to fix anything if we keep a system that sends them more money the worse the fail.

Expecting politicians to ignore the people who elect them, support their campaigns and who have their ear is just poor thinking. Politicians don't work on their own. They respond. Cutting the money will just mean, once again, that we take it in the shorts and their pet projects STILL get funded.

And, as much as I dislike stadiums and such as public projects, we need a LOT more money than will ever be gained by halting them. Similarly, the cuts to education really, REALLY hurt education, but don't do piddly much for the deficit. We need real cuts, not just attacks on social services while continuing to allow the big guys and the very wealthy to pay only a little.

[Phatscotty]

Player, you really must stop that. I don't think that at all. Please, connect the dots that it isn't about dog ownership in cities. It's about using public money to do it.

Yes, I get your point.

The doggie park bit is a classic example of short thinking. Parks have numerous values for a community. I cannot go into all of it, but having parks in a community is not a "nice fluff item", its a real NEED. Now, if you have a park, you tend to get dogs.. whether allowed or not. Some areas try excluding dogs, but unless there is a seperate area where people can take dogs specifically, it tends to fail. Ergo.. doggie parks. They generally are partially funded by license fees. If not, could be, but that is a tax. Also, if you charge people too large a fee for having dogs, then you just wind up with people keeping them illegally or you get a lot of strays or both.

It's a fluff item when it comes to cutting science and art and teachers and education at the local schools.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, you really must stop that. I don't think that at all. Please, connect the dots that it isn't about dog ownership in cities. It's about using public money to do it.

Yes, I get your point.

The doggie park bit is a classic example of short thinking. Parks have numerous values for a community. I cannot go into all of it, but having parks in a community is not a "nice fluff item", its a real NEED. Now, if you have a park, you tend to get dogs.. whether allowed or not. Some areas try excluding dogs, but unless there is a seperate area where people can take dogs specifically, it tends to fail. Ergo.. doggie parks. They generally are partially funded by license fees. If not, could be, but that is a tax. Also, if you charge people too large a fee for having dogs, then you just wind up with people keeping them illegally or you get a lot of strays or both.

It's a fluff item when it comes to cutting science and art and teachers and education at the local schools.

You are focusing on stupid minutia. The problem is not doggie parks, the problem is that corporations and the wealthy have not been asked to pay their share of the problems, have benefitted far more than anyone else (even while complaining all the way about how oppressed they are).

AND.. none of that has to do with opportunity. The cuts in school are not a side issue, they are the INTENT. Keep the masses uneducated, uniformed and they will be willing to take minimum wage jobs and live in tenements. They may not like it, but they won't see a choice.

Per Herman Cain.. isn't he the 9-9-9 guy?

THINK about it! He wants everyone to pay 9% taxes on everything we buy, PLUS people of all income levels to pay 9% in tax. That means a HUGE tax increase for the middle class, the poor and even upper middle class individuals. It means a big drop in taxes for the wealthy. Is that really and truly a "solution"? Yet, look how many of our wonderful politicians claiming fiscal responsibility are latching onto that plan.

[Phatscotty]

thats completely an opinion. How do you judge what is their fair share? based on what? They arent going to take you or your message seriously when so many people aren't paying anything but has the exact same right to all those things we use. That is highly discriminatory.

Until the day everyone has an equal share of skin in the game, I won't spend any time on that argument. As it is now, those who pay get the say.

[PLAYER57832]

thats completely an opinion. How do you judge what is their fair share? based on what?

Based on the benefits they recieve versus what they cost us in society.

That gets complicated, but its not a matter of opinion. Juding whether harm to others matters as much as the benefits is opinion, but only barely.... only if you insist that today's people have more rights than those of the future.

They arent going to take you or your message seriously when so many people aren't paying anything but has the exact same right to all those things we use. That is highly discriminatory.

They are not going to take my message seriously becuase they don't HAVE to do so. They don't have to becuase I am relatively powerless, which is the whole point.
Most people don't have the same rights truly as the wealthy. This is true on a personnal, individual level when rock stars and such get passes on speeding tickets and it is true when it comes to corporations that are NOT held to the same standards as you or I. I have gone into this before, though, and you refused to even check if what I said was true.

Until the day everyone has an equal share of skin in the game, I won't spend any time on that argument. As it is now, those who pay get the say.

Well, if you think things should be equal, then you think the wealthy and big corporations should be paying more. You don't.

[Gillipig]

People are never going to have equal opportunities in life and equal results sounds like communism! What's wrong with the survival of the fittest?

[Lootifer]

People are never going to have equal opportunities in life and equal results sounds like communism! What's wrong with the survival of the fittest?

Nothing so long as there is equality in opportunity.