Equality

[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?

Nothing so long as there is equality in opportunity.

You can't have equality in anything when survival of the fittest rule. What it does is sort out winners and losers in life. And since people are born with different genetics they'll have predisposed different opportunities in life. We can change society, culture and laws however much we want to but in the end some people will for example be born mentally handicapped. And you can't regardless of how much you try give someone unable to speak, hear, see or walk equal opportunities as to those who can. We can try but we can never succeed. Equal results would almost be possible but it would require a lot of dictatorship. Survival of the fittest is not a law we can chose to not be govern by. Just like we can't chose not to be affected by gravity. So what you're all arguing over is something purely hypothetical.

[Lootifer]

Of course we are arguing about something hypothetical.

Equal results is stupid.

And I mean equality in opportunity in a pragmatic sense: We take all the stuff you have mentioned and aim to give everyone as equal an opportunity are is reasonably possible.

The defition of what is reasonable and what the best way to do this is what we are debating here.

[Phatscotty]

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.

Nope. Your definition of what is equal when it comes to other peoples business is not recognizable to me, not to mention highly anti-job growth.

One question though, should the poor get the benefits and power that the rich have, except not have to earn it? Or should the rich lose the benefits and the power of being rich so they are equal with the poor?

Your argument reminds me of when Dagny Taggart confronted the Union in Atlas Shrugged.

[Lootifer]

One question though, should the poor get the benefits and power that the rich have, except not have to earn it? Or should the rich lose the benefits and the power of being rich so they are equal with the poor?

Blegh, is Player really asking for this though?

[Phatscotty]

One question though, should the poor get the benefits and power that the rich have, except not have to earn it? Or should the rich lose the benefits and the power of being rich so they are equal with the poor?

Blegh, is Player really asking for this though?

snarf what do you get from this? snarf

. They don't have to because I am relatively powerless, which is the whole point.
Most people don't have the same rights truly as the wealthy.

[PLAYER57832]

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?

In this case, because "fittest" economically will lead to the destruction of virtually all human life.

Also, humans are incredibly poor at deciding who and what is "fittest". Remember, in evolution most species die off. Is that what you want for humanity?

[PLAYER57832]

One question though, should the poor get the benefits and power that the rich have, except not have to earn it? Or should the rich lose the benefits and the power of being rich so they are equal with the poor?

Blegh, is Player really asking for this though?

No, I am saying that the wealthy get benefits for which they do not pay, and the poor often don't recieve benefits comminserate with the work they do. NOTE.. at the very lowest levels you have some idiots. However, you have idiots all over. You have people who use drugs, who are lazy, etc. Except the guy who is lazy, but inherits a nice trust fund from his folks is somehow considered "worthy" by society, but the guy who found more than he could deal with in his army tour in Veitnahm and winds up on drugs (maybe even with the help of the somewhat naive medical profession at the time) is not. ETC.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-URmNAa5o

In this classic footage from a Stanford University lecture, Professor Friedman takes Q&A after his talk "The Role of Government in a Free Society." In this exchange, a young man describes poverty as a "market failure." Friedman, in characteristic fashion, shows otherwise. Though this was recorded around 1979, the exchange is timeless.

[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.

Nope. Your definition of what is equal when it comes to other peoples business is not recognizable to me, not to mention highly anti-job growth.

One question though, should the poor get the benefits and power that the rich have, except not have to earn it? Or should the rich lose the benefits and the power of being rich so they are equal with the poor?
.

The fact that you would put those 2 things together shows how little you understand.

[Phatscotty]

I was trying to follow you, not speak for myself. You should be able to get the point since it was based on your post, so I can only guess you are dodging the Q.

Rephrase it however you like. Should the poor get what they don't have and you argue isn't fair as the expense of the rich, or should the rich lose what they have but the poor dont have to make them equal?

[PLAYER57832]

I was trying to follow you, not speak for myself. You should be able to get the point since it was based on your post, so I can only guess you are dodging the Q.

Rephrase it however you like. Should the poor get what they don't have and you argue isn't fair as the expense of the rich, or should the rich lose what they have but the poor dont have to make them equal?

No, that is what to insist on claiming. I say that the wealthy should pay more becuase they take more from the rest of us than they pay out.

I also say that denegrating the idea of work, insisting that folks who invest well are somehow doing more for society than people who actually produce and make things is wrong and why our system is so screwed up.

[Night Strike]

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.

Just shows you don't actually know what's going on. Individuals already pay about 8.5% for Social Security and Medicare as part of their income taxes. So that means they will pay a TOTAL income tax of 9%, which INCLUDES SS and Medicare. As for the sales tax, maybe if politicians would stop buying off 47% of the population by allowing them to pay 0% in income taxes (besides the already mentioned), it wouldn't be a tax increase. And even then, your assertion that the middle class will have their taxes increased is false. They will see a large increase in income as they won't be having 15-30% of their paychecks being withheld (only 9%), and the companies will probably be able to pay them more since their taxes will be way lower. And then, they will only be paying the 9% sales tax on things they buy. They would be able to save their money or even pay down debt tax free. People will get to directly control how much they pay in taxes based on the items they choose to buy, so people get more freedom and more money.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Just shows you don't actually know what's going on. Individuals already pay about 8.5% for Social Security and Medicare as part of their income taxes. So that means they will pay a TOTAL income tax of 9%, which INCLUDES SS and Medicare. As for the sales tax, maybe if politicians would stop buying off 47% of the population by allowing them to pay 0% in income taxes (besides the already mentioned), it wouldn't be a tax increase. And even then, your assertion that the middle class will have their taxes increased is false. They will see a large increase in income as they won't be having 15-30% of their paychecks being withheld (only 9%), and the companies will probably be able to pay them more since their taxes will be way lower. And then, they will only be paying the 9% sales tax on things they buy. They would be able to save their money or even pay down debt tax free. People will get to directly control how much they pay in taxes based on the items they choose to buy, so people get more freedom and more money.

No, it actually means you just want to leap on your band wagon...... again. Taxes are not the only ways people pay and certainly have nothing to do with the costs people thrust on society in the process of making their incomes.

And if you think the middle and lower income folks not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

[Night Strike]

And if you think the middle and lower income folks not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

And if you think the rich not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

Fixed it for you.

[PLAYER57832]

And if you think the middle and lower income folks not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

And if you think the rich not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

Fixed it for you.

Nope, sorry. I have not just studied history, I have lived it. The percentage of wealth concentrated in the upper reaches pretty exactly cooincides with phenomenal debt increases.

You want to look at taxes ONLY, but the problem is that you are only looking at what people pay directly to the government in taxes, not any benefits they recieve either directly or incidentally. Further, even sticking to just taxes, you look at the tax rates and not real taxes paid. Or rather, you consider the real taxes paid by the poorer folks, but not the wealthiest and big corporations.

[Night Strike]

And if you think the middle and lower income folks not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

And if you think the rich not paying enough taxes are what got us in this mess, then you REALLY have not paid attention for much of the past 40 years.

Fixed it for you.

Nope, sorry. I have not just studied history, I have lived it. The percentage of wealth concentrated in the upper reaches pretty exactly cooincides with phenomenal debt increases.

You want to look at taxes ONLY, but the problem is that you are only looking at what people pay directly to the government in taxes, not any benefits they recieve either directly or incidentally. Further, even sticking to just taxes, you look at the tax rates and not real taxes paid. Or rather, you consider the real taxes paid by the poorer folks, but not the wealthiest and big corporations.

You missed something there in your horrible leap of logic: the change in government revenue over the same period. The government takes in more money today than it did 40 years ago (or whatever arbitrary number you decide to pick). So if the wealth is going up/being concentrated in those who make the most (and pay the highest amount/percent of taxes) and if government revenues are going up, why is debt going up?? One reason: the government spends WAY more than they take in. The problem is the government, not the revenue.

[Nobunaga]

Taxes are not the only ways people pay and certainly have nothing to do with the costs people thrust on society in the process of making their incomes.

... Quashed like an insect... then she switches focus to some ephemeral concept with no means to measure.

... What are these other ways people are paying, as you state above? And what are these undeclared (by you) "costs thrust on society"?

... You don't like Cain's plan? Maybe you can't stand the thought of a 100% black man in the White House?

...

[Lootifer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-URmNAa5o

In this classic footage from a Stanford University lecture, Professor Friedman takes Q&A after his talk "The Role of Government in a Free Society." In this exchange, a young man describes poverty as a "market failure." Friedman, in characteristic fashion, shows otherwise. Though this was recorded around 1979, the exchange is timeless.

There's a few holes in his argument. The most obvious being:

He cites the late 1800's/early 1900's are the highest time of poverty reduction in history, and that it is largely due to the freedom of the settler of the time. While this may very well be correct, the freedom the population enjoyed certainly contributed to the increase in living conditions. But by no means was it the only reason...

North america had a huge amount of natural resources, and during that period of time was when these natural resources were turned into wealth. It could have been a communist state yet the living conditions of the population would have sky rocketed; so saying that these golden times were a result of the free market and only that is a big leap and a sketchy argument.

I've never denied free market is a good thing; I love the free market and I very much admire some of Friedmens ideas. I just don't think you need to take it quite to the point where complete freedom is realised.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-URmNAa5o

In this classic footage from a Stanford University lecture, Professor Friedman takes Q&A after his talk "The Role of Government in a Free Society." In this exchange, a young man describes poverty as a "market failure." Friedman, in characteristic fashion, shows otherwise. Though this was recorded around 1979, the exchange is timeless.

There's a few holes in his argument. The most obvious being:

He cites the late 1800's/early 1900's are the highest time of poverty reduction in history, and that it is largely due to the freedom of the settler of the time. While this may very well be correct, the freedom the population enjoyed certainly contributed to the increase in living conditions. But by no means was it the only reason...

North america had a huge amount of natural resources, and during that period of time was when these natural resources were turned into wealth. It could have been a communist state yet the living conditions of the population would have sky rocketed; so saying that these golden times were a result of the free market and only that is a big leap and a sketchy argument.

I've never denied free market is a good thing; I love the free market and I very much admire some of Friedmens ideas. I just don't think you need to take it quite to the point where complete freedom is realised.

Did he say that the astonishing increases in the standard of living during the time was from "freedom of the settler"? No, he did not. I think you are re-rephrasing again with your spin. Also, you think that the free market would have worked about the same as Communism as far as making a better wage and providing for the family as well as financial mobility at ever increasing rates as far as escaping poverty? please

Almost every single problem with poverty and denial of freedom today is a result of government action, and would be eliminated if we got rid of failing government policies that impose it.

"The lesson of all the ages is that a wrong, done to one man, is a wrong done to all men. No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglass

[PLAYER57832]

Taxes are not the only ways people pay and certainly have nothing to do with the costs people thrust on society in the process of making their incomes.

... Quashed like an insect... then she switches focus to some ephemeral concept with no means to measure....

YOU may not know how to measure, or care. That doesn't mean they are unmeasurable or that they don't matter. Difficult things often matter the most.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-URmNAa5o

In this classic footage from a Stanford University lecture, Professor Friedman takes Q&A after his talk "The Role of Government in a Free Society." In this exchange, a young man describes poverty as a "market failure." Friedman, in characteristic fashion, shows otherwise. Though this was recorded around 1979, the exchange is timeless.

There's a few holes in his argument. The most obvious being:

He cites the late 1800's/early 1900's are the highest time of poverty reduction in history, and that it is largely due to the freedom of the settler of the time. While this may very well be correct, the freedom the population enjoyed certainly contributed to the increase in living conditions. But by no means was it the only reason...

North america had a huge amount of natural resources, and during that period of time was when these natural resources were turned into wealth. It could have been a communist state yet the living conditions of the population would have sky rocketed; so saying that these golden times were a result of the free market and only that is a big leap and a sketchy argument.

I've never denied free market is a good thing; I love the free market and I very much admire some of Friedmens ideas. I just don't think you need to take it quite to the point where complete freedom is realised.

Did he say that the astonishing increases in the standard of living during the time was from "freedom of the settler"? No, he did not. I think you are re-rephrasing again with your spin. Also, you think that the free market would have worked about the same as Communism as far as making a better wage and providing for the family as well as financial mobility at ever increasing rates as far as escaping poverty? please

Almost every single problem with poverty and denial of freedom today is a result of government action, and would be eliminated if we got rid of failing government policies that impose it.

"The lesson of all the ages is that a wrong, done to one man, is a wrong done to all men. No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglass

The astonishing increases we saw up until the 1970's WERE from the availability of extra resources, increases in technology which its extremely unlikely we can duplicate, etc.

Denying this is part of why we are in the trouble we are in today. The idea of basing an economy on growth means that when growth starts to dwindle, the economy dwindles. That is what has happened.

[Night Strike]

The astonishing increases we saw up until the 1970's WERE from the availability of extra resources, increases in technology which its extremely unlikely we can duplicate, etc.

Denying this is part of why we are in the trouble we are in today. The idea of basing an economy on growth means that when growth starts to dwindle, the economy dwindles. That is what has happened.

So instead we switch to an economy where the government evens out all of the available money so that everyone has about the same amount? How does that help our economy in the future? Why will people work if they're guaranteed the same amount of money, whether they work for it or not?

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E-URmNAa5o

In this classic footage from a Stanford University lecture, Professor Friedman takes Q&A after his talk "The Role of Government in a Free Society." In this exchange, a young man describes poverty as a "market failure." Friedman, in characteristic fashion, shows otherwise. Though this was recorded around 1979, the exchange is timeless.

There's a few holes in his argument. The most obvious being:

He cites the late 1800's/early 1900's are the highest time of poverty reduction in history, and that it is largely due to the freedom of the settler of the time. While this may very well be correct, the freedom the population enjoyed certainly contributed to the increase in living conditions. But by no means was it the only reason...

North america had a huge amount of natural resources, and during that period of time was when these natural resources were turned into wealth. It could have been a communist state yet the living conditions of the population would have sky rocketed; so saying that these golden times were a result of the free market and only that is a big leap and a sketchy argument.

I've never denied free market is a good thing; I love the free market and I very much admire some of Friedmens ideas. I just don't think you need to take it quite to the point where complete freedom is realised.

Did he say that the astonishing increases in the standard of living during the time was from "freedom of the settler"? No, he did not. I think you are re-rephrasing again with your spin. Also, you think that the free market would have worked about the same as Communism as far as making a better wage and providing for the family as well as financial mobility at ever increasing rates as far as escaping poverty? please

Almost every single problem with poverty and denial of freedom today is a result of government action, and would be eliminated if we got rid of failing government policies that impose it.

"The lesson of all the ages is that a wrong, done to one man, is a wrong done to all men. No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without finding the other end fastened about his own neck." Frederick Douglass

The astonishing increases we saw up until the 1970's WERE from the availability of extra resources, increases in technology which its extremely unlikely we can duplicate, etc.

Denying this is part of why we are in the trouble we are in today. The idea of basing an economy on growth means that when growth starts to dwindle, the economy dwindles. That is what has happened.

sure the increases are. But there are 10 other categories of reasons full of thousands of other reasons as well.

Pretending it's denial rather than increasing the scope of knowledge and then blaming all our problem on that incorrect conclusion is also why we are in trouble today.

Anything that stops growing........stops growing. and?

[PLAYER57832]

sure the increases are. But there are 10 other categories of reasons full of thousands of other reasons as well.

Pretending it's denial rather than increasing the scope of knowledge and then blaming all our problem on that incorrect conclusion is also why we are in trouble today.

Exactly.

Anything that stops growing........stops growing. and?

Sustainability and actually paying attention to environmental and human consequences...be it recognizing that even the lowest stockperson at Walmart needs to eat and have a reasonable place to live or accepting that we cannot just keep throwing out whatever chemicals folks wish to invent and pretend that if there are no consequences found in a year (even less sometimes), then its perfectly OK to sell them. Pretending that things that help the big corporations increas profits actually mean more jobs for folks here in the US, more than say, giivng poor people money to spend... etc.

Some folks making more than others is OK. Some folks making 10,000, even 1,000 times as much as others (never mind more) is a very unbalanced and unequitable, unjust society.

[Night Strike]

sure the increases are. But there are 10 other categories of reasons full of thousands of other reasons as well.

Pretending it's denial rather than increasing the scope of knowledge and then blaming all our problem on that incorrect conclusion is also why we are in trouble today.

Exactly.

Anything that stops growing........stops growing. and?

Sustainability and actually paying attention to environmental and human consequences...be it recognizing that even the lowest stockperson at Walmart needs to eat and have a reasonable place to live or accepting that we cannot just keep throwing out whatever chemicals folks wish to invent and pretend that if there are no consequences found in a year (even less sometimes), then its perfectly OK to sell them. Pretending that things that help the big corporations increas profits actually mean more jobs for folks here in the US, more than say, giivng poor people money to spend... etc.

Some folks making more than others is OK. Some folks making 10,000, even 1,000 times as much as others (never mind more) is a very unbalanced and unequitable, unjust society.

So anyone who makes 2 million dollars is making too much money in your mind?? There goes our economy if you try to take away all of their money.

And by the way, it's not an employer's task to make sure their employees can live comfortably. Their task is to pay people what they are worth to the company. If the individual does not provide much of an increase in value to the company, then they will not be paid like royalty. And your assumption that wages like minimum wage is designed to pay for all of person's expenses is also false. Minimum wage is supposed to be to provide entry-level workers (especially teenagers) with some compensation for their work. People are not supposed to be living off that wage, unlike what you keep claiming. When you increase the minimum wage, you KILL jobs for entry-level individuals and teenagers, which causes them to lose valuable workforce experience that will allow them to earn more money later in life. Regular people do not live off of minimum wage jobs, and if a job does not pay you the wage you need for your lifestyle, then it's YOUR responsibility to move to a job that will. It is in no way, shape, or form the government's responsibility to steal from the rich and give that money to you.