patrickaa317 wrote:Who determines what is fair?
As a people, we've already decided. But we've also decided to be apathetic about it. Intrinsic Morality, if that's what you mean, is derived from evolution. When humans lived in small bands that traveled to look for food, or stayed in one spot to harvest it. We needed cooperation to ensure that the group would survive. Most animals are only concerned with their own survival. But not humans.
patrickaa317 wrote:And should the engineer that design what the workers make be allowed to make more than the guy who follows directions on how to make something?
Sometimes, depends. Social Democracies aren't about keeping people who work hard from earning greater success. They're about making sure that everyone has equal opportunities for success. So if you work hard you can earn a great deal more income than someone who doesn't, but you'll never make 6000% more than your own work force. That shows that you are taking advantage of their time & labor.
patrickaa317 wrote:Would it be necessary to have everyone in the world be on in this?
Nope. Only if you want to create a global government. As a people we'll prolly come to that eventually, but not today.
Night Strike wrote:Social Justice IS socialism.
Yeah it is. I've been talking about Socialism this entire time.
The European Socialist country's are the happiest ones in the entire world.
Night Strike wrote:It's not the government's job to distribute money as it sees fit. It's up to the private sector to determine what wages and prices will be.
Not since the labor revolution, son.
patrickaa317 wrote:So this brings up a valid question for the constitutional scholar (Woodruff). Was the initial intention of the founders (that wrote the constitution), for this republic to be a Social Democracy?
Social Democracies didn't exist at that time. Adam's wrote that all of history's greatest minds agreed that a Republic was the best form of government. But that's no longer the case.
See, they had never even heard of Socialism, Fascism, Collectivism, or Communism before, because they didn't exist yet. As I said before, they intended that people could sell themselves into slavery. . . that was freedom to them.
They were attempting to make a new form of government, and Europe was watching them skeptically to see if it could even work. At that time it was strongly believed that a government had to have a king at it's head. This is what America had to compare itself to. During the American Civil War, many European leaders said as much. Such sentiments ran particularly high in the British Empire. "The American Experiment has proved flawed". . . and this belief that a government must have a king is exactly what lead to Hitler's ease of ability to seize control of Germany. They had a Republic, and they traded it for a Dictatorship. They loved their Kaisers. I bring the Weimer Republic up for an important reason. They had an idea in their head that "this is what our government was meant to be, and only this can be successful." Like many American's today, they had a very closed view of government and how it was meant to be.
But you also need to consider another point: The men who formed the Government of the United states in 1775 & onward were our elite's. Not only were they our intellectual elites, but they were also the guys who had monopolies and dominated industry. These were the guys who had the most to gain by severing ties with England.