Damien
Emperor
Of course,they are.What about money?
Income inequality - is it a problem?
- Thread starter Richard III
- Start date
Of course,they are.What about money?
knowltok2
Deity
To you MrPresident. We don't always agree, but kudos on defending your position and not resulting to base insults. Again you demonstrate some of the qualities that have earned my respect over the last year or so. 
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
So you don't believe in any sort of income tax?
And I don't think I ever questioned that fact. So I am not sure why you would feel the need to state it.
I am not saying reduce private property rights and if you got that impression then I am sorry. All I am suggesting is that there should be an inheritance tax to try and level the playing field for the next (that's next) generation. I personally believe that we are all born equal (that's Jefferson talking again). That is why I oppose monarchy and any other heritary title. And why I oppose the creation of an artifical "elite" based upon the achievements of the previous generation. If you deserve your inheritance then surely you will earn it over your lifetime.
Again I don't think I ever said I was not rich and certainly never said that someone else inherited "my" money. For the record I am poor (in the sense I have no income - I am a student remember) however my family is comfortable (not rich but certainly not poor) and I have never recieved any inheritance.
I would agree with you if I knew what the hell zero-sum economic was/is. Is it similar to "fuzzy" maths?
For the last time I wish you would read what I wrote before you reply. I never said that I wanted to rob the rich to line my pockets and am sorry if this is what you think I wrote/believe.
Okay I understand what you mean now, thank you for explaining. But since most of us here in Britain don't pay for education then you can imagine why I didn't get the link straightaway. You could also include healthcare in your list, I of course couldn't.
Have you ever read Marx? Because from that sentence it implies that you haven't. Theoritical Communism is not about greed or envy. However there have been/are people who call themselves Communists who do base their ideas on greed and envy, so the misunderstanding is well understandable. Also I would like to say that I am not a communist and never have been a communist, not that there is anything wrong with that.
And finally....
I challenge you to find one person on this earth that doesn't think of themselves. Self-interest is a fundamental part of human nature. So yes I do think of myself. However I also have the ability to think of others at the same time. I am surprised that you haven't encountered someone with a similar ability, there are a hell of a lot of us (I bet a lot of people in this forum have the ability).
And finally for the second time...
And you have shown the quality that has earned my respect over the last year, complimenting me.
Its been a while since I've seen a thread this interesting. Well, I think Ill add my own two cents too.
This question is, above everything, a moral matter. We are not discussing whether money accumulation works or not its undeniable that it does, economically speaking but if it is an acceptable policy to rule the world by. Is it functionality enough to erase, minimize, or even simply justify the imperfections that prospers within this structure?
In a close second, comes a structural question: It works, but for how long? Is this sort of idiosyncrasy the kind of pressure that can break the present system down?
Those are the questions that I saw in the original post, and they require very careful propositions (as I dont dare to call my divagations answers).
About Justice:
Despite this is not THE question proposed, I guess that defining justice is instrumental when dealing with such matters. This is not easy task, thought. In my first year in Law School, it took me 25 pages of digressions in a monograph just to realize that I was not more able to define it than I was when I begun But Ill refrain from such exaggerations in this forum and keep it small.
This is justice according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
As you all can see, it is very vague. However, Ill highlight the word equity, that finishes the proposition number one. This is the aspect of justice that matters in this discussion.
A Working Society:
When we stick to political studies, we learn the fundamental reasons why the society even exists. Philosophically, it goes like this: Every person in the world is equal and born free to do whatever he/she pleases. That freedom, however, is false, because equally, all others are free to do the same. Soon enough, the limited materials to satisfy the ever growing demand will generate conflict of interest, and that, in an environment that possesses no notions of morality (not necessary until that point) will became prodigious in unrelenting and unreasonable struggle, violence, bloodshed.
Society, as an (semi)organized entity, not only provides minimal standards of behavior (traditions, rules, laws, etc ) to minimize such confrontations, but it also provides the means to keep whats unavoidable in sustainable degrees, thus allowing people to prosper.
By all this, my point is that society, in all its aspects economic aspect included has a fundament, an ultimate goal, and that goal is to provide the well being of their citizens ALL of them, even if some are better at this than others.
We then fall in the deeper aspect of the question: Is it acceptable that society uses unfair means (such as unequal distribution of wealthy, as in the case in locu) to achieve this general well being?
Well, the very concept of society is that of people giving up some prerogatives in the interest of personal participation in a good greater than his/her own (as Thomas Hobbes said, giving up freedom to join the Leviathan). Theoretically, then, the imposition of a personal gain that is inferior to the personal production can be acceptable, as long as, in the big picture, it generates the well being of the citizens in this society.
This was the point of a few of the previous posters, that expressed concepts such as the accumulation favors the investments and helps to keep economy growing, or the huge amount of money possessed by few does not mean they are out of the market, since it is flowing in the bank system and helping the economy, or even the riches are richer, but so are the poor, even if in a small scale.
This view, I agree, is pretty functional, and the more accurate description of how our society works presently. I however, have to disagree completely with the implying that this is a good, natural and desirable thing, within the boundaries of the proposed question.
As I stated above, the original proposition regarded the acceptability of such thing, not its functionality (to resume, does it matter, or does it not?). Arguing its functionality (as even the original message did) is, IMHO, escaping the subject. It is like asking if raping is a moral way of achieving sexual thrill, and have a rapist saying well, it is pleasurable maybe, but thats not the question.
So, consider this: No one can get *rich* outside a society. Not only we are hopeless against assault outside its protection (its impossible to stay permanently alert), but also its impossible for a single man to achieve, without benefiting from other people works, the kind of fortune we see people having today. Therefore, its safe to say that, in many aspects, society is the cause of such prosperity.
A person that is able to be super-productive deserves, no doubt, a bigger piece of the pie. No one can deny that people who have made great achievements does deserve to benefit from those. I, however, ask this: Is this possible for a man to be worth, alone, as much capital as, for example, Bill Gates? Of course not.
Without any personal attack on him, and even recognizing his great talents, a single man cannot single-handed generate so much wealth. Therefore, he is benefiting from wealth that is generated by others. Some will say that he deserves such, because he is an enterpriser, he had vision and competence to create his company and to invest and to be a leader, etc I wont oppose to that arguments, I wont even disagree, since that is, as I said above, the way the logistic of how our system works.
Everyone please note that the idea of man, for one reason or another, benefiting of the sweat and blood of others is nothing new, and is not a prerogative of capitalism. There has never have been a single society where it didnt happen, for assorted reasons, such as being the voice of god, being the king or the nobility, being a part of the communist party or being a successful enterpriser as we accept today in the rule of a capitalist economic model.
My point is that in the past, reasons such as accident of birth or political ascendancy were considered valid, fair reasons to allow some aristocracy to have common people providing their surplus-value to this dominant, privileged class. Such reasons are, today, considered odious, while the reasons that fit our model are not. Nonetheless, these are not intrinsically more unfair than the modern take, they are just old and out of fashion.
There is, in the present days, the myth that every rich person in the world is so because he has a kind of vision and competence and working skill that is unparalleled by the common man, and so, they deserve such life of privilege. In the past, people that are better were recognized by their bloodline. Today, its by their bank account.
Ive seen plenty of support for such inadequacy, as I read many times arguments like envy for those who did better and If you dont have it, is because you didnt deserve (what implies that the contrario sensu is true). People seen to be willing to completely validate the exploration that capital owners impose on working classes.
I do not hate the bourgeoisie and in fact I can appreciate their role in the world. I also do not fall for the fool line of arguing that every rich man is mean. But its undeniable that they are beneficiaries of a perverse infrastructure, and that its not right to give that class complete moral redemption, as some here seen to have done.
So, despite the fact that competence does deserve recompense, when a society, whichs ultimate goal is to serve equally all people, will allow in its mechanics that some person uses his/her edge (be it nobility or competence or whatever) to achieve a part of the cake that is not simply the expression of their (eventually greater) productivity, but also the part that belongs to others due to their own productivity, it is failing its basic goals, because its allowing a subtle but institutionalized version of the primal predicament of man abusing other man, the very thing it was created to avoid and worse, providing them unparallel power that makes the abuse even more invasive.
There is no one so special and talented in the world that can be fairly blessed with money enough to buy whole countries, no matter the flaws in economy theory that allows some to do so. Such accumulation is a distortion of values and an exaggeration of their merits and the fact that the poor have had slight improvements in their conditions does not change that the slightest.
So, my answer to question number one is yes, that it is unfair, and it is a problem to have an income inequality, especially one that is increasing as we all seen to agree here.
(to be continued)
This question is, above everything, a moral matter. We are not discussing whether money accumulation works or not its undeniable that it does, economically speaking but if it is an acceptable policy to rule the world by. Is it functionality enough to erase, minimize, or even simply justify the imperfections that prospers within this structure?
In a close second, comes a structural question: It works, but for how long? Is this sort of idiosyncrasy the kind of pressure that can break the present system down?
Those are the questions that I saw in the original post, and they require very careful propositions (as I dont dare to call my divagations answers).
About Justice:
Despite this is not THE question proposed, I guess that defining justice is instrumental when dealing with such matters. This is not easy task, thought. In my first year in Law School, it took me 25 pages of digressions in a monograph just to realize that I was not more able to define it than I was when I begun But Ill refrain from such exaggerations in this forum and keep it small.
This is justice according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
As you all can see, it is very vague. However, Ill highlight the word equity, that finishes the proposition number one. This is the aspect of justice that matters in this discussion.
A Working Society:
When we stick to political studies, we learn the fundamental reasons why the society even exists. Philosophically, it goes like this: Every person in the world is equal and born free to do whatever he/she pleases. That freedom, however, is false, because equally, all others are free to do the same. Soon enough, the limited materials to satisfy the ever growing demand will generate conflict of interest, and that, in an environment that possesses no notions of morality (not necessary until that point) will became prodigious in unrelenting and unreasonable struggle, violence, bloodshed.
Society, as an (semi)organized entity, not only provides minimal standards of behavior (traditions, rules, laws, etc ) to minimize such confrontations, but it also provides the means to keep whats unavoidable in sustainable degrees, thus allowing people to prosper.
By all this, my point is that society, in all its aspects economic aspect included has a fundament, an ultimate goal, and that goal is to provide the well being of their citizens ALL of them, even if some are better at this than others.
We then fall in the deeper aspect of the question: Is it acceptable that society uses unfair means (such as unequal distribution of wealthy, as in the case in locu) to achieve this general well being?
Well, the very concept of society is that of people giving up some prerogatives in the interest of personal participation in a good greater than his/her own (as Thomas Hobbes said, giving up freedom to join the Leviathan). Theoretically, then, the imposition of a personal gain that is inferior to the personal production can be acceptable, as long as, in the big picture, it generates the well being of the citizens in this society.
This was the point of a few of the previous posters, that expressed concepts such as the accumulation favors the investments and helps to keep economy growing, or the huge amount of money possessed by few does not mean they are out of the market, since it is flowing in the bank system and helping the economy, or even the riches are richer, but so are the poor, even if in a small scale.
This view, I agree, is pretty functional, and the more accurate description of how our society works presently. I however, have to disagree completely with the implying that this is a good, natural and desirable thing, within the boundaries of the proposed question.
As I stated above, the original proposition regarded the acceptability of such thing, not its functionality (to resume, does it matter, or does it not?). Arguing its functionality (as even the original message did) is, IMHO, escaping the subject. It is like asking if raping is a moral way of achieving sexual thrill, and have a rapist saying well, it is pleasurable maybe, but thats not the question.
So, consider this: No one can get *rich* outside a society. Not only we are hopeless against assault outside its protection (its impossible to stay permanently alert), but also its impossible for a single man to achieve, without benefiting from other people works, the kind of fortune we see people having today. Therefore, its safe to say that, in many aspects, society is the cause of such prosperity.
A person that is able to be super-productive deserves, no doubt, a bigger piece of the pie. No one can deny that people who have made great achievements does deserve to benefit from those. I, however, ask this: Is this possible for a man to be worth, alone, as much capital as, for example, Bill Gates? Of course not.
Without any personal attack on him, and even recognizing his great talents, a single man cannot single-handed generate so much wealth. Therefore, he is benefiting from wealth that is generated by others. Some will say that he deserves such, because he is an enterpriser, he had vision and competence to create his company and to invest and to be a leader, etc I wont oppose to that arguments, I wont even disagree, since that is, as I said above, the way the logistic of how our system works.
Everyone please note that the idea of man, for one reason or another, benefiting of the sweat and blood of others is nothing new, and is not a prerogative of capitalism. There has never have been a single society where it didnt happen, for assorted reasons, such as being the voice of god, being the king or the nobility, being a part of the communist party or being a successful enterpriser as we accept today in the rule of a capitalist economic model.
My point is that in the past, reasons such as accident of birth or political ascendancy were considered valid, fair reasons to allow some aristocracy to have common people providing their surplus-value to this dominant, privileged class. Such reasons are, today, considered odious, while the reasons that fit our model are not. Nonetheless, these are not intrinsically more unfair than the modern take, they are just old and out of fashion.
There is, in the present days, the myth that every rich person in the world is so because he has a kind of vision and competence and working skill that is unparalleled by the common man, and so, they deserve such life of privilege. In the past, people that are better were recognized by their bloodline. Today, its by their bank account.
Ive seen plenty of support for such inadequacy, as I read many times arguments like envy for those who did better and If you dont have it, is because you didnt deserve (what implies that the contrario sensu is true). People seen to be willing to completely validate the exploration that capital owners impose on working classes.
I do not hate the bourgeoisie and in fact I can appreciate their role in the world. I also do not fall for the fool line of arguing that every rich man is mean. But its undeniable that they are beneficiaries of a perverse infrastructure, and that its not right to give that class complete moral redemption, as some here seen to have done.
So, despite the fact that competence does deserve recompense, when a society, whichs ultimate goal is to serve equally all people, will allow in its mechanics that some person uses his/her edge (be it nobility or competence or whatever) to achieve a part of the cake that is not simply the expression of their (eventually greater) productivity, but also the part that belongs to others due to their own productivity, it is failing its basic goals, because its allowing a subtle but institutionalized version of the primal predicament of man abusing other man, the very thing it was created to avoid and worse, providing them unparallel power that makes the abuse even more invasive.
There is no one so special and talented in the world that can be fairly blessed with money enough to buy whole countries, no matter the flaws in economy theory that allows some to do so. Such accumulation is a distortion of values and an exaggeration of their merits and the fact that the poor have had slight improvements in their conditions does not change that the slightest.
So, my answer to question number one is yes, that it is unfair, and it is a problem to have an income inequality, especially one that is increasing as we all seen to agree here.
(to be continued)
(continuation)
Aristocracy and the human nature:
For this argumentation, I use the term aristocracy in a very wide sense reaching every single privileged class, not only nobility.
I dedicated the first part of this post to express my opinion that the myth of a inherent superiority of will and skill of those who achieve great fortunes (bourgeoisie) is a fallacy, not so different from the ancient ideals that made middle-age people believe in the superiority of the nobility, something that sounds repulsive and foolish to the modern man.
It is easy for us, deeply used to the capitalism rhetoric, to believe in such fallacy. We are all instructed, from or cradles, that working generates wealth, that if we work hard we can get rich, and that capitalism allows movement between classes (so one day we can get there), and that it privileges competence. And it is all true to some degree, but all of those notions are over-rated.
It ignores completely facts of life, such as the different opportunities people get; the abusive use of capital to guarantee the maintenance of the status quo; all the giving up good ideas due to lack of materials, capability of investment or lack of time, that has to be dedicated to more immediate and less promising goals, such as buying food. All those are factors that can kill the potentials of lots of good people while putting others not so good in a no-loose situation.
Most of people I know DO work very hard (myself included). I know some people of largely commendable abilities and yet, I know that most of them most likely them all will not get rich. They will never reach the top of the food chain, no matter their capabilities and competence. But we all feel comfortable with the system because we have this small hope of getting rich some day. Obviously, this claim that all that takes to be rich is work is false, because its impossible that most people gets rich, even being true that most people do work hard.
Also, Id like to add that the notion that riches are getting richer, but the poor are also improving is a simplification. It is valid only when you limit the analysis to the rich nations. There are still large masses of people in the world whose living conditions are under the most basic lines of poverty. There are lots of hunger and endemic lack of conditions in the world. In this world where everything take places in global scale, where decisions made in any major office can affect the life of people everywhere, I dont think its fair to count them out when making the balance of human achievements.
Despite that, I want to point out, before someone accuses me of being a communist (like others were, and like it is a bad thing), that I AM NOT one. I am just trying to expose my opinions on a few tribulations of the capitalist system. However, in fact, I do not have a working alternative to propose. I agree that the present system is the best ever implemented, and that, if to many extents it means the super-hyper-ultra-over-privileging of some people merits at expense of others, its at least merit-based in essence, what makes it a lot more bearable.
Thus, I agree that the existence of an aristocracy, despite morally and philosophically wrong, is a necessity in the very terms the other posters exposed. It is a channel to canalize the society surplus and to multiply its resources. It, however, brings me to the question number two: For how long will it be so?
Well, I am not pretending to offer a deadline to the fall of our economic models, as it would be really presumptive and a very big guess. But I think that a little bit of dialectics is in order here.
As you all probably know, dialectics is a dynamic method of studying modifications in systems through the analysis of its effects and the related causes-consequences. Once we have proposed theses, we confront it with its flaws that accumulate with time. Enough flaws and adapting modifications will make the system change in its antithesis, the negation of its patterns. Then a confrontation of this new reality and the good that still existed in the old system will bring the synthesis, or new thesis, a construct that, theoretically, sums the best of the opposing abandoned ones.
Admitting our system as theses, the income inequality, among others, will be one of its flaws and inadequacies, meaning that its one of the pressing elements that will, ultimately, lead to the collapsing/morphing of the very system that generated it.
I really do not agree with the rationalization that the poor are also getting better, so the gap between social classes starts loosing its relevance. Not only for the reason I have already mentioned (the limitation of the observed area), but as well due to the fact that believing that people will easily accept that sounds like ignoring the human nature.
There are a lot of people that are not angry at the privileged, me among them. But there are a lot of people who are, no matter if they are reasonable about it or not. Also, there is the fact that we here, people who has houses, surplus of food and money for luxuries, are also among the benefited, even if most of us are not among the really rich. Our satisfaction with having house, food and internet comes from the fact that we have a desirable condition.
If one day this comes to be the very minimum, we will be revolted for being reduced to it while others have so much more. Its not part of our nature to be satisfied, we are always craving for the good things around us. The realization that we will be living much better than people in the middle ages (or even 50 years ago) did will hardly work as a consolation.
So, inequality will always be a factor of corrosion in the capitalist society, the same way it would be in any system whatsoever that enforces it.
My Conclusion:
So, straight answers to the questions I saw:
1 Is the income inequality a problem?
R: Yes. The accumulation of wealth in the degrees we are witnessing is only possible through exploitation of the society, which bears it only because there is no better solution available yet. It however does not change the fact that it breaks the equality that society aims, and that the search for the utopia a model that favors both equality and productivity must always be kept.
Todays model functionality does not redeem its perverse nature.
2 Is this model of inequality functional in the future?
R: Yes it is. I cant imagine it being abandoned anytime soon, because so far there are no viable alternatives. It is still the best thing we have. However, it holds in itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Well, Guys, sorry for the bible I wrote above, but it is really an interesting theme and it took me that much to express myself properly.
Regards .
Aristocracy and the human nature:
For this argumentation, I use the term aristocracy in a very wide sense reaching every single privileged class, not only nobility.
I dedicated the first part of this post to express my opinion that the myth of a inherent superiority of will and skill of those who achieve great fortunes (bourgeoisie) is a fallacy, not so different from the ancient ideals that made middle-age people believe in the superiority of the nobility, something that sounds repulsive and foolish to the modern man.
It is easy for us, deeply used to the capitalism rhetoric, to believe in such fallacy. We are all instructed, from or cradles, that working generates wealth, that if we work hard we can get rich, and that capitalism allows movement between classes (so one day we can get there), and that it privileges competence. And it is all true to some degree, but all of those notions are over-rated.
It ignores completely facts of life, such as the different opportunities people get; the abusive use of capital to guarantee the maintenance of the status quo; all the giving up good ideas due to lack of materials, capability of investment or lack of time, that has to be dedicated to more immediate and less promising goals, such as buying food. All those are factors that can kill the potentials of lots of good people while putting others not so good in a no-loose situation.
Most of people I know DO work very hard (myself included). I know some people of largely commendable abilities and yet, I know that most of them most likely them all will not get rich. They will never reach the top of the food chain, no matter their capabilities and competence. But we all feel comfortable with the system because we have this small hope of getting rich some day. Obviously, this claim that all that takes to be rich is work is false, because its impossible that most people gets rich, even being true that most people do work hard.
Also, Id like to add that the notion that riches are getting richer, but the poor are also improving is a simplification. It is valid only when you limit the analysis to the rich nations. There are still large masses of people in the world whose living conditions are under the most basic lines of poverty. There are lots of hunger and endemic lack of conditions in the world. In this world where everything take places in global scale, where decisions made in any major office can affect the life of people everywhere, I dont think its fair to count them out when making the balance of human achievements.
Despite that, I want to point out, before someone accuses me of being a communist (like others were, and like it is a bad thing), that I AM NOT one. I am just trying to expose my opinions on a few tribulations of the capitalist system. However, in fact, I do not have a working alternative to propose. I agree that the present system is the best ever implemented, and that, if to many extents it means the super-hyper-ultra-over-privileging of some people merits at expense of others, its at least merit-based in essence, what makes it a lot more bearable.
Thus, I agree that the existence of an aristocracy, despite morally and philosophically wrong, is a necessity in the very terms the other posters exposed. It is a channel to canalize the society surplus and to multiply its resources. It, however, brings me to the question number two: For how long will it be so?
Well, I am not pretending to offer a deadline to the fall of our economic models, as it would be really presumptive and a very big guess. But I think that a little bit of dialectics is in order here.
As you all probably know, dialectics is a dynamic method of studying modifications in systems through the analysis of its effects and the related causes-consequences. Once we have proposed theses, we confront it with its flaws that accumulate with time. Enough flaws and adapting modifications will make the system change in its antithesis, the negation of its patterns. Then a confrontation of this new reality and the good that still existed in the old system will bring the synthesis, or new thesis, a construct that, theoretically, sums the best of the opposing abandoned ones.
Admitting our system as theses, the income inequality, among others, will be one of its flaws and inadequacies, meaning that its one of the pressing elements that will, ultimately, lead to the collapsing/morphing of the very system that generated it.
I really do not agree with the rationalization that the poor are also getting better, so the gap between social classes starts loosing its relevance. Not only for the reason I have already mentioned (the limitation of the observed area), but as well due to the fact that believing that people will easily accept that sounds like ignoring the human nature.
There are a lot of people that are not angry at the privileged, me among them. But there are a lot of people who are, no matter if they are reasonable about it or not. Also, there is the fact that we here, people who has houses, surplus of food and money for luxuries, are also among the benefited, even if most of us are not among the really rich. Our satisfaction with having house, food and internet comes from the fact that we have a desirable condition.
If one day this comes to be the very minimum, we will be revolted for being reduced to it while others have so much more. Its not part of our nature to be satisfied, we are always craving for the good things around us. The realization that we will be living much better than people in the middle ages (or even 50 years ago) did will hardly work as a consolation.
So, inequality will always be a factor of corrosion in the capitalist society, the same way it would be in any system whatsoever that enforces it.
My Conclusion:
So, straight answers to the questions I saw:
1 Is the income inequality a problem?
R: Yes. The accumulation of wealth in the degrees we are witnessing is only possible through exploitation of the society, which bears it only because there is no better solution available yet. It however does not change the fact that it breaks the equality that society aims, and that the search for the utopia a model that favors both equality and productivity must always be kept.
Todays model functionality does not redeem its perverse nature.
2 Is this model of inequality functional in the future?
R: Yes it is. I cant imagine it being abandoned anytime soon, because so far there are no viable alternatives. It is still the best thing we have. However, it holds in itself the seeds of its own destruction.
Well, Guys, sorry for the bible I wrote above, but it is really an interesting theme and it took me that much to express myself properly.
Regards
.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Outstanding posts.
Well said and well done.
It's a pity to think some will most probably twist their meaning very soon.
Hey, thanks a lot, Akka. It took me some good two hours and a half to get that done, so it's nice to have the work appreciated. 
It's a pity, however, that so far no one seen to be interested in pinpointing aspects they disagree. There's always room to improve, and I really like when I get to discuss valid points. I was looking forward to some controversy.
Oh, well, maybe I have closed the matter. Now my ego is properly fed
.
Regards .
It's a pity, however, that so far no one seen to be interested in pinpointing aspects they disagree. There's always room to improve, and I really like when I get to discuss valid points. I was looking forward to some controversy.
Oh, well, maybe I have closed the matter. Now my ego is properly fed
.Regards
.AVN
Deity
FredLC,
First a compliment for your posts. They were interesting to read.
I agree with your ethical point of view. I also think that it still exists in a lot of countries, especially the developing countries.
But IMO the system has already been amended in quite a number of countries, by using taxes and redistribution of wealth, social insurances, etcetera. This could only happen because the society asked for it, didn't accept the big differences between the rich and the poor anymore.
Doesn't this mean that we are changing the rules already in our search for the utopia ?
Sorry that my post hasn't the same lenght as yours.
First a compliment for your posts.
They were interesting to read.I agree with your ethical point of view. I also think that it still exists in a lot of countries, especially the developing countries.
But IMO the system has already been amended in quite a number of countries, by using taxes and redistribution of wealth, social insurances, etcetera. This could only happen because the society asked for it, didn't accept the big differences between the rich and the poor anymore.
Doesn't this mean that we are changing the rules already in our search for the utopia ?
Sorry that my post hasn't the same lenght as yours.
A very well-thought-out post, FredLC. I can find no fault in your reasoning.
However - I still disagree with your conclusion.
If the system is functional now, and will remain functional in the future (As you said, it is the best model we have), then I don't have a problem with the inequality.
I quit searching for utopian answers years ago, because utopia is a fantasy.
However - I still disagree with your conclusion.
If the system is functional now, and will remain functional in the future (As you said, it is the best model we have), then I don't have a problem with the inequality.
I quit searching for utopian answers years ago, because utopia is a fantasy.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Utopia is not a fantasy. It's something we know we will never reach, but we must try to approach as close as possible.
It's not a fantasy, it's a direction given to aim our goals.
It's not a fantasy, it's a direction given to aim our goals.
Utopia is still a fantasy.
However, I will concede that it gives us a target, a direction to aim for.
But the problem is, my idea of a utopian society is not the same as yours. So in which direction do we aim?
However, I will concede that it gives us a target, a direction to aim for.
But the problem is, my idea of a utopian society is not the same as yours. So in which direction do we aim?
Gastric ReFlux
Dispatch our Tech Staff
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2002
- Messages
- 717
We aim for my Utopia, of course.
That was easy. Next question.
Originally posted by AVN
I agree with your ethical point of view. I also think that it still exists in a lot of countries, especially the developing countries.
But IMO the system has already been amended in quite a number of countries, by using taxes and redistribution of wealth, social insurances, etcetera. This could only happen because the society asked for it, didn't accept the big differences between the rich and the poor anymore.
Doesn't this mean that we are changing the rules already in our search for the utopia ?
Sorry that my post hasn't the same lenght as yours.
You really don't need to be sorry because the size of your post wasnt as outrageous as mine. I am the one owing apologies for that.
And exactly due to that, I didnt elaborate the part about dialectics even more. These reactions that you point out are, indeed, responses from the society to the capitalist oppression. Reactions of that sort can be called micro-systemic or quantitative changes. They do open the way and head towards larger modifications such as the ones I proposed.
When these moderate and artificial changes pile up enough to challenge the institutions, creating a new macro-system that alters the nature of the thesis it opposes to (called qualitative change), than we will have reached the antithesis stage of the dialectical process.
So, you are perfectly right in your conclusion that some modification IS in progress. Modifications are always happening, as this is a dynamic event, that happens little by little, not through big jumps.
Only that I think that we will only begin to see some significant change when those things begin to happen naturally (with another flowing form of dividing the capital other than the capitalist logistic of accumulation). Those artificial changes imposed by the moderating forces of society are too timid to signify an important progress IMHO, specially being so small and so localized.
Originally posted by Padma
A very well-thought-out post, FredLC. I can find no fault in your reasoning.
However - I still disagree with your conclusion.
If the system is functional now, and will remain functional in the future (As you said, it is the best model we have), then I don't have a problem with the inequality.
Well, I guess thats why my uncle uses to say that whats logical is not tautological; we can agree on events and repercussions, and yet, disagree in conclusions.
However, It seems to me that you are not really disagreeing, but only arguing functionality, a point that I already addressed in my original posts. I never denied it in any moment; I only tried to separate that from the proposed question, because I think it is irrelevant to the discussion. Apart from that, you didnt expose any opposition to my points, you even mentioned that you found no flaws on them.
Should we start a discussion about what system we should use and why, than I would agree with you that it must be the one we are already using because it works just like you did. Thus, we do not really disagree its just that, in my opinion, you again dragged the discussion out of its real focus.
Only I would point out that we today dont have a more convenient system. I believe that we will eventually do, whatever it may be. In that day, this flaw will be too much for this model to sustain itself, and it will fall. See, stagnation is not a natural condition, things changes when left on their own. Modifications will eventually happen, for better or worse, and it is by this principle that I guide my conclusions.
So, you dont think it is a problem, and thats ok. I think it IS a problem but so far, a bearable one.
Well, I have no need to argue about this, because Akka did it perfectly for me, and you both agreed in the important aspect of it. It was exactly in that sense that I used the term utopia.
Sure, theres always room for variations in the notions of whats a perfect environment. Thats why I kept my personal takes away and used only general notions based on the logic of what society should provide.
In the economic aspect we are discussing, I only mentioned equality and prosperity. If we expand to other fields, Ill only propose equally generic guidelines of obvious common good, leaving room for the convenient refinement that pleases those who achieve it.
Do you disagree that those are mandatory qualities of a utopian society? If so, why?
Regards
.
FredLC, I think we are closer together on this issue than one might think. I have simply left my younger, more socialist feelings behind. Actually, I can still accept some "socialist" concepts, like a minimum income (welfare) as a kind of safety net. I don't believe anyone should be required to starve.
As far as a utopian society goes, human nature is why I call it a fantasy. People just don't work that way. Some people are going to "milk" the system, doing the bare minimum of work to qualify for benefits. On the other hand, you will always have people too proud to accept "charity". I was talking with a co-worker this afternoon, and he said that when he was younger, he qualified for food assistance, as well as diapers, etc., for his infant daughter. Even though he needed this assistance, he refused it, because he wouldn't accept something he hadn't "earned".
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is, as long as people are humans, our current system (capitalism, with just a touch of socialism so the poor don't fall off the bottom) is the best I can envision.
As far as a utopian society goes, human nature is why I call it a fantasy. People just don't work that way. Some people are going to "milk" the system, doing the bare minimum of work to qualify for benefits. On the other hand, you will always have people too proud to accept "charity". I was talking with a co-worker this afternoon, and he said that when he was younger, he qualified for food assistance, as well as diapers, etc., for his infant daughter. Even though he needed this assistance, he refused it, because he wouldn't accept something he hadn't "earned".
Basically, I guess what I'm saying is, as long as people are humans, our current system (capitalism, with just a touch of socialism so the poor don't fall off the bottom) is the best I can envision.
Akka
Moody old mage.
In fact, a big bit more of socialism and a bit less of capitalism is a system that can easily be better than the one we have now
You are right, we are, indeed, closer together than one might thing. I too am not a socialist, mostly because I think that what socialism have proposed so far relies more on fantasy than in actual efficiency. Anything that is based on the negation of the human nature is doomed.
I, however, do think that any systems that create casts of humanity are also against human nature. See, we all want to be favored; we all can make peace with being equaled; very few of us, on the other hand, is indifferent to being explored and yet, paradoxically, that is always the larger group, what creates an obvious source of changing pressure.
The thing here is that the exploring class always bears power, and that power is used to sustain a situation, that, under other circumstances, would naturally fall. Just like the negation of human nature was artificial in socialism, so it is in capitalism, despite today it sounds a little odd to us.
I think that the example of what happened with your co-worker is very illustrative; he wouldnt accept the ultimate affirmation that he belong to the lower, less favored group, even if such affirmation was for his own good. It would hurt and scar his pride. It would deny his human nature.
Equally, as you mentioned, you cannot require someone to starve. Its true, here in Brazil, there is a legal excuse called famine thievery that cancels the penalty of a person that steals for strict reason of hunger. In the past, however, it was not so. In my all-times favorite book, Victor Hugos Les Miserables (that takes place in the French Revolution), the main character, Jean Valjean, is sentenced to 10 years of forced labor due to stealing a piece of bread. As you may see, this respect for humans necessities is not something very old, and it is in itself a response to the changing pressures I mentioned above. Others like that already came, and others more are yet to come.
The key difference is that capitalism prosperity has provided the conditions for its aristocracy to have both the physical and psychological tools to sustain its artificiality with far more efficiency than socialism ever could. It managed to, so far, convince most of us that the failures are more individual than institutional. I, on the other hand, think that the two aspects are equally relevant (surely, with exceptions that leans to both of them).
See, I can never accept the present model as a valid solution because I place the society a step higher than societys economy in my table of values. Economy is a mean to achieve societys goals, the same way that society is a mean to achieve humanitys goals, this last one, being the final degree of guidance.
So, economy, in itself, can be perfect without having moral standards. Society cannot, because morality is part of its essence. That said, we never had a valid economical system, because never one was able to keep up with the values society stands for. So, what we do is tolerate the ones that offend them less. And it is under this perspective that I am a capitalist. I do not agree that the ends justify the means, but I cannot point fingers at bad means when I too cannot envision better ones.
Regards.
I, however, do think that any systems that create casts of humanity are also against human nature. See, we all want to be favored; we all can make peace with being equaled; very few of us, on the other hand, is indifferent to being explored and yet, paradoxically, that is always the larger group, what creates an obvious source of changing pressure.
The thing here is that the exploring class always bears power, and that power is used to sustain a situation, that, under other circumstances, would naturally fall. Just like the negation of human nature was artificial in socialism, so it is in capitalism, despite today it sounds a little odd to us.
I think that the example of what happened with your co-worker is very illustrative; he wouldnt accept the ultimate affirmation that he belong to the lower, less favored group, even if such affirmation was for his own good. It would hurt and scar his pride. It would deny his human nature.
Equally, as you mentioned, you cannot require someone to starve. Its true, here in Brazil, there is a legal excuse called famine thievery that cancels the penalty of a person that steals for strict reason of hunger. In the past, however, it was not so. In my all-times favorite book, Victor Hugos Les Miserables (that takes place in the French Revolution), the main character, Jean Valjean, is sentenced to 10 years of forced labor due to stealing a piece of bread. As you may see, this respect for humans necessities is not something very old, and it is in itself a response to the changing pressures I mentioned above. Others like that already came, and others more are yet to come.
The key difference is that capitalism prosperity has provided the conditions for its aristocracy to have both the physical and psychological tools to sustain its artificiality with far more efficiency than socialism ever could. It managed to, so far, convince most of us that the failures are more individual than institutional. I, on the other hand, think that the two aspects are equally relevant (surely, with exceptions that leans to both of them).
See, I can never accept the present model as a valid solution because I place the society a step higher than societys economy in my table of values. Economy is a mean to achieve societys goals, the same way that society is a mean to achieve humanitys goals, this last one, being the final degree of guidance.
So, economy, in itself, can be perfect without having moral standards. Society cannot, because morality is part of its essence. That said, we never had a valid economical system, because never one was able to keep up with the values society stands for. So, what we do is tolerate the ones that offend them less. And it is under this perspective that I am a capitalist. I do not agree that the ends justify the means, but I cannot point fingers at bad means when I too cannot envision better ones.
Regards
.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
ditto
Correct. The government should be able to take in sufficient revenue via tariffs to support its armed forces and maintain the few government buildings neccessary to achieve its lone goal of protecting its citizens from other governments. The few other powers that the US Constitution grants the US gov't are intended to allow it to do that effectively, and no more.
There is an inheritance tax. Everything after the first $600000 for wives and children, and something like $250000 for others, is subject to draconian taxation, at some horrendously high rate like 20%-50%! What more do you want?
Only, ONLY, in the eyes of God. On the back of every dollar bill the US Treasury prints are the words 'In God We Trust'. 'All others pay cash' is implied.
Again with the 'deserve'? Who are YOU to judge who is worthy, or even if worthiness is to be judged at all?
And how does any of this conflict with what I said?
ZSE is the idea that because one person is rich, another oerson cannot be, ie that there is just so much wealth available, and if one person has, others thereby cannot have. Economy is infinite.
That is what you are saying when I read between the lines. Your argument is thus:
Fact: Some people are wealthy, and some are poor.
Fact: The wealthy people can give money to their children, and the poor cannot.
Fact: This is not fair.
Posit: I am some kind of god that has the right to decree that life will be fair, so...
Conclusion: I shall rob from the rich, and give to the poor, so everyone can starve together in a good little commune.
Well who ever said that life either was, or had to be, fair?
It is not a misunderstanding. Communism is about taking from those who have more, and giving it to those who have less. The ones with less are greedy and envious of the ones with more.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
And that is why no form of communism will ever work while human nature remains the way it is. Accept it, deal with it, get over it.
But not me, right?
Well, I'm thinking of all those poor rich people that you want to pillage the tombs of, since no one else gives a damn. Try to understand this: the wealthy form the basis of the economy. Without them, no one works, no one eats unless they grow their own food, no goods are distributed except by barter at fairs, etc... No wealthy = no economy above the barter level.You are advocating cutting your own throat to spite your belly.
Are you beginning to see where I am coming from?
EDIT: Blood quote tags...
Damien
Emperor
Fearlessleader,the tax on inheritance is a joke since money just gotta be dealt before death and the state gets dust.
And without the rich,we'd live and much better.Rich people aren't messiahs.
And without the rich,we'd live and much better.Rich people aren't messiahs.
Similar threads
