Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem is that equal pay equals no motivation equals nothing for anybody. I've worked in 3 countries that had Communism and equal pay and all changed their economic model because there is no motivation in that model.
Seriously... I am beginning to think you are a troll. I said equal opportunity, not equal pay. Nobody is arguing that equal pay is bad. I am asking for more equal opportunity in the US, do you have anything productive to comment about that?
Of course we'll never get true equal opportunity, we can only try. Right now it is going the other direction. As much as I hate giving handouts to lazy people who choose not to work hard, I think lobbying (bribing) politicians to increase opportunity for yourselves while decreasing opportunity for others is just as bad. Unfortunately for the fanatic right wing, anything besides what they say = communism and socialism
But to be more precise, IQs aren't equal to start with, right? I agree. It seems to me a far greater source of unfairness than "asking those who have more to sacrifice for those who have less" since those who have more - even by your own assertion - have more because of things they did not earn. You don't earn parents, peers, neighborhood, IQ (at least the genetic component). You don't choose which neighborhood or region or subculture you grow up in. You don't choose your peers, the schools you attend, whether or not you get hit by a car or catch almost any diseases. All of the things - every single one - that make you who you are come from OUTSIDE yourself.
Equality of opportunity is probably meaningless, because equality of opportunity for one generation will become inequality of opportunity for the next generation. Unless our society stops punishing children for the sins of parents by ratifying and protecting basic economic inequalities, equality of opportunity could only exist briefly, but never persist.
Equality of outcome is also impossible. But seriously compressing the inequality of outcomes is highly possible. Indeed, we've done it in our own not-too-distant past. I'd much rather live in a world of macroeconomic fairness than our Nietzschean world where unearned inequalities have become sacred.
The fact that you didn't get hit by a car or whatever you didn't do does not make you who you are. It's what you did that plays the main role. People who are gifted should be given the space to advance. That gift, such as high IQ, is not something bad. These people should be able to work hard and do amazing things. They should not be punished simply because they have high IQs. People come in different colors and shapes. You cannot forcefully ruin them and their chances. This is often done in the name of the so called greater good, or collective interests, which more often than not is a cover for unfairness, corruption and the abuse of power.
Conservatism is not entirely about selfishness or greed, though a fraction of the conservative establishment is going that way. It is also about personal liberty and the ability to pursue ones potential and interests.
Seriously... I am beginning to think you are a troll. I said equal opportunity, not equal pay. Nobody is arguing that equal pay is bad. I am asking for more equal opportunity in the US, do you have anything productive to comment about that?
Of course we'll never get true equal opportunity, we can only try. Right now it is going the other direction. As much as I hate giving handouts to lazy people who choose not to work hard, I think lobbying (bribing) politicians to increase opportunity for yourselves while decreasing opportunity for others is just as bad. Unfortunately for the fanatic right wing, anything besides what they say = communism and socialism
I don't think equal opportunity is the issue here. Those who have opportunity should enjoy their opportunity. You can build new opportunities for those who don't have it, but the ideological argument seems to be that those who have opportunity should not be allowed to advance. Who is here to define that? To what extent?
It's as if those who are successful and knowledgeable are extra wrong. It's just pathetic to think that way. I work with lots of intelligent and successful people. No one would reject the idea of taxation or helping the poor to a certain extent. But somehow these are still viewed as the wrong guys, cancer if you will of America. You know how they are. Born rich, given degrees, don't do anything, and get more and more dividends. Many who work with me are from third world countries. They have made amazing progress against the odds. Most are not from some privileged backgrounds. Even though they make great salaries today, they are still incredibly frugal. Many of these started much lower than our poor. They still get stigma when they walk into a restaurant and sometimes dirty looks on their family simply because they are not white. But these people are highly knowledgeable and responsible. They are great assets to our society.
The fact that you didn't get hit by a car or whatever you didn't do does not make you who you are. It's what you did that plays the main role.
Sorry, this makes no sense at all. Where is the "uncaused cause" from whence "what you do" arises? Getting hit by a car could create an enormous butterfly effect, changing timing, opportunity, physical ability, and a host of other things that impact who you are and what you learn and why you learn it. There is no "internal you", because without all of those factors I listed earlier, you would have died shortly after birth. Everything - language, physical growth, intelligence, interests - comes from genetics, environment, and society. There is no ingredient that springs forth unformed into any one person and transmutates into a self-made cause by a hand-waving of logic.
Quote:
People who are gifted should be given the space to advance. That gift, such as high IQ, is not something bad. These people should be able to work hard and do amazing things. They should not be punished simply because they have high IQs.
That last line is where the incompatibility arises. It is the people with low IQs who are being punished because they have low IQs. If someone's maximum achievement is being a janitor because of limitations on their IQ, they should be rewarded for being a janitor. If someone's maximum achievement is being an engineer, they should be rewarded for being an engineer. It should be proportional to your relative achievement (if you want to motivate people to achieve their maximum potential, which is - to be fair - only one good among many possible goods) as defined by your relative potential. No, what our system does is compound the punishment of those who have little or have their potential thwarted by years of exposure to poverty, stress, and other factors demonstrated to literally quash nascent intelligence and competence.
Quote:
People come in different colors and shapes. You cannot forcefully ruin them and their chances. This is often done in the name of the so called greater good, or collective interests, which more often than not is a cover for unfairness, corruption and the abuse of power.
Sorry, you are conflating two things and doing so by means of a straw man or a conspiracy. Nobody is trying to "ruin" anybody except our system of legitimized and enforced inequality (i.e. hyper-propertarian capitalism). That's the system that ruins the poor and rewards the wealthy and lucky far beyond what other wealthy nations have shown those rewards are necessary for providing motivation or use. The collectivists and utilitarians working for the "greater good" are doing so. If you wish to criticize those with impure motives, those who claim to work for the greater good but are actually working for self-interest, then do so.
However, unless you are claiming that all of us working in the collective interest are secret fronts for a cabal of sinister "abuses of power", then stop making such accusations. Also, if abuses of power and corruption are bad, then free market capitalism and "natural" inequality, simply by virtue of its tendency to distill a larger and larger share of the pie in fewer hands, would breed far more "natural" corruption than the collectivist systems you disagree with. At least assuming those collectives are democratic, which are the only proposals in question (we have a mostly democratic form of government and the economic ramifications we speak of here derive from proposed policy, not violent and dictatorial revolution).
Quote:
Conservatism is not entirely about selfishness or greed, though a fraction of the conservative establishment is going that way. It is also about personal liberty and the ability to pursue ones potential and interests.
This is a paradox. If one's self-interest is gargantuan and cannot be satiated, would not personal liberty and the ability to pursue one's potential and interest not necessarily result in selfishness and greed? Second, if conservatism is about the ability to pursue one's potential and interests, and all such pursuits require material or social resources to achieve (few interests are free, few potentials can be unlocked without cost), then isn't inequality necessarily a BARRIER to such pursuits?
The fact is that conservatism is about formal freedom, and not applied or pragmatic freedom. The collectivist egalitarians are about allowing all persons the opportunity to ACTUALLY pursue their interests, not just theoretically, but with the resources and access to those interests. One cannot pursue an interest in geology or hiking without time and the resources to travel, etc... One cannot pursue an interest in formal educational subjects - at least not for a career or a life - without access to costly education. The fact is that sharing the contributions of all society, past and present, provides far greater and more shared opportunity, far greater and more shared accretions of freedom.
The older generations are the ones who've ruined everything and yet, "damn those kids" is the best explanation they've consistently offered. Strange how the concept of responsibility never applies to those who routinely preach and expect it.
Sorry, this makes no sense at all. Where is the "uncaused cause" from whence "what you do" arises? Getting hit by a car could create an enormous butterfly effect, changing timing, opportunity, physical ability, and a host of other things that impact who you are and what you learn and why you learn it. There is no "internal you", because without all of those factors I listed earlier, you would have died shortly after birth. Everything - language, physical growth, intelligence, interests - comes from genetics, environment, and society. There is no ingredient that springs forth unformed into any one person and transmutates into a self-made cause by a hand-waving of logic.
That last line is where the incompatibility arises. It is the people with low IQs who are being punished because they have low IQs. If someone's maximum achievement is being a janitor because of limitations on their IQ, they should be rewarded for being a janitor. If someone's maximum achievement is being an engineer, they should be rewarded for being an engineer. It should be proportional to your relative achievement (if you want to motivate people to achieve their maximum potential, which is - to be fair - only one good among many possible goods) as defined by your relative potential. No, what our system does is compound the punishment of those who have little or have their potential thwarted by years of exposure to poverty, stress, and other factors demonstrated to literally quash nascent intelligence and competence.
Sorry, you are conflating two things and doing so by means of a straw man or a conspiracy. Nobody is trying to "ruin" anybody except our system of legitimized and enforced inequality (i.e. hyper-propertarian capitalism). That's the system that ruins the poor and rewards the wealthy and lucky far beyond what other wealthy nations have shown those rewards are necessary for providing motivation or use. The collectivists and utilitarians working for the "greater good" are doing so. If you wish to criticize those with impure motives, those who claim to work for the greater good but are actually working for self-interest, then do so.
However, unless you are claiming that all of us working in the collective interest are secret fronts for a cabal of sinister "abuses of power", then stop making such accusations. Also, if abuses of power and corruption are bad, then free market capitalism and "natural" inequality, simply by virtue of its tendency to distill a larger and larger share of the pie in fewer hands, would breed far more "natural" corruption than the collectivist systems you disagree with. At least assuming those collectives are democratic, which are the only proposals in question (we have a mostly democratic form of government and the economic ramifications we speak of here derive from proposed policy, not violent and dictatorial revolution).
This is a paradox. If one's self-interest is gargantuan and cannot be satiated, would not personal liberty and the ability to pursue one's potential and interest not necessarily result in selfishness and greed? Second, if conservatism is about the ability to pursue one's potential and interests, and all such pursuits require material or social resources to achieve (few interests are free, few potentials can be unlocked without cost), then isn't inequality necessarily a BARRIER to such pursuits?
The fact is that conservatism is about formal freedom, and not applied or pragmatic freedom. The collectivist egalitarians are about allowing all persons the opportunity to ACTUALLY pursue their interests, not just theoretically, but with the resources and access to those interests. One cannot pursue an interest in geology or hiking without time and the resources to travel, etc... One cannot pursue an interest in formal educational subjects - at least not for a career or a life - without access to costly education. The fact is that sharing the contributions of all society, past and present, provides far greater and more shared opportunity, far greater and more shared accretions of freedom.
You just don't get what I am saying. Getting hit by a car can hinder a person for sure. But not getting hit by a car still doesn't do much. Getting rewards also doesn't necessarily do much either. The trick is to give relief to the absolutely desperate and not make it feasible for people to tell themselves "I can just live like this" by doing nothing. That's where things are not fair. Everyone above that could potentially do the same thing. But what would our society look like? People think that they won't do that, so they will work to fund not only those truly in need but also those who just don't want to do anything. Who is here to say how much people need? It is a dictated artificial amount, in the name of collectivism.
You are right that it is theoretical that everyone has a chance. But when you favor those who are less successful blindly, the loss of opportunity for those who are working hard is not theoretical but real. It is a logical fallacy to simply look at a chart of say income, find gaps, and then say these lower ones need more help. Those gaps are not always caused by some evil force. If I choose to coast this year at my job, then maybe I won't get a raise or I don't achieve as much. There would be a gap between me and someone else. But that doesn't mean that that someone has to then accept less resources so the system could help me. Ultimately, some people need help,while others need to help themselves. Numbers have lots of subjective choices implied in them.
I simply described an aspect of conservatism. I don't consider myself liberal or conservative. Both sides show that they are nearly clueless about the global economy and America's changing position in it. Nor am I optimistic about this country.
This idea that there is no personal strength, only external factors is ridiculous. A person can do little or a lot with the same resources. That is a meaningful and crucial difference. Third world women face horrendous discrimination yet many of them not only come to America but advance, much more impressive than people here. Undocumented immigrants get paid very little, but many manage to send back money. They do jobs that Americans don't want to do. Yet lots of Americans are against these people whose only "fault" was to make a bit more money.
Americans sense of entitlement is above and beyond. It worries me what this country would do when competition is here in all sorts of ways. Americans have a mentality that certain things are supposed to be done by third world people and we can't even imagine ourselves doing that. Somehow we are made of different materials. This is what privilege looks like and it has consequences.
Our prosperity and luxuries of the 20th century came from the lack of competition after the war and the absence of labor competition from the communist world. Now both conditions are gone. Baby boomers got used to it. They taught their kids to expect that. It's time to wake up. That prosperity we had was a historical accident. The American dream, big houses, two cars, vacations, you name it, are all by products of that lucky economic time. You can push for collective policies and I think they will advance to a certain extent. But I don't think they will achieve what these policy makers dreamed of. The sad thing is that our poor will remain where they are despite D or R. And this whole fight between liberal and conservative supporters shows that followers always fight over slogans and their masters are friends with benefits.
The society you want is more like Scandinavia, though they don't want most people unless you are independently wealthy. In America we have enough of every kind that our gridlock will continue for years. I would advise young people to try working hard and being creative. Learning Mandarin Chinese gives you tremendous advantage. We should be learning Chinese the way the Chinese have been learning English. I don't see that much interest here. Resources are plentiful. It's about expectations and motivation. Opportunities aren't simply delivered. You have to prepare yourself. Sign up for mandarin lessons. They would like to offer more.
I would add a little more. The communists would not have won their revolution without incredible personal strength (the Chinese call it grit). Everything was against them and they risked their lives. There were pragmatic, strategic, focused, much like how anyone wants to succeed. If they were like Americans today, they would have accomplished nothing. They would still be marching on streets with watercolor signs and getting pepper sprayed. They would tell themselves that see the rich are afraid of us. No one is afraid of people who don't have the work ethic to accomplish their goals, regardless of their goals.
What democrats want here is not to help the poor succeed, but to have a peace treaty so the rich are safe. They don't want to acknowledge that. It's a fake war against the super rich and an opium war against the poor.
Last edited by Costaexpress; 06-27-2014 at 07:34 PM..
Conservatism is not entirely about selfishness or greed, though a fraction of the conservative establishment is going that way. It is also about personal liberty and the ability to pursue ones potential and interests.
You completely misunderstand and botched the Conservative view. Conservatives don't give a damn about individual liberty.
The #1 Priority for a Conservative is Family; #2 the Self; and #3 the Community.
It is the Family, the Self and the Community which fosters the conditions to achieve individual liberty and to grow as a person. Without the Family and/or Community, you can't even have individual liberty.
Second, individual liberty is about choices.
Third, with individual liberty --- and the choices you make -- comes the concomitant responsibilities.
For Liberals, individual liberty comes with no responsibilities whatsoever.
And even that wouldn't be so bad, except that Liberals take it a Great Leap further, so that not only is no one responsible for the choices they make exercising their individual liberty, but that everyone else has to pay for it; foot the bill; pick up the tab; fund it; subsidize it; or bank-roll it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
That last line is where the incompatibility arises. It is the people with low IQs who are being punished because they have low IQs. If someone's maximum achievement is being a janitor because of limitations on their IQ, they should be rewarded for being a janitor. If someone's maximum achievement is being an engineer, they should be rewarded for being an engineer. It should be proportional to your relative achievement (if you want to motivate people to achieve their maximum potential, which is - to be fair - only one good among many possible goods) as defined by your relative potential. No, what our system does is compound the punishment of those who have little or have their potential thwarted by years of exposure to poverty, stress, and other factors demonstrated to literally quash nascent intelligence and competence.
Wow, so myopic narrow-minded and wrong, not to mention your views completely violate the Laws of Economics causing to harm to others.
When my brigade commander had a problem, do you think he went into a corner to sulk? No, he consulted his staff. That's why we're there....we are experts in what we do.
When a client is pulling out her hair because Obamacare might cause her to lose her restaurant, she calls me, because I'm an expert in the things I do.
I'm not a tax wizard, but there are many tax wizards out there, and they are willing to help me.
See how that works?
Successful people are successful, because they recognize and admit that they have weaknesses and limitations.
My taxes to the city, county, State and pseudo-federal government provide counselors for "free" to people to help them set up household/family budgets.
My taxes to the city, county, State and pseudo-federal government provide counselors for "free" to people to help them with personal money management.
My taxes to the city, county, State and pseudo-federal government provide payees for "free" to further assist with personal money management.
My taxes to the city, county, State and pseudo-federal government provide vocational counselors for "free" to people to help them focus on a sound vocation.
So I just totally annihilated and crushed your phony argument.
Low IQ is a handicap to be sure, but you have parlayed Low IQ into an excuse.
If people refuse to seek help or counsel, that is not my problem and it is not on me.
Since you appear to have lots of free time, why don't you go and take those people by the hand and drag them down to social or community services to get help?
I'm not stopping you....so why aren't you doing that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Sorry, you are conflating two things and doing so by means of a straw man or a conspiracy. Nobody is trying to "ruin" anybody except our system of legitimized and enforced inequality (i.e. hyper-propertarian capitalism).
There's no such thing....and don't insult me with some Puki-commentary off of Pukipedia.
Capitalism is a Property Theory. That theory states that Capital is best kept in the hands of private individual instead of government or groups, because individuals are more responsive to the ever shifting needs of the various Markets
Capital is anything used in the means of production or acquisition of other Capital, and it includes but is not limited to Cash, Credit, Labor, Vehicles, Livestock, Draught Animals, Land (if and only if used in production of goods or services), Buildings, Machinery, Equipment, Tools, Natural Resources in a variety of states and much more.
Low IQ #1 spends $5 week for 52 weeks on scratch off lotto tickets.
Low IQ #2 spends $5 week for 4 weeks buying stocks at an average price of $0.07/share = 286/shares.
30 years later Low IQ #1 has $0 while Low IQ #2's stock split twice and now the 642 shares sell for $32/share = $20,544
So....show us the "enforced inequality."
Each Low IQ exercised their Freedom of Choice and Individual Liberty.
Again, show us the "enforced inequality."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
That's the system that ruins the poor and rewards the wealthy and lucky far beyond what other wealthy nations have shown those rewards are necessary for providing motivation or use.
The poor ruin themselves by exercising their Freedom of Choice and Individual Liberty.
The US has never been, is not now, and for all intents and practical purposes, will never be a nation.
Comparing a country to a nation, nation-State or dual-State is a Straw Man, not to mention a misrepresentation and a faulty comparison.
Let's separate the Intelligent from The Stupid®....
What does Cook County, Illinois have, that Norway does not have?
Spoiler
200,000 more people.....there's only 5 Million people in Norway.
Wanna make comparisons? Then find a State that has a population of 317 Million...you know, like the US does. Surely, as as an high school graduate, you know the difference between "compare" and "contrast"....which is especially necessary if people want to at least look intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
This is a paradox. If one's self-interest is gargantuan and cannot be satiated, would not personal liberty and the ability to pursue one's potential and interest not necessarily result in selfishness and greed?
Selfishness and Greed are Subjective.
When you can objectively define Selfishness or Greed in no uncertain terms, people might actually take you seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Second, if conservatism is about the ability to pursue one's potential and interests, and all such pursuits require material or social resources to achieve (few interests are free, few potentials can be unlocked without cost), then isn't inequality necessarily a BARRIER to such pursuits?
No.
Nearly all barriers are self-imposed.
See if you can construct a logical cogent response without employing emotional tautology....
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
