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.
This is really stupid. Why would anyone believe in egalitarianism? Yes, it's evil. But worse, it's also silly. I am surprised you would admit it. But then again you are OK with tyranny as long as it is "mild and small". To be determined by whom? The majority? You?
Good to see that you are no longer trying to argue any of the points, but merely labeling it stupid. The last sentence of that post is the one that sums up the rest. I also didn't "approve" small tyranny, but explicitly said that tyranny comes in various degrees. The Walton children being a much larger form than the inherited physicians' practice.
I wonder how far you'd go with your professed love of inequality if someone dropped you off in a disease-ridden third-world favela or slum or forced you to relive life from birth from the perspective of an indigent person (even in the U.S.). It must be remarkably easy for a middle-class real estate agent to sing the praises of inequality, since you have been the beneficiary your whole life.
This really needs to be quoted because it is proof that there are people out there that want to take 100% of people's assets and redistribute them.
Your rationale is also important because it is based on what you see as fairness. You believe that progressive taxation and 100% inheritance tax will improve society.
Both of these arguments are wrong
Obama said yes we can! Government can solve your problems!
We are living the government nightmare of Obamacare and the scandal at the VA hospitals.
Obamacare failed and the VA hospitals are a national disgrace.
People like you who want to take and redistribute are why people like me own guns.
If you want to make your perfect society you should get people to agree to your made up rules and move to an island off the coast.
What I love about this is how you are telling me to move to an island off the coast, but you are the one who is so afraid that egalitarianism will win the hearts of the population that you own a gun to ward off the effects of democracy.
Good to see that you are no longer trying to argue any of the points, but merely labeling it stupid. The last sentence of that post is the one that sums up the rest. I also didn't "approve" small tyranny, but explicitly said that tyranny comes in various degrees. The Walton children being a much larger form than the inherited physicians' practice.
I wonder how far you'd go with your professed love of inequality if someone dropped you off in a disease-ridden third-world favela or slum or forced you to relive life from birth from the perspective of an indigent person (even in the U.S.). It must be remarkably easy for a middle-class real estate agent to sing the praises of inequality, since you have been the beneficiary your whole life.
I wasn't labeling it, I was identifying it.
The second proposition is ludicrous. I was born in a free country, my free country, and availed myself of its benefits. To imagine the "dropping off" of free citizens in a "disease-ridden third-world favela or slum" is supposed to illustrate exactly what? Perhaps third world slums and favelas wouldn't exist if foreign societies that feature them would adopt Capitalism, protection of private property rights, protection of individual rights, and other rational structures of a free society like America.
Your whole approach is a tribute to envy. In fact, egalitarianism is nothing more than envyism enshrined in state policy. It is resentment and dissatisfaction and a rebellion. Against what one may ask: REALITY. The reality that all men are NOT created equal. Some are born better, some make themselves better through effort and focused application of personal energy.
A healthy reaction? "I am going to make myself better also. As good as I can. Talented and/or hard working people represent a value that I want to emulate within myself by applying energy and reason."
A sick reaction? "I am going to tear down these people, because they are a threat to my self image. How can they be better than me anyway? Nobody is better than another. It must be luck. They had lucky genes or were given lucky benefits by having better parents than mine. After all, we know a "just world" is a fallacy. Our professors told us so, and they can't be wrong can they? So since it is all arbitrary, and certain people are born with "unearned benefits", lets rip them to shreds and bring them down to my level."
This is the nature of egalitarianism. Worshiping and sanctifying the base emotion of envy.
You think we should give you the right to redistribute billionaire's wealth?
Don't think so
How is it tyranny for a person or small group of people to exercise complete control over the lives of the rest of the population? Is that a serious question? That's the definition of tyranny. It's the thing that "tyranny of the majority" is metaphorically referencing!
What right does a billionaire have to keep their wealth? None, as I've said, and you've not said anything to dispute beyond "they earned it" (how?).
How is it tyranny for a person or small group of people to exercise complete control over the lives of the rest of the population? Is that a serious question? That's the definition of tyranny. It's the thing that "tyranny of the majority" is metaphorically referencing!
What right does a billionaire have to keep their wealth? None, as I've said, and you've not said anything to dispute beyond "they earned it" (how?).
"They earned it" would be enough for someone with common sense and basic virtue. Someone not ruled by the base emotion of envy who sees people of value as threats to be destroyed. Which, by the way, begs the question: What does it take to put this horrific viewpoint into practice? Violence. The initiation of physical force against those who have more than you. Those that you determine don't "deserve" it. And if one isn't man enough to undertake the violence on his own behalf, there is always that safe proxy: The State. That's why collectivists are such avid statists. The two go hand in hand. Collectivists need the Police power of the state to harness violence to put into practice what could never be accomplished by rational persuasion.
Envy and violence. That is the world of egalitarianism. Metaphorically, egalitarians are despicable and irrational little brats who use their fists to steal toys from the other children. Why? Because they want them. Why? Because in their nasty and uncivilized view the other children don't deserve them.
This thread is becoming useful. The resident collectivists are baring their actual vampire fangs. Usually collectivists are way more circumspect and hide their base beliefs by window dressing such as the "public good" and the "general welfare". It's refreshing and astonishing when they just show us what they really believe.
In fact, if the collectivist egalitarian movement were honest, it would not exist. The views are evil, irrational, immature, and just plain silly. And they usually know that and act accordingly. Hiding in plain sight in universities and legislatures.
I'd like to see more of them tell us their true feelings like Frankie and Kwhite.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 05-23-2014 at 09:00 AM..
"They earned it" would be enough for someone with common sense and basic virtue.
No, I asked "why is it so hot out" and you answered "because the temperature is high". "They earned it" or "they deserve it" is a non-answer to "why do they deserve this wealth"? So I ask again, why do they deserve more wealth than a million of their neighbors combined will ever see? Why does a businessman who figures out how to monetize a magnetic strip on a plastic card deserve billions, while a police officer who is maimed while saving the lives of a dozen school children deserves a pension of $40k per annum?
No, I asked "why is it so hot out" and you answered "because the temperature is high". "They earned it" or "they deserve it" is a non-answer to "why do they deserve this wealth"? So I ask again, why do they deserve more wealth than a million of their neighbors combined will ever see? Why does a businessman who figures out how to monetize a magnetic strip on a plastic card deserve billions, while a police officer who is maimed while saving the lives of a dozen school children deserves a pension of $40k per annum?
Because the magnetic strip offered value to others and they were voluntarily willing to pay for it in a free market.
Juxtaposing it with the police officer nonsense is transparent. Unfortunately also a non-sequitir. Police officer compensation packages are based on the rarity of the skills involved. Police officers possess skills that are relatively common in the population. They are paid exactly what they are worth. If someone wants to possess more money that that which is paid to a police officer, he has options in a free society.
Step 1: Choose something more lucrative.
Step 2: Acquire or develop the skills to be good at that endeavor.
Or:
Step 3: Become a police officer with an eye on becoming police commissioner.
Are you seeing how this works, this Capitalist thing?
The second proposition is ludicrous. I was born in a free country, my free country, and availed myself of its benefits. To imagine the "dropping off" of free citizens in a "disease-ridden third-world favela or slum" is supposed to illustrate exactly what?
You didn't earn being born in a free country or a wealthy country. You earned your privileged state exactly as much as those born into extreme poverty, and it is not "envy" to point out that they experience drastically more suffering for no other reason than chance. It has literally nothing to do with choice or earning or justification. However, it's nice to see you finally hoist yourself on your own petard when noting that you "availed [yourself] of [society's] benefits." That's the point. You didn't make it on your own and without that society's vast store of infrastructure, knowledge, educational support systems, etc... you would have achieved nothing (or but a fraction) of what you have. You owe all your success to society and the generations of the past. You stand upon the shoulders of hundreds of millions through nothing of your own doing but luck.
Quote:
Perhaps third world slums and favelas wouldn't exist if foreign societies that feature them would adopt Capitalism, protection of private property rights, protection of individual rights, and other rational structures of a free society like America.
Oh, yeah, capitalism has done SO WELL by the third world. We talk about modest increases in GDP, not looking at the fact that tens of millions work 80 hours per week on pain of starvation or even more extreme destitution. Not to mention skyrocketing inequality. There are also plenty of nations that embraced limited government (or no government, i.e. Somalia) and capitalism which have failed to grow or experienced great economic shocks. Look at the life expectancies and economic growth in Russia under Communism versus their wild west days of Capitalism; the freeing of the markets was a huge failure (which is, sadly, one reason they've turned to a fascistic strongman), causing unprecedented decreases in life expectancy and huge economic contractions from which the majority of the population has never recovered; only the Oligarchs are winning. If you think that third-world capitalism an improvement over even *primitive* communist societies, then again I'd ask you to place yourselves in the relative shoes of an industrial wage slave versus an ancient agrarian worker. If you'd prefer to work 72-96 hours in a closed factory (without the right to speak to others, to take breaks or read, etc...), then... well, hey, I've found a masochist.
Quote:
Your whole approach is a tribute to envy. In fact, egalitarianism is nothing more than envyism enshrined in state policy. It is resentment and dissatisfaction and a rebellion. Against what one may ask: REALITY. The reality that all men are NOT created equal. Some are born better, some make themselves better through effort and focused application of personal energy.
Amazing, but I never spoke of envy. Anymore than a victim who is mugged envies the thief. You, perversely, think that society protecting the massive and unearned store of wealth, knowledge, infrastructure, etc... from being stolen by a tiny fragment of the population is theft. Simultaneously, the bandits, bethinking themselves the prime movers, are praised as the deserving. Well, you won't get assent to such a mad idea from me.
Second, from a utilitarian perspective, it's not about envy, but about maximizing human happiness. Why should some suffer due to unearned circumstance? Given the reality of decreasing marginal utility, inequality is necessarily related to net decreases in human happiness and a concomitant increase in unnecessary human suffering. As I mentioned very bluntly, but which you did not address, if the purpose of society is to protect and expand upon unearned iniquities, then what purpose does society serve that the state of nature would not equally serve?
This is exactly why libertarianism is indistinguishable from fascism. I asked you any number of times (in a previous thread) to point out how someone "makes themselves better" without appealing to uncaused causes (i.e. the so-called self-made man) and you never answered. However, if it ultimately comes down to "being born better", then your system is indeed fascistic. Money is power. In your society, the "betters" are born deserving power by virtue of their unearned luck. This is indistinguishable from the divine right of kings or perpetual, hereditary dictatorship, or fascism.
Quote:
A healthy reaction? "I am going to make myself better also. As good as I can. Talented and/or hard working people represent a value that I want to emulate within myself by applying energy and reason."
Your just world fallacy rears its head again. Many people work very hard or act logically and fall through the cracks. Many people do everything right and through luck or circumstance (even macroeconomic circumstance) fail. As has been pointed out to you dozens (maybe more) times, a few unearned variables like parents education and parents income predicts the majority of one's future predilection to crime, to poverty, etc... That has literally nothing to do with your mystical belief in self-improvement and everything to do with realizing the "self" is ENTIRELY a product of parents, peers, society, etc... There is no internal you that would exist (in cognizable form) if you were raised by wolves apart from these influences. All your skills, all your work ethic, your beliefs, your philosophy, etc... is a product of external forces. You are not your own. Sorry.
Moreover, if some are born better, per your assertion, wouldn't your advice also be a misnomer? If some people are more talented, does that not mean a person of limited talent could never earn or receive even a tiny fragment of the value created by the majority even if they worked twice as hard?
Not only that, but you've never explained why hard work is a virtue in and of itself! You asserted that you love your job and so should others, which is one of your many multi-faceted fallacies. Jobs are not a toy or bauble, but a necessity for most. Shouldn't pursuing one's own interests and one's care for others be more important than endless self-flagellation? And, before you talk further about loving your own job, most people (in poll after poll) dislike their jobs. Many have cruel managers, and our economic system - by virtue of its massive inequalities - does not provide them leverage to change their working conditions and also makes starting one's own business an extremely negative proposition. Moreover, if most people face negative working conditions, a game of musical chairs wouldn't solve it either.
Quote:
A sick reaction? "I am going to tear down these people, because they are a threat to my self image. How can they be better than me anyway? Nobody is better than another. It must be luck. They had lucky genes or were given lucky benefits by having better parents than mine. After all, we know a "just world" is a fallacy. Our professors told us so, and they can't be wrong can they? So since it is all arbitrary, and certain people are born with "unearned benefits", lets rip them to shreds and bring them down to my level."
This is the nature of egalitarianism. Worshiping and sanctifying the base emotion of envy.
Other than the sick reaction part, you make some good points . I mean, you admit some are "born better". Well, nothing could be less earned than that. The professors are pointing out that intergenerational mobility is low. They are also using basic logic. Genetics do play a role (empirically), which nation you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), which neighborhood you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), your race (sadly) still plays a major role in most nations, your parents' educational level and socioeconomic circumstance plays an enormous role, your exposure to peers from a young age shapes you. These things are not only logical (how else would one become the person they become if not from the unchosen impacts of others upon their lives?) but empirically supported over and over and over. The just world is merely the most insane and easily-disproved of post-hoc logical fallacies.
However, this is never about tearing others down, but about lifting those in poverty up. Again, unless you postulate a disagreement with the notion of decreasing marginal utility of additional dollars, the reality is that redistribution is its own good. It's also good from a capitalist economic perspective due to the increased marginal velocity of money in the hands of the poorer and middle classes. It's also good from a psychological perspective (which is part of our brains... you know our CORE being), as indicated from numerous studies of happiness and compilations of that research (i.e. The Spirit Level, etc...). But yes, it is all arbitrary, and only egalitarianism respects all people instead of worshiping the wealthy and discarding the poor with sharp grins and self-righteous condescension.
The problem is not that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. It's that the government is intent on wasting billions of dollars on pork and pet projects. Cut the funding on these useless studies and delay funding on the ones that are NOT useless until we can afford to pay for it (which we probably could if you cut out all of the useless spending).
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.
. I mean, you admit some are "born better". Well, nothing could be less earned than that. The professors are pointing out that intergenerational mobility is low. They are also using basic logic. Genetics do play a role (empirically), which nation you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), which neighborhood you are born into plays a huge role (empirically), your race (sadly) still plays a major role in most nations, your parents' educational level and socioeconomic circumstance plays an enormous role, your exposure to peers from a young age shapes you. These things are not only logical (how else would one become the person they become if not from the unchosen impacts of others upon their lives?) but empirically supported over and over and over. The just world is merely the most insane and easily-disproved of post-hoc logical fallacies.