The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Politics

Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2007, 07:35 PM   #106
orthodoc
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
I think the distinction lies in the way that system is balanced/weighted. Though it is progressive, it is not progressive enough (for myself, as a Marxist Chicken Little). I personally favour a more distributive approach to taxation.
In other words, redistribute wealth so that no one has more than Dana? I notice that communist sympathizers tend to think that their level of wealth and living is just about 'right'. Are you willing to work harder than you do now, wherever the central planners send you, at whatever job they decree for you, and live in a cardboard box? By the standards of many countries, you are 'too rich'. You could always send them all your income and live on the street, if you believe in your principles. The problem arises when you want to force everyone else to do the same.

Quote:
It's also about intent. Is the intent just to bring in enough revenue to run the country (with the allowance made for differencnes in income and therefore percentage of the burden), or is the intent to try and bring about a more equitable society?
Here's where the rubber meets the road. Progressive taxation isn't enough for you; but how do you define a 'more equitable society'? You're talking about a massive seizure of wealth and assets with a view to making unequal things equal (Aristotle didn't approve of this). The problem is that a) such a seizure of property and the product of individual labor will require violence, since no intelligent person will voluntarily give everything they have produced to people who haven't made it and can't continue to produce it; and b) the fact is that, while we're all equal in terms of being born with rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we're not all the same. The guy who started a company and developed it into a huge, profitable enterprise is not exchangeable with the guy who mops the floors. They both do important work, but put the floor-mopping guy in charge and you get what happened in the Soviet Union.

As an aside, although you insist that the Soviet Union isn't an example of Marxism in practice, Marx did view revolution as necessary to his program. Solzhenitsyn and Rand, who were far more intimately familiar with Soviet Marxism than you ever can have been, knew they were living under Marxism and that Marxism requires violence and oppression. How can you say you're a Marxist, and then claim that an essential part of Marx's program was a 'mistake'? The 'mistake' is inherent in his philosophy.



Quote:
Obviously, I realise that not everyone agrees that this would be the effect of redistributive taxation, or even that this is something that should be 'socially engineered' in that way.
Very true. Social engineering is a euphemism for central control and oppression. You can't redistribute all the wealth in a country to be 'nice' to one group of people without doing violence to another group. All the talk about democracy is a sham.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi
orthodoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 07:50 PM   #107
orthodoc
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.
Depends on your definitions. You appear to think that treating people 'better' means throwing money and assets at them that they haven't earned. This sort of 'treatment' without an expectation of commensurate responsibility only leads to people despising what they are given, and despising the givers.

A case in point: in Moosonee (on James Bay), where my husband and I practiced medicine when our oldest child was small, the government provided taxpayer-funded housing for both band status and non-status Indians. Fairly frequently the local band would complain to the government that the housing was in bad repair and needed to be replaced. It happens that my brother-in-law, who is a cabinet maker, was contracted to provide new kitchens and baths in the housing that the government built around that time. He was paid to put in very good quality cabinets - not base, cheap stuff; and he did. When he returned two weeks later to deliver a few more cabinets to one last house, he checked on the other houses to see if anything else was required. In the majority of brand-new houses there were holes in the walls, and cabinets had been ripped right off the walls. No one took care of the houses or fittings, because no one there had paid for them.

In this same community, when I made house calls, I would typically visit a house that had broken windows, holes in the walls, and dirt everywhere. But there was a big TV and satellite dish, new snow machines outside, and new trucks. The government-provided housing (exactly the same stuff as I lived in with my family) was trashed and the welfare checks had gone on the luxuries. The clinic was expected to provide the baby formula and medicines that people 'couldn't afford'.

I think that expecting integrity and responsibility from people is actually treating them 'better' than giving them endless handouts. That proved true in our practice, where we expected people to be on time (and we respected their time by also being on time - really!), and expected people to take responsibility in certain things. We developed an excellent relationship. If we had not asked anything of our practice, we would have received exactly what we had asked for.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi
orthodoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 09:53 PM   #108
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
Yes, I did answer his question. Because you dislike, misunderstand or disagree with my answer doesn't change the fact that I did clarify DanaC's phrase. I'm sorry you think the quote is trite.
It doesn't define what a "manageable portion" is, and that was his question. All you did was change "manageable portion" to "ability"... another nebulous term.
Quote:
According to his ability... how much is that? Are you seriously suggesting there is a discrete finite numeric answer to this question? It is obvious to me that there isn't such a single number. Who determines ability, me? No. Ideally, practically, *you* determine what your ability is, just as l123 has eloquently described elsewhere.
There is no way I can determine my ability, when it's a tax, imposed by the government. They tend to get pissy when we try to tell them how much they can take.
Quote:
I did not and do not pretend that I know how much you can spare without jeopardizing yadda yadda yadda... Please.
Exactly my point, and neither can anyone else, but me.
Quote:
And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.
Yes, we've seen the ponderous, inefficient, bureaucracy, that grows out of that and most other government programs.
Quote:
I know as you all do that there are many example of gaming the system for individual gain. There are far far more examples of this system working undramatically well where people give / surrender / part with / yield / pay willingly or unwillingly their taxes that don't involve lawbreaking or law bending.
Things the government does without the ponderous, inefficient, bureaucracy? Without the one-cure-fits-all-ills inflexability, that allows some to game the system while deserving others are denied?
Quote:
As to my *opinion* about your ability to pay, you know what they say. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. And in this case, I'll keep mine both to myself; I don't feel like sharing either with you.
So you are not going to answer his question.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 11:21 PM   #109
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
I answered your request for clarification of DanaC's statement. Lecture? Not really. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.
Far from it. You never gave an acceptable answer. Just some esoteric BS. I give plenty and am far from carrying around the extra baggage of guilt for the poor down trodden who care not to care for themselves.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 11:25 PM   #110
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
Actually, I'm probably using the wrong word when I say 'right', the word that's more appropriate is 'entitlement'.

If you are accessing something to which you are entitled as a citizen, that is less humiliating and damaging than if you are asking for help/charity which is not an entitlement.
Entitlements are earned. You don't get them for breathing. You get them because they are earned based on your previous contributions to a system.

You are not entitled to happiness in our system, you are entitled to the pursuit of it, not the end result.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 11:30 PM   #111
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet View Post
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. ....
I don't get that. What sane person says "yeah, $800 a month - this is the life!"

Originally Posted by TheMercenary
So if the dude ran off an bought a dime bag from somebody or a fifth of MD 20/20 wine how did you just help him? further his addiction of feed his belly? That is why such actions are quite fruitless. ...
And if bought some wholesome, organic, nutritious food, the actions would be fruitful. If you can predict the fruitful vs fruitless, maybe you could help out there...
Those who get money and or services for nothing Are quite happy to say "This is the life!".

Those who know and care for people of the street can almost without doubt promise that money given to the dude on the street can tell you that it is a bad idea to give them cash.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 11:33 PM   #112
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV View Post
And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.
Well to bad that is not how the Marxist system works. Our progressive taxation system is far from Marxist. And btw, I don't support the current system of taxation.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 11:35 PM   #113
TheMercenary
“Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo”
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Savannah, Georgia
Posts: 21,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.
Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.
__________________
Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!
TheMercenary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 04:09 AM   #114
DanaC
We have to go back, Kate!
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
Quote:
In other words, redistribute wealth so that no one has more than Dana?
That's not what I said. I am talking about a change in the balance of redistributive taxation, not instituting a communist revolution. In my own country we used to have a system of 'super tax' for the highest earners. That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.

Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.

Like I say, what I am talking about is changing the balance of that taxation system, not abandoning capitalism in favour of a workers' state.

As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong. When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.

You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.

The world changes. People write and philosophise to the world as it is to them. Some of what they write and philosophise still applies to our world, some of it is consigned to the point in time when they were writing.

Quote:
Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.
Attitudes like that underpin much of what has been termed European Socialism.
DanaC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 07:01 AM   #115
orthodoc
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC View Post
That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.

Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.
England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. The trouble is, with the top few percent of earners basically supporting the entire country (in this country, the top 25% of earners pay 85% of all taxes; the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all taxes), when you remove their will to be productive by stealing most of their income, you have nothing left to redistribute.

I suspect that the top marginal tax rate in England is probably better than 40% once hidden taxes are added in. In Canada the official top federal marginal rate is 29%. Sounds great. But with provincial taxes, health tax, and the Canadian version of the supertax, someone earning in the top ten percent pays more than 50% of income to taxes. Then there are high property taxes and a 14% sales tax on all goods and services. At that point there's a serious disincentive to continue being productive.


Quote:
As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong.
When it's a critical part of his program, can you then truly say you're a Marxist? You seem to have created your own version, which is fair enough, but when you say you're a Marxist it leads people to think of his program, not yours.

Quote:
When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.
But the owners of wealth are its producers, i.e. the ones who started the companies to produce goods that people want. The line workers in this analogy haven't the knowledge or ability to start that company and run it; if they did, they wouldn't be on the line. And not all wealth is produced in factories. Someone who writes a book or composes music or invents something that no one else can, or has done, owns that. You could take away their earnings and give them to other people to 'help' them create things, but you wouldn't achieve your object. I believe that the 'marxist' perspective only panders to envy and resentment, and is actually in serious error.



Quote:
You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.
???I didn't apply any logic to Aristotle's worldview; I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal. Instead of diverting the discussion with references to slavery and the role of women, why not address the issue that people are not all the same and therefore interchangeable, and that the mopper of floors may do an admirable job cleaning the tile but is not exchangeable with whoever started and runs the company?
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi
orthodoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 01:20 PM   #116
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by orthodoc View Post
I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal.
What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?

Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma. The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.

That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area. It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.

If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 02:30 PM   #117
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?
Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.
Quote:
Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma.
It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.
Quote:
The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.
There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.
Quote:
That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area.
You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.
Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.
Quote:
If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.
When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 03:19 PM   #118
Cicero
Looking forward to open mic night.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 5,148
Wow...people assume that since I gave some money away unasked that I was presumptuous and not helpful at all.....but presuming that he went to spend it on drugs and beer is ok?

Proving my point as I'm trying to make it? Maybe he needed money to call his momma? Who cares.

I let him keep some dignity by assuming that he was an adult that could possibly spend his money on something useful. Or not....that's the point of gifting anything...maybe it will make a difference in someones life or not. You never know. If you buy someone a steak and they choke to death on it is it your fault for buying it? Poor people shouldn't get gifted money because they are automatically suspect. That's so shitty. This is an example of the status and class warfare rearing it's ugly little head again.

When the "Monday Morning Man" story began my financial situation was contrastedly different than it is now. Now I really do hope that when I need it there will be help provided, and no judgements are made about what I'm going to buy. Because you never know do you. My little world is starting to crumble.....fuck it...maybe I will go suck some dick UT if it means getting through this recent change in all my financial affairs. Or just do the side-business that I was planning in the first place.....Wait....sucking dick is "bad" maybe I'll do that because that's what I'm about. Oh, I know you are going to be pissed: I wouldn't pay taxes on sucking dick UT. It's taxing and compassionate enough as it is I'm sure.....Maybe sucking dick is more of an honest exchange than the things I do for work every day? Not sure......could be true. Sounds true to me but maybe not. I have thought that before.

I already said that my comments were unfair and not justified. You obviously aren't going to listen to a sincere apology for that. So I'm not going to make it again. It's not just because you are a leader on this board....I don't pander. It's because it was uncalled for and I know it. I would have tried to erase it before you saw it if someone hadn't commented on it so fast- because that behavior isn't like me and there was no reason for it other than just plain acting petty.
It's really not usually like me to personally attack people. Hey- I guess there is a human bone in my body. I'm going to get over it and be more kind. (to everyone)

UT-You didn't check me by any means. I quickly tried to make up for it myself. So don't go and give yourself a pat on the back for being a jerk back. Nothing good came of that. Which is why I don't usually take up that kind of attitude. More good has probably come from sucking dick. Ooohh. Sucking dick- big whoop. Please don't alter my statements or stories just to suit your purposes whether I agree with you or not. Just a request. This is all.

On that note: I hope everyone is having a nice weekend, and I will play nice....not because people try and sit on my chest when I'm not nice. It's because I think myself, amongst others, need to enhance rather than destroy. Too much negative energy about....make a concerted effort not to create it. I catch myself doing it and it's not right.
__________________
Show me a sane man, and I will cure him for you.- Carl Jung
Cicero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 03:54 PM   #119
piercehawkeye45
Franklin Pierce
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce View Post
Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.
I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.

And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?

Quote:
It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.
I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.

Quote:
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.
This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.

And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.

Quote:
There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.

Quote:
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.
You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.

Quote:
You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.
It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker. In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.

Quote:
Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.
Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites. Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.

Quote:
When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.
Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.
piercehawkeye45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2007, 07:12 PM   #120
xoxoxoBruce
The future is unwritten
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 View Post
I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.
You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.
Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world.
Quote:
And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?
There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.
Quote:
I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.
Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.
Quote:
This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.
Been there, done that, from Shakers to hippie communes. They all failed.
Quote:
And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.
No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

Quote:
I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.
Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

Quote:
You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.
Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.
Quote:
It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker.
No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.
Quote:
In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.
And communist societies don't work.

Quote:
Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites.
What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.
Quote:
Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.
You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.
Quote:
Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.
It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.
xoxoxoBruce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:06 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.