Today Jesse Jackson Weeps
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
A lack of self-worth? Mixing with the wrong people? Lack of parental guidance? Poor housing? Poor employment prospects?
None of which are obsticales if you reject them.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
No doubt some do. But most don't have the money to spend on luxuries such as Crack. Some do the proper thing and go to Further Education Colleges and learn something new. However, most people who are in this deprived groupings are those where heavy industry once was, shut down for one reason or another, thus mass unemployment in the locality with minimal or no investment by other companies (or Government). And doing a "Norman Tebbit" is not always an option.
That may be the case in Britain, but in the US there were public housing projects (low-rent buildings subsidized by the federal government) that were filled with welfare recipients. I do commend those few that actually went onto college and I'm certain they'll get all that they deserve.
Red Stateler wrote:
None of which are obsticales if you reject them.
Which presumes infinite free will - that 'if' is a very, very big 'if'. Much as we like to believe otherwise, we're a product of our environment and our perception of available choices is framed by what we learn. Nearly all behaviors are learned, and many of them are extremely difficult to unlearn, and that capacity to unlearn depends on personality traits which are not at all common - introspection, desire to learn more than is necessary for day to day life, etc. In other words - complacency is very common and is a very normal human behavior. If you grow up learning that all opportunities go to OTHER people who already have a leg up, eventually it's going to be nigh impossible to convince you otherwise. And it doesn't take long to learn that; for those who experience it, it's already deeply ingrained by the time these people are still young children. I'm not saying this justifies the lack of change, but it is impossible to give it due effort if one refuses to recognize the cause and how difficult it really is to change. To bring this back to the issue at hand, I don't agree with forced integration of schools, either, nor have I ever approved of affirmative action. I was quite pleased when it was repealed in California, least until people got it all caught up in the courts, where I believe it still sits now..
-
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
You mean ... (from Rothbard) The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The world is a closed system.
No it isn't. Our energy comes from the sun. But besides that, the capitalist system does not encompass "the world". Supply has steadily increased for hundreds of years, demonstrating that you belief is false. If the world's economy were closed, then there would be exactly the same number of cars today as last year as 10 years ago as 100 years ago. The number of people would not increase. The amount of money would not increase. The amount of gold would not increase. Your crazy conspiracy theories just don't hold water once you spend 3 seconds looking at reality.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Yes and that is the fundamental error which is often the direct logical consequence of the thought you expressed earlier as I tried to explain. As soon as we don't value everyone equally we're in trouble. Remember that every one of those drugged up loosers who never learned anything and who it's very easy to call
I don't value them because of of their lack of character. Plain and simple. Their quality of life is a product of their lack of character. Again, it is a cause and effect relationship. Poor character begets a substandard lifestyle...Not the other way around. Your conspiracy theories require you to accept the reverse...That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system designed to do so while benefitting the rich. Do some research into the turnover over the wealthy (which is very high). Your conspiratorial rantings require a caste system, but the access to wealth is universal.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it.
No. It isn't because it's wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: The world is a closed system. No it isn't.
:laugh::((:laugh::((?
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it. No. It isn't because it's wrong.
For why this attitude is wrong, has been proved to be a bigger problem than what you're talking about and will trip you up at every turn see the history of racism, colourism, exclusive nationalism, sectarianism or any other form of artificial and morally unsustainable discrimination. Wealthism is no different. Sorry, usually you have a point but on this one you're just plain wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system
No it is rotten right through before any of that kicks in. Remember it's not Capitalism that is sinful it's Capitalists (and non Capitalists);)
Red Stateler wrote:
access to wealth is universal.
Tell that to the people of Darfur, or Manilla, or the favellas of Rio but with all due respect please don't expect me to accept such nonesense.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Hooked on anti-depressants? While people do not need crack or tobacco, some DO NEED anti-depressants.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
leckey wrote:
While people do not need crack or tobacco
I suspect that there are more than a few people who would disagree... :rolleyes:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
Goodness, I never thought I would agree with Red on much but on this I do. We spend millions of dollars on programs to raise up the poor. However, many do the bare minimum to get the benefits. If they don't really want to change they won't. Every poor school has a story of someone who 'rised above,' got a scholarship and went to college. If they can do it, why can't the rest of the school? If people want to better themselves they can. Just about every community has a library with internet access which is a great, free place to start on researching how to make your life better, learn about local programs, etc. While we are all equal and as valuable to G-d, technically from an economic standpoint we are not equal. In fact, for each dollar a North Dakotan pays in income taxes, they get back $1.07. So ND'ians are draining our resources. But I'd rather give them my tax dollars than to a school that does not enforce attendance and standards. Free or not, every culture has its poor, except maybe the old traditional Indian (feather, not dot) societies where everything belonged to everyone. But America is the best place to make something of yourself. If it isn't then why are we being overrun with illegal immigrants? I don't think they're coming for the Olive Garden.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
leckey wrote:
While we are all equal and as valuable to G-d, technically from an economic standpoint we are not equal.
Exactly and if we go on prioritising the $ value of people over their God given value :(
leckey wrote:
America is the best place to make something of yourself.
No argument there.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
leckey wrote:
While people do not need crack or tobacco
I suspect that there are more than a few people who would disagree... :rolleyes:
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
Well, that's addiction. And most people could 'survive' with out anti-depressants, but what would their quality of life be? I take an anti-depressant for OCD. Do you know how much of a day I spent doing OCD routines? It took away from my quality of life. Tobacco and crack do not overall enhance quality of life no matter what the addict says.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
Well, that's addiction. And most people could 'survive' with out anti-depressants, but what would their quality of life be? I take an anti-depressant for OCD. Do you know how much of a day I spent doing OCD routines? It took away from my quality of life. Tobacco and crack do not overall enhance quality of life no matter what the addict says.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
:shrug: Everyone has their own motivations... I'm not trying to judge hypotheticals. Which isn't to say i've ever met a tobacco or crack smoker who wouldn't be better off without it... but that is, ultimately, my opinion.
----
Yes, but can you blame them for doing so if that's the only legal way they can hire programmers they want at the rate they can afford?
-- Nish on sketchy hiring practices
-
Hooked on anti-depressants? While people do not need crack or tobacco, some DO NEED anti-depressants.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
Yes, some do, if and when they work but that does not stop these and many other kinds of useful drugs being addictive money spinners ridden for all they're worth in many cases by greedy big pharma and its highly motivated sales executives. Anti depresent addiction and similar is also a good example of people trying to help themselves and being trapped and damaged by the greed of others. It shows how unrealistic Red's simplistic view of the world is. The Market is not a panacea for the same reason that Socialism doesn't work, original sin.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You mean ... (from Rothbard) The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.
Yes, although I do disagree with Rothbard in some ways. I prefer to define non-aggression as a means to eliminate "the state". Rothbard takes it further - a bit too far, in my opinion. Basically Rothbard starts to define individual liberties in his definition. I'm not convinced that's necessary, although in some sense I can see how he's using the individual liberties part of the definition to establish the fact that the state need not exist. He starts into property rights and all that, but for me, that's basically another axiom in some sense. But in general, that's what I meant, yes.
-
Well, that's addiction. And most people could 'survive' with out anti-depressants, but what would their quality of life be? I take an anti-depressant for OCD. Do you know how much of a day I spent doing OCD routines? It took away from my quality of life. Tobacco and crack do not overall enhance quality of life no matter what the addict says.
______________________ stuff + cats = awesome
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
How do you get these people "out of the rut" without causing them hurt or harm ?
By not restricting them from the opportunity we all have. It's up to them whether or not they decide to get "out of the rut".
-
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Well, not moral in a truly religious sense. More like non-aggression in the sense that some state doesn't oppress or aggress towards you through something like taxation or expropriation of property.
That's the principle America was founded on...And look what happened!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: The world is a closed system. No it isn't.
:laugh::((:laugh::((?
Red Stateler wrote:
Matthew Faithfull wrote: is just as valuable as you or I or Donald Trump. Sobering thought isn't it. No. It isn't because it's wrong.
For why this attitude is wrong, has been proved to be a bigger problem than what you're talking about and will trip you up at every turn see the history of racism, colourism, exclusive nationalism, sectarianism or any other form of artificial and morally unsustainable discrimination. Wealthism is no different. Sorry, usually you have a point but on this one you're just plain wrong.
Red Stateler wrote:
That humanity's character is raped away by a capitalist system
No it is rotten right through before any of that kicks in. Remember it's not Capitalism that is sinful it's Capitalists (and non Capitalists);)
Red Stateler wrote:
access to wealth is universal.
Tell that to the people of Darfur, or Manilla, or the favellas of Rio but with all due respect please don't expect me to accept such nonesense.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Wealthism (new term...whatever it's supposed to mean) is not a class-driven society. Rather, it's an open society that allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth. You have it backwards. Wealth does not determine character like you insist. Character determines are ability to access wealth (among other things).
-
Wealthism (new term...whatever it's supposed to mean) is not a class-driven society. Rather, it's an open society that allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth. You have it backwards. Wealth does not determine character like you insist. Character determines are ability to access wealth (among other things).
Red Stateler wrote:
allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth
And those that don't have the means through no exceptional fault of their own? No system is perfect but that's because people are not perfect.
Red Stateler wrote:
Wealth does not determine character
I'm glad we agree on that.:-D Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Wealthism (new term...whatever it's supposed to mean) is not a class-driven society. Rather, it's an open society that allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth. You have it backwards. Wealth does not determine character like you insist. Character determines are ability to access wealth (among other things).
-
Red Stateler wrote:
allows anybody with the means to seek and aquire wealth
And those that don't have the means through no exceptional fault of their own? No system is perfect but that's because people are not perfect.
Red Stateler wrote:
Wealth does not determine character
I'm glad we agree on that.:-D Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Wealth does not determine character
Would Paris Hilton or Matthew Mellion agree with your observation? They are both wealthy heirs to a fortune but neither have too many brain cells between them!
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Would Paris Hilton or Matthew Mellion agree with your observation?
I concede that there are those who are wealth and lack character. Of course, Paris inherited her money. She didn't earn it.
-
Eliminate Welfare, while providing them with an oppurtunity to work for a living. Someone who works for what they have typically values it more than someone who is given everything.
Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
Red Stateler wrote:
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
In an idealised American dream maybe but Mother Theresea would not have supported your point of view, nor Brother Yun [^] who's character I admire very much. Perhaps where character does determine accessibility to wealth it is not always good character that increases that access and bad character that decreases it. Who after all are the ones who escape the ghetto fastest, not always the hard working people of good character but often the con men and those who are prepared to exploit others. There is in the end no correlation between good character and wealth and this foolish notion is very dangerous because it blinds people to the evil deeds of the rich and powerful. When a poor ghetto dwelling bum says "It wasn't me, I was framed" we laugh but when a man in a smart suit with a microphone and standing next to some well known celebrity says it we are minded to give him a hearing.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Character by the way does not 'determine' wealth either or there would be no really bad rich people. Or perhaps you believe there aren't?
I didn't say it "determines wealth". I said it determines your accessibility to it.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Perhaps where character does determine accessibility to wealth it is not always good character that increases that access and bad character that decreases it. Who after all are the ones who escape the ghetto fastest, not always the hard working people of good character but often the con men and those who are prepared to exploit others.
And you base this oonnnnnn....?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
There is in the end no correlation between good character and wealth and this foolish notion is very dangerous because it blinds people to the evil deeds of the rich and powerful. When a poor ghetto dwelling bum says "It wasn't me, I was framed" we laugh but when a man in a smart suit with a microphone and standing next to some well known celebrity says it we are minded to give him a hearing.
There are certainly immoral rich people. I'm not arguing against that. But the aquisition of wealth requires industry, not sloth. If you contribute positively towards the material progress of mankind, you are rewarded for it. If you don't, then you are not (unless you win the lottery). It's that simple.