Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[IM2]

This sounds more like frivolous spending and remorse for such when you were young. If I had been better with every dollar I earned and didn’t spend wastefully when I was younger I would be much better off today as would my children. Don’t blame employers for not paying you enough when you were younger blame YOURSELF for not being more intelligent with your income when you were younger

Wrong. When there are employers making 2-300 times their workers, something needs to change.

 

[dblack]

Have you ever worked with people on public assistance?

I've been on public assistance. Everything about it is a trap. It's creates dependence in its victims and power for the state. That's in no way a "silly" concern.

 

[IM2]

That's a completely different discussion, and frankly I've found very few people capable of understanding it. Especially when they have a political iron in the fire. So I won't waste much time on it with you. All it really references is our innate capacity for decision making. Volition.

People generally don't understand things that don't make sense. Nobody is muddying the concept of rights.

 

[IM2]

I've been on public assistance. Everything about it is a trap. It's creates dependence in its victims and power for the state. That's in no way a "silly" concern.

BS. It is not a trap. It doesn't create dependence. What does create dependence is corporate welfare that few argue about because those who do are branded as Marxists by the CEOS who want to continue getting handouts from the government.

 

[IM2]

The opposition to equity and equality have been generally those who have beneftted from the manner in which America has been socially engineered to provide whites with the opportunities and outcomes. Their arguments tend to not make sense because they choose to ignore the way things actually have been done.

 

[WEATHER53]

Not everyone has the capital to start a business or become self-employed. However, despite people being self-employed, we still have to mine the raw materials from the mines, we need to process those raw materials, and then sell them and transport them to the factories that purchased them..etc. The factories will manufacture the products that you and I consume. All of that requires human wage labor until advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace those jobs. Those industries are the foundation of any modern, industrialized economy.

If we're buying everything from China and not mining or manufacturing anything here in the USA, then we're up the creek without a paddle, because we don't have the industrial, manufacturing infrastructure and base that we once had (We're a post-industrial nation, under the heel of Wall Street speculators and bankers). If all we have is retail and service jobs, without the industrial base to mine the raw materials and manufacture our own products, we're in trouble once advanced automation and AI, eliminate most retail and service jobs. You can be self-employed but without enough people earning wages, your one man business isn't going to survive.

Most long established businesses started with no capital
You talk like a typical child know nothing and done nothing who expects to have money already before trying to get more money.
Thinkers know that you work first and see if it succeeds. That why we are a success instead of wishers and lambasters of those who succeeded

 

[dblack]

People generally don't understand things that don't make sense. Nobody is muddying the concept of rights.

I'm not gong to walk you through it. It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Regardless of where our rights originate, the question is whether everyone should have the same rights, under the law, or whether everyone gets a different deal from the government depending on their identity.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'm not gong to walk you through. It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Regardless of where our rights originate, the question is whether everyone has the same rights, under the law, or whether everyone gets a different deal from the government depending on their identity.

It's not regardless. Access to capital and wealth plays an important role in our society.

 

[dblack]

BS. It is not a trap. It doesn't create dependence. What does create dependence is corporate welfare that few argue about because those who do are branded as Marxists by the CEOS who want to continue getting handouts from the government.

Yep. Corporate welfare is even worse. So what?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Wrong

YOU do not grasp the first thing anything whatsoever about the dynamics of labor to capitalism

This is because you ar ea marxist. Marx was the greatest fool and grifter who ever lived, His entire premise and theory has been disproven. Not debunked but DISPROVEN.

There is no PERCIEVED exploitatiuon of employers by the workers it is a very real exploitation and NO it is not different.

Surplus labor is one fo the many fictional busswords invented by marx to justify his idiotic and failed theories it does NOT exist,
So your breakdown is a complete failure from the first sentence

It is not a dichootomy nor is it false that collectivism and especially marxism ALWAYS has and ALWAY will result in poverty this is the result of slavery whcih is the heart and soul of marxism and the denial of reality

Socialism never replaces capitalism and never will it is always forced on people and then always fails and collapses resulting in a return to capitalism which works

Yoyu are completely wrong and ignorant of reality

My argument openly ACKNOWLEDGES the exploitation of people under capitalism.

What you ignore is that exploitation exists in every system to include communism and in fact it is worse because it removes voluntary choice,

Under capitalism you choose the manner of your exploitation under communism you do not.

You are posting lies

Your stupid sci fi pictures are meant to be a LAME attempt to convince peopel that communism leads to a bright future but it never does and never will

Wrong

YOU do not grasp the first thing anything whatsoever about the dynamics of labor to capitalism

This is because you ar ea marxist. Marx was the greatest fool and grifter who ever lived, His entire premise and theory has been disproven. Not debunked but DISPROVEN.

There is no PERCIEVED exploitatiuon of employers by the workers it is a very real exploitation and NO it is not different.

Surplus labor is one fo the many fictional busswords invented by marx to justify his idiotic and failed theories it does NOT exist,
So your breakdown is a complete failure from the first sentence

It is not a dichootomy nor is it false that collectivism and especially marxism ALWAYS has and ALWAY will result in poverty this is the result of slavery whcih is the heart and soul of marxism and the denial of reality

I used to be a Marxist, but not anymore. I'm a National Socialist, and the success of National Socialism in restoring a nation's economy and making it prosperous is highlighted the Germany of the 1930s. Stalin who was also a nationalist, completely contradicting Marx in his internationalism, turned Soviet Russia into an industrial juggernaut, rivaling Germany and the US. That was almost 100 years ago, so today with all of our modern technology, it's even more the case that socialism whether Marxist or not, is the most effective mode of production.

Without socialism, capitalism can't function or survive, it always goes into a deep recession requiring public funds to save it. Now due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence, socialism is even more necessary and will eventually replace market-capitalism.

Socialism never replaces capitalism and never will it is always forced on people and then always fails and collapses resulting in a return to capitalism which works

It's capitalism that always collapses and needs socialism to bail it out. Capitalism privatizes profits and makes its losses public.

​

Socialism is replacing capitalism right now. The assertion that it's always forced upon the populace or working class is false. It's forced upon the capitalist class. Most of the working class supports it, especially when the cost of living is through the roof and people are living paycheck to paycheck. Gross inequality and lack of access to healthcare, affordable education, housing..etc, ensures socialism replaces capitalism. Especially today thanks to advanced automation and artificial intelligence.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the exploitation of human labor by a class of people who own the means of production. Workers are commodified and forced out of necessity to sell their labor power (themselves) to a capitalist owner for eight, ten, or twelve-plus hours daily for a wage. Wages are the foundation of capitalism, and without it the system collapses, making socialism necessary.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Most long established businesses started with no capital
You talk like a typical child know nothing and done nothing who expects to have money already before trying to get more money.
Thinkers know that you work first and see if it succeeds. That why we are a success instead of wishers and lambasters of those who succeeded

However you get the capital to start a business, whether by saving money from your wages or building your credit to eventually get a loan, starting a successful business that will replace your full-time salary, isn't as simple as you assert. Most businesses fail, and working-class people don't have the luxury of risking their livelihoods (their jobs) in order to venture out into a risky business venture. They don't have the resources or liquidity to handle the initial overhead of the business, which often requires running it without a profit at the expense of the owner. That's why most successful business owners are already wealthy and hence able to run a business at cost for an extended period of time, until it begins to generate a profit.

Everything in this world is the result of labor. The working class under capitalism, produces everything. It doesn't need capitalists, exploiting them for a profit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

reason.com

If equality is so superior to equity, why have conservatives spent decades fighting:

The Equal Rights Amendment for women
Marriage Equality
Racial Equality in employment and housing

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It seems like you just want everyone to continue believing the fantasy that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society.

No one's saying that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society. The point is, imposing equity (and DEI) is just a continuation of the same prejudice but in a different direction.

 

[Kilroy2]

That’s because you have no idea how to compete or what winning actually is. You think winning is your participation trophy collection. Which is exactly what equity is. Participation trophy’s for everyone. No winners or losers. All results must be equal.

So that in itself makes me better. And yes I’m willing to stomp your ass into the mud to win. That’s what winners do.

Obviously you have no idea about competition. You do sound like a fan. Yet that is why they have rules in sports. To make it fair and to play by the rules. That is why after the competition, they say good game. to each other. But obviously you believe winning is everything and you can do anything to win.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What people mean isn't. You dont get to make up my meaning for me.

Can I correct you when citing others?

That's cosplay. I had a specific meaning with my words. Whether you choose to say, your value, or, the value you provide to your employer, that's a subjective choice but they can both objectively mean the same thing. Are you still confused by these two concepts? You seem confused.

The subjectivism-vs.-objectivism thing is getting old and worn out. You bring it up in almost every discussion you're involved in. What's more, you seem to think it's a complicated concept when it isn't.

 

[Curried Goats]

No one's saying that everyone always had an equal right to capital or participation in society. The point is, imposing equity (and DEI) is just a continuation of the same prejudice but in a different direction.

It's the recognition of reality over the fantasy of inalienable rights and the inherent incompatibility in the right to liberty and the right to property.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Have you ever worked with people on public assistance?

Very few want to stay on it. And if we are serious about taking peiple out of poverty, then it's time to support a living wage.

We already have living wages.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It's the recognition of reality over the fantasy of inalienable rights and the inherent incompatibility in the right to liberty and the right to property.

All you're doing is repeating yourself. Again, the point is that equity is just more of the same.

 

[Kilroy2]

Hmmmm when I go the doctor I sure as hell want the best one…….I’m not going to knock on my neighbors door and ask them for a liver transplant that would just be stupid, kinda like you

If your neighbor was a doctor then you would go to him.

Stupidity is asking your neighbor especially after you destroyed their fence.

Yeah good luck with that

Still liver transplants do require someone to provide a liver.

See how stupid you are , that is equality.

 

[Curried Goats]

Can I correct you when citing others?

What exactly where you correcting? We both said the same thing in our own subjective way. I understood what that poster meant and vice versa.

The subjectivism-vs.-objectivism thing is getting old and worn out. You bring it up in almost every discussion you're involved in. What's more, you seem to think it's a complicated concept when it isn't.

Because you clearly don't understand it.