Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gipper]

Love the video... echo's my life. This government stole my ambition. I have no desire whatsoever to row the boat for the moocher class.

Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.

Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.

Oh I'm not in poverty... I'm just done rowing I'll let them decide what level of income is "to" much "to" rich and keep under that amount. I've got enough stuff to last me, anything extra is just gravy. Why work twice as hard and they take 50% of the extra in the form of AMT tax, and lost deductions, and other taxes when you buy stuff. Makes no sense whatsoever. I used to pay more in taxes than I currently earn. I used to have to travel 25% and the hours were > 70 a week. Used to own two homes... Now I work at home, set my own hours. Sold one of the houses... less expenses. I mean what's the point screw it.

Yes...many Americans are done with busting their ass just to support big government programs that even a low IQ person can determine are completely ineffective, but do buy votes and privileges for the power elite.

Peggy Noonan's column this week gets to the heart of the matter....

The constant mischief of the progressive left is hurting the nation's morale. There are few areas of national life left in which they are not busy, and few in which they're not making it worse. There are always more regulations, fees and fiats, always more cultural pressure and insistence.

But to American morale. Here one refers to recent polling data. Gallup in December had 72% of those polled saying big government is a bigger threat to the future than big business and big labor—a record high. This may be connected to ObamaCare, an analyst ventured. Rasmussen this week had only 32% of those polled saying the country is headed in the right direction, with 61% saying we're on the wrong track. Both numbers fluctuate, but the right track is down two points since this time last year and the wrong track up three. Gallup also had only 39% of respondents saying they saw America in a positive position, with less than half thinking it will be better in five years.

We are suffering in great part from the politicization of everything and the spread of government not in a useful way but a destructive one. Everyone wants to help the poor, the old and the sick; the safety net exists because we want it. But voters and taxpayers feel bullied, burdened and jerked around, which again is not new but feels more intense every day. Common sense and native wit tell them America is losing the most vital part of itself in the continuing shift of power from private to public. Rules, regulations, many of them stupid, from all the agencies—local, state, federal—on the building of a house, or the starting of a business. You can only employ so many before the new insurance rules kick in so don't employ too many, don't take a chance! Which means: Don't grow. It takes the utmost commitment to start a school or improve an existing one because you'll come up against the unions, which own the politicians.
Peggy Noonan: America and the Aggressive Left - WSJ.com

Big unlimited government not only sucks for all but those at the top, it is extremely dangerous.

I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.

 

[georgephillip]

No, JC laws were reactionary social engineering. They represented real injustice. They were abolished via legal remedies (Constitutionally protected equal rights), not "social justice".

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."

Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country

"The United Nations’ 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39]

"The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.”[40]

"The report concludes, 'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.

Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.

Thanks (I think)
Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

 

[dblack]

"The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation laws enacted between 1876 and 1965 in the United States at the state and local level. They mandated de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern states of the former Confederacy, with, starting in 1890, a 'separate but equal' status for African Americans."

Laws that support segregation are Social justice issues.
In the US during the 60s millions of Americans protested against the unfair treatment of Blacks in the South, and it was their commitment to Social justice that forced the federal government's intervention to roll back the unequal distribution of justice and resources in that part of the country

"The United Nations’ 2006 document Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations, states that 'Social justice may be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth...'[39]

"The same document reports, 'From the comprehensive global perspective shaped by the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, neglect of the pursuit of social justice in all its dimensions translates into de facto acceptance of a future marred by violence, repression and chaos.”[40]

"The report concludes, 'Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies."

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.

Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.

Thanks (I think)
Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.

 

[gnarlylove]

No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of real slavery.

I see, in everything you've been posting, an undercurrent of an insatiable desire to control people, to dictate their circumstances and rule them "for their own good". I can't subscribe to that kind of ideology.

By identifying the institutional demands on millions of Americans, you call this a insult to slaves or their decedents. It's clear you have little interest in what's happening in our times then. You take an ideologues stance, not a humanitarian one, and then have the audacity to say I want to control people. You continually neglect my signature that I stand for wholeheartedly which states the only type of freedom worth mentioning is genuine freedom for all. And here I thought your comments demonstrated concern in the last post. You care insofar as it fits your ideology. So you say if people are treated this way we, then should do something. Then you backtrack saying there is no lack of choice because you can make the choice. That is a shoddy inductive argument and commits the hasty generalization fallacy. When it comes to genuinely being concerned and offering real defense against wage labor that takes away freedom for many, you completely ignore it and throw in a red herring, accusing me of the same desires of our institutions and elites. Incredible. Wage labor is the next step up from chattel slavery. There is much more to do and human history does not cease with most of humanity toiling in wage labor for elite surplus.

When millions of Americans, blacks whites and minorities have no option but to work for food under corporate policy (e.g. Walmart, McDonalds etc.) you keep repeating how YOU can make the choice so everyone must be able to. You have your white blinders on if you think something so egocentric as that poor inductive argument.

A near majority of the black population still suffers from a form of institutional dominance, whether prison or wage labor--most in prison are there for nonviolent crimes.

Do you think that slavery--identified as the most essential institution to man in history--is just going to completely vanish with the stroke of the pen? Are you so penchant to think choice was lacking one day and then suddenly choice began available for all? The first 100 years of America promised freedom for all. This was totally ignored by President and Congress despite the obvious lying that must take place to claim freedom for all. Moreover, neither appeared eager to enforce it. Then the people resisted first and Lincoln caught on to this movement. He helped regulate chattel slavery but then came along wage slavery: it is a injustice to the history to think slavery was immediately abolished or does not exist today. It is still real even today!

All human actions come in tides and then after having a small victory against seemingly unmovable institutions, then it settles before a new wave challenges other forms of domination. The fact is you are an ideolgue concerned for ideas, not people--don't get me wrong I was one too back in the day. You can say whatever you want on the internet but what you do is what matters and what you do is maintain ideals of genuine freedom for all at the expense of actual freedom of millions. I cannot stand by and watch my community suffer (due to wage slavery) while people are so ideological they ignore the realities before them. It's pretty insular to say I'm fighting for greater control when all I have said is people should be permitted the choice to live in wage labor or not without the real threat of circumstances that abject poverty presents.

You undermine all trust in your pursuit for justice. When you say everyone has a choice you can only say such indefensible shit through an ideological lens that says the means of wage labor/slavery justifies the ends of the elite class having abundance and here's the kicker: the only real importance is for YOU to have freedom and since you think you do the question is obsolete. Well, it doesn't work this way. All people should be free and addressing wage labor is a good start. But it's ok in your world to think I want to control people. What is that if it isn't a total distraction?

 

[gnarlylove]

I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.

There's a saying from Antonio Gramsci that goes "we should have pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will."

 

[gnarlylove]

Enough with the quotes and links already. I'm interested in what you think. That's meant as a compliment.

Anyway, abolishing those laws had nothing to do with "fair distribution off the fruits of economic growth." It was a matter of equal rights under the law.

Thanks (I think)
Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.

The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion. Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.

 

[kaz]

I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.

Man, that's for sure.

Love your username, I was so optimistic when Reagan was President. The left is just shameless, appealing to greed, wealth envy, bigotry and fear. And it works by larger and larger margins. It shows how truly manipulatable people are by the great evil empires of history and how little people have changed. Even in the greatest, richest, freest country in the history of man, you appeal to their base selfish desires and it works.

Capitalism is just a term for economic freedom. And yet that's somehow bad.

 

[kaz]

Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned. Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks (I think)
Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.

The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion. Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.

There are no economic rights. The concept is absurd. Rights are something you are born with. You certainly aren't born with a right to food, education or medical care.

 

[bripat9643]

I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.

There's a saying from Antonio Gramsci that goes "we should have pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will."

That's the usual leftist swill, which is utterly meaningless. Yet, it passes for profundity among the left.

 

[georgephillip]

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.

.

Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:

"Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.

"For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.

"Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.

"This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but it’s not good when you look at the long term picture.

"The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.

"The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.

"But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.

"This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.

"It’s a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."

Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable

 

[RKMBrown]

Nor should you RKM. Sadly, half of the parasite class is going to be furious that you won't provide for them anymore. The other will celebrate the fact that government tore you down until you were in poverty like them.

Either way, the left is completely despicable and a cancer that is destroying this nation.

Oh I'm not in poverty... I'm just done rowing I'll let them decide what level of income is "to" much "to" rich and keep under that amount. I've got enough stuff to last me, anything extra is just gravy. Why work twice as hard and they take 50% of the extra in the form of AMT tax, and lost deductions, and other taxes when you buy stuff. Makes no sense whatsoever. I used to pay more in taxes than I currently earn. I used to have to travel 25% and the hours were > 70 a week. Used to own two homes... Now I work at home, set my own hours. Sold one of the houses... less expenses. I mean what's the point screw it.

Yes...many Americans are done with busting their ass just to support big government programs that even a low IQ person can determine are completely ineffective, but do buy votes and privileges for the power elite.

Peggy Noonan's column this week gets to the heart of the matter....

The constant mischief of the progressive left is hurting the nation's morale. There are few areas of national life left in which they are not busy, and few in which they're not making it worse. There are always more regulations, fees and fiats, always more cultural pressure and insistence.

But to American morale. Here one refers to recent polling data. Gallup in December had 72% of those polled saying big government is a bigger threat to the future than big business and big labor—a record high. This may be connected to ObamaCare, an analyst ventured. Rasmussen this week had only 32% of those polled saying the country is headed in the right direction, with 61% saying we're on the wrong track. Both numbers fluctuate, but the right track is down two points since this time last year and the wrong track up three. Gallup also had only 39% of respondents saying they saw America in a positive position, with less than half thinking it will be better in five years.

We are suffering in great part from the politicization of everything and the spread of government not in a useful way but a destructive one. Everyone wants to help the poor, the old and the sick; the safety net exists because we want it. But voters and taxpayers feel bullied, burdened and jerked around, which again is not new but feels more intense every day. Common sense and native wit tell them America is losing the most vital part of itself in the continuing shift of power from private to public. Rules, regulations, many of them stupid, from all the agencies—local, state, federal—on the building of a house, or the starting of a business. You can only employ so many before the new insurance rules kick in so don't employ too many, don't take a chance! Which means: Don't grow. It takes the utmost commitment to start a school or improve an existing one because you'll come up against the unions, which own the politicians.
Peggy Noonan: America and the Aggressive Left - WSJ.com

Big unlimited government not only sucks for all but those at the top, it is extremely dangerous.

I am an optimist in my own life, but a terrible pessimist when it comes to the future of my country.

The less money I earn the more optimistic I become. I'm becoming more and more self-reliant. More and more disconnected from the libtardian society.. moving more and more to a system of bartering and off grid living where I, quite frankly, don't need to participate in the exchange of US dollars.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.

.

Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:

"Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.

"For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.

"Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.

"This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but it’s not good when you look at the long term picture.

"The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.

"The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.

"But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.

"This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.

"It’s a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."

Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable

ROFL strawman BS

 

[dblack]

Thanks (I think)
Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.

The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion.

I suppose it does at that.

Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.

The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".

 

[georgephillip]

Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned. Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.

What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?

"Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Growth is the result of more factors than Capitalism.
If the idea is to stifle growth in attempts to balance inequality ... Then that is a foolish endeavor by all measures.
People are upset because "greed" has replaced the term "prosperity" ... And greed is not a necessity of success.

.

Capitalism as we've always known it doesn't just require growth, it requires infinite growth on a finite planet which would seem to qualify as greed:

"Capitalism, at least as we know it, requires infinite growth.

"For-profit companies have to continue to grow in size and increase their profits year after year or risk losing investment money.

"Many people have gotten very wealthy with this economic model and the rest of us, at least in industrialized countries, have benefited greatly as well. We have many modern conveniences and most of us are quite disconnected from the natural world in a way that would have been unimaginable to people only a few centuries ago.

"This is certainly good from the standpoint of making our lives easier but it’s not good when you look at the long term picture.

"The problem in the long term is that an economic model of infinite growth requires the use of natural resources at increasing rates.

"The most obvious of these natural resources is petroleum or oil.

"But many other resources like water and coal are being used at increasing rates to sustain growth in population.

"This growth in population is fueled by the continued increase in use of natural resources.

"It’s a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."

Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable

1. Capitalism doesn't require infinite growth. This claim has no visible means of support. Leftists keep repeating it without offering a shred of proof.
   
2. Advances in technology means new materials replace old and old ones are used much more efficiently. It used to be we had telephone cables strung all over the world to send phone calls. this required millions of tons of copper. Now telephone calls are transmitted over fiber optic cables, which are made from one of the most common substances on earth: silicon. Infinite economic growth does not require infinite consumption of natural resources.
   
3. Growth occurs under capitalism because there are billions of people on earth living in abject poverty. halting growth means condemning these people to an eternity of squalor and material deprivation.
   
4. What's wrong with infinite growth?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't think we can. In fact, I think that's exactly where we're disagreeing. Being 'underprivileged', or otherwise lacking the power and resources to exercise one's rights, is a separate issue from whether those rights are protected. That's what I was focusing on with the distinction between equal rights and equal empowerment. You seem to be taking the position that unequal empowerment is the equivalent of unequal rights. In my view, the job of government is to ensure equal rights, but not equal empowerment.

The talk of "rights" undermines our discussion.

I suppose it does at that.

Socialists have advocated that economic rights are essential as civil rights. Indeed, how can one be free and to flourish as humans are designed without having adequate sustenance? By thinking the rights of freedom of speech is different from the right to food, we are engaging in 18th century language. That language worked then when chattel slavery was abundant. It's time to update our notion of what humans need in order to contribute to society, and more importantly, what it means to be human.

The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".

That's because the latter is a fiction.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps we can agree that the unfair distribution of the fruits of production translates into separate and unequal rights under the law?

No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned. Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.

What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?

"Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jim Crow laws are a clear violation of individual rights, so that's hardly a good example.

 

[kaz]

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

I don't really care about other countries.

Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.

Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!

They also have homes, automobiles, color televisions and a huge (pun intended) obesity problem. Did you know if you make median income in this country, you're an evil one percenter of the world's population?

If you're at the poverty level in this country, you're easily in the top 10% of the world. Liberals are soft and lazy. You worry about trivialities like making sure town squares don't have manger scenes and making sure that government validates gay marriage as if they are critical issues and you have no idea of the world around you.

 

[kaz]

No, because money isn't "distributed" it's earned. Distributed is one of your code words for justifying government confiscation and "re" distribution of money.

What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?
The quote of mine you snipped was in reference to Jim Crow laws in the US which legally deprived Blacks of equal access to education, for example.
Education has a big impact on the amount of money individuals earn
Do you believe conservative bigots in the southern US would have democratized educational opportunity without the federal government's confiscation of States' Rights?

"Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jim Crow laws are a clear violation of individual rights, so that's hardly a good example.

Leftists don't grasp the difference between the right to make our choices and our right to not have other people make our choices for us, do they?