Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What happens when a group is denied an equal opportunity to earn money?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.
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
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?
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?
No they clearly don't. They believe majority rule justifies anything, except when it goes against their agenda, of course.
How many planets the size of earth would be required to give those billions of people living in abject poverty the same standard of living as yours?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: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, 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 its 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.
"Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable
- Capitalism doesn't require infinite growth. This claim has no visible means of support. Leftists keep repeating it without offering a shred of proof.
- 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.
- 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.
- What's wrong with infinite growth?
Without food how useful is "free speech?"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".
How many planets the size of earth would be required to give those billions of people living in abject poverty the same standard of living as yours?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 its 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.
"Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
Infinite Growth Is Unsustainable
- Capitalism doesn't require infinite growth. This claim has no visible means of support. Leftists keep repeating it without offering a shred of proof.
- 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.
- 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.
- What's wrong with infinite growth?
Sooner or later, by choice or by force, humanity will need to build an economic model built of the idea of sustainability and not on infinite growth. This will require embracing an idea of collectivism and shared commons, a line of thought that's fully compatible with democracy but not with capitalism.
Tax them at the same rate FDR or Eisenhower did.
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.
Without food how useful is "free speech?"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".
No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of real slavery..
The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
georgephillip8708925 said: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: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, 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 its 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.
"Its a cycle of infinite growth that is simply unsustainable on a planet of finite resources."
No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of real slavery..
Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
History or Wage Labor:
The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of real slavery..
Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
History or Wage Labor:
Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
https://www.freetheslaves.net/sslpage.aspx?pid=348
Anti-Slavery Campaign | Coalition of Immokalee Workers
Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.Without food how useful is "free speech?"I suppose it does at that.
The right to free speech is, very fundamentally, different than the "right to food".
Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.Without food how useful is "free speech?"
Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
No. It's not. And suggesting it is, is utterly insulting to the memory of victims of real slavery..
Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
History or Wage Labor:
The similarities between chattel and wage slavery were noticed by the workers themselves, according to Noam Chomsky. The 19th century Lowell Mill Girls, who, without any reported knowledge of European marxism or anarchism, condemned the "degradation and subordination" of the newly emerging industrial system, and the "new spirit of the age: gain wealth, forgetting all but self", maintaining that "those who work in the mills should own them
Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years. Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history? Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy? It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.
Once society reaches a certain level of complexity we expect government to ensure our food is safe to consume and those providing the food are not subjecting us to artificial shortages. You're conception of human rights hasn't advanced much from the 18th century model.Without food how useful is "free speech?"
Well, I suppose it could be quite useful, if you're asking someone for a meal, or a job. But I assume you mean to point out that the necessities of life are more important than freedom. And with that I would agree. But we don't create government to acquire food for us. Or to supply us with all of our wants and needs. We create to defend our freedom.
Here is the short reply: read some history. Back in the 1800s in USA and Britain compared slavery to wage slavery quite vigorously. History sometimes makes ideology obsolete.
History or Wage Labor:
Oh, and don't think slavery is over. What we are taught can be false information. There is a thriving industry of sex slaves being trafficked heavily across the globe. Furthermore, here in the USA we still have good old fashion slavery, except many are minorities of all varieties, not just Africans!
I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years. Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history? Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy? It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.
You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:" Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.
Your theory doesn't hold water.
If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea. How do you explain the difference there? How about East and West Germany?
"For all (...of Americans'...) differences, they shared that one brave idea (...of the United States as a new world to start again...), and that idea became the point around which they gathered. After two hundred years this is still the glue that keeps the nation together. It’s a fragile construct. And the constant American need for reaffirmation of America’s greatness - their exceptionalism - affirms its fragility."
-from A Look At American Exceptionalism by Martin Sellevold, (2003). Australian Rationalist (Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Rationalist Association of Australia, Ltd.) (65): 46–48.
I always think it's a strange premise when folks extol the virtues of Capitalism by claiming it's the reason the US grew to be the largest economy in a little over 200 years. Are they forgetting it was one of the biggest 'land grabs' in history? Are they forgetting the folks that were brought here as slaves & helped to build the economy? It's denial at best, & the worst kind of propaganda at worst.
You're forgetting the other "biggest land grab in history:" Russia, and most of the population were serfs - virtual slaves, in other words.
Your theory doesn't hold water.
If you want a clearer example, just consider North Korea and South Korea. How do you explain the difference there? How about East and West Germany?
I explain the difference by pointing to how the United States of America began with an intent to be different from that which we claimed our independence:
"For all (...of Americans'...) differences, they shared that one brave idea (...of the United States as a new world to start again...), and that idea became the point around which they gathered. After two hundred years this is still the glue that keeps the nation together. Its a fragile construct. And the constant American need for reaffirmation of Americas greatness - their exceptionalism - affirms its fragility."
-from A Look At American Exceptionalism by Martin Sellevold, (2003). Australian Rationalist (Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Rationalist Association of Australia, Ltd.) (65): 4648.
& to claim that Capitalism is the sole reason for the US being the largest economy in the world is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
