Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.

That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich.

Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value. It's like if you buy an insurance policy. It costs money, it makes you poorer. However, you spend it to protect what you have. I support those functions.

Tax and spending destroy value and having nothing to do with protecting anything. Government creates nothing, it just spends. And that destroys value since the money it spends comes out of the economy from productive businesses.

Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.

FDR used taxation and spending to create the Tennessee Valley Authority; do you approve?

"Even by Depression standards, the Tennessee Valley was economically dismal in 1933.

"Thirty percent of the population was affected by malaria, and the average income was only $639 per year, with some families surviving on as little as $100 per year.[citation needed]

"Much of the land had been farmed too hard for too long, eroding and depleting the soil.

"Crop yields had fallen along with farm incomes.

"The best timber had been cut, with another 10% of forests being burnt each year.[citation needed]

The facts are, most burnt timber is what gives us new growth and is natures way of regenerating our forests. We have done huge damage by trying to keep forests from that regeneration. That our fire fighters try to control fires to protect homes tends to be because people stupidly built too close to common forest fire areas.

"TVA was designed to modernize the region, using experts and electricity to combat human and economic problems."

Tennessee Valley Authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

With that I totally agree. TVA helped Appalachia to move out of the dark ages and has furnished electricity of many outside of the poverty areas.

Obviously we require the government to build infrastructure for the benefit of all, but it should never be used to enhance life for a privileged few. Remember too that the infrastructure build for the benefit of all is take from the economy and paid principally by the 51% who pay the income tax to fund those projects. It may be another way to redistribute wealth, but it is a necessary expense.

Every penny spent by the government comes mostly from the top 50% of our tax payers. It is the price of function.

 

[kaz]

You said, "But unfortunately for us all, government is destroying value while companies create it." If I understand gnarly's point, it's that government, working as a protection racket for its richest citizens, is what enables companies to create value in the first place. Without government there is no capitalism.

Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value. It's like if you buy an insurance policy. It costs money, it makes you poorer. However, you spend it to protect what you have. I support those functions.

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play. Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State. You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.

 

[Doubletap]

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Atlas Shrugged

 

[dnsmith35]

Functions like the police and military protect value while not creating value do destroy value. It's like if you buy an insurance policy. It costs money, it makes you poorer. However, you spend it to protect what you have. I support those functions.

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play. Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State. You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.

One of the principle purposes of government besides protecting private property is the creation of infrastructure. No landowner will be willing to create the roads he needs to bring his production to market.

 

[gnarlylove]

Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.

Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.

So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?

So far you are.

So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.

Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.

So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.

 

[kaz]

Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.

Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.

So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?

So far you are.

So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.

Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.

So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.

Rhetoric

 

[gnarlylove]

That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich. Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.

This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?

Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me, read this bit explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty, not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.

But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...

Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich and Corporations*|*Bill Quigley

Welfare for the Rich : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

[kaz]

But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations, subsidies for corporations to do business, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...

Dude, if you could tone down the rhetoric it would be a lot easier to respond to whatever point you think you're making.

I'm rich, I live in a rich neighborhood. When our power goes out, we're the first ones back on line. The police are very polite and helpful when they are in our neighborhood. I love it. I should get that, my taxes are incredible.

 

[gnarlylove]

Government is the worst solution to any problem, therefore it should logically be used when it is the only solution to a problem.

Government is the only solution to military, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. 90% of government should be doing those functions.

So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?

So far you are.

So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.

Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.

So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.

Rhetoric

I am making falsifiable and empirical claims. We can determine whether what I'm claiming is real. Does the government really serve the interests of the rich? That is an empirical question and has an empirical answer. Numerous surveys answer this according to the affirmative.

So if the government is largely dominated by the rich, then we expect the decisions of government to be in the interests of the rich. This is also an empirical claim and can be tested and verified. And upon scrutiny we see that yes indeed the profits are overflowing among the rich. So it makes sense that policy is reflecting their interests: more profits.

So if "the government is the shadow cast by big business" then your rage against the government should be properly directed at those who operate the government. Right? And those who operate the government are by and large the rich and this is verifiable fact, not rhetoric.

 

[dnsmith35]

Exactly. It's just someone else's opinion. All the best games are commentary - idealized perceptions of reality. Monopoly is designed as a zero-sum game, it's a closed system with limited resources and no productive work. Real markets aren't limited in that way.

Today real markets produce a few players that accumulate winnings millions of times larger than billions of other players. That fact tells me we are dealing with a zero sum economy where wins are balanced by losses, producing a pie that doesn't grow and a tide
that doesn't lift all boats.

How does it tell you that? Can you connect the dots? How does someone having lots of money make someone else poorer? Are you rejecting the idea that wealth is created?

Based on real studies, only the top .01% have much income over the other 99.09% . It is a left wing mantra used to keep the left wing in power. According to A BLS Graph the inequality ranges from 6 million to 31 million, major inequality. From .1% to the next lower group of 1% the difference is approximately $5 million. The next group down or the bottom 99% is from 0 to $350K. When we look at the quintile graph it reflects the same thing.

When comparing the bottom 4 quintiles, which range between $11,200 to $178K, one can readily see the top 80% reflect nothing more or less than the relative achievement of our labor force and the major inequality of income occurs broadly between $178K and up.

If you choose to debate those assertions you should first read http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/04/24/pay-gap-rich-poor/ which discusses what the reason there is a disparity between the bottom quintile and the 3rd or 4th quintile.

As I said earlier, it is only the left wing power rant that these relative inequality of income is not at the lower pay levels, but rather between the top level and the 3d or 4th quintile.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

 

[kaz]

So government must exist. But to what extent? This is the question. You think somehow you are being tricked into accepting Marxism. No one is tricking you--the question is are you capable of rationally defending your particular idea of government?

So far you are.

So you'd do education differently. That's a fine position. But the way you talk about government is it provides absolutely zero benefits. I admit is screws up often in applying legislation and so on. But why does it screw up? The answer is the interests of those who control the government (i.e. the architects of policy, the capitalists and their lawyers) are often pitted against those of the public.

Wealth concentration causes division, pitting the interests of one class against others. This prevents the government from executing duties in an excellent manner. The government must decide who to serve and recent surveys indicate the government almost exclusively vetoes the interest of the public in favor of the rich.

So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you.

Rhetoric

I am making falsifiable and empirical claims. We can determine whether what I'm claiming is real. Does the government really serve the interests of the rich? That is an empirical question and has an empirical answer. Numerous surveys answer this according to the affirmative.

So if the government is largely dominated by the rich, then we expect the decisions of government to be in the interests of the rich. This is also an empirical claim and can be tested and verified. And upon scrutiny we see that yes indeed the profits are overflowing among the rich. So it makes sense that policy is reflecting their interests: more profits.

So if "the government is the shadow cast by big business" then your rage against the government should be properly directed at those who operate the government. Right? And those who operate the government are by and large the rich and this is verifiable fact, not rhetoric.

Fifty percent of tax filers pay zero or negative tax. The top one percent pay 40% of taxes. The top five percent pay 60% of taxes.

There are more and expanded welfare programs like prescription drug for medicare and ever increasing Food Stamp recipients. Government is subsidizing medical insurance for the poor through Obamacare. Meanwhile taxes and regulations are permeating our investments and our businesses because we are "wealthy." And we have a Marxist in the White House.

And you say we are calling the shots? You're clueless, LOL. We wouldn't call any of these shots.

 

[kaz]

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

This is pure rhetoric: So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."

 

[dnsmith35]

That is absolute BS. The government protects all our citizens not just the rich. Correct! Government is a net taker to provide our federal services and to redistribute money from the rich to the less wealthy.

Kaz-

This sounds true. But is it? Let's investigate, shall we?

Do the rich receive any sort of government aide? Well, we know the police rarely target white collar crime though we know white collar crime has exploded since the 80s. So it's at least nice to not go to jail, right? If you don't believe me,

That may be true of some police departments, but I don't believe it is true of most. BTW, I would not read that extremist left wing propaganda site alter net with your eyes. I can't believe you have the nerve to ever use that as a source with anecdotal accusations.

Kaz- explaining a man with a joint-in-pocket spends 47 days in Riker Prison while HSBC, the banking conglomerate, admitted to 800 million in drug laundering and spent no time in jail, let alone prison, because they "were not the right type of person for jail." And if you know anything about pre-crime you know it hones in on poverty,

Those who traditionally do the most crime.

Kaz- not white collar crime. We can expect a greater targeting of minorities and low income from the police in the coming years as this technology develops.

Police are trained to look at different groups based on their propensity to commit crimes, and white collar crime, which may or may not be as financially larger than other crimes, tend not to hurt any one physically. But many high financially white color crimes have drawn as much as life in prison.

Kaz-

But further, is there positive aide? I don't think we need too look far to understand how the rich are paid handsomely by the government. Tax breaks to the rich, tax breaks to corporations who just spend it on lobbying and high salaries, subsidies for corporations to do business or stay in a particular city and not move, consumer subsidies on gasoline, government promises to buy planes like Boeing, developing the internet and the fastest super computer through Cray Research and handing it over to private corporations like Microsoft, not to mention the bailouts that have happened every decade since the Reagan years (Savings and Loan bailout, Tech bailout, Banking bailout)...the list goes on. These are undoubtedly numerous kinds of public funds spent to ultimately reward the rich. Maybe, I'm amiss, or maybe you need specific examples...

Strange you would bring up how " the rich are paid handsomely by tax breaks" in recent history tax cuts were given to the rich and corporations by the JFK administration, how Corp. get tax breaks to prevent them from moving, buying US products to protect our labor force, government development of APARNET for its own use by paid contractors, bailout of essential businesses in all administrations at some point or another. Yes, you are amiss. You tend to blame every one but left wing extremists for the ills of the economy and it is bullshit.

Do I believe there are still the remnants of racism? Of course I do, but we have come a long way and will continue to advance in racial equality. I also recognize that crime among the poor is not normally a poverty driven issue. Actually the traits of criminal behavior tends to lead to the poverty syndrome. Part of the Study for my EdS in psychology was a discussion of just this subject along with, the issue of education, or the lack thereof, being another common cause of poverty. Yet criminal behavior is not a trait driven as much by economic status as it is a personality trait.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

This is pure rhetoric: So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."

We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.

 

[kaz]

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

This is pure rhetoric: So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."

We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.

Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS. Sorry man. I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area. The government favors people who want control. That includes some wealthy, some corporations. It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups. They all lobby and buy government.

The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom. Liberty. I don't want favors from government. But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap. And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie. If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me. And for the same reason, to limit government power.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

This is pure rhetoric: So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."

We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.

It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it.

That sure worked out for Jimmy Cayne and Dick Fuld.
Not sure how Jimmy and Dick benefit from record food stamp spending.
I'm sure you'll explain.

 

[gnarlylove]

Strange you would bring up how " the rich are paid handsomely by tax breaks" in recent history tax cuts were given to the rich and corporations by the JFK administration, how Corp. get tax breaks to prevent them from moving, buying US products to protect our labor force, government development of APARNET for its own use by paid contractors, bailout of essential businesses in all administrations at some point or another. Yes, you are amiss. You tend to blame every one but left wing extremists for the ills of the economy and it is bullshit.

Do I believe there are still the remnants of racism? Of course I do, but we have come a long way and will continue to advance in racial equality. I also recognize that crime among the poor is not normally a poverty driven issue. Actually the traits of criminal behavior tends to lead to the poverty syndrome. Part of the Study for my EdS in psychology was a discussion of just this subject along with, the issue of education, or the lack thereof, being another common cause of poverty. Yet criminal behavior is not a trait driven as much by economic status as it is a personality trait.

Am I a JFK supporter? I didn't know. Defining essential business comes down to who is bedfellows with the government and who isn't. That's not the most sound political, social or economic way to decide who is essential and who is not.

Why do you pigeon hole my criticism? It serves the purpose of you dismissing my point. That's a sophist tactic, nothing more. It doesn't address the factual criticism. So the fact is the poor by and large ignored compared to the overall tax breaks, subsidies etc. So going back to your point about how re-distribution works (that it takes care of the poor) is fairly one sided analysis, of the kind you are accusing me. It's clear the rich are heavily favored in government funds aka public taxation. GE had a negative effective tax rate meaning they earned money. How cool would it be to receive literal billions as a large corporation during tax day?

However, I am very open to being wrong and say it regularly. But saying I don't criticize left wing extremists is not relevant, they are extremists. Why would I criticize extremists when you and I are talking, not me and some extremist? Don't divert attention, let's just calmly stick to our discussion. I am not a left wing extremist and don't really know what it means--The context of extremism implies idiots so I don't have much to say about idiots.

Regarding your analysis of personal failure/economic realities. Just ask yourself, was it easy for you to get out of poverty? No. It took decades according to you and the apparent luxury of attending college. You probably consider yourself exceptional and should. You were one of the lucky few born into poverty who relied on others to teach you the skills you needed to do eventually make enough money. But just because you did doesn't mean an equally talented people will. We don't live in an equal opportunity society. Other low income people are born in different cities with different fortuitous events and misfortune than you. You were not solely responsible for your success but relied on teachers, parents, friends, wife, etc. to make it possible. Equally talented folks have different circumstances and thus may not have a wife, the right teachers, dead parents etc.

So to blame a person for their inability to be self-sufficient is uncritical. Numerous variables contribute to the success and well being of a person outside their control. So why are you blaming them solely? Are you praising yourself in solitude for your success? I hope not because we both know that isn't how success works.

So de facto we do not live in a meritocratic society as you've been taught. A person born with a low income obviously lacks the opportunities afforded wealthy children. So to demand the disadvantaged to achieve equal success or be damned in a world of scarcity is dubious social theorizing. Ignoring the conditions under which people exist and develop is to ignore the most significant factor in shaping the characteristics of a person and determining their aims in life.

 

[gnarlylove]

This is pure rhetoric: So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."

We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.

Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS. Sorry man. I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area. The government favors people who want control. That includes some wealthy, some corporations. It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups. They all lobby and buy government.

The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom. Liberty. I don't want favors from government. But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap. And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie. If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me. And for the same reason, to limit government power.

Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.

But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that? I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.

So should the world reflect wealth or humans?

The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).

But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.

 

[dnsmith35]

I'm beginning to think your term "rhetoric" means nothing more than "I disagree."

Naturally you disagree but why? Calling it rhetoric is tautological and thus unhelpful.

The police do indeed respond to the whites and rich fastest. Does that mean low income or minorities deserve to suffer a rape because they weren't given the same chances to attend a good school to get a good job to pay the high taxes?

That sounds like a morality based on money, not morality. But maybe human beings don't have inherent value, that a child born in the ghettos of Chicago is less valuable than a baby born to a white rich mother. I don't know how'd you'd determine than but sounds like you did. I'd be interested to hear how you came to that conclusion.

This is pure rhetoric: So upon further investigation, government is more of a secondary problem to the prime problem of unequal influence in how the government operates. The government is controlled by the wealthy so no wonder it reflects their interest in cases of conflict with the general public, including me and you."

We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.

It is the intent of government (and generally followed) to respond to all. That varies from place to place to place, but the lack of response to the least wealth tends to be in the big cities where there are more racial/cultural problems, NYC, Chicago, LA, Miami et al, than in the smaller cities. When you base your opinions on larger or inner cities, you over look the majority of America where such biases tend to not be so obvious. To claim otherwise is an expression of left wing extremism trying to knock us moderates or conservatives. It is rather amazing how left wingers use the extreme and unusual situation to describe their opinions.