Free or Equal?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 4:09 pm

K.Snyder;869116 wrote: Yes...

But not limited by...

Should be mandated...

Certainly, I see it as essential to the society that it act so.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 18, 2008 5:24 pm

Bryn Mawr;869112 wrote: So far oversimplified as to be meaningless. You have to differentiate between society and the individual. Should society have the right to spend money gathered equally for all of it citizens for the good of society as a whole?
Sure! Unfortunately they don't gather money equally. They can't because some citizens don't have any.

(Sorry about leaping ahead to this one, but the answer came quickly & I'm short on time. See ya later.) :-6

watermark · Post by **watermark** » Sun May 18, 2008 6:58 pm

Bryn Mawr;869111 wrote: The debate's been going on since the first Shaman and the first clan chief decided they'd set the rules and everyone else had better make their breakfast pronto!

People are not equal, not everyone can be a brain surgeon just as not everyone can be a stevedore or a mineworker. It is part of society's job to decide what value to place on each job - is the strategist who dictates the company's direction more valuable than the worker who produces the goods? There are two directions a society can go - "to each according to his contribution" or "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". An effective and efficient society should probably combine the two but the real question is how?

And given that the real question is how and given that we are where we are the even realer question is how do we get to there form here?

In that sense people aren't equal, I agree. However, it's the individuals who make up society and each individual places a value on what work is or holds for them in particular, for their families, for their larger place on earth. It seems to me that when value is placed on livelihood that at some point at least in the US materialism was attached to it. Also does anyone feel that working as a butcher in a meat packing plant would not rather be growing their own herefords on a ranch somewhere, or that a plasterer would not rather work for herself or be a sculptor? Obviously some jobs noone would want if they had a choice, but in order to even see possibilities then a person, family needs to experience something to get them to the place where they have more leverage to even make that decision. Maybe it's a matter that no matter what job a person is in that one needs to feel there is a way to move up. Gawd I'd hate to feel I were in a dead end job with nothing in sight for bettering my position or working my way to a place that I actaully enjoyed being in.

I'm a firm believer in notion that people make choices and must live with the consequences. But first they need to be able to make a choice.

Also there are people I've known throughout my life who choose to have little money in order to live the way they want to. Most are or have been single and have chosen a creative field to be in and make due with what they have. The poor artist comes to mind.

Lots more people have felt happy living within their means as long as they have had enough food to feed their families and time to spend doing what they wanted to do. Then again some of these guys don't or haven't felt the need to push their offspring into gaining more education.

Ah I don't know. It's all confusing and messy when I start to talk about it. Too many variables!!

Erin

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 10:56 pm

Accountable;869137 wrote: Sure! Unfortunately they don't gather money equally. They can't because some citizens don't have any.

(Sorry about leaping ahead to this one, but the answer came quickly & I'm short on time. See ya later.) :-6

Again, you are back to looking at your specific society rather than thinking what society could be as per your OP and you are seeing money as the only value a citizen can provide to society.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 18, 2008 11:10 pm

watermark;869152 wrote: In that sense people aren't equal, I agree. However, it's the individuals who make up society and each individual places a value on what work is or holds for them in particular, for their families, for their larger place on earth. It seems to me that when value is placed on livelihood that at some point at least in the US materialism was attached to it. Also does anyone feel that working as a butcher in a meat packing plant would not rather be growing their own herefords on a ranch somewhere, or that a plasterer would not rather work for herself or be a sculptor? Obviously some jobs noone would want if they had a choice, but in order to even see possibilities then a person, family needs to experience something to get them to the place where they have more leverage to even make that decision. Maybe it's a matter that no matter what job a person is in that one needs to feel there is a way to move up. Gawd I'd hate to feel I were in a dead end job with nothing in sight for bettering my position or working my way to a place that I actaully enjoyed being in.

I'm a firm believer in notion that people make choices and must live with the consequences. But first they need to be able to make a choice.

Also there are people I've known throughout my life who choose to have little money in order to live the way they want to. Most are or have been single and have chosen a creative field to be in and make due with what they have. The poor artist comes to mind.

Lots more people have felt happy living within their means as long as they have had enough food to feed their families and time to spend doing what they wanted to do. Then again some of these guys don't or haven't felt the need to push their offspring into gaining more education.

Ah I don't know. It's all confusing and messy when I start to talk about it. Too many variables!!

Erin

I think that we're pretty much in agreement with all of this :-6

What would you see as the shape of a society in which the people had the freedom to make their life choices and the responsibility to live with the consequences but at the same time gave each citizen an equal starting point from which to do so?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 19, 2008 2:59 am

Bryn Mawr;869185 wrote: Again, you are back to looking at your specific society rather than thinking what society could be as per your OP and you are seeing money as the only value a citizen can provide to society.
Money is the only value a society can take by force from a citizen.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:12 am

Bryn Mawr;869101 wrote: I think the difficulty we're getting into is a difference in the definition of equality. You appear to be equating that to equal wealth? I certainly spread it far wider than that - if someone values their free time over materiel possessions then by all means cut down on the hours you work - just don't whinge that you cannot afford x, y or z.Governments don't tax citizens' free time; that's called slavery. But I love that next sentence of yours. Let's place, say, healthcare as one of your variables. If someone values their free time over material possessions then by all means cut down on the hours you work - just don't whinge that you can't afford healthcare. I agree with that 100%.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Society needs to ensure that a person's potential is not determined by where they are born or to whom. What you do with that potential should be up to you, not whether you're born in an area with sh!t schools where gangs rule because the police won't go in or whether you're born to old money and daddy's connections will get you a job tomorrow.Society does all it can to do that, and should. Are there areas like that where you live, or are you using hollywod stereotypes about the US? The primary determiner of a child's success is his parents. I'm not willing to take kids away from them just so they'll be on equal footing. The parents decide where they'll live. Nothing a gov't can force to change that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:15 am

Bryn Mawr;869103 wrote: Only in your current society - in an ideal society you can set the rules to be whatever you see as fairest as long as you can show that those rules would be sustainable.
No you can't because you have to strike a balance between allowing full & unfettered freedom and imposing absolute equality - between complete fairness the justice of natural consequences.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:25 am

Bryn Mawr;869105 wrote: I do not see my statements as contradictory.

What do you see as equality? If someone chooses to live for work rather than for family so be it. If they choose to work only as much as required to support their chosen lifestyle then so be it. Are those two people unequal? If they live by their choice then no.

Obviously people must be held responsible for the consequences of their choices - where have I suggested otherwise?
With universal healthcare.

I agree with you completely here, but I'm not sure you do. People make the choice not to save for a rainy day, then when an emergency happens they expect to be bailed out by those that have. (wasn't there a story about an ant and a grasshopper?) So rather than stressing the importance of planning ahead, budgeting, self-reliance, or living within one's means, the gov't decides to take the easy way and tax those who have done so, so these others don't have to.

The result is that those with equal opportunity and freedom of choice have unequal consequences. When planning for your future, don't forget to calculate in taking care of those that don't, because you will be held responsible for their poor decisions.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:29 am

Bryn Mawr;869107 wrote: Where have I said that?

I demand my freedom!

(That includes the freedom to act against my own self interest or my own safety).

I also put the onus on society to provide an equal starting point for all of its citizens.
Have I misread you? Are you against universal healthcare?

I keep harping on this because it's the most glaring example of eqality at the cost of freedom I can think of other than education, which is for children and an investment in our collective future and thus in a completely different category.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:43 am

posted bt accountable

No, I'm not, and I could say that you're arguing for communism by saying that no man owns anything but is onlly allowed to keep it so long as the state, I'm sorry, the people, don't want it.

You could but you'd be hopelessly wrong. If I was an advocate of communism I would say so since there is no reason why I would feel the need to hide the fact I was one.

You keep bringing this back to property. I was talking about who gets to vote. You are seriously suggesting that wealthy people get more votes than everybody else.

The argument put forward against universal suffrage is that only those who have property should have any right to vote at all. (In 1776 they meant property in the form of land. ) Feudalism by another name except rather than war lords it's those who have acquired wealth by commerce.

Do you seriously believe that someone like paris hilton is a better qualified person to be allowed to vote than the bloke that services your car, ir indeed your good self?

posted by acountable

Same reason pets aren't allowed to vote: companies aren't citizens.

They do have a legal existence-they can sue you for instance just as you can sue them. They pay substantial taxes and own substantial property. Their executives have shown considerable ability in getting to their positions especially in the banking industry :sneaky:who effectively run the economy anyway. So why not recognise that fact and give them real voting power? Think how much money they would save not having to lobby politicians-more profit, better for them and better for you since you benefit from their endeavours.

posted by accountable

It's not trust, ya Scottish galoot. It's freedom of choice without freedom from consequence. Why should I have a right to spend more of your money than I spend of my own?

Better qualified? No. Nor does any person have more of a right to earnings than the earner. Tell me why they should

Fits in with your attitude does it not? Why should companies be taxed and have no say in how it is spent? What wealth have the great unwashed ever made for the nation.?

posted by accountable

Sure it does. The bin men just got a big raise when they went on strike, didn't they? Well, they would've here, unless someone else was willing to do the job without the raise. I suppose your gov't would have them all arrested for not realizing how much they were already valued.

No of course not. They have a right to strike despite attempts by various right wing politicians to curtail what is seen by many as a basic right when all else fails. We even have laws preventing any employer sacking workers wholesale.

posted by accountable

By your own definition, you're not liberal. I'm more liberal than you are.

Clearly not since the idea of moderate reform seems to freak you out and you don't believe individuals should all have the same rights when it comes to government as the wealthy.

So you, had you been a soldier in the revolutionary army, would have agreed it was only right and proper you be barred from voting or having any say in government? You surprise me you really do.

Equality in society isn't just about everybody having the same amount of money.

In simplistic terms it's having a sense of your own worth and the worth of others that isn't measured in money terms and in a political context making sure everybody regardless of class gets the same opportunities and access to the benefits of society. Depending on your politics that might involve redistributing wealth to benefit the whole society. It's not about making everybody equally poor.

It also means you have to view everyone else as being of worth as well, not feckless rubbish to be left to drown in their own inadequacies

We have cities similar to detroit where big industry has gone in to decline and there is mass unemployment etc etc. Any politician that didn't take on board the idea that govt should help re-generate the area wouldn't get elected.

This idea you seem to have that anyone who is poor must necessarily be so from choice and is therefore worthless is a peculiarly american one. The necessity for dependence on charity is something no society should allow-especially very rich ones. It's degrading for those receiving it, better to address the reasons for he necessity.

Maybe it's a cultural difference. We view one of the functions of government is to make things better for the people that elected it. I can't find the link just now but I think it was in 1948 one of your senate committees decreed that anyone that advocated a function of government should be to make things better for people was a communist. I read a reference to it somewhere but haven't been able to cross check it's accuracy. But many americans seem incapable of discussing the concept of govt action without assuming it means taking away individualism whereas we see it as a means of enabling it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:17 am

Accountable;869248 wrote: Money is the only value a society can take by force from a citizen.

What a very strange idea - there are plenty of instances where society takes goods, time, work or even life from a citizen by force. Each of those are valuable both to the citizen and to the society and can equally well be used as a medium of exchange.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:03 pm

Accountable;869255 wrote: Governments don't tax citizens' free time; that's called slavery.

Or it's called conscription or it's called community service. Again, you're restricting yourself to current society - your original question was "A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?", not "Our current society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?". It is perfectly possible for a society to be based on payment in labour - feudalism was a primitive attempt at just such a society.

Accountable;869255 wrote: But I love that next sentence of yours. Let's place, say, healthcare as one of your variables. If someone values their free time over material possessions then by all means cut down on the hours you work - just don't whinge that you can't afford healthcare. I agree with that 100%.

You really do have a thing about healthcare don't you :-6

If, as in current American society, healthcare is a commercial commodity to be bought on the open market then I agree, don't whinge. I certainly do not agree that that model is the only one available or even that is is a desirable model to base your society on. If the society in question has, like the UK, chosen to provide healthcare to its citizens, then the question does not arise.

Accountable;869255 wrote: Society does all it can to do that, and should. Are there areas like that where you live, or are you using hollywod stereotypes about the US?

Like 'eck it does! Current western societies do nothing to ensure equality amongst their citizens - indeed, most are set up to ensure that those on top stay on top (with a few exceptions to bubble in fresh talent and to drop the dross - they've learnt something from the recent past).

Yes, there are parts of the UK that are treated as sinks for the great unwashed. Where no facilities are provided for the young who concequently "play on the street", where the rule of law is slackened and gang culture allowed to gain ground (not too much to spill over into "decent" areas but enough to trap the little bastards), where little money is made available for education and nothing is done to curb truency (after a while inner city schools get such a reputation that few of the good teachers will go there) - it happens and it certainly is not society trying to make life equal for its citizens.

Accountable;869255 wrote: The primary determiner of a child's success is his parents. I'm not willing to take kids away from them just so they'll be on equal footing. The parents decide where they'll live. Nothing a gov't can force to change that.

The suggestion that we take all children and raise them in a community creche was not a serious one

Whilst you have a cycle of deprivation within a society the haves will prosper and the have nots will fail (with a few exceptions to leven the mix). Many parents don't decide where they live, they live where they can to survive - far from the government forcing the parents to change they are punishing the children.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:18 pm

Accountable;869256 wrote: No you can't because you have to strike a balance between allowing full & unfettered freedom and imposing absolute equality - between complete fairness the justice of natural consequences.

So no society can possibly have rules other than those we currently live under? I do not understand you.

If you can vary the rules under which a society operates then you are free to chose those rules which provide the best mix of freedom and equality. Unfettered freedom is not freedom at all - if everyone is free to do exactly as they please the result is anarchy. Absolute equality is not equality, it's a society of cloned slaves with no individuality.

A free society is one where the citizens are prevented from harming their fellows but outside of that are free to chose their actions - then have to live with the consequences.

An equal society is one where the citizens have an equal opportunity to reach their potential. It certainly does not mean a society in which each of the population has the same amount of money and the same number of possessions and the same amount of power - what is seen as essential by one is trivia to another and each must be free to pursue happiness in their own way.

These two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:26 pm

Accountable;869257 wrote: With universal healthcare.

I agree with you completely here, but I'm not sure you do. People make the choice not to save for a rainy day, then when an emergency happens they expect to be bailed out by those that have. (wasn't there a story about an ant and a grasshopper?) So rather than stressing the importance of planning ahead, budgeting, self-reliance, or living within one's means, the gov't decides to take the easy way and tax those who have done so, so these others don't have to.

The result is that those with equal opportunity and freedom of choice have unequal consequences. When planning for your future, don't forget to calculate in taking care of those that don't, because you will be held responsible for their poor decisions.

We have yet to decide whether our ideal society will allow healthcare to be a commercial commodity or not - and where did I suggest that you would be held responsible for the poor decisions of others? My society has yet to vote on the level of, and method of payment for, social support.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 19, 2008 12:33 pm

Accountable;869260 wrote: Have I misread you? Are you against universal healthcare?

I keep harping on this because it's the most glaring example of eqality at the cost of freedom I can think of other than education, which is for children and an investment in our collective future and thus in a completely different category.

As halthcare is for all, including our workforce, and therefore an investment in our collective present and in the same category.

In what way is the provision of universal healthcare an attack on freedom? A society is free to chose, collectively, to provide healthcare to its citizens. It is also free to chose how the cost of that healthcare is allocated. Only that society can decide whether that allocation is "fair" and whether the recipients of that healthcare are "deserving". If the society decides that these measures are no longer in balance then society is free, collectively, to change the rules.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 20, 2008 3:52 am

gmc;869266 wrote: You keep bringing this back to property. I was talking about who gets to vote. You are seriously suggesting that wealthy people get more votes than everybody else. Your disdain/hatred/fear of financially successful people is noted.

gmc wrote: The argument put forward against universal suffrage is that only those who have property should have any right to vote at all. (In 1776 they meant property in the form of land. ) Feudalism by another name except rather than war lords it's those who have acquired wealth by commerce.

Do you seriously believe that someone like paris hilton is a better qualified person to be allowed to vote than the bloke that services your car, ir indeed your good self?It's not a matter of being more or less qualified. As I posted earlier, In matters in which the burden will fall disproportionately, those disproportionately burdened should be disproportionately heard. I know your filters have flown up by now & you won't see this but I'll type it anyway. This is only in matters where one part of the population will be expected to take on a disproportionate share of the burden, not in every situation. That would ensure equality without sacrificing freedom. Allowing for the margin of error because I'm citing my fallible memory, 10% of our population pay 80% of the taxes.

I'm at a loss why you think that someone should be less deserving to keep the fruits of their labor simply because they have more than the average guy.

gmc wrote: Clearly not since the idea of moderate reform seems to freak you out and you don't believe individuals should all have the same rights when it comes to government as the wealthy.Wealth seems to freak you out and you don't believe individuals should all have the same rights when it comes to deciding how to use the fruits of their labor.

gmc wrote: So you, had you been a soldier in the revolutionary army, would have agreed it was only right and proper you be barred from voting or having any say in government? You surprise me you really do.Yeh I know, I don't fit your convenient cubby hole so you keep bringing back questions I've already answered. Your mind is closed so I don't see the point of proceeding, other than publishing differing ideas for lurkers.

gmc wrote: Equality in society isn't just about everybody having the same amount of money.

In simplistic terms it's having a sense of your own worth and the worth of others that isn't measured in money terms and in a political context making sure everybody regardless of class gets the same opportunities and access to the benefits of society. Depending on your politics that might involve redistributing wealth to benefit the whole society. It's not about making everybody equally poor.

It also means you have to view everyone else as being of worth as well, not feckless rubbish to be left to drown in their own inadequacies Where do you get such hatred of the financially successful? Is it because it's so difficult to rise above your ancestral "station" that those who do so must by default be criminals?

My country applauds success. We cheer on the underdog and feel collective pride in those who refuse to be limited by their circumstances.

I fear we are looking at you over there and see that it's okay to accept mediocrity, that it's better and far easier just to do what you're told and let the gov't take care of things. You've given up your freedom and don't even see it.

gmc wrote: This idea you seem to have that anyone who is poor must necessarily be so from choice and is therefore worthless is a peculiarly american one.and complete fiction.gmc wrote: The necessity for dependence on charity is something no society should allow-especially very rich ones. It's degrading for those receiving it, better to address the reasons for he necessity.Charity from gov't is still charity. Even worse, it's charity for the poor (and middle class in your case) using money not freely given but taken by mandate. Welfare is likewise degrading. Welfare is charity. Don't you see that?? Stand up and take care of yourself and quit taking other people's money.

[quote=gmc]Maybe it's a cultural difference. We view one of the functions of government is to make things better for the people that elected it.Except for those people who have to pay for it.

[quote=gmc][...] But many americans seem incapable of discussing the concept of govt action without assuming it means taking away individualism whereas we see it as a means of enabling it.It enables mediocrity. It enables people to do as they please and allowing a small minority to be responsible for the consequences. It enables sloth.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:10 am

posted by accountable

Your disdain/hatred/fear of financially successful people is noted.

What a ridiculous comment. It's not really relevant but for your information I'm actually fairly financially successful myself. I've achieved the success I wanted, as it happens I've got my own business having benefited from a free education up to and beyond university paid by the state since my circumstances-to put it mildly, were at the rough end of the market. Do I mind paying a disproportionate share of the tax bill? Yes, I'm not happy about paying tax-who is-but I do so because I benefited from such a system and why should not others. It's a price worth paying

You read in to what I am saying what you want to rather than taking on the sense of the words. I've no reason to fear or be intimidated by financially successfully people, more to the point I'm not overly impressed by them either. When it comes right down to it I'm as good as the next which is why I find your suggestion that someone should have more than one vote based on a measure of wealth so incredible.

posted by accountable

Yeh I know, I don't fit your convenient cubby hole so you keep bringing back questions I've already answered. Your mind is closed so I don't see the point of proceeding, other than publishing differing ideas for lurkers.

I have, to repeat myself, difficulty believing your answer. That you (or anyone else for that matter) are really prepared to accept that others should have more say in government than you I find incredible. If you feel that way about it why bother having the vote at all.

I'm afraid I'm always going to be one of those saying who do you think you are you patronising bastard I will have my say and my opinion counts as much as yours.

You seem to be overly impressed with financial worth as a measure of worth and capability. It's only a measure of how much money you have.

To bring the war of independence analogy up to date. Do you believe the soldiers in Iraq should only be allowed one vote while paris hilton gets more because she is earns more? I've love to hear you putting that forward as a serious proposition.

posted by accountable

Wealth seems to freak you out and you don't believe individuals should all have the same rights when it comes to deciding how to use the fruits of their labor.

No they can do what they like so long as they accept they have to pay taxes and if they don't like the idea that they live in a country where the comparatively wealthy are expected to pay higher tax rates than those on low incomes then tough ****-emigrate, They can even have private medical care if they want so long as they pay their whack in to the NHS-after all they will need it to sort out the mess if the private sector gets it wrong. Personally i think we should let people opt out and then charge if they make use of the NHS in any way. Bet there would be few takers.

Gordon Brown just shot himself in the foot by doing away with the lower 10% tax band without thinking it through and increasing the tax burden for low earners. Not being stupid we can work out that reducing the income tax rate and putting up indirect taxation penalises the poor. Indirect taxation-like fuel duty impacts more on those with low incomes. We happen to consider it iniquitous rather than be taken in by the line that you can choose to drive less or turn down the heating, or the sillier one of buying less wine. That and other things will cost him the next election.

posted by accountable

Where do you get such hatred of the financially successful? Is it because it's so difficult to rise above your ancestral "station" that those who do so must by default be criminals?

My country applauds success. We cheer on the underdog and feel collective pride in those who refuse to be limited by their circumstances.

Actually I'm scots born and bred so it's quite difficult if not impossible to rise above my ancestral station with such a tremendous start in life. . You on the other hand are american for which you have my heartfelt sympathy:D

posted by accountable

It's not a matter of being more or less qualified. As I posted earlier, In matters in which the burden will fall disproportionately, those disproportionately burdened should be disproportionately heard.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Karl Marx gets the credit but he pinched the idea from earlier thinkers including early Christian thought before religion became a means of maintaining the status quo

Of course some people need more resources than they can produce - for example the elderly or the chronically sick, the unemployed, children. You need to decide whether such people have a right to a share of those resources for the good of all , in the case of the unemployed whether they should be helped out of their predicament by encouraging inward investment and/or re-education. yes it does mean some pay more in tax. You have to decide as a society what kind of society you want to live in.

posted by acountable

It enables mediocrity. It enables people to do as they please and allowing a small minority to be responsible for the consequences. It enables sloth.

Cobblers. I think we are not going to agree on this. Even our right wing parties are left wing in comparison to the stataes when it comes to social welfare.

Left wing good/in favour of change for the better and power to the people.

Right wing bad, keep things as they are and keep the great unwashed in their place-manning the burger king's and the car wash grateful they have a job at all.

If you advocate power to the people in the US do you get arrested as a danger to society?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 20, 2008 5:11 pm

gmc;870431 wrote: You read in to what I am saying what you want to rather than taking on the sense of the words.Thank you, Mr Pot.

gmc wrote: That you (or anyone else for that matter) are really prepared to accept that others should have more say in government than you I find incredible. If you feel that way about it why bother having the vote at all. Put simply, I trust. You're well off and you feel the way you do. There's no reason to believe others will as well. I think it's terrible that the majority should presume the right to take from the minority.

gmc wrote: You seem to be overly impressed with financial worth as a measure of worth and capability. It's only a measure of how much money you have. Not at all. Money pays the bills, that's all. If we were taxed for the gas we produce, you'd be saying I'm overly impressed with flatulence.

gmc wrote: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Karl Marx gets the credit but he pinched the idea from earlier thinkers including early Christian thought before religion became a means of maintaining the status quoI don't get why you put this in unless that's what you subscribe to. It does sound like both of our current tax systems.

gmc wrote: If you advocate power to the people in the US do you get arrested as a danger to society?
The people have the power here. We're trying to keep it rather than giving it to the gov't. I don't want to be beholden to anyone or any entity unless absolutely necessary because he that provides has the power, as it should be.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 21, 2008 1:24 am

posted by accountable

Put simply, I trust. You're well off and you feel the way you do. There's no reason to believe others will as well. I think it's terrible that the majority should presume the right to take from the minority.

Throughout europe when the people rose and overthrew their kings and queens and feudalism and slavery that's exactly what happened. The majority took from the minority-or put another way took back what was rightfully their's in the first place.

posted by accountable

The people have the power here. We're trying to keep it rather than giving it to the gov't. I don't want to be beholden to anyone or any entity unless absolutely necessary because he that provides has the power, as it should be.

Who elects the government? What is this government you are so afraid of? Don't you have any say in what it does?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 21, 2008 3:37 am

Accountable;870647 wrote: Put simply, I trust. You're well off and you feel the way you do. There's no reason NOT to believe others will as well. I think it's terrible that the majority should presume the right to take from the minority.I forgot to put the "not" in.

Makes a slight difference.

gmc;870719 wrote: Throughout europe when the people rose and overthrew their kings and queens and feudalism and slavery that's exactly what happened. The majority took from the minority-or put another way took back what was rightfully their's in the first place.You think you deserve for the majority to take your money because it's rightfully theirs??!?? :-2

Who elects the government? What is this government you are so afraid of? Don't you have any say in what it does?Politicians are not typical Americans. I don't trust them.

Adults should take care of themselves whenever possible. Basic education should be gov't funded because it's giving kids a good start. Healthcare for kids would be good as well, but not for able and capable adults.

Differences in capabilities will always prevent equality. Adults should be free to succeed. They should also be free to fail.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 21, 2008 5:09 am

posted by accountable

You think you deserve for the majority to take your money because it's rightfully theirs??!??

I've come to the conclusion that you are being deliberately obtuse. We arra people

posted by accountable

Politicians are not typical Americans. I don't trust them.

Why vote for them then? Ours are an embarrassment but at least we can call them arseholes and not get arrested for it.

The more things change the more it stays the same. This is from 1992

So have you seen sicko yet?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed May 21, 2008 3:23 pm

gmc;870810 wrote: I've come to the conclusion that you are being deliberately obtuse. Why? I was clearly speaking about modern day poor and middle-class vs the rich when I said it's terrible that the majority should take from the minority. You placed yourself in that minority earlier. Then you equate what I said to your overthrow of "kings and queens and feudalism and slavery." Since I know that you know that we have none of those in the US and would be especially dense to suggest such a thing, I figured I would show the link in the conversation - dumb as it was - since no other link to your post exists.

gmc wrote: Why vote for them then? Ours are an embarrassment but at least we can call them arseholes and not get arrested for it.Who's being deliberately obtuse now?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 22, 2008 2:49 am

Accountable;871231 wrote: Why? I was clearly speaking about modern day poor and middle-class vs the rich when I said it's terrible that the majority should take from the minority. You placed yourself in that minority earlier. Then you equate what I said to your overthrow of "kings and queens and feudalism and slavery." Since I know that you know that we have none of those in the US and would be especially dense to suggest such a thing, I figured I would show the link in the conversation - dumb as it was - since no other link to your post exists.

Who's being deliberately obtuse now?

It's the same basic argument whether it is feudalism, slavery, class war, successful rich /lazy poor. That those who have the most should be able to have a greater way in how things are done in a society. Usually that ends up with them accumulating more wealth and therefore power-or more power and therefore more wealth and once they've got it they take steps to keep it invariably to the eventual detriment of the society they claim to be so much better qualified to run.

Look at your present "leaders" by your reasoning they should have even more power than they do (After all they are he ones that generate all the wealth and earn the most are they not?) and the chances of ordinary Americans making any changes to the way things are done even more curtailed.

If that's what you want good luck to you but I'm never going to agree with you. It's an argument that has been rejected over the generation which is why you live in a liberal democracy where all are free to vote and have their say.

They're only now having the debate is some countries like saudi arabia, where there is no political freedom dissent finds outlets in extremist religion or politics like islamic fundamentalism or revolutionary communism,

In saudi extremism is encouraged by the rulers because they think they are in control of it. I would put it to you they are deluded.

Freedom and equality go hand in hand and if you get conned that you can be free and not have a equal say in govt because someone is richer than you then you've been conned good and proper by someone that probably doesn't have your interests at heart.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 22, 2008 2:57 am

gmc;871360 wrote: Freedom and equality go hand in hand and if you get conned that you can be free and not have a equal say in govt because someone is richer than you then you've been conned good and proper by someone that probably doesn't have your interests at heart.
Your mind is closed & rusted shut on this issue. I give up.

But I still luv ya! :yh_bigsmi

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 22, 2008 3:49 am

Accountable;864012 wrote: A society can either be free or equal, but it cannot be both. So, which is more desirable?

Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity,—the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition, must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree, and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty,—while, to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition.1

John C. Calhoun, seventh vice president of the United States

...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu May 22, 2008 3:18 pm

Accountable;871370 wrote: ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun

Although he died a decade before the American Civil War broke out, Calhoun was a major inspiration to the secessionists who created the short-lived Confederate States of America. Nicknamed the "cast-iron man" for his staunch determination to defend the causes in which he believed, Calhoun pushed nullification, states' rights, under which states could declare null and void federal laws they deemed to be unconstitutional.[citation needed] He was an outspoken proponent of the institution of slavery, which he defended as a "positive good" rather than as a necessary evil.[1] His rhetorical defense of slavery was partially responsible for escalating Southern threats of secession in the face of mounting abolitionist sentiment in the North.[citation needed] He was part of the "Great Triumvirate", or the "Immortal Trio", along with his colleagues Daniel Webster and Henry Clay.

OK I'll see your southern slave owner and raise you a Thomas Paine and Adam Smith

http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/

http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/rights/c2-04.htm

All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

From the want of understanding the difference between a constitution and a government, Dr. Johnson, and all writers of his description, have always bewildered themselves. They could not but perceive, that there must necessarily be a controlling power existing somewhere, and they placed this power in the discretion of the persons exercising the government, instead of placing it in a constitution formed by the nation. When it is in a constitution, it has the nation for its support, and the natural and the political controlling powers are together. The laws which are enacted by governments, control men only as individuals, but the nation, through its constitution, controls the whole government, and has a natural ability to do so. The final controlling power, therefore, and the original constituting power, are one and the same power.

I would put it to you that doing as you suggest-giving more power to the wealthy because they contribute more rather gets in the way of power to the people. The assumption of power because of greater wealth or the belief that one should have more say because of greater monetary contribution is usurpation and I am staggered that anyone can support such an idea in this century. Clearly Calhoun is one of those who believed that people didn't mean everybody and people like him were best placed to decide who should have the power.

Your argument is flawed imo and it I don't agree with it.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu May 22, 2008 5:34 pm

Who Calhoun was and what he may have believed does not negate the truth of his statement in the OP.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 23, 2008 12:40 am

Accountable;872417 wrote: Who Calhoun was and what he may have believed does not negate the truth of his statement in the OP.

I would say the same about Thomas Paine-arguably he was a lot more influential than Calhoun (the spelling looks funny to me should be colquhoun) and his words echo through time in many nations across the world as opposed to some obscure american politician no one outside the US has heard of.

It is his opinion not some great truth and it's load of cobblers. He sees others exerting their rights to equal opportunity as impinging on his to do as he likes without the capacity or will to think it through and come to a compromise. (judging from the article on him in wikipedia, he's not interesting enough to investigate further) Left to people like him you would not be living in a free country where all are entitled to vote. He didn't believe in equality why would anyone take him seriously in a free country?

We are probably not going to agree-assuming of course you actually believe the crap you are spouting and are not playing devil's advocate. But I find this kind of stuff endlessly fascinating it's the type of debate that will be going on at the end of time.

I take it you also reject adam smith and free trade in favour of mercantilism although colhoun (how far can you trust wikipedia) seems to have realised the folly of that.

With the goal of building a strong nation that could fight a future war, he aggressively pushed for high protective tariffs (to build up industry), a national bank, internal improvements, and many other policies he later repudiated.[3]

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 23, 2008 3:11 am

gmc;872491 wrote: He sees others exerting their rights to equal opportunity as impinging on his to do as he likes without the capacity or will to think it through and come to a compromise.That answers my original question. When freedom and equality conflict, you pick equality. Why don't you see that??

gmc wrote: I take it you also reject adam smith and free trade in favour of mercantilism although colhoun (how far can you trust wikipedia) seems to have realised the folly of that.Mercantilism is no different from universal healthcare paid for by the rich. If you're not for both or against both you're not being consistent.

I'm not sure this thread is the best place to drop this, but I can always post it again somewhere else.

The free market almost always does a better job of handling things than big government.

People are better able to spend their own money than the government is.

As government power increases, the people's liberty retracts.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri May 23, 2008 4:13 am

That answers my original question. When freedom and equality conflict, you pick equality. Why don't you see that??

I think it's because over here we don't see them as conflicting, but as going hand in hand. The rich man with his wealth and power has to acccept that he made that wealth out of the society in which he lives, where his children will be raised and educated and his illnesses treated and his businesses run by those trained in the institutions of that society, to take one small aspect of it. The rich man owes society in proportion to what he has taken out of it. Nor is it something that can be exactly quantified by money.

There's another aspect too. You do seem prone to run with an idea to it's logical extreme, a way of thinking I associate more with French or German thinkers than British Empiricism. Our freedoms (in England anyway) go back to Magna Carta and look further back that that and are a balance of conflicting interests but they work: I can't be arrested without cause and disappeared into a dungeon without a fuss being kicked up so I can get on with my life in the society that grants me that right. Pragmatism is important: compromise.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:40 am

posted by accountable

That answers my original question. When freedom and equality conflict, you pick equality. Why don't you see that??

What clodhopper said.

They don't conflict why don't you see that?

posted by accountable

Mercantilism is no different from universal healthcare paid for by the rich. If you're not for both or against both you're not being consistent.

Au contraire-There is a lot of difference. One is to do with commerce and the other with how society takes care of those within it. mercantilism keeps competition out and prices high to protect an industry or trade generally at the expense of the common people. Tariffs against foreign food imports to protect farmers being the classic example. Universal healthcare is for the benefit of the common people and as such is not high on the agenda of those who sole concern of those who want to protect their profits.

You are going to be very hard pushed to find anyone in the UK or probably europe that thinks healthcare should be left entirely to the free market. If anything we look at the US and wonder why on earth anyone would accept the situation as it seems to be in the US.

We do actually have private healthcare you know, if you want your breasts done, laser eye surgery or something like that you go privately.

Suggest that somehow socialised healthcare it takes away our freedom and we just don't understand where you're coming from. Bit like suggesting we're oppressed because we don't carry guns.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri May 23, 2008 6:12 pm

gmc;872648 wrote: They don't conflict why don't you see that? Because they clearly do. Anyone without blinders can read your own posts and see it.

gmc wrote: Au contraire-There is a lot of difference. One is to do with commerce and the other with how society takes care of those within it. mercantilism keeps competition out and prices high to protect an industry or trade generally at the expense of the common people. Tariffs against foreign food imports to protect farmers being the classic example. Universal healthcare is for the benefit of the common people and as such is not high on the agenda of those who sole concern of those who want to protect their profits.They both are systems that depend on the taxpayer to relieve responsibility and make the going easier.

gmc wrote: Suggest that somehow socialised healthcare it takes away our freedom and we just don't understand where you're coming from.Clearly.gmc wrote: Bit like suggesting we're oppressed because we don't carry guns.I don't get the opression line either. I don't carry a gun and I'm not opressed. I also don't get why a choice has to be outlawed simply because some don't want to do it, but I've run miles down that road with my good friend Arnold Layne and never found common ground.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Sun May 25, 2008 4:06 am

I think I'd agree with Accountable that pure freedom and pure equality are mutually exclusive, but I think the choice between them as expressed is in practice meaningless: the real choice is about how much of each we can have.

Most of the objections you are getting, Acc, are pure British pragmatism in that extremes of any sort are viewed with deep suspicion. Pure freedom allows me to kill anyone I feel like killing, pure equality is impossible gven differences in human abilities. Both are bads things.

Our rights to think as we wish and worship as we wish and the right of our citizens to be free - ie, the property of no person - are freedoms which have evolved out of our history. No-one turned up and said, THESE are our inalienable rights. Well, ok they did and were promptly burnt as heretics or messily disembowelled as traitors. Our freedoms and rights were not defined at the moment of the creation of our country but created by our history. Makes a difference.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun May 25, 2008 5:14 am

No doubt, Clod.

We all want as much freedom and as much equality as is practicable. But when the two collide, when the efforts to make one person equal truly impinges on another person's freedom, we must decide which will give way. It must be on a case-by-case basis, I don't think any of us disagrees on that. But what is your first instinct?

My first instinct is to lean toward freedom, because freedom allows the opportunity to not only gain equality, but to excel to one's full potential no matter what it may be, while keeping the other person free of the new obligation.

Forcing artificial equality sends a signal - or at the very least risks sending a signal - that the person lifted to equality is incapable of doing so through his own effort so why try at all. It sends a signal - or at the very least risks sending a signal - that the person given increased obligation doesn't deserve what he has, so why try so hard.

Such signals risk sending a society spiraling into mediocrity. Why risk sending such signals when it is never necessary? If one, on a case-by-case basis, needs assistance, we can have assistance available until the person is back on his feet. Then he can excel and help others when they need it - but only while they need it.

Yes, I know your society has decided differently, but like gmc says, we're still having that debate.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:29 pm

Accountable;873924 wrote: No doubt, Clod.

We all want as much freedom and as much equality as is practicable. But when the two collide, when the efforts to make one person equal truly impinges on another person's freedom, we must decide which will give way. It must be on a case-by-case basis, I don't think any of us disagrees on that. But what is your first instinct?

My first instinct is to lean toward freedom, because freedom allows the opportunity to not only gain equality, but to excel to one's full potential no matter what it may be, while keeping the other person free of the new obligation.

Forcing artificial equality sends a signal - or at the very least risks sending a signal - that the person lifted to equality is incapable of doing so through his own effort so why try at all. It sends a signal - or at the very least risks sending a signal - that the person given increased obligation doesn't deserve what he has, so why try so hard.

Such signals risk sending a society spiraling into mediocrity. Why risk sending such signals when it is never necessary? If one, on a case-by-case basis, needs assistance, we can have assistance available until the person is back on his feet. Then he can excel and help others when they need it - but only while they need it.

Yes, I know your society has decided differently, but like gmc says, we're still having that debate.

Many points here Acc.

Firstly on your insistence that the quote in the OP is truth - I would disagree as it certainly does not read true to me. Following on from that your insistence that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive is manifestly untrue.

You accuse GMC of having his mind rusted shut. On this issue - especially as it relates to the provision of healthcare, that is exactly how you are coming across. Maybe it is a US / UK divide but primary healthcare is something we demand of our society - we had to many examples of health for the rich and death for the poor before the introduction of the NHS to stomach health being a commercial function with the right to good healthcare being a commodity to be sold for profit for as much as the market will bare.

Your modified question in this post is more interesting - where they do conflict, which tends to take preference? Given the constraints on freedom that any society worth living in must have then I would agree with you - freedom is more likely to be the preferred choice in most situations but that is based on the assumption that the society in question has an underlying basis of equality.

If the society is inherently out of balance to any great degree, as the majority of current societies are, then the first move must be to give all citizens an equal start in life. Gone are the days where a man can have no rights just because he was born into a working class family or because he's a woman or because he's born into a poor part of the city - that is no longer acceptable.

This is why, all through this thread, I have responded to your question about an ideal society by discussing an idealised society rather than using examples from the present day. Our current societies are sick - in different ways but they are both sick, and the decisions we need to make to move our societies towards the ideal are very different to the decisions we would make in a healthy society.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 26, 2008 3:24 pm

Acc: I don't have a first instinct in this matter. If you accept that all people having the right to kill anyone they want, anytime, is a bad thing then you accept that complete freedom is not a good idea. After that it's a balancing act and you need to look at the specific case.

You seem to be arguing about a businessman - wealth is the only criterion. The high flying scientist or surgeon, on the other hand, repays society by his or her efforts. The businessman in his business is concerned with the creation of personal wealth: Soon as you reach a certain level bonuses and perks make this quite explicit.

What does this business person offer the society they live in that we should respect them? I notice that the richer people get, the more they try to divorce themselves from society as a whole...

Pure equality is as already agreed, impossible under usual circumstances. Equality of rights, however, is an achievable goal (well, certainly in comparison with pure equality) and where I really come adrift from your "one person one vote unless you're rich in which case you get many votes" idea.

Equality means to me that we all get the same chance to excel in our fields and extreme poverty works against that - isn't it a truism that kids from desperately deprived backgrounds find it harder to take advantage of the opportunities education gives them? (sorry - it's just the example that springs to mind) They are not equal to the child of supportive wealthy parents in terms of their ability to take advantage of their opportunities so they need some extra help to take advantage and the money to do this has to come from somewhere...

As I say, I don't have a first instinct in this matter. It's a matter of balancing often opposing forces.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 26, 2008 5:20 pm

Clodhopper;874900 wrote: Acc: I don't have a first instinct in this matter. If you accept that all people having the right to kill anyone they want, anytime, is a bad thing then you accept that complete freedom is not a good idea. After that it's a balancing act and you need to look at the specific case.

You seem to be arguing about a businessman - wealth is the only criterion. The high flying scientist or surgeon, on the other hand, repays society by his or her efforts. The businessman in his business is concerned with the creation of personal wealth: Soon as you reach a certain level bonuses and perks make this quite explicit.

What does this business person offer the society they live in that we should respect them? I notice that the richer people get, the more they try to divorce themselves from society as a whole...

Pure equality is as already agreed, impossible under usual circumstances. Equality of rights, however, is an achievable goal (well, certainly in comparison with pure equality) and where I really come adrift from your "one person one vote unless you're rich in which case you get many votes" idea.

Equality means to me that we all get the same chance to excel in our fields and extreme poverty works against that - isn't it a truism that kids from desperately deprived backgrounds find it harder to take advantage of the opportunities education gives them? (sorry - it's just the example that springs to mind) They are not equal to the child of supportive wealthy parents in terms of their ability to take advantage of their opportunities so they need some extra help to take advantage and the money to do this has to come from somewhere...

As I say, I don't have a first instinct in this matter. It's a matter of balancing often opposing forces.

A businessman influences innovation drastically...I don't see this as being so looked down upon even if it was deprived all from the wrong reasons(In most cases in my view)...Obviously it has it's other side as well but with the enforcement of rational law it limits the downside of entrepreneurship...

And at what point is education from anyone's standpoint limited by what it is people are taught as opposed to the students ability to learn?...

It's true that I grew up going to well established schools growing up and alot of that had to do with my fathers determination but he grew up relatively poor...Like myself he never graduated high school and brings home over $50,000/yr...

He's told me he often had to eat a bowl full of green beans that they've had to grow themselves during the winter because his father would be layed off during the winter months...

I never went to school regularly and never graduated yet I will always have a trade to fall back on...And I learned it by working at a steel shop after I dropped out of school...

Right now I am in Co-ownership of my own business and hopefully it stays that way for a long time...

It's just sad that individuals have to ruin that for some all because of ignorant racism...

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon May 26, 2008 6:24 pm

K.Snyder;874928 wrote: A businessman influences innovation drastically...I don't see this as being so looked down upon even if it was deprived all from the wrong reasons(In most cases in my view)...Obviously it has it's other side as well but with the enforcement of rational law it limits the downside of entrepreneurship...

And at what point is education from anyone's standpoint limited by what it is people are taught as opposed to the students ability to learn?...

It's true that I grew up going to well established schools growing up and alot of that had to do with my fathers determination but he grew up relatively poor...Like myself he never graduated high school and brings home over $50,000/yr...

He's told me he often had to eat a bowl full of green beans that they've had to grow themselves during the winter because his father would be layed off during the winter months...

I never went to school regularly and never graduated yet I will always have a trade to fall back on...And I learned it by working at a steel shop after I dropped out of school...

Right now I am in Co-ownership of my own business and hopefully it stays that way for a long time...

It's just sad that individuals have to ruin that for some all because of ignorant racism...

I was really thinking about high flying execs in big corporations, but ok:

Congratulations on your success. In relation to this thread I have to ask - did you set up in business at least mostly to help people, or to make money (and I'm not criticising you if your answer is "to make money")? And then I have to ask if your reasons should entitle you to extra votes?

The educational thing: Some people will do well whatever the circumstances. Many will not, especially if there is no support from home ("Do your homework, dear.") and you yourself pointed out that you went to "good" schools not inner city sink schools where showing any sign of academic potential can get you into biiiig trouble.

What I'm referring to is equality of opportunity and generally a person with a poor education is at a disadvantage compared with someone with a good education. Wouldn't you, with your educational opportunities (again, I'm not criticising) have had many more career opportunities if you had, as a child and adolescent, attended classes more regularly? With your personality and parents you have been able to get on anyway in a way that suits you but many kids can't, though they may have the talents. Or do you think these kids should just be abandoned?

And at what point is education from anyone's standpoint limited by what it is people are taught as opposed to the students ability to learn?...

This shows you are from a priveleged background: if you had been to a really difficult school you would know that the attitude of the rest of the class and the parents has a huge impact on how easy or difficult it is for an individual to learn.

Agreed that business has a profound effect on innovation. Often by buying up good ideas and burying them. Isn't there a patent for an almost everlasting lightbulb out there that was bought up and suppressed? Or is that all just conspiracy theory? Business MAY have a positive affect on innovation, but I don't think you can argue that in all cases it DOES.

Success in business proves only that you are good at business. It doesn't say you are better than John Doe down the road morally, or as a parent, or as a responsible human being. In a fair society why should you have any more rights than him?

Don't see what you are getting at with the ignorant racism thing, unless you are saying that you resent people of a different race benefiting from your tax dollars.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon May 26, 2008 9:43 pm

Clodhopper;874939 wrote: I was really thinking about high flying execs in big corporations, but ok:

Congratulations on your success. In relation to this thread I have to ask - did you set up in business at least mostly to help people, or to make money (and I'm not criticising you if your answer is "to make money")? And then I have to ask if your reasons should entitle you to extra votes? This is a rather ironic question because at the time the opurtunity had/has arisen for me to help people in their demand for their personal preference...As for my morale logic I've always never felt like I could ever create a business, or more simplistically, make money off of something that I felt was strictly for my own benefit...

And absolutely not I would not expect extra votes just because I had the power in buying them...But then again I'm a person who likes to lead by example so I will probably never be in a position in which votes played a role in my future...

Clodhopper;874939 wrote:

The educational thing: Some people will do well whatever the circumstances. Many will not, especially if there is no support from home ("Do your homework, dear.") and you yourself pointed out that you went to "good" schools not inner city sink schools where showing any sign of academic potential can get you into biiiig trouble.

What I'm referring to is equality of opportunity and generally a person with a poor education is at a disadvantage compared with someone with a good education. Wouldn't you, with your educational opportunities (again, I'm not criticising) have had many more career opportunities if you had, as a child and adolescent, attended classes more regularly? With your personality and parents you have been able to get on anyway in a way that suits you but many kids can't, though they may have the talents. Or do you think these kids should just be abandoned?

My point in this regard is that we're expecting too much out of the school system when I believe simple enlightenment pertaining to the importance of how far optimism and self worth can get someone in a position they can pursue is probably more important...

Libraries are free...Which leaves me to ask,..at what point is education from anyone's standpoint limited by what it is people are taught as opposed to the students ability to learn?...

Clodhopper;874939 wrote:

This shows you are from a priveleged background: if you had been to a really difficult school you would know that the attitude of the rest of the class and the parents has a huge impact on how easy or difficult it is for an individual to learn.

You feel homeschooling a child with a 105 IQ would benefit that child more than if a child with an identical IQ were to go through the public school system, or even an "inner city" school as you've said?...

I would probably agree but this has everything to do with the parents preference and not society's...Sufficient school taxes would have no bearing on this...

Clodhopper;874939 wrote:

Don't see what you are getting at with the ignorant racism thing, unless you are saying that you resent people of a different race benefiting from your tax dollars.

I was just making a statement in that it's a shame people don't give equal opportunity to those of a different ethnicity in which I see as being the only real deprivation to success as opposed to poverty and ones own simple laziness...

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:40 am

Accountable;873924 wrote: No doubt, Clod.

We all want as much freedom and as much equality as is practicable. But when the two collide, when the efforts to make one person equal truly impinges on another person's freedom, we must decide which will give way. It must be on a case-by-case basis, I don't think any of us disagrees on that. But what is your first instinct?

My first instinct is to lean toward freedom, because freedom allows the opportunity to not only gain equality, but to excel to one's full potential no matter what it may be, while keeping the other person free of the new obligation.

Forcing artificial equality sends a signal - or at the very least risks sending a signal - that the person lifted to equality is incapable of doing so through his own effort so why try at all. It sends a signal - or at the very least risks sending a signal - that the person given increased obligation doesn't deserve what he has, so why try so hard.

Such signals risk sending a society spiraling into mediocrity. Why risk sending such signals when it is never necessary? If one, on a case-by-case basis, needs assistance, we can have assistance available until the person is back on his feet. Then he can excel and help others when they need it - but only while they need it.

Yes, I know your society has decided differently, but like gmc says, we're still having that debate.

Think I kind of see where you're coming from on this.

To me freedom and equality go hand in hand. If you have a situation where one section of society is vastly privileged compared to the rest then you have tremendous inequality and little freedom. Those with the advantages tend to take action to reinforce their status and keep their privileges. When you have inequality in terms of access to opportunity, education etc etc you have an unequal society and a less free one because the freedom of the few are at the expense of the many.

That's the way it is in a feudal society where all the advantage accrues to a few passed down through the king to his followers whose ancestors were warlord enough to seize what they wanted. In the UK you have the erosion of the power of the king to the barons, then the erosion of their power to the wealthy landowners and merchant class and eventually the passing of power to parliament and ultimately to the voters.

Nobody sat down and drew up a constitution in the UK rather the people reached up grabbed the leaders by the balls and said listen we've had enough of the wat things are done around here.

Yes we do use progressive taxation to redistribute the wealth. Bear in mind we ELECT governments that do that. It's not big bad government sticking it to us. You can argue that that infringes on the freedom of some to do what they like with their wealth but to do otherwise infringes on the right of the many to live in a fairer society.

For example. If a worker for a big corporation sees vast profits being made and his work is contributing to it then he's entitled to a share of the profits. His freedom to ask for higher wages and better safety at work, infringes on the rights of the employer to decide his costs run his factory as he sees fit. The workers freedom to form a union and work with other factories in the same industry to demand better pay and conditions across the board infringes on the rights of corporations to run things as they see fit.

On the other hand giving corporations the freedom to run things as they see fit without some kind of check in place takes away the freedom of those who work for it. You need a balance .

There is nothing in capitalist theory that suggests organisations and individuals should be free to operate without restraint. A free market, for instance, doesn't mean you allow monopolies or cartels to come in to being as they stifle competition. Society always puts limits on freedom one way or another

As I said we do use progressive taxation, quite deliberately to re-distribute wealth. In the seventies we had a labour chancellor that was going to squeeze the rich till they squeaked. They got elected and he did. Too much perhaps but now it has swung back the other way and people are getting pissed off. As a culture we have a strong sense of fair play, doesn't mean you stifle innovation or bring people down to a level but rather everybody gets a fair crack. Universal healhcare is part of that, we see it as too important to leave to private profit and everyone is entitled to healthcare as and when they need it. people used to die because they couldn't afford a doctor. That is something we consider wrong.

Out of curiosity what do you do about mass immunisation programmes like against polio and measles? If someone's parents can't pay do they get it anyway?

I posted the links to the Putney debates et al because you had exactly the same debate at the time the constitution was written. that's why you have the electoral colleges-so that the wealthy could keep control and have a check on the popular vote. Hence my question-would you as an ordinary soldier at that time risking life and limb have thought it fair you were not allowed a vote because you were not a man of means. It's the same basic argument today-who gets to govern?

So tell me do you believe -as the framers of the constitution believed- that ordinary American voter can't be trusted to make the right decision?

Clearly you seem to think not because you are advocating a system whereby one man one vote ceases to be the norm and the wealthy get more say. I would put it to you that you don't need to bother doing that because that is why the electoral college was put there in the first place-to keep control.

It's got nothing to do with being afraid or being envious of the wealthy, that is the way you re interpreting it whereas to me It's about what is fair. No offence but that is the kind of silly argument put forward when you can't actually come up with a better one.

So in answer to your question i suppose my first instinct is always towards equality but the two go hand in hand with equality leading and you can't really have one without the other. Each reinforces the other. We all accept some restrictions on out freedom to do as we wish and behave as we like, society is a compromise.

In the UK we don't have a written constitution and I hope we never do. Rather our constitution is an ongoing argument amongst all levels in society that ebbs and flows with the passing of time. Americans seem to spend a lot of time arguing about what the actual wording rather than the spirit of the declaration, everyone else with a written constitution keeps ripping it up and rewriting it. Our ways better IMO but I admit to a bias. it works for us.

posted by accountable

Yes, I know your society has decided differently, but like gmc says, we're still having that debate.

It is debate you need to have. The language of the debate seems rather restricted with ideas rejected out of hand because they have a pejorative connotation rather than discussed objectively-although my impression is necessarily flawed since I am not actually an American and trawling you tube is hardly objective.

I don't think you should bother about what other countries do except to pinch the best ideas. The basic concept of things like socialised medicine is one we accept as the norm-you don't. Most of the arguments you and others put against it are right wing reactionary from a UK perspective. Power to the people and all that.

The suggested giving of more votes to the wealthy the reaction you would get from most british posters were you a british person would be, I suspect, a visceral and not terribly polite one.

posted by accountable

Such signals risk sending a society spiraling into mediocrity. Why risk sending such signals when it is never necessary? If one, on a case-by-case basis, needs assistance, we can have assistance available until the person is back on his feet. Then he can excel and help others when they need it - but only while they need it.

Yes, I know your society has decided differently, but like gmc says, we're still having that debate.

that's your interpretation of it and I suspect one engendered by your media and to some extent ours. The welfare system is intended to help people back on their feet and payments stop when they are. I wouldn't claim it is by any means perfect. On the other hand you don't punish those who through no fault of their own-be it illness or whatever can't get a job. You will find the most hostility to scroungers comes not from the wealthy but from their neighbours who see them as stealing from those who really need help.

posted by K Snyder

It's true that I grew up going to well established schools growing up and alot of that had to do with my fathers determination but he grew up relatively poor...Like myself he never graduated high school and brings home over $50,000/yr...

He's told me he often had to eat a bowl full of green beans that they've had to grow themselves during the winter because his father would be layed off during the winter months...

I never went to school regularly and never graduated yet I will always have a trade to fall back on...And I learned it by working at a steel shop after I dropped out of school...

Right now I am in Co-ownership of my own business and hopefully it stays that way for a long time...

I went to well established schools and benefited from free healthcare and further education also due to my father's determination. His and his generation that came back from ww2 and said right now things are going to change for the better right now. As it happens I too have my own business.

He died when I was a kid and had I been born in the twenties or thirties -pre war we would have ended up in the poorhouse but didn't because the way things were done had changed. things had changed. As it is I remember the trauma of not only losing a parent but also leaving the tied house my father had thanks to his work and eventually moving to what is now called social housing.

The US and Uk have the same basic problems we just settled on different solutions. though I think americans have been conned in to thinking they shouldn't have a say in what government does.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:02 pm

gmc;875119 wrote:

The US and Uk have the same basic problems we just settled on different solutions. though I think americans have been conned in to thinking they shouldn't have a say in what government does.

They emphasize in that "your vote" is "your say"...

Which to me never achieves anything greater than mediocrity...Obviously dictated by the virtues of those to whom you've voted for...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:07 pm

K.Snyder;875790 wrote: They emphasize in that "your vote" is "your say"...

Which to me never achieves anything greater than mediocrity...Obviously dictated by the virtues of those to whom you've voted for...

You feel these virtues rise as high as mediocrity? I would place it far, far, lower.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:10 pm

Bryn Mawr;875794 wrote: You feel these virtues rise as high as mediocrity? I would place it far, far, lower.

I like to think so...

So as to keep me from turning into a conspiracy theorist...:wah:

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:14 pm

K.Snyder;875799 wrote: I like to think so...

So as to keep me from turning into a conspiracy theorist...:wah:

Nah - no conspiracy, just those that fight to get the job are not worthy of holding it.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Tue May 27, 2008 3:41 pm

Bryn Mawr;875803 wrote: Nah - no conspiracy, just those that fight to get the job are not worthy of holding it.

I would have to pick and choose those instances...

I don't hold as cynical of a view but I completely understand the hesitance in not trusting those appointed to office...

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:29 pm

Bryn Mawr;874865 wrote: Many points here Acc.

Firstly on your insistence that the quote in the OP is truth - I would disagree as it certainly does not read true to me. Following on from that your insistence that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive is manifestly untrue.

You accuse GMC of having his mind rusted shut. On this issue - especially as it relates to the provision of healthcare, that is exactly how you are coming across. Maybe it is a US / UK divide but primary healthcare is something we demand of our society - we had to many examples of health for the rich and death for the poor before the introduction of the NHS to stomach health being a commercial function with the right to good healthcare being a commodity to be sold for profit for as much as the market will bare.I don't understand the way you try to separate the individual and society. Demanding something of society is de facto demanding it of your neighbors. It's cool if you want to do that, and in many instances I agree, but to deny the connection makes it too easy to ignore that you're taking money that is not yours to give to someone else. Dodge, parry, spin, Robin Hood.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Your modified question in this post is more interesting - where they do conflict, which tends to take preference? Given the constraints on freedom that any society worth living in must have then I would agree with you - freedom is more likely to be the preferred choice in most situations but that is based on the assumption that the society in question has an underlying basis of equality.

If the society is inherently out of balance to any great degree, as the majority of current societies are, then the first move must be to give all citizens an equal start in life. Gone are the days where a man can have no rights just because he was born into a working class family or because he's a woman or because he's born into a poor part of the city - that is no longer acceptable.No society can give all their children an equal start in life as long as their unequal parents are involved. Offering a free public education is adequate to give them as close to an equal start as we can without going to that unacceptable extreme.

Society is inherently unbalanceable, if that's a word.

Bryn Mawr wrote: This is why, all through this thread, I have responded to your question about an ideal society by discussing an idealised society rather than using examples from the present day. Our current societies are sick - in different ways but they are both sick, and the decisions we need to make to move our societies towards the ideal are very different to the decisions we would make in a healthy society.It would be fun to build the ideal, if we had time. It might even give us ideas to fix the real. I don't think our societies are as sick as you seem to.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 27, 2008 4:52 pm

Clodhopper;874900 wrote: Acc: I don't have a first instinct in this matter. If you accept that all people having the right to kill anyone they want, anytime, is a bad thing then you accept that complete freedom is not a good idea. After that it's a balancing act and you need to look at the specific case.Agreed, but I think you really have a first instinct. Ever settle an argument between adults? I was thinking originally about any argument, but with kids we almost always make them share. But between adults, how do you normally decide?

Clodhopper wrote: You seem to be arguing about a businessman - wealth is the only criterion. The high flying scientist or surgeon, on the other hand, repays society by his or her efforts. The businessman in his business is concerned with the creation of personal wealth: Soon as you reach a certain level bonuses and perks make this quite explicit.

What does this business person offer the society they live in that we should respect them? I notice that the richer people get, the more they try to divorce themselves from society as a whole...As K alluded, few businesses survive if building wealth is the only, or even first, priority. If there is no product or service that some demographic somewhere finds beneficial, then it cannot possibly succeed.

Businesses create jobs. They create livlihoods. Businesses make it possible for society to have the high standard of living we enjoy today. If it weren't for businesses, where would people get the income to pay the taxes to fund the myriad government services offered? And where would the government contract for those services, if not from businesses? Businesspeople provide the lifeblood our society lives on.

Clodhopper wrote: Pure equality is as already agreed, impossible under usual circumstances. Equality of rights, however, is an achievable goal (well, certainly in comparison with pure equality) and where I really come adrift from your "one person one vote unless you're rich in which case you get many votes" idea. What got lost in the fog is that the multiple votes aren't available unless a voter would be disproportionately impacted. For instance, when voting for a spending bill. If voting for a candidate, it should still be one man one vote even under my idea... an idea which, btw, I concocted here in this thread; it's not something I've been thinking on for a long time or anything.

Clodhopper wrote: Equality means to me that we all get the same chance to excel in our fields and extreme poverty works against that - isn't it a truism that kids from desperately deprived backgrounds find it harder to take advantage of the opportunities education gives them? (sorry - it's just the example that springs to mind) They are not equal to the child of supportive wealthy parents in terms of their ability to take advantage of their opportunities so they need some extra help to take advantage and the money to do this has to come from somewhere...I believe it is true, but not because they don't have money, but because the parents display less hope, model less optimism for the future, than the other parents. Even your example, you wrote "supportive wealthy parents". Truly supportive parents have vaulted their children from the deepest depths of poverty to compete on even ground with the more privileged. It's the parental support that makes the difference. Now there's a drug we need to develop!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue May 27, 2008 5:21 pm

gmc;875119 wrote: Think I kind of see where you're coming from on this.

To me freedom and equality go hand in hand. If you have a situation where one section of society is vastly privileged compared to the rest then you have tremendous inequality and little freedom. Those with the advantages tend to take action to reinforce their status and keep their privileges. When you have inequality in terms of access to opportunity, education etc etc you have an unequal society and a less free one because the freedom of the few are at the expense of the many.

That's the way it is in a feudal society where all the advantage accrues to a few passed down through the king to his followers whose ancestors were warlord enough to seize what they wanted. In the UK you have the erosion of the power of the king to the barons, then the erosion of their power to the wealthy landowners and merchant class and eventually the passing of power to parliament and ultimately to the voters.

Nobody sat down and drew up a constitution in the UK rather the people reached up grabbed the leaders by the balls and said listen we've had enough of the wat things are done around here. Excellent explanation. I agree with you here.

gmc wrote: Yes we do use progressive taxation to redistribute the wealth. Bear in mind we ELECT governments that do that. It's not big bad government sticking it to us. You can argue that that infringes on the freedom of some to do what they like with their wealth but to do otherwise infringes on the right of the many to live in a fairer society. And that's where I claim you've made your decision to generally choose equality over freedom. I don't condemn it, only identify it. I personally would choose to do the same, though to a far lesser degree than you ( and increasingly, we) do.

gmc wrote: For example. If a worker for a big corporation sees vast profits being made and his work is contributing to it then he's entitled to a share of the profits. His freedom to ask for higher wages and better safety at work, infringes on the rights of the employer to decide his costs run his factory as he sees fit. The workers freedom to form a union and work with other factories in the same industry to demand better pay and conditions across the board infringes on the rights of corporations to run things as they see fit.

On the other hand giving corporations the freedom to run things as they see fit without some kind of check in place takes away the freedom of those who work for it. You need a balance .

There is nothing in capitalist theory that suggests organisations and individuals should be free to operate without restraint. A free market, for instance, doesn't mean you allow monopolies or cartels to come in to being as they stifle competition. Society always puts limits on freedom one way or anotherYour example is not a choice between freedom & equality, but between different people's freedom (rights). Goes right along with the old addage "your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose."

gmc wrote: Out of curiosity what do you do about mass immunisation programmes like against polio and measles? If someone's parents can't pay do they get it anyway?They'd have to, wouldn't they? Education is free and compulsory, yet kids can't attend unless they've had their shots. I haven't researched it but I can't see how it would work any other way.

gmc wrote: I posted the links to the Putney debates et al because you had exactly the same debate at the time the constitution was written. that's why you have the electoral colleges-so that the wealthy could keep control and have a check on the popular vote. Hence my question-would you as an ordinary soldier at that time risking life and limb have thought it fair you were not allowed a vote because you were not a man of means. It's the same basic argument today-who gets to govern?

So tell me do you believe -as the framers of the constitution believed- that ordinary American voter can't be trusted to make the right decision?

Clearly you seem to think not because you are advocating a system whereby one man one vote ceases to be the norm and the wealthy get more say. I would put it to you that you don't need to bother doing that because that is why the electoral college was put there in the first place-to keep control. I've never liked the idea of the electoral college. I'll repost my clarification of my opinion on voting: What got lost in the fog is that the multiple votes aren't available unless a voter would be disproportionately impacted. For instance, when voting for a spending bill. If voting for a candidate, it should still be one man one vote even under my idea... an idea which, btw, I concocted here in this thread; it's not something I've been thinking on for a long time or anything.

gmc wrote: It's got nothing to do with being afraid or being envious of the wealthy, that is the way you re interpreting it whereas to me It's about what is fair. No offence but that is the kind of silly argument put forward when you can't actually come up with a better one.See, I don't understand how it can be fair for Egburt to earn X and Dilburt to earn substantially less, each having convinced his boss/clients/whomever that he's worth that, only for Egburt to have a portion of his earnings taken from him & given to Dilbert. It's a different story if Dilburt can't survive on his wages and needs a little temporary help; we should take care of each other in times of need. But simply to balance things out?? That's unfair.

gmc wrote: So in answer to your question i suppose my first instinct is always towards equality but the two go hand in hand with equality leading and you can't really have one without the other. Each reinforces the other. We all accept some restrictions on out freedom to do as we wish and behave as we like, society is a compromise.I'm right with you, except I switch the priorities. :-6

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed May 28, 2008 2:18 am

posted by accountable

Agreed, but I think you really have a first instinct. Ever settle an argument between adults? I was thinking originally about any argument, but with kids we almost always make them share. But between adults, how do you normally decide?

You sit down and discuss it and agree on what's fair and just. In modern society we have a court system. Courts are an ancient method designed to stop open conflict by the arbitration of others or by the group as a whole. In ancient greece and rome the whole community would settle disputes. We still talk about blackballing someone-the greeks used coloured balls to register a verdict white for agree black for disagree.

This kind of debate has been going on since mankind started living in groups in one way or another. there's nothing new in the argument Democracy and government and taxation are ancient concepts in every culture throughout the world.

So is the argument about who get to decide and we both live in cultures where all get an equal vote. Your idea of votes based on wealth is not a new one. You lost the argument a long time ago.

posted by accountable

What got lost in the fog is that the multiple votes aren't available unless a voter would be disproportionately impacted. For instance, when voting for a spending bill. If voting for a candidate, it should still be one man one vote even under my idea... an idea which, btw, I concocted here in this thread; it's not something I've been thinking on for a long time or anything.

Thank goodness for that. All taxation is inherently unfair. That some will pay more than others will always be the case. If you have a situation where the wealthy get to decide where it all goes than you no longer have a democracy. While democracy is not perfect it is still better than all the other methods tried.

Your proposal would help concentrate power in the hands of a few even more than it is now. America is supposedly founded on the idea that all men are created equal. When did some are more equal than others come in to it?

I've never liked the idea of the electoral college. I'll repost my clarification of my opinion on voting: What got lost in the fog is that the multiple votes aren't available unless a voter would be disproportionately impacted. For instance, when voting for a spending bill. If voting for a candidate, it should still be one man one vote even under my idea... an idea which, btw, I concocted here in this thread; it's not something I've been thinking on for a long time or anything.

I can just see the likes of Donald trump and George Bush and his cronies voting for legislation to pay more taxes to help the poor. Do you think they would vote more funding for war in Iraq if they were being asked to pay more for it? They might, I suppose, if they stood to gain by it.

posted by accountable

And that's where I claim you've made your decision to generally choose equality over freedom. I don't condemn it, only identify it. I personally would choose to do the same, though to a far lesser degree than you ( and increasingly, we) do.

I agree with you, we have quite clearly made that conscious decision. . That was the whole point and we're not exactly in denial over it, no one claims otherwise.

Freedom is always a balancing act. Calhoun thought he should be free to own slaves, those who thought it unjust were impinging on his freedom to enslave another. In fact anyone's freedom to own slaves is severely impacted in our society. In the american west the freedom of people to settle infringed on the freedom of the cattle rancher to run cattle where they thought fit, the freedom of the americans to move west infringed on the freedom of the native Indians to live on the land their ancestors had owned. Your popular culture is full of stories about the resulting conflicts. the little man against the big man with all the money.

The freedom of the texans to declare independence infringed on the rights of mexico to rule what was part of their own country. The freedom of a landowner to fence in vast acres and keep out trespassers infringes on the rights of people to roam where they see fit. When did you decide a logging company could own a forest and do what they liked with it-or a mining company could destroy a mountain to get at coal? Did the locals get any say in the matter. What do they do if they object? Who decided the wealthy could buy a beach and keep out other people?

You sit down and discuss these things and decide what is just. What is equitable or fair. Doesn't matter what it is you need to compromise and build structures to decide these things and what you want to achieve with your society and what should be done with the wealth society has created-where do you go now.

It's a discussion America seems only now having but you seem to just stand and shout insults at each other. Big government seems to be a bogey man but since the people decide the shape of the government and what it does maybe you need to change things so that so many don't feel disenfranchised and scared of their own government. Maybe you need to reach up and grab them by the balls and remind them where the real power actually is. I don't see how your daft (no offence intended) voting proposal will help do that.