|
|
| Normal Rooms | | General | 4 users
AntiStaticCleaningWi, melinda_halliwell_tu, Mistress_SinisterLov, littlegothgirlthatco |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 35 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
Monolycus
Fanatic   Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 26/4/2003 at 06:59 AM |
Whenever I used to try to debate the merits of "democracy" as it is
practiced today, the person(s) that I would be speaking with would almost
invariably resort to the same childish platitude to defend their position
(That position was tacitly understood by the end of the conversation to be:
"No matter how many people might be hurt by the way we do things, we'd
better not change anything because that might affect me"). This happened
with such annoying frequency that I began to know with certainty at what
portion of the conversation we were at at any given time and could graph
out the rest of it in my head. I could see my conversant's expression
growing either more detached or more irritated until finally they would
spout the well-worn bromide that "Democracy is the worst form of government
there is... except for all the others." Then they would quickly excuse
themselves for a meeting that they just remembered that they were late for.
Maybe I have Missouri blood in me somewhere, because I'm going to need
something in the way of demonstration here.
I like to think of a real democracy as occuring when each person in a civil
society has an equal voice in how the affairs of state are managed. While
this definition may not actually be wrong, it is far too Marxist for a
venture capitalist to stomach and venture capitalists are the ones who are
and have been running the show. Nobody that I know actually accepts that
they have much of a voice at all, much less one equal to a richer person
(not to mention the powerful voices of corporations, who are, at the end of
the day, not even people at all). They accept that their vote is
meaningless when the electoral college (again, not a person) is not bound
to view thier say as so much as even a recommendation. So, if "people" who
are not really people have the greatest voices, and an increasingly small
percentage of very wealthy people are pulling those corporate strings, why
do we not come out and call what we live in a plutocracy? Why do we
pretend to have one highly flawed system of governance when we actually
have another highly flawed system of governance?
I'm going to reveal my deepest prejudice here. I loathe and detest rich
people on a visceral level. Almost more than I hate stupid people. I have
fought with people over this, but I don't think that my prejudice is
entirely emotionally based. The reasons that I feel that way are because
we swallow the most absurd myths to explain away what are nothing short of
criminal inequalities in our society, and yet, despite what they tell you
to the contrary, there are only three ways to generate wealth (real wealth)
in our culture... namely, inheritance (aristocracy), unfairly exploiting
people and the environment (being a bastard), or sucking up to someone who
unfairly exploits people and the environment (being a toady to a bastard).
Hard work and conscientious business practices do not make that list.
There are a growing number of business people who have addressed this
problem by chanting the mantra "We can do well by doing good!", but it
never amounts to more than a meditation session. As soon as they hit the
fields "doing good!", they realise that the bastard down the block who
hasn't limited his or her options by ethical compunctions is now free to
really clean up by taking unfair advantages. "Doing good!" isn't so
attractive once you find that you can no longer "do well!" (or as well).
Lloyd Dangle (the author of the alternative political comic "Troubletown"
summed it up this way: "People desperately want to be good, and admired for
being good, but they also want to be rich. These things rarely fit
together. Honest investors who study the market realize that the stocks
with the highest rates of returnare the ones that cause the most evil to
humanity." He is absolutely right. There is no via media between being
rich and being good and when forced to choose, being rich always wins.
Further, the process of choosing between being rich and good seems to make
people highly adept at rationalising indefensible things to themselves, so
you end up with extremely neurotic rich bastards who manage to convince
themselves that they are "doing good!" while they are wringing the poorer
majority dry.
Another huge problem with democracy is the aristocratic dynasties of career
politicians that have developed out of our need not to be able to think for
ourselves. That there should be such a thing as a "career politician" is
inherently anti-democratic in the first place, but to breed them out of the
same very wealthy families makes this absurd practice nearly unbelievable.
I have heard the (fallacious) argument that, since we go to a doctor when
we are sick, we should go to an expert to run the affairs of government.
Beyond the fact that this is really comparing apples to horse droppings, it
pre-supposes that the affairs of state are too complex for the average
person, or that the average person is too stupid to be able to cross the
street on the own. If affairs of state are too complex (they are made
needlessly complex to maintain their elite status), then they should be
streamlined so that they can be taught to high school students. If, on the
other hand, the stupidity of the people is the problem, then this needs to
be addressed and a mandatory, minimum of education must be implemented.
You can't cry for an open and free society and still cling obstinately to
your ignorance. I'm sorry, one or the other will have to go, you can't
have it both ways. My vote is that the ignorance should be the one to be
sacrificed, but I seem to be in a smaller and smaller minority here.
I have a great many more problems that I see here, but they will
undoubtably come up if people actually jump into this forum and debate (if
they were just going to look at it and scratch their heads, I don't need to
waste my time typing anymore anyway). This should be enough to begin with.
I maintain that in order for a democracy to exist the following minimum
conditions must be satisfied:
1.) The people must be reasonably educated, informed and serious about
taking control of their lives.
2.) The leaders of a society should be fully accountable for their actions
and their practices must be subject to the principle of transparency.
3.) The media, which represents the flow of information and the voice of
the people, should not be controlled by a small number of corporate
interests.
Jump in or be silenced. I am, I was, I will be
~Monolycus, the perpetually disgruntled.
|
| |
| |
Meranda_Jade
Fanatic  Posts: 511 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 9/5/2003 at 03:35 AM |
Tvileren, you got the exact point I was trying to make. I am so glad that
someone finally understands what I was saying.
As far as the contempt misunderstanding, it's an easy mistake to make if
some words are missed. What I actually said is, and I quote: "If people do
not take action on their behalf, and they stay poor and miserable, IT IS
THEIR OWN GODDAMN FAULT."
The key phrase there is: "If people do not take action on their behalf" IF
people are doing the best they can do, and still have it rough, then
life's throwing them one hell of a hard time, and usually there's a program
in place to help them if they're a parent with small children, sick or
disabled, or elderly. If someone has it rough and is an able-bodied person
capable of doing for themselves, they are expected to use whatever skill or
ability they have and put forth the effort it takes to help themselves.
Even then, if they end up in extremely desperate circumstances, there are
soup kitchens and shelters that will give people a bed for the night.
The fantasyland was supposed to make a point as well. I don't think the
majority of people would be very happy if despite their skill and
abilities, they all had to be in the exact same situation. I'm glad that I
live in a world where someone born poor can move out of that situation.
Even if some people think it's evil to do so.
____________________
|
| |
Tvileren
Occasional Poster   Posts: 38 Registered: 26/4/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 9/5/2003 at 03:02 AM |
First off, I want to say that I am not a communist or have any communist
tendencies, only that peoples most basic needs should be taken care of, so
they not starve to death,freeze to death, yada yada yada, not so they
should have a comfortable life. I don't believe that the poor is any
"better" than the rich, they are both the same exept that the rich have
money.
"What i am saying and the point I am trying to make to people who think
that it's not fucking fair for the haves to have while the have-nots go
without is that if you don't get off your ass and at least try to make your
life better all you will have your whole life is shit"
This I agree with.
about the "contempt" of yours regarding the poor, I think that
misunderstanding may come of the fact that you said that it was their own
fault that they were poor. Sounds a little like you mean that they
deserve to suffer..
ps: your fantasy land sounds more like horror land... ____________________
|
| |
Meranda_Jade
Fanatic Posts: 511 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 8/5/2003 at 11:19 PM |
Tvileren, The story was just a story. It was meant to illustrate a point
that I was trying to make. I know you saw a story that was sensationalized
to garner pity for the poor and to vilify the rich. Once again, I am
stating clearly that I in no way feel contempt for the poor or judge people
by the size of their bank account. If you are wondering how people get
their basic needs under unusual circumstances, there are programs in place
for these people.
I know this system inside and out; I lived through it. I was fed from a
food bank, I got clothes from a donation box at a church. My mother was on
welfare and got subsidized housing. I know the system works. I also saw how
people were working the system and making no effort to get out of it and
stand on their own two feet. I think that everyone does get their basic
necessities, there are programs in place to make sure that the sick and
elderly and children do not starve or go unclothed or unsheltered. I was
fed just fine as a child and we were homeless at one point. I was 15, and
spent ONE NIGHT at a homeless shelter and ended up sleeping on someone's
floor while I went to high school and worked a full-time job. I bought a
car with money that I single handedly earned so my mother could go to a job
that the state had given her. No one can tell me there is not a system in
place for those who don't have anything. What i am saying and the point I
am trying to make to people who think that it's not fucking fair for the
haves to have while the have-nots go without is that if you don't get off
your ass and at least try to make your life better all you will have your
whole life is shit. If I stood placidly by and let life take care of me, I
would be right now, in a trailer or low income housing project, probably on
drugs to dull the pain of having nothing. THAT'S one of the things that
happens to people who have no idea how to get out of it. I had a friend
once, whose mother was one of the worst offenders of the whole milking the
system racket. This woman would sell the food stamps for drugs and let the
children go hungry. My friend got pregnant at the age of 14. She quit
school, got a G.E.D. and got married to an abusive redneck a year later.
Popped out two more kids and gave one to her mother to raise because the
mother was about to be taken off welfare and with the addition of the baby
was saved for another 5 years. My friend got divorced from the abusive
dickhead, and was right back in the welfare system that she'd grown up in.
She had subsidized housing, food stamps, the whole thing. She wanted more.
She started dancing in a tit-bar to supplement her income, and went to an
adult-education program at a local high school to become a medical
assistant. She actually didn't take the medical assistant job because she
discovered that dancing was more lucrative. Last I heard, she was still on
welfare, milking the system and dancing to supplement it. I have no idea
where she is now. These things happen. I have dozens of other stories of
families that have had hard times and had to use the system to survive, or
used the system to their advantage so they would not have to work for a
living. I could go on for hours about it. I know that people do not have to
stay on welfare if they're born into it. I also know that it's very hard to
get off welfare sometimes. I know that some people think it's not fair that
some children are born into homes where their parents don't have to worry
about where the next meal is coming from while there are children born into
homes where their parents either do worry about that next meal or don't
give a flying fuck about that next meal. You can't control what kind of
situation you are born into. You can control how your life will be when you
grow up. If anyone has the right to bitch and complain that the system is
not fair, it's me. Goddamit, I wish I had been born into a family where I
was loved and taken care of, and not abused or left to fend for myself. I
wish my mother had not been too crazy to be an actual mother to me and my
sister. Fuck, I wish I'd had the goddamn opportunity to make a decent life
for myself and my children. I know! I'll hate the people who were born into
middle class homes and that will make me feel better. After all, they think
they're so great for having stuff, while I have nothing. They're mean. I
wish they were on the same level as I am. That would be fair.
Forgive me for not having a lot of faith in comunism. I do not believe that
if everyone were given the same amount of goods that they would voluntarily
do what is required to make it work. People just aren't that altruistic and
good hearted. When people go through a period of enlightenment and have a
regard for their fellow people, it might work. Until then, the ones who put
forth the most effort will reap the most rewards. If I want to have a
million dollar house, and I don't put the effort that is required into
attaining that kind of living, I have no right to bitch that I don't have a
million dollar house. I also do not have the right to degrade the person
who has put the effort into attaining a million dollar house.
I am saying that it is not fair to expect someone to take care of you when
you are capable of taking care of yourself. If you can't afford luxuries,
then find a way to fix things so you can get the luxuries you want. If you
can't get necessities, go find the programs that will help you get
necessities until you can get back on your feet. Do not keep taking from
the system when you can do for yourself. Have some fucking pride and
dignity. These things are not evil. (I know, pride's one of the 7 deadly
sins. That's a doctrine that is meant to keep the masses down and
degraded.)
Tvileren, If people are in the system, they're being taken care of as much
as the system can take care of them. If they're not in the system, there
are a lot of homeless shelters for them to go to temporarily. Nobody in
this country has to starve to death anymore. We do tend to take care of
people here. Some people are just more bitter than others about their lot
in life. The woman you saw on the movie, I don't know her personal
circumstances, but I would bet that she and her children did not die of
starvation or cold. I will concede that their lives were not very
comfortable, but what do you want? Them and everybody else to be set up in
rent free housing with free groceries and free vouchers to the mall
department stores? Would that be fair to everyone?
What if, in fantasyland, everyone always had the same thing? Everyone is
sent to the same government-regulated school, and upon graduation is
assigned to their own identical little house. They are told they must
report immediately to the same government-regulated college education, and
are randomly put into different career paths, so everything's fair.
Intelligence and ability have nothing to do with what career they will end
up with. Everyone is given the same uniform to wear to school, and when
they graduate are given the appropriate uniform for their career path.
Everyone, regardless of career, is given the same grocery package and are
assigned the same necessary items such as telephones and computers and
cars. All items look and function alike. Everyone lives the same identical
life forever and ever. Is this what's fair? Is everyone happy with this?
It's too fucking bad we don't life in fairyland, isn't it? ____________________
|
| |
Dolorosa
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 856 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 8/5/2003 at 07:22 AM |
| No one makes sense when it comes to politics my friend...not even the
Gods. ____________________
In the valley of the Goats, the Goat Fucker is King
|
| |
Tvileren
Occasional Poster Posts: 38 Registered: 26/4/2003 Status: Offline
|
posted on 8/5/2003 at 06:57 AM |
That story about the Girl and her movement up the ladder.. Where was the
father of the child? is every person guarantied to have such a school
nearby? how was she able to do that with a child? who looked after the
child while she worked/studied? Is every school/work so near everyone? I
remember watching "Bowling for Columbine" where a black mother in order to
get food stamps and health care for her children, was forced to work for
the states "wellfare to work" programme, she had to travel 60 miles?(I
think) 1 and a half hour each way to work. She worked as a waitress in a
club for rich people, leaving home early and coming home late at night.
She worked at Dick Clarke's. I just resaw it to get it straight and she
also had two jobs.. 70 hours a week and still not enough money to pay her
rent, she was getting evicted along with her two children.
how could she move up the ladder?
And what about the middle class people that lose their jobs when the firm
they work at finds out that it will be cheaper to move to Mexico ?
Sorry about the babbling.. just wondering,
But this one: "If everyone in this country were given all of their basic
necessities, food, shelter, clothing, etc. NOBODY would ever do anything,
and there would be no food, shelter or clothing to hand out. You'd have to
put a gun to people's heads to get them to do anything. People seek
pleasure and avoid pain by nature."
Do you call basic necessities for luxury? some food? a place to take
shelter so they won't freeze in the winter? The thing with most humans is
that they always want more.. they see their neighbour have a fancy new tv
and they want the same or something better, improve their lot in life. Not
many people wants to stay at the bottom of the heap and live of the state.
I believe most people would be disgusted at the thought. Many people here
are having difficulties going and getting support from the state when they
are unemployed.
Sorry about the bad language but English is not my main language.... Plus I
have no idea how stuff is done in America, evey man for himself? Do I make
any sence? ____________________
|
| |
Rogue
Member   Posts: 199 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
 posted on 8/5/2003 at 06:44 AM |
Mono, you are angry and confused and are not understanding what I am
saying. This is not about you, this is about the system and the options
available to all. I took no personal offence and retracted my challenge,
but still held the example of the Mexican immigrant as an instance of
someone with no unfair advantage who exploited no-one and improved his
station, probably because he was too belligerent to accept what people told
him.
To everyone else, I say the following:
I consider resources to be time, skill/intelligence/knowledge, effort, and
assets/money.
You must spend resources to get resources. I spend
time and considerable skill at my job, and I get money in return. I would
probably take a job that gave less money but cost less time because that
would also be a fair trade. If I spend my money resource and some skill
and a small amount of time in investing, I can also make money. With
enough skill at my job I can spend less time there while still getting the
same money. There is a pattern here, that you trade resources in life and
you decide what is worthwhile to trade.
Typically, the poor man spends only time at his work, and enough effort to
keep from getting fired. He is rewarded accordingly, and this actually
affords a nice middle-class lifestyle if spending is not out of control.
The executive spends great amounts of skill and effort, and often more time
than a factory worker, at his job and is rewarded accordingly. He is not
expending the same amount of resources per hour as the blue-collar man, he
is expending more and is working more effectively. The investor, such as
Warren Buffett, spends time and extreme skill and money to earn more money.
The individual decides what resources he can or will spend in exchange for
what other resources, and the trade is done. Actors (gender-neutral term)
spend skill and a small bit of time in exchange for money, and in any
situation you can identify what resources are being traded for what other
resources.
To figure out why one man is paid more than another, you must
examine what he is contributing/spending and what he is taking from the
situation. Hard work is less effective than smart work, and hard smart
work is even more effective. Hard smart work plus time pays off in more
resources/money than the last two, etc.
You must contribute
resources to a society in order to earn the benefits of that society. This
should be easy to understand, because otherwise it would turn into a stone
soup potluck. There is usually a method in society for allocation of
'surplus' resources to provide for those genuinely unable to contribute,
the old or sick or very young. In the case of social security and
unemployment insurance, it is a simple banking system in most cases, where
you can only take out what you put in. Personally, I would like to be able
to cash-out my unemployment insurance account because it would buy a nice
car, but in this instance the government is forcing me to do the
responsible thing.
In any situation, you can choose to accept the options that are given to
you and choose between them, or to make your own options. If someone says
to you "you are poor, you must work in a factory or starve", you can do
those things or you can find a hidden option. Further, if someone tells you
that your financial worth determines the worth of you personally, you can
accept this or reject it for the mind poison that it is. It frustrates me
to see people who want more out of life, but believe what they were told
about being worthless or "not meant for good things" or similar garbage.
Do not accept anything that says you are worthless or incapable or not good
enough, find the truth and the hidden options.
There are always
hidden options.
The one thing that never works is choosing to bemoan your options without
trying one of them or looking for new ones.
I agree that a system should be in place that provides for those who are
unable to provide for themselves, but for the most part this already
exists. I do not think that a society can afford to spend great amounts of
resources in providing food, shelter, clothing, etc to anyone who wants it,
because human nature is such that many people would become too comfortable
with this and not contribute back to the society. Welfare reforms are
based on this principle, to end the abuses of the system that were
prevalent in the 1970s. (in all fairness, I would mention that the last
figures I saw stated that $.04 of every tax dollar goes to welfare programs
while $.72 goes to defence...but this is something that the people need to
be motivated to change if they wish it to be different.)
Briefly, I consider society and economics to be like a piggy bank that can
convert coins of one denomination to another, like you put in two quarters
and you can take out a half-dollar. In my model though, the coins are
resources. I put in 5 units of work, 10 units of skill, 5 units of effort,
and I can take out 20 units of money at the end of the day. I do not
expect to get more than I put in, and I feel that the system is flawed but
fair enough in that it has been my experience that it works this way.
|
| |
Meranda_Jade
Fanatic Posts: 511 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 07:08 PM |
>Meranda, I am also at a fundamental loggerhead with you. My hatred of the
active parasites at the top does not match your contempt for the passive
parasites at the bottom. As much as I vehemently despise the leisure class,
I would not deny them a basic substistence nor strip them of the nobility
of humanity. I do not contemptuously view those who suffer as having
brought everything upon themselves and are therefore ignoble, disposable or
less than human. The philosophy you are espousing measures a person's worth
by the size of their bank account, and since you are familiar with my
financial situation, it is impossible for me not to conclude that you view
me as inherently worthless and ignoble.
Mono, I think you ought to really think about what I said. I did not say
that people who refuse to do anything to help themselves are ignoble,
disposable or less than human. I also said nothing about the person's
worth. I have met MANY worthy people I have been proud to call friend who
had nothing. For many years, I had nothing, yet I hope someone out there
saw me as a worthy person in my own right, despite my financial situation.
I still believe that people can, and do rise and fall financially based on
skill, ability and ambition, or any combination of the three. It does not
mean that the people who rise to the top are all bad or that the people who
sink to the bottom are all good. Or vice versa. I'm saying that morality
has nothing to do with it. People at the very bottom have access to
government and social programs to help them receive their necessities.
People who want more than the basic necessities simply have to put personal
effort into seeing that they acquire those things. It would not be fair if
it were any other way. If you think I see you as worthless, you are
reading a very different story than that which I was trying to get across.
You are taking it very personally. It's a debate, and nothing to take
personally. If Rogue were to lose his job, and we had to go on welfare, I
would hate it, and I would try every way in my power to get off of it, but
I would not see myself or the people around me as inhuman. When I was a
child and on welfare, I had no choice. That is what I was born into. My
mother got a job from a program with the mental hospital at the bulk mail
center. A nice, government job was just handed to her, because she was
certifiably crazy. She turned out to be too crazy to hold that job, and
began receiving social security. Recently, she won a civil suit against the
postal service because they fired her and she was crazy, and therefore was
supposed to be exempt from firing, no matter how crazy she behaved, or how
many days she missed due to being crazy. She now owns (as in owns property)
a trailer that she bought with money from social security and winning that
suit. Now, everything she has was just handed to her, she did nothing to
gain this advantage. The doctors made sure she was taken care of. Is this
how everyone ought to expect their lives to go? Is this what's fair? She
can't possibly be an evil person because she was too insane to take
advantage of anything. Me, on the other hand, my ( extremely inheritable,
my mother insists) insanity hasn't fully kicked in, I can't have my
necessities just handed to me, I have to use the unfair advantage I took of
Rogue when he proposed to me and promised to take care of me. I ought to
have turned him down and slashed my wrists so I could go into the mental
hospital and have the system that is in place for the mentally handicapped
take good care of me. After all, anything else would have been evil. But
at least I would have the knowledge that I was absolutely passive about my
life and did nothing to ruin anyone else's.
And there I go again. You see, I'm very touchy about this, not because, as
you state, I'm contemptuous of the passive parasites and those who suffer.
I've been there, and I know that those who are there, are there of their
own free will. There are people, social groups, religious and governmental
programs lined up to do anything to make sure the poor have the chance to
climb out of that pit of despair. They can't give them a hand up unless the
poor are willing to help by actively trying to get out instead of hanging
there like so much dead weight. That is not meant to be contemptuous, it is
a fact that I have seen in action over and over again.
What you have done here is disregard the point I was actually trying to
make in order to slander me by saying I meant things that I obviously did
not mean. You know damn well that I think highly of you, that I hold few
people in contempt, and that based almost entirely on whether or not
someone is actively mean, hateful and deliberately hurtful toward someone
else. The way I feel about people has nothing to do with what's in their
bank account or even how hard they're trying to improve. I like nice
people. I do not like mean people. It's that simple. Please do not put
words I have not spoken into my mouth ever again. If you hate me so much
because I disagreed with you, and you feel I betrayed you or let you down
in some way, there's nothing I can do about that. I had no idea that our
friendship was so shallow that it could be destroyed by me stating an
opinion that disagrees with yours. I was under the unreasonable assumption
that it was much stronger than that. I will not ask for your forgiveness,
for I still believe that I have done nothing wrong, and it would be like
beating my head into a brick wall. I will say I am deeply sorry to have
lost your friendship, which meant the world to me.
Meranda
____________________
|
| |
callei
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 759 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 05:19 PM |
| *goes out for a cigarette during the intermission* ____________________
Real goths wear silver and crosses to keep the werewolves and vampires
away.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 01:38 PM |
I have actually attempted to bow out of this to keep it from becoming an
"emotional shmengfest". While I am the first to admit that I am a hothead,
let us not pretend that this is a detached and impersonal difference of
opinion. You have taken my comments as an attack on your family while at
the same time all but calling me a social parasite. Actually, Rogue, I did
address your comments. I do recall who was the class president of your
high school... and I also recall how that president was subsequently
undermined and excluded by the more advantaged kids who met and made all
the decisions behind his back because they resented the niceties of the
democratic process when it did not cement their own advantages. I can not
debate with you if you feel that a poor person and an advantaged person
expend an equal amount of effort and resources to generate the same amount
of capital to purchase their necessities... and cars, computers,
telephones, groceries et cetera are not simply "choices" if you wish to
participate in this society. The man who has the capital and connections
to afford a nicer suit and haircut at his job interview will be preferred
over the man next to him who can only cobble together business apparel that
he finds at a thrift store.
Meranda, I am also at a fundamental loggerhead with you. My hatred of the
active parasites at the top does not match your contempt for the passive
parasites at the bottom. As much as I vehemently despise the leisure
class, I would not deny them a basic substistence nor strip them of the
nobility of humanity. I do not contemptuously view those who suffer as
having brought everything upon themselves and are therefore ignoble,
disposable or less than human. The philosophy you are espousing measures a
person's worth by the size of their bank account, and since you are
familiar with my financial situation, it is impossible for me not to
conclude that you view me as inherently worthless and ignoble.
If those at the top were ever actually the most able, most intelligent,
most skilled, most driven and most superior specimens of humanity then
there might be something to your thesis. This is not now nor has it ever
been the case. I will never be convinced that the executives of
Halliburton or Microsoft or Enron are superior in any way to anyone. They
are simply evil, manipulative, and underhanded. Perhaps they have better
"attitudes" than everyone else... access to wealth and medication can
certainly improve the worst of attitudes or mental illnesses.
Most importantly, even if I were able to be blithe about being viewed as
inferior because I am not rich, the mercenary "law of the jungle" you are
espousing causes me to view our relationship in an entirely new light. You
do not benefit monetarily from your relationship with me, nor I you, and I
am left to presume that this friendship is therefore incompatible with your
worldview (or at best, competitive... which I am in no way amenable to. I
do not believe that "every man for himself" is a sound basis for meaningful
exchange). No, Rogue, it does not make me "feel better", but I am
accustomed to dealing with the world as I find it and not how I imagine it
should be.
This is my last word in this forum.
~M.
|
| |
Meranda_Jade
Fanatic Posts: 511 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 10:44 AM |
| Mono, this I believe, is the first time I have ever disagreed with you on
anything. Most of the time you make a lot of sense. I just can't agree with
you on this one. And I can't believe you would break a friendship over one
disagreement. Please reconsider the love being lost part. None has been
lost on this side. ____________________
|
| |
Rogue
Member Posts: 199 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 10:41 AM |
If it makes you feel better, so be it. However, my points still have not
been addressed. Can anyone add to this or refute my points, or point out a
flaw in my logic or facts? This is a forum, not merely a monologue, and I
invite participation and discussion. Squid, Remy, Callei, Shade, anyone?
I came here for rational debate and exploration of this issue, if that is
possible without it decaying into an emotional shmengfest.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 10:00 AM |
We are through. We will remain in fundamental disagreement and love is now
lost.
|
| |
Rogue
Member Posts: 199 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 07:45 AM |
This discussion will get nowhere if it is going to be personal, so I will
take the mea culpa and retract my specific challenge.
That said, I would like someone (not just you, Mono, this is a sort of
group thing) to specifically and concisely address a few points.
What unfair advantage does a Mexican immigrant with no money have? If he
retires wealthy due to hard work and providing safe affordable housing in
poor neighbourhoods, who has he exploited?
I assert that options packages for executives are fair, more fair than
salaries for them. They have the effect of pay-for-performance and tie the
executive's benefit to the company directly to his compensation. How is
rewarding work with money unfair? Was I evil two years ago when I had
$300K+ of options tied to my company's performance and my own personal
performance? I found that to be encouraging and motivating, since my work
would directly have a payoff.
Am I evil or exploiting now, because I do not do the job my father does and
I do not live where I grew up? I am struggling to understand your idea of
fair, because it seems like you suggest equal reward for inequal effort and
skill.
Where is a society to get its resources if not from contributions from its
members? A company pays a worker fairly for his job, since if it were not
fair he would work elsewhere. I have personally been doing this very
thing for years, and once received a $10K raise just because management
thought my work was too valuable for my pay. Was I evil to accept it? If
we reward all people for no contribution, we will quickly run out of
resources. Companies and their workers, including executives, contribute
to society by providing a product that people want or they wouldn't buy it.
Who is forced to buy Starbuck's coffee when they could buy from the store
next to it? I will mention at this point that there is an anti-Starbucks
coalition to drive down costs for the single shop coffee vendor, in other
words, they have found a more efficient way due to survival pressure.
Society behaves like a jungle, and companies behave like individuals. The
option is to contribute and do it well enough to match or exceed that of
others, or go down. K-Mart was not as good at what they do as Wal-Mart is,
and they have suffered. The result is better value for the consumer, your
exploited underclass, since they determine who succeeds and who fails by
virtue of their consumption.
I would like to see a definition here of what wealth is to whomever asserts
that wealth is unfair. I would also like to see a definition of unfair,
since I feel that using resources at your disposal and taking opportunity
is fair. I would also like to see a definition of exploitation, since
nobody forces anybody to get a certain job or buy certain things like SUVs
that make them need a higher-paying job. It is all voluntary, and there
are those that choose to reject the system but they must accept that they
cannot benefit from the system at that point. Theodore Kaczynski was one
such person, and he became totally self-sufficient. Was he evil or
exploiting for taking this chance? He didn't expect a nice town house and
three meals a day for nothing, and took his own action.
Warren Buffett provides services that people want and provides more value
to society than he has money, and he has billions. Nobody is forced to use
Geico insurance, Kirby vacuum cleaners, or any of the other subsidiary
products that his company provides. ( I could have sworn that he owned
Dairy Queen as well, but I cannot find a reference at this time.) Warren
has all the money he deserves, and no more. I could go on, with the likes
of Michael Bloomberg, Larry Ellison, the Waltons (of the Wal-Mart dynasty)
and William Rosenberg of Dunkin Donuts fame. Jesus died for our Dunkin
Donuts, let us not forget. Please show me how someone has contributed
billions to the economy and to people's lives and has not been rewarded,
and how someone was made a billionaire by simply complaining about not
being one.
I am interested in discussing this to its conclusion or, more likely,
stalemate, but this cannot devolve into personal attacks or taking personal
offence if we expect to have anything more than the typical forum shouting
match.
I fail to see how it is cheaper to be rich, as you assert. A $300 car that
needs $500 work to pass emissions is still worlds cheaper than a new $30K
car that is exempt from emissions. My big ugly van cost me $1200 (and I
negotiated the price *up*, so you can't accuse me of exploiting the seller)
and has had nearly $4K worth of work (including $500 just to pass CO
emissions, which makes it cleaner than most cars in OH) in the six years I
have owned it. That works out to about $70 a month, and my other vehicle
costs me $500 per month before maintenance and repairs. How is this
cheaper? Please prove this to me, because I will then go out and get
something even cheaper, a new Mercedes 600SL.
Should my children go to the same school as the very rich kids? Yes, they
should, if I can get that for them. They deserve it but I don't expect it
to be handed to me.
Finally, what would be a better system than the one we have now? It must
provide for the poor as this one does to a degree, have in place something
to overcome inherent human nature that would make people not contribute if
they didn't feel it were worth their efforts, and it must provide for true
direct democracy while somehow overcoming the desire of most people to be
ignorant and not participate in their government. I am being completely
serious here, since I honestly do not see any other way besides directly
rewarding contributions and effort. If we could design a superior social
and economic system, it could be put in place. Have you forgotten who was
senior class President at our high school, and how this individual was not
of the "advantaged" cliques who held all the influence?
|
| |
Shade
Fanatic  Posts: 289 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 07:10 AM |
| Hear hear Meranda! Well spoken, and I couldn't agree more. ____________________
It is only through the lack of sex that humanity derives the need for an
all encompassing blind love. And in that moment of extreme horniness with
no relief in sight, in that moment can be found the birth of religion.
-Me
|
| |
Meranda_Jade
Fanatic Posts: 511 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 7/5/2003 at 06:57 AM |
I'm going to have to jump in here after all, it seems. I've tried to stay
out of it, because it really is a pointless argument, and one that people
seem to be incredibly impassioned about. Mono, I love you dearly, but I
have to disagree with you here. I say that ANYONE has the opportunity to
change their status in life. That is proven fact. There really is equal
educational opportunity for all. The child of welfare parents goes to the
same high school as the local doctor's kid, and they have the same chance
to pass or fail. They have the same chance to go to college. (There are
actually social programs in place to allow the child on welfare to go to
college for damn near free.) Now, is it evil for that welfare child to
accept these programs and better themselves, or should they be noble and
let someone else have that scholarship (that they EARNED, perhaps by
working hard in school...) so they can sit in a nasty trailer for the rest
of their lives? So help me, if someone had told me when I was on welfare
that I was just stuck there, that I could not rise above my station, I
would have put a bullet in my head. I don't consider those who rise from
extreme poverty to be inherently evil either. I don't consider the extreme
poor to be inherently good. I've seen people, very poor people, do
horrible, evil things to each other and to their children, and not in order
to gain anything, either. I don't consider the extreme rich to be
inherently evil. A person who has made millions, owns a company that gives
thousands of "poor" people jobs, is not exploiting anybody. Those people
NEED those jobs and they CHOOSE to work for that person. The person who has
made millions and owns a company that is providing jobs to society is
contributing to society. The person sitting in a trailer is contributing
nothing but yet another mouth for a government program to feed. I don't
care what you say, IT IS NOT GOOD AND NOBLE TO ACCEPT WELFARE!!! It is
shameful and degrading. It is the most hateful and miserable existence
imaginable. NOBODY can hold their head up high and be happy with themselves
if they're accepting a handout.
You say that property is inherently theft and that resources to one
necessitate depriving another. How can it be theft to spend money that you
put a lot of personal effort into acquiring on owning a house so you and
your children can be safe and secure? Are all the homeowners in america
directly responsible for the fact that other people have to rent? No,
because anyone who makes a steady living and has good credit can buy a
house.
>"But what about those horrible people who refuse to be exploited? Why
should they be given homes and food and clothing when other people work
hard for their pittances?" The answer to that question is: because we are a
society of alleged human beings and that is what a humane society does. It
takes care of its members.
Not without those members contributing to that society in some way. I've
never read about any society in history that just gave lazy people a free
ride. If everyone in this country were given all of their basic
necessities, food, shelter, clothing, etc. NOBODY would ever do anything,
and there would be no food, shelter or clothing to hand out. You'd have to
put a gun to people's heads to get them to do anything. People seek
pleasure and avoid pain by nature. The urge to avoid pain is stronger than
the urge to seek pleasure, because when people get to a state of existance
that is comfortable for them, they tend to stay right there. It is painful
to live in horrible conditions, starving and cold. So people go to work so
they can have money to buy what they need to make them more comfortable. If
they want a swimming pool in the backyard or a membership to the country
club to make themselves comfortable, and they have the intelligence, skill
and ambition to get to that point, they can and will get there. There is
nothing stopping them. If they get to a point where they're comfortable
with just the house in the suburbs and a compact car, they will stay right
there, because they're comfortable and have no need to try harder for
better things. It's still not a morality issue. It is not evil to scratch
your way to the top. You can get to the top without depriving someone of
their just desserts, because the only one you're competing with is the
person scratching to the top right alongside you. The people who stay where
they are, are depriving themselves if they don't start scratching as well.
I'll tell you a story. Once up on a time there were two girls. They went to
the same school, both came from lower-middle class homes, their fathers
worked in the same factory. One year in school, both girls got pregnant,
had to quit school and wound up living in low-income housing projects on
welfare. Girl A said, "I'm comfortable here, I have a roof over my head, I
get money for food, I don't have to pay utilities. I'm just going to sit
right here and watch tv." Girl B said, " I want something better out of
life, for me and for my child." Girl B studied and got her G.E.D. Through a
government program, she enrolled in classes at a community college. Two
years later, she was able to get a job making enough to move out of the
projects. Girl A thought to herself, " Look at her, she thinks she's better
than the rest of us. What right does she have to get what she wants when I
have nothing?" (there is no one who hates to see the poor succeed as much
as another poor person) She grunted in dissatisfaction, but went back to
watching her soaps on tv. Girl B was living in a nicer apartment in a
better neighborhood, but still said, "No, this isn't good enough for me and
my little boy. We need a house with a yard for him to play in. " She had
gotten good grades in college, enough that she could apply for scholarships
and get into classes at a state college. She worked and went to school, and
four years later had a great job making enough for her to buy a house in a
much nicer neighborhood. By then her son and Girl A's son were going to
school, and because of the city program of bussing children to schools in
different neighborhoods, the boys were in the same first grade classroom.
The two girls were very surprised when they met each other at a school
function. Girl B was nicely groomed and well dressed, self-assured and
happy. Girl A was slatternly, strung out, dejected and very unhappy. Girl A
thought it was terrribly unfair that Girl B had so much while she had so
little. She felt bitter and hateful about Girl B's success, and thought
that Girl B was incredibly stuck-up and flaunting her wealth in the face of
the poor, underpriveleged Girl A. Girl A reassured herself by saying, "At
least I know I'm a good person, I didn't climb over the backs of the poor
to raise my station in life."
The two boys grew up and graduated high school. Girl B's son, Boy B went
to college but wasn't terribly motivated. He struggled through, barely
passing. He got a Master's degree in philosophy, and went and lived in the
basement in his mother's house where he daydreamed bizarre theories that
never came to any kind of conclusion. His mother cooked his meals, washed
his clothes and gave him room and board rent-free. Still, he suffered from
an overall dissatisfaction about his way of life. He was comfortable
though, so he sighed went about his buisness, and became nothing more than
a burden on his hardworking mother. (who should have kicked his ass out to
live in the streets, but he was her son, and she loved him.)
Girl A's son was blessed with a keen intellect. He'd hated his and his
mother's way of life growing up, and was determined to change that. He went
to college on a government grant and took buisness finance. He graduated
with honors and got a job buying and selling companies for a high-powered
corporation. Soon, his net worth was in the millions. He began buying and
selling companies for himself and his net worth shot up to billions. With
these billions he started educational programs aimed at underprivileged
children so they would find it easier to see the possibilities in life and
take action to make their lives less miserable. He started scholarship
funds for the extreme poor to make it easier for them to get the education
they'd need to rise above the pitfalls of poverty.
Who is evil in this story? Who really exploited anything? This story is
supposed to illustrate that no matter the class of people you come from,
you can drastically change your life for better or worse, based entirely
upon your skills, abilities and ambition. If people do not take action on
their behalf, and they stay poor and miserable, IT IS THEIR OWN GODDAMN
FAULT. EVERYONE has to work to get themselves to their comfort level and
EVERYONE has the same chance to get to where they want, even if not
everyone has the same skills, abilities or ambitions to get there. If
you're stupid and/or lazy, then chances are, you're going to be poor. If
you're smart and/or have ambition, chances are you're not.
This post is not addressing the large corporations, old family money,
connections of the aristocracy or anything else that you may bring up to
"prove me wrong." MY point here is to state that EVERYONE in this country
has the same CHANCE to become a megabillionaire. Not everyone has the same
ability to. Those that have the ability to, generally get there. People who
do nothing to improve their lives, especially if they have the ability,
deserve what they get. The fact that you make it a morality issue, I find
disturbing. I cannot agree that it's evil or selfish to improve your
station in life. I do not agree that to take an opportunity such as a good
job or a scholarship, is to take it away from someone more deserving. If
someone else were more deserving, that person would get the scholarship or
job. I think it's ridiculous to think that taking opportunities means that
you're "walking on the backs of the underpriveleged." They wouldn't be
underpriveleged if they were out there taking opportunity as well. And not
all advantage is unfair advantage. Not all advantage and opportunity come
from unethical practices. My final statement on this is, "You CAN change
your station in life for the better, even drastically, and do it ethically.
If you put no effort into working for a living, you cannot expect a living
to be handed to you." That is all. ____________________
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 6/5/2003 at 09:06 PM |
If that is the direction that we are going, then consider your challenge
extended and accepted. I will sweeten the pot by announcing that the
renunciation of friend, foe and family rather than adulterating my
convictions does not hold the slightest terror for me. I broke the ground
and am perfectly aware of how dangerous it is, but I am not the only one
treading upon it. If you wish to take my assertion that property is
inherently theft and that resources to one necessitate depriving another as
an attack against your family name, then that is your own decision. I will
remark, however, that we tend to first recognise and oppose those evils in
others that are most present within our own hearts and minds.
The debate is (again) one of apples and oranges. I am perfectly familiar
with Ayn Rand's principles and have stated already that I reject them as a
capitalist's bromide to help them sleep at night. It would be all good and
well to apply the "laws of the jungle" and natural selection to a situation
if it were anywhere near to being a jungle (or even a natural system), but
to apply them to a civil society which is ostensibly founded upon the
notions of mutual advantage for its members is ridiculous poppycock. If
everyone (or at least a very clear majority) did not imagine a clear
benefit from a society, there would be no society. Do not convince
yourself that everyone plays the game out of a deep and selfless love for
the two per cent or so at the top... they continue to play the game because
the alternative is Hobbes' "...nasty, brutish and short" existence and the
fact that they are trained from birth to chase the shiny carrot of
betterment that is continually dangled in front of their noses. People did
not abandon one jungle merely to compete in another. They formed civil
societies in the hopes of manufacturing a better and more secure present
for themselves.
I am always hearing about the "humble genesis" of this or that monstrous
corporate tycoon as if it had anything to do with the argument. I am
certain that Starbucks or Wal-Mart began as humbly as any multi-national
conglomerate before they took advantage of underhanded tactics (or are
those the "advantages" you were referring to?) to pressure their
competitors out of business. What capitalists always forget is that once a
corporation shakes off those (in most cases mythical) "humble" origins,
arguments about fair conduct and fair reward no longer apply to it. "They
raised themselves up by their bootstraps to get where they are! They
deserve to hoard wealth and deny it to the rest of society!" I
categorically deny that this is the case. After a certain level of wealth
is accumulated, nobody is being rewarded for their "hard work" and "good
business sense", because the work falls on the backs of the exploited
employees, NOT the corporate leeches who reap all the fiscal benefits, even
if these selfsame leeches were the ones who began the corporation in the
first place (in most cases, the person who formed the company does as much
"hard work" as they can manage before selling their companies for
preposterous sums to venture capitalists who gnerated their wealth by one
of three methods already discussed).
"But what about those horrible people who refuse to be exploited? Why
should they be given homes and food and clothing when other people work
hard for their pittances?" The answer to that question is: because we are a
society of alleged human beings and that is what a humane society does. It
takes care of its members. Nobody is clamouring to give an unemployed man
or woman a yacht and take them out on an Edwardian fox hunt, they are
simply trying to make sure that other human beings are fed, clothed and
sheltered. If it galls you so badly that somebody should be given
something for nothing, I would expect you to be much more affronted by the
CEO's who are given millions of dollars in stock options and grand estates
for polishing a chair with their ass and occasionally firing people for a
living. Nobody, read that again, NOBODY is entitled to luxuries, but all
human beings should be entitled to necessities... that is why we call them
necessities. To turn the question I began this paragraph with around: Why
should your children not be given the quality of education and health care
a rich person's children have access to?
But the bottom line here is, once again, this notion that anyone can rise
in the present system. I said this to Squid and I have said this to you:
Nonsense. We accept that EVERYONE can not benefit because of the pyramidal
structure of capital (that is to say, wealth to one means taking it from
someone else), but you console yourself with the notion that ANYONE could
be the top exploiter. I disagree. First, it is not hard work or even
"business sense" that is rewarded. What is specifically rewarded is bad
behaviour. Period. And it can not be any other way. As long as one person
takes an underhanded advantage of the situation (or, in your words, siezes
"opportunities" that present themselves), they will rise over the heads of
honest men. Once that person has established wealth, it is incumbent upon
them to build security for their wealth... that is to say, to make it more
difficult for someone else to deprive of them of it. In no time at all,
the wealthy establish "old boy's clubs" and other elitist measures to
prevent some poor upstart from the majority from cutting into their
profits. Between tax breaks, free resources and other "perks" being given
to the wealthy, and penalties being doled out to the poor, the wealthy are
actually required to SPEND LESS MONEY than the poor are. Quite simply, the
rich and the poor are not even playing the same game; it takes MORE MONEY
(that the poor do not have to begin with) for them to rid themselves of the
shackles that have been placed upon them than it would take a wealthy
person to generate a comparable amount of capital. That is not a system of
rewards and fair play, it is a system of exploitation and benefit to those
who can be most evil.
You are correct in providing a pit-fighting metaphor, but the wealthy are
given others to fight in their stead (and their champions are given machine
guns and body armour) while the poor are tossed into that pit naked. The
system is neither fair nor equally accessible. You are correct about one
thing... "blaming the system" will not better anyone's station. As long as
evil, blood sucking, capitalist swine have all the advantages, nothing will
better the station of the poor.
~M.
|
| |
Rogue
Member Posts: 199 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 6/5/2003 at 04:15 PM |
Squid, you summarised my viewpoint exactly a few posts ago. Democracy
works because it provides a sort of moderated pit fighting arena.
Moderated because people like the SEC can step in and call a foul for truly
unethical behaviour, and pit fighting because it is pretty much survival of
the fittest after that. It just so happens that fighting is inconvenient
and too much effort for the vast majority who cannot be bothered with
learning about their political, economic, or even social systems. This
leaves a great stinking pack of sheep with a few wolves to enjoy the
spoils. Wolves who take opportunity, and this in itself is not unethical.
As you know, it is fairly easy to start a business or other financial
scheme if you know how, and birth has nothing to do with it. What does
have something to do with it is mindset, and the one advantage that
rich-born people have over poor-born is the knowledge of where money comes
from and how to obtain it. Not connections, not free gifts, knowledge and
mindset are what divide the haves from the have-nots. In my opinion, this
is exactly what the founding fathers wanted. They were not interested in a
completely fair state or a state that provided equally for all regardless
of how skilled they were or how lazy. All men are created equal...after
that it's a free-for-all and if you want some, you have to go and get some.
Most economic and political systems provide for mobility like this, but
free market (democracy or not is irrelevant these days, markets drive
political systems lately) seems to be especially fertile for this.
In short, blaming the system will not improve the individual's station.
Good thought, diligent effort, and knowing an opportunity when you see it
will. I say, those who have made themselves more competitive by working
and learning and finding another option when they are told there are no
options, these people deserve to be inequal and perched atop stinking piles
of money. Likewise, those who mentally defeat and limit themselves and
make no effort or accept that they are trapped deserve whatever fate
befalls them. All men are created equal, but no two men end up exactly
equal and this is due to their own efforts and inherently fair.
Oh, and I was not born into an aristocracy. Far from it, I am two
generations from Mexico. My grandfather (Z''L) came here with thirty-five
dollars and knew (according to legend) how to say "beer" and "i be here
three weeks" in English and never learned the language particularly well.
He worked hard in a factory, bought and rehabilitated condemned houses, and
retired very well due to the sales and rentals of these houses. He
elevated himself above his birth position, which was youngest of eight boys
in a well-to-do family in Michoacan, and I challenge anyone to tread on the
unsafe ground of telling me how he exploited anyone to get there.
|
| |
dead-cell
Fanatic  Posts: 344 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 3/5/2003 at 09:24 PM |
Proofreader you say...hmmm you've never seen one of my shcool pappers have
you. Im am but a humble ex-biology major. Actually streptococcus is already
in your throat, been there before you said your first word. Bahh didn't
mean to give a biology lession; I could go on for longer.
____________________
co-worker: "Your gay!?"
myself: "Didn't you see my rainbow pin?"
co-worker: "I just thought you liked skettles."
-(yes, it actually happened to me)
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 1/5/2003 at 04:48 PM |
Good catch, Herr Cell! Necrotizing fasciitis is actually caused by a
mutated strain of the streptococcus A bacterium (the same li'l critter that
gives us strep throat). We could use a good proofreader like you at all
future staph (sic) meetings!
~M.
|
| |
|
|
|
