Democracy for a Socialist?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Wilson wrote:Oh, I'm definitely for taxing the big incomes. If that's enough, great, but I doubt it.
Why do you doubt it? We add up the cost of free college, and then raise taxes on big incomes to that amount. And why can't we tax the wealth too? For instance, aren't property taxes a tax on wealth? Why not raise taxes on short term investing profits through the roof to discourage speculators? There's lots of things we can do, but it requires we stop saying "there's a problem with this, a problem with that, we can't do what we haven't done before" and so on. Remember, Sanders is advocating for a political revolution.
What I don't want to happen is raise the taxes on the rich, drop them on the middle class, increase government spending, and make the deficit much worse.
Agree completely. No more deficit. I don't see why that is necessary.
Just because Bill had a roving .. uh, eye doesn't mean that he wasn't doing his best for the country.
I don't hate Bill Clinton, but he very clearly was not doing his best. He wasted an entire year of Presidency, at our expense. Not cool. But Hillary shares no blame here, so it's a dead issue.
I'm not sure what a "leader" is in politics.


Maybe that's why you support Hillary instead of Sanders, you don't know what a leader is?
His ability to lead Congress was as close to zero as any Senator.
The people are the ultimate power and he did an amazing job of leading them, especially the coming generation. But, not quite good enough sadly. I think his lack of charm was his weak link. Minorities probably can't relate to an angry old white man shaking his finger at the camera while being non-stop adamant. A great message, but not the ideal messenger, not Bobby Kennedy, just better than anybody else currently available, imho.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Gary S
Posts: 239
Joined: May 7th, 2011, 3:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Greta

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Gary S »

Belinda wrote:Gary S, indeed and you and I are among the richer people by a long shot, according to the plain evidence that here we are sitting typing on our keyboards.

So where to from here?
Well, the first step is that each of us needs to be honest with ourselves. What do we truly believe in? What moral system do we actually live by?

On the surface, most of us have sympathy for the poor, want to save the world, et cetera, et cetera, all the typical progressive talking points and beliefs. Talking this talk satisfies our need to be "good" people, it makes other people think we are kind and compassionate, and it is a good feeling to pull for the underdog and denigrate the "oppressors." It makes us feel better about ourselves. These thoughts make us feel morally superior. It is a prerequisite for entering into the "with-it" club, where one can share smug superiority with like-minded individuals.

But, over the years, as I peered ever deeper into what I actually believe, I came to realize that it is not my thoughts that make me who I am, but my actions. After all, my actions are what affect other people - my thoughts have no bearing at all. As I tried to discover my own personal moral system, I discovered that I like having a decent place to live, I like providing for my family, I like having leisure time for my hobbies, I like helping my neighbors when they are in need, stuff like that. My job entails helping others learn a trade that will provide for them for the rest of their lives. I like that too.

I also noticed that even though I feel sorry for starving African babies on the TV commercials (or refugees, or illegal aliens, or whatever is the current progressive push), I preferred to spend my money on my daughter's college education, or a new fishing reel, or on eating at a nice Tex-Mex restaurant. If one of my students needed some help paying his tuition, I helped. If a friend needed some money to get him out of a bind, I helped. On Thursday, I bought a two pound bag of cherries at $3.99 per pound - I am eating some of them right now. Cherries you say?!! The height of oppulence! That $8 could have fed a starving baby for two weeks!

Instead of hating myself or others, or feeling guilty for the discrepancy between my "sympathetic" thoughts and my "selfish" actions, I came to the conclusion that I simply needed to accept who I am. And my actions are who I am. My true moral system could be described as many concentric circles surrounding myself. In the inner most circle is my family and me. Next comes my close friends, next are my students/close neighbors, next my countrymen, et cetera, extending ever outwards. No doubt, the African babies are way way on the outside as are refugees from third world countries whose cultures and religions and ancestors have failed them. Do I wish things were better for those people? Of course. But wishing does nothing.

Having figured this out relieves me of having to go around spewing rhetoric that I actually do not live up to. It is comforting not to be a hypocrite.

Considering the above, many of you may have come to the conclusion that I am an uneducated heartless uneducated psychopath that probably doesn't deserve to have a vote, like those who voted for the UK to leave the EU. Perhaps those who voted to leave the EU have simply taken the deeper step and come to terms with their emotional thoughts and their practical actions.

But before you conclude that I am lacking morals, examine your own actions. You will find that you are me.

Gone to a concert lately? Should have spent that money on starving babies. Had a glass of wine lately? Poor person went hungry. Cup of coffee or tea this morning? More dead babies. Nice artwork hanging on your wall? Unsustainable oppulence. Used tobacco or marijuana lately? Burned up money that could have helped save the world.

Ate at a restaurant last week? Could have stocked the local food bank instead. Ran your heating or cooling to stay comfortable? Greenhouse gases spewed into the atmosphere. Live in a residence with more than 100 square feet per person? Another homeless person without a place to stay. Have a refrigerator stocked with anything but the most basic of foods? Utter selfishness. Take more than two showers a week? Unsustainable. Played on the internet today? Have a cell phone? Have more than 2 pairs of shoes? Drive a car instead of a motorcycle? On and on and on...

Before you dismiss me, please take a hard look at your life. Do you act and live up to your words that you type on this forum? If you believe in your words, then live and act by them. If you don't live and act by your words, then change your words. Would you take some refugees or a homeless person or even a starving African child into your home? It is possible to adopt, you know. Sure, you do a few things to make you feel better - to make you feel good that you are saving the planet and humanity, but really? Do you really buy in to all the things you say? I hear the Peace Corps is doing some good work.
You really need to have faith that not only is inclusiveness more moral it's also more expedient.
Faith? Why should I have faith in it? What does "faith" do anyway? It leads to a bunch of worthless talk is what it does. Besides, the whole damn thing is unsustainable, regardless of what you and I do. Heck, do you even have faith in it? Adopted any refugees lately? Why not?
Belinda wrote:As for Mexico, would it be better that Mexico become a US state, or better still a Canadian one?
Mexico's geography and natural resources aren't all that different from the states that border it. The difference is the culture. Mexico's culture is the problem. How to change that? Impossible without a people's revolution. And Canada couldn't afford to annex Mexico.

-- Updated Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:11 am to add the following --
Wilson wrote:I truly believe that Hillary will do what she can. I doubt that the speaking fees and donations to their charity will cause her to go easy on those guys.
Wilson, do you realize that the Clinton family business is politics? The Clintons have made $230 million since 2001. Speaking, writing, advising, and consulting. Have some pretty nice capital investments too. But that's okay, they are "in touch" with the masses. As such, Hillary will throw a bone or two to the oppressed whenever necessary to shore up the popularity.

-- Updated Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:26 am to add the following --

Added: Sorry Wilson, after reading further in the thread, you apparently do understand that politics is the Clinton family business - and a very lucrative business at that. I wonder if the Clintons would qualify as "greedy rich" people that should be relieved of the majority of their wealth through taxation. I mean, come on, making $230 million in 15 years? They could easily survive on $1 million per year surely? That would be $215 million for the poor! What you think, Ormond?

-- Updated Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:48 am to add the following --
Ormond wrote:The old order, where 5% of the world's population (USA) can consume 25% of the world's resources, is coming to an end. In the long run big picture this is just and good, in the shorter run for we the lucky, it's gonna hurt.
Since you say that it is "just and good," why don't you help the world achieve justice quicker by sending a large majority of your wealth to the poor in third world countries? Why wait? Or will you continue living the good life to the very last minute?

-- Updated Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:55 am to add the following --
Ormond wrote:they would have to explain why the average person doesn't benefit from getting important new benefits that they don't have to pay for.
No thanks. Average person here, don't need or want any important new benefits that I don't have to pay for. And there is the problem. When the voters figure out they can get stuff for free, and when politicians figure out they can win elections by giving away stuff for free, the whole thing goes down the toilet.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Gary S, regarding Mexico, now please read this:

In the week before Valentine’s Day, United Technologies expressed its love for its devoted Indiana employees, workers whose labor had kept the corporation profitable, by informing 2,100 of them at two facilities that it was shipping their factories, their jobs, their communities’ resources to Mexico.

A few workers shouted obscenities at the corporate official. Some walked out. Others openly wept as United Technologies shattered their hopes, their dreams, their means to pay middle-class mortgages.

Three days later, 1,336 workers at Philadelphia’s largest remaining manufacturer, Cardone, learned that company planned to throw them out too and build brake calipers in Mexico instead. Two weeks earlier, a Grand Rapids, Mich., company called Dematic did the same thing to its 300 workers.

No surprise. In the first decade of this century, America lost 56,190 factories, 15 a day.

Republican presidential candidates talk incessantly of building a physical wall to keep impoverished Mexican immigrants out of America. What they fail to offer is an economic barrier to prevent the likes of United Technologies and Cardone and Dematic from impoverishing American workers by exporting their jobs to Mexico.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-w-ger ... 85564.html

Now don't you see that Mexican 'culture' is of no account to the USA already? Mexico is to the USA a source of cheap labour. If the USA wants to use Mexican labour the USA should remove the border controls so that the labourers from Mexico can enjoy the fruits of the USA. If the borders were to be removed ,and Mexico be adopted into the USA then:

1. US industrial workers would not lose their jobs to Mexicans.

2. Mexicans would have no special reason to move to New Mexico or California, and would be the more likely to support their ethnic customs by staying in Mexico.
Socialist
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Gary S wrote:No thanks. Average person here, don't need or want any important new benefits that I don't have to pay for. And there is the problem. When the voters figure out they can get stuff for free, and when politicians figure out they can win elections by giving away stuff for free, the whole thing goes down the toilet.
Gary, the upper class has benefited greatly from globalization and has seen their incomes sky rocket over the last 30 years. During that same time middle class incomes have stagnated, the middle class is shrinking, and the poor are just as poor as ever. As these trends continue we are becoming ever more like a latin american nation with a thin crust of hyper-wealthy at the top, a tiny middle class, and masses of poor people underneath, an inherently unstable society.

Sanders wants to create a healthier more stable U.S. society by scaling back the economic extremes at both top and bottom, and by building a stronger middle class. Thus, he proposes taxing the wealthy to provide free college for everyone who can do the work, just as we now provide free high school. Here's why...

As Trump would correctly tell us, our jobs are going overseas. That's happening because we are being out competed by cheap labor in the third world. We can't match those wages because you can't survive in the U.S. on two dollars an hour.

What we can do is become the most educated nation on Earth, and successfully compete in the global market by providing advanced skills the emerging nations can't match on a large scale. If we're to do this, if we're to once again prosper, there is no alternative to raising the educational standards of the entire nation. A high school education is largely worthless these days, so we have to try to get as many people as possible in to advanced training of one kind or another.

So, how to pay for a bold expansion of the education system? By taxing those who have far more money than they need, by taxing those who have benefited the most from globalization. This evens the scales and spreads the benefits of globalization more broadly through out the entire society, instead of concentrating those benefits in a small number of people.

There's no pain involved here. A person with 100 million dollars can live just as happily on 90 million dollars. Literally millions of people would see their lives improved dramatically, with no one suffering to make it happen.

Trump's plan is to impose tariffs and start trade wars all over the planet which will mean that everything you need to buy will become more expensive, thus reducing your effective income. This is exactly the opposite of what Republicans have been preaching for decades.

If you are a sincere Republican, you should understand that if elected Trump is going to destroy the Republican Party by enthusiastically alienating every minority in the country, oh yea, and women too, at a time when we will soon be a minority majority nation (there will soon be more blacks and browns than whites).

If you are a middle class Republican, and if you vote for Trump, you are voting against your own interest both economically and politically. Trump doesn't care about you or the Republican Party, he cares only about Trump. And everyone in Washington knows this already, which is why a President Trump would have a very hard time getting anything done, he will very few if any real allies.

I'm sorry you don't have better choices this time around, but this has happened to liberals too. George McGovern lost 49 states at a time when liberalism was riding high. I wouldn't ask you to vote for Hillary, but hope you can stay home on election day, hold your nose, and wait it out for 4 years. Another chance to get it right will be here shortly.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Gary S, regarding your post about how you are not a hypocrite I do agree that you are not a hypocrite. I don't want to be a hypocrite and I take your post to be welcome advice about not to be one.

Nevertheless you omit that neither of us is Jesus Christ and neither of us is the Devil incarnate.

What you and I can do is give a little more and be a little less self indulgent. If the central authority (which these days is the secular government) taxes everybody sufficiently to raise living standards in late developing and downright poor countries there will be huge lessening of the differential between rich and poor.
Socialist
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Gary, you sound like a normal person as regards your sense of empathy and morality. We all are more concerned about ourselves and our families, with less and less empathy the further from where we stand. Ideally still some sympathy for those we've never met. That's how we evolved. I'm the same way. Now there are people like Donald Trump whose empathy has trouble extending more than an inch or two beyond himself. That's not normal, or at least not common.

In my opinion, the Clintons are normal in that respect, too. They wanted wealth, as do almost all of us, if we're honest. Because of Bill's presidency, the opportunities were there, and they took them. That doesn't mean that they don't have empathy for us little people, too, or a sense of responsibility to the country. Doesn't prove that they do, either, of course. It also doesn't mean that they feel overly obligated to those that paid them for speeches. I guess we'll find out. My guess is that she'll be motivated to act so that the public re-elects her to a second term, and to achieve a good legacy, and in order to accomplish that she'll need to try to do the things that the people want - in particular, support attempts to reduce income and wealth inequality. At this point the Clintons have more money than they can ever spend, so that will be less of a motivation than before. I worry that reducing the size of government and the size of the deficit will not be priorities, but I don't know of any politician on the scene I would trust to do that.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Wilson wrote:In my opinion, the Clintons are normal in that respect, too. They wanted wealth, as do almost all of us, if we're honest. Because of Bill's presidency, the opportunities were there, and they took them. That doesn't mean that they don't have empathy for us little people, too, or a sense of responsibility to the country. Doesn't prove that they do, either, of course. It also doesn't mean that they feel overly obligated to those that paid them for speeches.


It does however mean that the Clinton's own moral compass told them it would be Ok to get in bed with the Wall Street game players who recklessly and greedily almost crashed the global economy. The last time Wall Street did that it led to a world war that cost about 60 million lives. We came pretty darn close to that happening again.

In my view, their willingness to cozy up to Wall Street does at least bring in to question whether the Clintons really do have a sense of responsibility to the rest of us. Or, perhaps it brings in to question their judgement, their understanding of the world we live in, which is precisely what we hire Presidents for. Or some combination of the above.

Wall Street players aren't stupid about money, that's why they're so rich. They don't funnel millions of dollars in to people and projects just for fun, casually wondering if they might maybe get a return some day. I think you're being rather naive about how the political system currently works.

I don't think the Clintons are monsters as some overheated people do, but I do think that Sanders is right that the entire system is corrupt and rotting out from the inside. If we accept that the Clintons are generally decent people, but then see that even they felt compelled to suck up to Wall Street, the biggest threat this nation faces after Russian ICBMs, it should become clear how corrupt things have gotten.

I don't hate Hillary, or understand why others do, but I'm convinced she's too far inside the corrupt system to rock the boat the way it needs to be rocked. We have to vote for her because of the alternative, but her election will mean the disease this nation is afflicted with will continue to grow ever more dangerous for the next 4-8 years. I find it interesting, and somewhat encouraging, that the youngest voters among us saw all this more clearly than the rest of us.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Ormond wrote: It does however mean that the Clinton's own moral compass told them it would be Ok to get in bed with the Wall Street game players who recklessly and greedily almost crashed the global economy. The last time Wall Street did that it led to a world war that cost about 60 million lives. We came pretty darn close to that happening again.

In my view, their willingness to cozy up to Wall Street does at least bring in to question whether the Clintons really do have a sense of responsibility to the rest of us. Or, perhaps it brings in to question their judgement, their understanding of the world we live in, which is precisely what we hire Presidents for. Or some combination of the above.
Did they "cozy up", or did they accept speaking fees? If you were offered a 250K gig for a speech, wouldn't you take it? I would.
Wall Street players aren't stupid about money, that's why they're so rich. They don't funnel millions of dollars in to people and projects just for fun, casually wondering if they might maybe get a return some day.
Sure they would. Small potatoes for them.
I think you're being rather naive about how the political system currently works.

I don't think the Clintons are monsters as some overheated people do, but I do think that Sanders is right that the entire system is corrupt and rotting out from the inside.
I agree .. although it's not like there are a lot of great governments out there as a guide. We're compelled to live in a nation where things are pretty darn good for most of us, compared to most other countries, just not as good as it should be. I think the really huge problem is the clowns in Congress. As long as they are entrenched, change is going to come very slowly.
I find it interesting, and somewhat encouraging, that the youngest voters among us saw all this more clearly than the rest of us.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but young people love a cause, any cause, and want to overthrow the system - start a revolution - until they get a little older and realize that there are consequences. Those super smart and committed young people also don't get out to vote - or haven't to this point. Maybe this election will be the turning point.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Did they "cozy up", or did they accept speaking fees? If you were offered a 250K gig for a speech, wouldn't you take it? I would.
You and I are not past and future Presidents. You and I aren't in control of the nuclear arsenal. You and I don't make decisions which will affect the lives of millions of Americans. You and I don't have 300 million people counting on us to represent THEM.
Sure they would. Small potatoes for them.
Sorry, but your rationalizations of political corruption at the highest levels is starting to read like intellectual small potatoes. Rapidly losing interest here.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but young people love a cause, any cause, and want to overthrow the system - start a revolution - until they get a little older and realize that there are consequences.
Young people are young people. They at least get what's going on, an accomplishment you appear not to be able to match.
Maybe this election will be the turning point.
Why would 8 more years of the same old thing be a turning point?
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Ormond wrote:
Did they "cozy up", or did they accept speaking fees? If you were offered a 250K gig for a speech, wouldn't you take it? I would.
You and I are not past and future Presidents. You and I aren't in control of the nuclear arsenal. You and I don't make decisions which will affect the lives of millions of Americans. You and I don't have 300 million people counting on us to represent THEM.
Neither were they, at speech time. I would prefer they hadn't accepted those fees, but I don't see it as committing them to anything they shouldn't do.
Maybe this election will be the turning point.
Why would 8 more years of the same old thing be a turning point?
I meant a possible turning point for young voter turnout. But I kind of doubt it. Young people are too self-absorbed.

I get that it's maddening that I seem sorta liberal but don't accept quite all the dogma.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Wilson wrote:I get that it's maddening that I seem sorta liberal but don't accept quite all the dogma.
Well, I'm the one whose being maddening. You're cool, you just don't yet quite get the problem Trump and Sanders voters are concerned about.

People want to have confidence in the integrity of their leaders, and that's hard to achieve when those leaders are personally raking in the big bucks from special interest groups. It gets a bit harder when those leaders are fondling interns in the Oval. And when people completely lose confidence in the political class, they start reaching for radical solutions, people like Trump. Thus, to a degree, we can blame people like the Clintons for Trump.

If the Clintons wanted to be rich, why didn't they go in to business? They're clearly smart enough to have succeeded there. If they want to work for Wall Street, why not quit politics and work for Wall Street?

I dunno, we're stuck with them now I guess, we can agree on that.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Wilson »

Ormond wrote: If the Clintons wanted to be rich, why didn't they go in to business? They're clearly smart enough to have succeeded there. If they want to work for Wall Street, why not quit politics and work for Wall Street?
You talk like it's unusual for people to want to be rich. Horrors, Ormond, perhaps even you would like to be independently wealthy.
User avatar
Ormond
Posts: 932
Joined: December 30th, 2015, 8:14 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Ormond »

Wilson wrote:You talk like it's unusual for people to want to be rich. Horrors, Ormond, perhaps even you would like to be independently wealthy.
You keep equating regular people like you and me with those who want to earn the trust and confidence of 300 million people and take on the awesome responsibility of protecting them from harm.

Please try to get this. If the Clintons were to go in to a regular business and make a lot of money I have no comment or complaints. Got it?

The complaint is with the Clintons being high level politicians taking blatant bribes from highly suspect Wall Street special interests with a documented record of repeatedly bringing grievous harm to the nation the Clintons want to lead. It's like one step removed from taking a big bag of cash from the mob in broad daylight.

The President earn $400,000 a year. For Bill that's $3,200,000 already in his pocket. The salary for the Secretary Of State makes $186,600 a year, so that's roughly $700,000 in Hilary's pocket. The Governor of Arkansas makes around $90,000 a year, that's another $360,000 for Bill. Both Bill and Hilary are attorneys with excellent connections, they could both make great salaries out of office doing actual real world work.

Please explain to us why the Clintons need to flirt with corruption.

Yes, I'm frustrated with you. You're clearly an intelligent educated well informed person, and yet you still don't get this. And it's because so many people are intellectually stuck in a corrupt status quo that people resort to extreme measures like voting for Trump. Yes, that's right, I'm now blaming you personally for the emergence of Trump, it's all your fault. :lol:
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Belinda »

Ormond, you wrote to Grunth:
Yes, I'm frustrated with you. You're clearly an intelligent educated well informed person, and yet you still don't get this. And it's because so many people are intellectually stuck in a corrupt status quo that people resort to extreme measures like voting for Trump. Yes, that's right, I'm now blaming you personally for the emergence of Trump, it's all your fault. :lol:
But disgruntled people can vote for Bernie Sanders, can't they?
Socialist
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Democracy for a Socialist?

Post by Steve3007 »

I think Ormond was talking to Wilson. And, no, I don't think they can vote for Sanders because Hilary Clinton is now set to be the Democratic candidate. The disgruntled have to vote for Trump and the slightly more gruntled vote for Clinton.

Anyway, the fact that Sanders got as far as he did while unashamedly being a democratic socialist seems to me a good sign. Back in the Reagan/Bush Senior days the impression I get is that calling yourself a "socialist" or a "liberal" would be like wearing a Fidel Castro t-shirt and quoting Bob Dylan in Motorpsycho Nightmare ("I like Fidel Castro, and his beard."). i.e. deliberate political suicide.

In right versus left political discussions it is quite often pointed out that there is nothing inherently wrong with inequality. It is absolute not relative poverty that counts. Wealth is not necessarily a zero-sum game and if my neighbour gets richer it doesn't automatically mean that I have to get poorer.

I can see the logic in that theory. But, in practice, it doesn't work because, as has been pointed out already here, very high levels of inequality result in unstable and not very gruntled societies, even if the poorest in those societies are no worse off than the poorest in more equal societies. There's no point being super-rich if you have to live in a fortress and be protected by military style police.

Maybe now the seeds of the idea have been sown that being a bit on the socialist side isn't synonymous with wanting a 1984/communist style dictatorship, they might grow at some time in the future. After all, hating commies is so last century.

-- Updated Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:46 pm to add the following --

(By the way, for anybody who's never heard the song "Motorpsycho Nightmare" by Bob Dylan, I recommend it. Still very funny.)
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021