The Rich and the Poor
- Thread starter I'm Watermark
- Start date
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So do you really think this, that the rich take from the poor?
Do you also think that in order for there to be rich, there must be many poor? Why?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
In order for employers - or the rich, the upper class, the bourgeoisie, the 1% - to live off the labors of others, there must be laborers, no? It's the simplest truth of capitalist economics, sweetie.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
do you believe then, that there should be less regulations to allow those same laborers to create their own company and become wealthy?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Yes, but that's a lot more complex than you make it out to be. I do think there're some regulations to be done away with, but some we should keep. Like, for instance, we shouldn't let employers keep working facilities that are a danger to workers, or dump wastes in areas that may cause exposure to the public, or use chemicals that cause harm to the consumer.
Plus, you don't go far enough into the problem. If we just deregulated to lower the cost for new businesses, sure, you'd open the door for those otherwise financially unable to start one, but you'd also have employees and consumers in a worse condition than they previously were. Under vertical management, not everyone can be a business owner. Someone's going to be subject to their will - and often hurt, if we go back to the days before modern regulatory processes.
Then there're monopolies - and the Walmarts of the world - which do a far better job of squeezing out new businesses than regulations.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
unfortunate, but the only future you're ensuring is that people will see no need to better their education, since you are trying to make everyone be paid equally.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
That's not the question that I ax'd. Let's try again:
Do you really think that the rich take from the poor?
Do you also think that in order for there to be rich, there must be many poor? If so, then why?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
That's nowhere near true. I want everyone to exercise control over their likelihoods, and earn a wage that's high enough to keep them out of desperate poverty, not be paid equally.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
ok, instead of equal pay, i'll substitute with 'livable wage', again ensuring that people will not pursue higher education or better their lives if they can be assured of getting enough money to survive. how do you plan on paying for that?That's nowhere near true. I want everyone to exercise control over their likelihoods, and earn a wage that's high enough to keep them out of desperate poverty, not be paid equally.
Where in the world did you get that idea?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
How curious. So you believe the only source of motivation is survival? And that if you took away the difficulty of surviving, motivation would disappear with it? I've known a lot of people with a position like yours, and I contend it as rubbish.
1. Surviving doesn't imply thriving. If you can live far better by advancement, would you choose to do so, or live in grave conditions? Well, all we know about human nature says the former is true.
2. And if we went all the way to my ideal world, I'd be able to address demotivational factors. When education is expensive, it incentivises, and forces people into lower level careers, no? So if we took away opportunity cost, you'd be able to do the work of your choice, and live off it, provided it benefits society.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you have a warped view of human nature. while it is true for a portion of the population to want to improve their lives and the lives of those in their care, I have come across far too many more people who are quite willing to settle for mediocrity as long as they can sit in front of an xbox, drink a beer, smoke cigarettes, and eat ramen noodles and hot dogs.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Mediocrity is not the point here. A living wage is one that affords substandard housing, medicine and food. Not an xbox, beers and ciggarettes.
You both misunderstand poverty in the US, and the innate drive for advancement. You may know folks like that, or you may not, either way, it's not accurate to use them to classify the population as a whole. Especially in effort to allow those with drive to be subjugated and harmed by employers.
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/human-rights-maps-64-child-poverty-in-the-us/
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and I posit that you misunderstand human nature and reality. I lived in poverty and I busted my ass off getting out of it. don't even begin to tell me I misunderstand it because you'll be wrong.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
So what?
Who are you to determine the level of advancement to which others must strive to achieve?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I couldn't care less what level of mediocrity people want to live in. what doesn't need to happen is the nanny state government guaranteeing that minimum level of mediocrity.
Robo
Verified User
Pictures worth a 1000 words. Excellent propaganda comrade! And those idiot Americans thought they had defeated communism.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Correction, the government thought they'd defeated communism. The people had nothing to do with it.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Hey Tree, I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions:
Do you really think that the rich take from the poor?
Do you also think that in order for there to be rich, there must be many poor? If so, then why?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It is important for us to step back, and examine the arguments presented by people like Sycamore, in the context of their world view. Virtually every argument presented by a Socialist or Communist, is based upon the conditions prevalent in 15th and 16th century Europe. The governmental structures predated American free market capitalism, and there were a myriad of problems for the common people. Leaders were not democratically elected by the people, they were appointed by the royalty or ruling class elite, the people were never consulted. These leaders picked the winners and losers, and unless you had a connection to the ruling class, you had virtually no opportunity. Now, in such a fish bowl as this, the arguments presented by Sycamore are relevant and compelling.
The problem is, we don't live in 15th or 16th century Europe, and we are not ruled by the ruling class or kings and royal families. In fact, the very constructs of our relatively new nation, forbid any consideration based on class. A person without a penny to their name, has the exact same Constitutional rights as the richest person in America. The door of opportunity is not merely available to who the ruling class taps, or their cronies, it's available to EVERY American, regardless of wealth status. We have no real "class" in America, as far as our system goes. The perception of "class" comes from Socialists and Communists, who have to rely on class envy to promote their ideology. In the 15th and 16th centuries across Europe, this was an effective argument because it was largely true. Even in the 17th, 18th and 19th century, it was largely true in Europe, and to some degree, is still true to this day, but we're not Europe.
The "class" arguments fail here, because we don't distinguish by class in America, we're all equal in class. Some people have obtained more wealth than others, and through this, the Socialists and Communists have constructed an illusion of "class," in order to bolster their arguments, which have no basis otherwise. Meanwhile, we have several generations of Americans who simply lack the intelligence to understand this, and have somehow managed to become brainwashed into believing a myth about class in America.
The "rich" in America have no special attribute the poor lack, other than motivation to succeed. We don't have a king or ruler picking winners and losers (except Obama, recently). Our free market, free enterprise capitalist system is open to every citizen, regardless of your family's wealth or status. This opportunity for poor people to become wealthy, has existed since the nation was conceived, and there are literally millions of examples to show for it. Such a thing was unheard of in 15th/16th century Europe, and across much of Europe today, because they lack a Constitution and nation founded on the principles of equality for all. This is the reason we have an illegal immigration problem, and not millions of people beating on a concrete wall to escape instead. Every "class" has freedom of opportunity here, that isn't the case in Europe, and wasn't the case when Socialism and Communism were born.
The arguments for Socialism and Communism are brilliant when juxtaposed with the old European style governments, because it seeks to instill more power to the people and take this power from the kings, rulers, and ruling class. It promises the chance of opportunity where you wouldn't otherwise have it, because opportunity is controlled by those in power, who also control all the wealth. The problem is, wherever this ideology has been implemented, those who are ultimately empowered, become extremely corrupt, and whatever opportunity is created is still controlled by the ruling class. Now, human civilization is old, we've been doing this for a long time, and thousands of generations have come before us, faced these problems, tried to solve them in various ways, and we still remain in a world that is not perfect. However, back in the late 1700s, a group of men got together and came up with an interesting experimental idea.
What if we develop a society where there is no consideration based on class? With a constitutional document rooted in the concept that all men are created equal and are endowed their rights from a Creator, not man, and certainly not by class? Where every person is born with the same opportunity and right to succeed and be rich, if they want to be, regardless of their heritage? Where the "government" is controlled by the people, not the wealthy land barons and kings? Where free market capitalism and individual entrepreneurialism is encouraged and rewarded? The experiment has been a success, we have gone from being the youngest and newest idea on the block, to the most powerful nation and society known in the history of man. But we are still not perfect, and we are still inundated with rhetoric from failed Socialist and Communist ideology. These experiments did not work when tried, and most of the time, resulted in mass genocide.
American Capitalism is not total unfettered and unregulated capitalism. We are protected as a people from the dangers of this by our Constitution. It enables us to elect representatives who can have a limited amount of control over the free market capitalists, so that our Constitutional rights remain intact. This might be preventing dangerous chemicals from being dumped, harmful drugs from being sold and used, fraudulent business practices, etc. Our capitalist system is very well regulated and fettered to our Constitution. The most important distinction to remember about American Capitalism, is that it's available to all people, everyone has the same opportunity to participate and become as wealthy as they desire. In that regard, it meets every initiative of Socialist/Communist ideology... isn't that ironic?
So this is why we see the Socialist/Communist trying to prop up the myths about class. To insinuate the "wealthy" have some intrinsic "advantage" over everyone else. To go so far as to claim our laws and courts are designed to protect a certain class over another. To continue exploiting spoiled selfishness in certain individuals to perpetuate this illusion of "class" when none exists in America.
The problem is, we don't live in 15th or 16th century Europe, and we are not ruled by the ruling class or kings and royal families. In fact, the very constructs of our relatively new nation, forbid any consideration based on class. A person without a penny to their name, has the exact same Constitutional rights as the richest person in America. The door of opportunity is not merely available to who the ruling class taps, or their cronies, it's available to EVERY American, regardless of wealth status. We have no real "class" in America, as far as our system goes. The perception of "class" comes from Socialists and Communists, who have to rely on class envy to promote their ideology. In the 15th and 16th centuries across Europe, this was an effective argument because it was largely true. Even in the 17th, 18th and 19th century, it was largely true in Europe, and to some degree, is still true to this day, but we're not Europe.
The "class" arguments fail here, because we don't distinguish by class in America, we're all equal in class. Some people have obtained more wealth than others, and through this, the Socialists and Communists have constructed an illusion of "class," in order to bolster their arguments, which have no basis otherwise. Meanwhile, we have several generations of Americans who simply lack the intelligence to understand this, and have somehow managed to become brainwashed into believing a myth about class in America.
The "rich" in America have no special attribute the poor lack, other than motivation to succeed. We don't have a king or ruler picking winners and losers (except Obama, recently). Our free market, free enterprise capitalist system is open to every citizen, regardless of your family's wealth or status. This opportunity for poor people to become wealthy, has existed since the nation was conceived, and there are literally millions of examples to show for it. Such a thing was unheard of in 15th/16th century Europe, and across much of Europe today, because they lack a Constitution and nation founded on the principles of equality for all. This is the reason we have an illegal immigration problem, and not millions of people beating on a concrete wall to escape instead. Every "class" has freedom of opportunity here, that isn't the case in Europe, and wasn't the case when Socialism and Communism were born.
The arguments for Socialism and Communism are brilliant when juxtaposed with the old European style governments, because it seeks to instill more power to the people and take this power from the kings, rulers, and ruling class. It promises the chance of opportunity where you wouldn't otherwise have it, because opportunity is controlled by those in power, who also control all the wealth. The problem is, wherever this ideology has been implemented, those who are ultimately empowered, become extremely corrupt, and whatever opportunity is created is still controlled by the ruling class. Now, human civilization is old, we've been doing this for a long time, and thousands of generations have come before us, faced these problems, tried to solve them in various ways, and we still remain in a world that is not perfect. However, back in the late 1700s, a group of men got together and came up with an interesting experimental idea.
What if we develop a society where there is no consideration based on class? With a constitutional document rooted in the concept that all men are created equal and are endowed their rights from a Creator, not man, and certainly not by class? Where every person is born with the same opportunity and right to succeed and be rich, if they want to be, regardless of their heritage? Where the "government" is controlled by the people, not the wealthy land barons and kings? Where free market capitalism and individual entrepreneurialism is encouraged and rewarded? The experiment has been a success, we have gone from being the youngest and newest idea on the block, to the most powerful nation and society known in the history of man. But we are still not perfect, and we are still inundated with rhetoric from failed Socialist and Communist ideology. These experiments did not work when tried, and most of the time, resulted in mass genocide.
American Capitalism is not total unfettered and unregulated capitalism. We are protected as a people from the dangers of this by our Constitution. It enables us to elect representatives who can have a limited amount of control over the free market capitalists, so that our Constitutional rights remain intact. This might be preventing dangerous chemicals from being dumped, harmful drugs from being sold and used, fraudulent business practices, etc. Our capitalist system is very well regulated and fettered to our Constitution. The most important distinction to remember about American Capitalism, is that it's available to all people, everyone has the same opportunity to participate and become as wealthy as they desire. In that regard, it meets every initiative of Socialist/Communist ideology... isn't that ironic?
So this is why we see the Socialist/Communist trying to prop up the myths about class. To insinuate the "wealthy" have some intrinsic "advantage" over everyone else. To go so far as to claim our laws and courts are designed to protect a certain class over another. To continue exploiting spoiled selfishness in certain individuals to perpetuate this illusion of "class" when none exists in America.
Robo
Verified User
Just goes to show how fucked up government is, huh? Seems they let y’all commies slip by under the radar.
“We will conquer America without firing a shot.” (Nikita Khrushchev)