[Outcast_Searcher]

If you can't tell the difference between an actual slave and someone who won't get off the couch since liberals promised him/her a "fair" income for doing nothing, you're beyond hopeless.

So outcaste you apparently believe the only kind of slavery comes with a neck collar?

Like others have noted, a slave rebellion and revolution have similar outcomes.

In my world, whining about not getting enough "free stuff" from Uncle Sam via the taxpayer isn't exactly equal to being property OWNED by someone else, and having no freedoms.

Hoping for revolutions by whatever groups the far left favors doesn't change the definition of slavery.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The only "typical liberal moralistic content free chest thumping" I've seen so far in this thread is from you and Cog...

Are you one of the few richest people on the Earth? They're wondering what's going to be for dinner and they're not picky about what ends up on the plate.

So still nothing, hmmm?

The only "chest thumping" I've done in this thread is NOT liberal, unless I'm missing something. But let's not worry about actual data, right? Can you define "typical liberal" for us?

So fantasies about the masses destroying the richest people on earth is supposed to substitute for substantive debate? Not particularly substantive, for those beyond grammar school.

Once the primary taxpayers and people who set up charities, foundations, etc. are "on the plate", who are the "they" you refer to going to turn to? Each other? Sure.

[Pops]

Fair is the wrong criteria.
Life isn't fair, you can't make so.

You can help people who have had bad breaks (though I don't expect everyone to even have that much charity) and you can work to give people the means to get ahead if they have the gumption, which is really just so much blather In the end, who we're born to has the most influence on how well off we turn out. Social mobility went out of fashion waaay back in the US.

The best we can do is protect the citizenry from MZBs, foreigners, overreaching politicians and maybe starving in the street. But in particular we should be on guard to protect democracy from a self perpetuating plutocracy who would do away with it in a heartbeat.
Of those 4 threats a plutocracy is the most dangerous.

Look at this thread, mention inequality and a certain faction comes running to defend the plutarchs from the lazy, jealous rabble. And I'm pretty sure they aren't posting here to defend their position in the top .01% — more likely it is to to with the old saw that it isn't quite so bad to be near the bottom as long as you still have someone else to look down on.

[Graeme]

Life isn't fair but we can attempt to reduce the unfairness and maintain our civil society by introducing better economic policy. The public should demand it. According to the presenters in the documentary (Four Horsemen) I posted earlier in this thread, inequality can lead to empire or civilization collapse:

There are common features to every age of decadence: an undisciplined and over extended military, the conspicuous display of wealth, a massive disparity between rich and poor, a desire to live off a bloated state, and an obsession with sex. But perhaps the most notorious trait of all is the debasement of the currency. The United States and Great Britain both begun on a gold or silver standard, long since abandoned. Rome was no different.

This is what we are trying to remedy.

[SeaGypsy]

Pops, I'm in that cohort you mention, & would question your bias or at least maybe your reading of mine. I'm at Uni now studying community services, where my main focus is working with extremely disadvantaged people, who I have spent many years working with. The focus of all community services education (aged, disability, education generally, medical & governance), is built around a concept called 'person centered care'. Under this concept, the very first duty of the support worker is to find, then work with, the motivation of the person (client singular) towards increased/ independence, self awareness, freedom of choice, ability to achieve personal goals & objectives, under a philosophy of continuous service improvement. The thing we are told most often is that the opposite of person centered care is stereotyping, bias, passive charity.

The idea proposed by Occupy (99% white, 99% middle class, 99% mathematically retarded 99% unemployed welfare recipients), amounts to a big whinge by the most priveleged 3% of humanity under the 1%. Frankly pathetic.

I don't hear whinging from quadriplegics, even most last stages of palliative care patients tend to be accepting & stoic. People with serious learning disabilities & extreme behavioural issues, the vast majority are positively engable & capable of self improvement. They realize, as most here do, whining is a waste of time.

[Pops]

The thing we are told most often is that the opposite of person centered care is stereotyping, bias, passive charity.

The idea proposed by Occupy (99% white, 99% middle class, 99% mathematically retarded 99% unemployed welfare recipients), amounts to a big whinge by the most priveleged 3% of humanity under the 1%. Frankly pathetic.

I think you should revisit your textbook, Gypsy, the lesson about stereotyping and bias doesn't seem to be sinking in, you did latch onto the part about the evils of "passive charity" tho. LOL

Not sure what point you are arguing, white middle class people shouldn't try to change the system? Or do you just assume they were whining welfare cases looking for a bigger handout? Free university tuition or whatever?

But yeah, the Occupy thing was pretty pathetic as a protest. Libertarian Anarchists milling around without direction (as anarchists do) expecting something to happen with no spokesman voicing their concerns or them even agreeing what their concerns are, because ... they're anarchists! LOL

Huff ran this interview-sorta-poll of what Occupiers were whinging about - in a word or two:

Number I. Policies to reduce/eliminate corporate influence in politics
Eliminate corporate personhood / End corporate personhood / Policy to separate corporations and people / Overturn Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission (2008 Supreme Court decision) / Repeal the decision that dollars equal free speech
Campaign finance reform / Election finance reform / Election Change / Campaign laws / Public financing of elections / Complete reform of elections
Get corporate money out of elections / Get dollars out of politics / End corporate support of politicians / Money in politics
[then:
Taxes,
Jobs,
environment
healthcare
education
various economics
And about a fifth said "I dunno."]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-hayat ... 89079.html

Makes me sorta an Occupier I guess, I've run the MoveToAmend website in my sig on and off for a while now.

[onlooker]

"Anarchism is… a tendency that is suspicious and skeptical of domination, authority, and hierarchy… It asks whether those systems are justified. It assumes that the burden of proof for anyone in a position of power and authority lies on them… If they can’t justify that authority and power and control, which is the usual case, then the authority ought to be dismantled and replaced by something more free and just.” A quote by Noam Chomsky. Based upon this definition I feel Anarchism is quite nice and a sound philosophy. Is not our history riddled with abusive systems of authority and tyranny. Now the question is what can replace it. Well I would think that a system much less hierarchical in nature. One much more horizontal then vertical. By the way I am a admirer of many of the ideas of Chomsky.

[Pops]

The problem is the anarchist left just wants to share their Coke with the world and the anarchist right justs wants to profit without hindrance.

Somali warlords and flower children just ain't gonna get along. INterestingly that is nothing new, hence government, laws, courts, etc.

[onlooker]

umm, I would question if the Somali warlord is an anarchist. He is practicing the very thing an anarchist repudiates namely brute tyranny or authority.

[Pops]

In Somalia there is no functioning government, no law, it should be an anarchist paradise right?

But it isn't. Because humans are just like hens and there will always be a "pecking order." Wish it away if you will but there it is.

The best you can do is fight oligarchy and especially plutarchy.

[careinke]

Life isn't fair but we can attempt to reduce the unfairness and maintain our civil society by introducing better economic policy. The public should demand it. According to the presenters in the documentary (Four Horsemen) I posted earlier in this thread, inequality can lead to empire or civilization collapse:

There are common features to every age of decadence: an undisciplined and over extended military, the conspicuous display of wealth, a massive disparity between rich and poor, a desire to live off a bloated state, and an obsession with sex. But perhaps the most notorious trait of all is the debasement of the currency. The United States and Great Britain both begun on a gold or silver standard, long since abandoned. Rome was no different.

This is what we are trying to remedy.

OK fine, here goes.

There are common features to every age of decadence: an undisciplined and over extended military,

Close all overseas bases and cut the military budget 50%.

the conspicuous display of wealth,

Consumption taxes, Start with the "Fair tax." Eliminate all other taxes with the exception of tariffs.

a massive disparity between rich and poor,

Restrict the most highly paid individual of any company, to 30 times the salary of the lowest paid individual working in the company. This lets the highest paid individual earn as much as he/she wants, they just have to take their employees along with them.

a desire to live off a bloated state,

Teach self reliance in elementary schools. Provide workfare vs welfare, along the lines of the conservation corp. In addition to working, education should also be made available for life skills like gardening, first aid, basic construction etc.

and an obsession with sex.

Really? OK how about; "and an obsession with non reproductive sex."

But perhaps the most notorious trait of all is the debasement of the currency.

Ah yes, the most regressive tax of all, inflation. Decentralize money by converting to a crypto currency similar to bitcoin. You can't debase it because there is a limited amount that cannot be expanded. Your money value increases the longer you hold it instead of decreasing like today.

See, it's not that hard.

[C8]

It should be noted in this discussion that the underlying assumption "inequality produces revolution" is hardly proven.

The vast majority of human history has seen extremely unequal societies experience stability for centuries. Ancient Egypt, India, China, Incas, etc. all maintained very long term empires with crushing inequality. Even the Roman slave rebellions were largely episodic and dispatched quickly.

This is not just ancient history too- Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia have had relatively stable societies based on extreme inequality for the last 400 years. A minor revolt cited here or there hardly refutes this overall pattern.

One could well make the argument that more egalitarian societies produce greater social friction from rival ethnic groups who are worried about falling behind each other. The American, Russian and French Revolutions were organized and driven mainly by members of the middle class- not the poor. The real battle appears to be between the "haves" and the "almost haves". There are many good articles explaining "why?" among sociologists.

There are also many forms of inequality- status, beauty, freedom, health, loving family, income, wealth, living environment, community support networks, etc. Just focusing on income seems narrow minded.

[Fishman]

Roc, I think you're spot on. As recently as a decade ago those that wanted to help the poor sought ways to help them acquire education and skills to bridge the income gap. Now, libs have given up on that path since it actually requires some effort on one's part, and thus less dependency on the government. It's just "redistribute" not based on skill, knowledge or effort, but as a carrot to get a group to vote for them. Personally, I'll stick with the much more effective, less manipulative method of skill, education, effort, less dependency route to help others.

[Graeme]

'Scandinavian Dream' is true fix for America's income inequality

Income inequality has gotten so bad in America that it's now easier to get ahead in many other countries, says Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

Decades of deregulation and lowering taxes for the wealthy and businesses -- with the hope of it eventually benefiting the middle and working classes -- has created a chasm between the rich and everyone else, Stiglitz told CNNMoney.

To get back to a more equal society, he suggests we take a page from some of our European neighbors and restore the balance between government, business and labor.

"Maybe we should be calling the American Dream the Scandinavian Dream," he told CNNMoney.

The Scandinavian countries changed their education systems, social policies and legal frameworks to create societies where there is a higher degree of mobility. That made their countries more into the land of opportunity that America once was.

"The choices we made got us here and we must now choose a new path," Stiglitz said last month, when he released his 37-point prescription for restoring the American Dream. The report, titled "Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy," was issued by the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank where he serves as chief economist.

cnn

[Outcast_Searcher]

umm, I would question if the Somali warlord is an anarchist. He is practicing the very thing an anarchist repudiates namely brute tyranny or authority.

And this, I think, is the thing that capitalists really resent from the redistributionists. They are painted with a broad brush as using brute force (or tyranny), and of course, being "unfair" -- when generally, they aren't doing that at all.

For all but the criminals (i.e. those that abuse the laws), capitalists are TRADERS, not warlords. If Bill Gates traded software for money or Ray Kroc (of McDonalds) traded hamburgers for money, lived within the system, paid their taxes, etc. this doesn't seem remotely unfair, or at all unethical to me. Especially when such people often pay a very large proportion of the income taxes and/or make very considerable donations to worthy charities. The same goes for millions of, say, the upper middle class, trading their labor (time, effort, and expertise) to a corporation for a "good" salary and benefits, and generally pay a considerable portion of their income in taxes.

It's one thing to state (as many people often do) that they disagree with the level of taxes or the details about how taxable income is computed. It's another to say that honest businessman "X" is the equivalent of evil incarnate, BECAUSE they worked hard for decades and became very successful by honestly producing and trading something for money.

[Lore]

What did their inheritors do for theirs? Seems like we're bent on creating dynasties once again.

There are also many more people that work physically and mentally much harder for their pay then high paid corporate managers. Think of health care workers. A more important segment of the work force, to me at least, then the a CEO that earns 300 times more then his average employee and pays less taxes for making it.

[Cog]

What did their inheritors do for theirs? Seems like we're bent on creating dynasties once again.

There are also many more people that work physically and mentally much harder for their pay then high paid corporate managers. Think of health care workers. A more important segment of the work force, to me at least, then the a CEO that earns 300 times more then his average employee and pays less taxes for making it.

Somewhere someone is making more money than you. Must be infuriating for you. LOL.

Of what possible concern is it of yours what a CEO makes unless you are a stockholder?

[Sixstrings]

Roc, I think you're spot on. As recently as a decade ago those that wanted to help the poor sought ways to help them acquire education and skills to bridge the income gap. Now, libs have given up on that path since it actually requires some effort on one's part, and thus less dependency on the government.

No -- what happened is that the jobs all got offshored and wages pushed down more and more.

Globalist offshoring trade policy is the central root problem.

There will always be "poor" and some on "welfare," even in an Australia or a Sweden. The question is not about eliminating it -- the question is how much poverty do we want to have in our country. US has the highest rate of poverty out of any major nation in the whole world.

And yet our economy is still #1, just below the whole EU when you add all those euro countries together. We're still almost double China's economy.

The problem is that there's not much "we" to it, compared to what Europeans have. Our problem in the US is that all the income gains and wealth transfer has gone from the 99% to the 1%.

I've always liked you Fish and I hate to tangle with you, I guess you'll calle me a socialist now.

But I'm telling you the truth.

I'm right on this. Robert Reich is right, and Bernie is right. And Ross Perot was right too, back in the 90s, too. Offshoring, NAFTA, and then moving to a financial wall street economy is what changed this country and why people are poorer now.

[Lore]

What did their inheritors do for theirs? Seems like we're bent on creating dynasties once again.

There are also many more people that work physically and mentally much harder for their pay then high paid corporate managers. Think of health care workers. A more important segment of the work force, to me at least, then the a CEO that earns 300 times more then his average employee and pays less taxes for making it.

Somewhere someone is making more money than you. Must be infuriating for you. LOL.

Of what possible concern is it of yours what a CEO makes unless you are a stockholder?

Not at all, I have no problem with people making as much money as fairly as possible.

As far as making money disproportionate to your worth; It robs from everyone.

[Sixstrings]

The kind of Margaret Thatcher arguments Cog is making, are only valid when labor and "socialism" has gone too far. Then sometimes you need some conservativism.

The problem we have now though, after 35 or whatever years of Ronald Reaganism, is that the pendulum is too far to the RIGHT.

The solution to the current problems though, is to the LEFT.

FDR was the antidote to Hoover.

And that's what the country needs again. Everyone would be better off, even the rich. Though there would be fewer billionaires. But ya know what.. why do any of you want that, anyway? Don't you understand that is feudalism? When each "county" had a castle and a "count" and the count had it all and everyone else were serfs? Is that really what you want?