Top 1 Percent Control 42 Percent of Financial Wealth in the U.S.

[dt3]

The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

According to this data, the top 10% earned 46% of the income, but paid 70% of the total tax revenue. How is this even close to what you're describing?

 

[edgray]

The Tax Foundation - New Data: Top 1% Pay Greater Dollar Amount in Income Taxes to Federal Government than Bottom 90%

According to this data, the top 10% earned 46% of the income, but paid 70% of the total tax revenue. How is this even close to what you're describing?

That's an interesting link, gonna have to check that out. I can see that the heading of the piece is seriously confusing though. The top 10% earned 46% of the income. They then paid 70% of tax revenue. Those percentages do not relate to each other though because one piece is missing: how much, as a percentage, they earned more than everyone else. That would bring the 70% of the tax figure into perspective.

Have a read of these:

Newsvine - Warren Buffet Says: I Pay Less Tax Than My Cleaning Lady, Or When I Was Paper Boy -- McCain/Palin Have Even Worse Deal in Store For Middle Class

BBC NEWS | Business | America's rich rise against tax

Given that their monetary worth is considerably more than majority of the populous I do think that taxing them more is fair, the same with taxing big business.

 

[dt3]

That's an interesting link, gonna have to check that out. I can see that the heading of the piece is seriously confusing though. The top 10% earned 46% of the income. They then paid 70% of tax revenue. Those percentages do not relate to each other though because one piece is missing: how much, as a percentage, they earned more than everyone else. That would bring the 70% of the tax figure into perspective.

Have a read of these:

Newsvine - Warren Buffet Says: I Pay Less Tax Than My Cleaning Lady, Or When I Was Paper Boy -- McCain/Palin Have Even Worse Deal in Store For Middle Class

BBC NEWS | Business | America's rich rise against tax

Given that their monetary worth is considerably more than majority of the populous I do think that taxing them more is fair, the same with taxing big business.

The first link is kind of funny with the advantage of hindsight. "Without a break from the destructive policies and practices that the greed culture has enshrined the last years, we will see the continued decline of the middle class, and of what once made America great. We need the plan Barack Obama is offering, so that we can reclaim this country's strength as an economic giant, capable of driving innovation and progress around the world." Say WHAT? :24:

Anyway back to the topic, why do you think Buffet and these other "rich" people pay so little? Because they hide their income. It's infinitely cheaper for them to hire accountants to hide their money than it is to pay the taxes on that money.

If you tax them at 70%, they hire people who know how to lower their tax burden through dozens of legal and illegal ways. BUT if you were only taxing them at 15%, all of a sudden there's no reason for them to hide that money. It's actually easier and cheaper for them to pay taxes on it, and it keeps that money in our country instead of off-shore accounts.

The numbers are hypothetical, but the concept should be easy to understand. Would you rather tax 15% of Bill Gates' entire value, or tax 70% of the quarter of his money that he keeps in the States? See my point?

 

[edgray]

The first link is kind of funny with the advantage of hindsight. "Without a break from the destructive policies and practices that the greed culture has enshrined the last years, we will see the continued decline of the middle class, and of what once made America great. We need the plan Barack Obama is offering, so that we can reclaim this country's strength as an economic giant, capable of driving innovation and progress around the world." Say WHAT? :24:

I have to say, I really have no idea what Barack Obama is offering in this department. I also don't understand what it means "reclaim this country's strength as an economic giant, capable of driving innovation and progress around the world"??? I don't see how the stature of the US in any of those departments has changed for the worse - so how on earth is he going to fix something that's not broken?

Anyway back to the topic, why do you think Buffet and these other "rich" people pay so little? Because they hide their income. It's infinitely cheaper for them to hire accountants to hide their money than it is to pay the taxes on that money.

Yeah we see a lot of that over here. Just down the coast from me is Gibraltar, which acts as a tax haven for the rich these days.

If you tax them at 70%, they hire people who know how to lower their tax burden through dozens of legal and illegal ways. BUT if you were only taxing them at 15%, all of a sudden there's no reason for them to hide that money. It's actually easier and cheaper for them to pay taxes on it, and it keeps that money in our country instead of off-shore accounts.

Yes that's actually a very good point, I honestly hadn't thought about that.

The numbers are hypothetical, but the concept should be easy to understand. Would you rather tax 15% of Bill Gates' entire value, or tax 70% of the quarter of his money that he keeps in the States? See my point?

Yes, I see your point there. I'll go with the 15%!!

 

[dt3]

I have to say, I really have no idea what Barack Obama is offering in this department. I also don't understand what it means "reclaim this country's strength as an economic giant, capable of driving innovation and progress around the world"??? I don't see how the stature of the US in any of those departments has changed for the worse - so how on earth is he going to fix something that's not broken?

:dunno I don't think anybody does

Yeah we see a lot of that over here. Just down the coast from me is Gibraltar, which acts as a tax haven for the rich these days.

Yes that's actually a very good point, I honestly hadn't thought about that.

Yes, I see your point there. I'll go with the 15%!!

I'm kind of shocked, I didn't expect to reach any level of agreement

 

[edgray]

I'm kind of shocked, I didn't expect to reach any level of agreement

Well there wasn't much to argue about there - the link you posted and your reasoning said it all! :surrender

 

[nova]

Its like I'm talking to a goddamn brick wall.. :thumbdown

no, but the majorities agree, thats the point. You said NO ONE agrees - "we're all different"...

We are all different and have different values. Thats part of being individuals. The point being that your system, by your own admission requires agreement and cooperation by EVERYONE. In that situation, a majority means absolutely NOTHING. Its meaningless till you hit 100% agreement.

But it's not simple bullshit, is it? With your "minimal govt" world, a world filled with selfishness, distrust, no cooperation and hatred of your neighbour and fellow man, society would collapse. That's a simple and very obvious fact.

Whats simple and obvious is that people will cooperate for the same reasons they always have, blatant self interest. Out and out self interest has helped more people that altruism ever has or ever will. The entire reason you live a fat happy life instead of scrabbling in the dirt sunup to sundown for subsistence, is some farmer wants to make a buck and build a better life off of selling you food. That goes for just about anything else...

You then showed your hatred for your fellow man by saying:

I seriously love how your first attempt to "argue" the point is to demonoize me. Oh well you just hate your fellow man your poor sad individual.

Which is probably one of the most erroneous and hate-filled statements you've said so far.

If you think my obviously facetious statement is hateful, then you've got serious issues. I used the same argumentative basis that you did, just taken to the Nth level to demonstrate exactly how fucking ridiculous your statement was. You don't like it so you resort to the "bleeding heart" argument of "you just hate your fellow man."

Firstly, socialism is ALL about equality. It's about making the playing field level, removing exploitation and giving people their fair share.

Socialism is about demanding equality of outcome based on your abitrary definitions of what is fair and oppression of the individual. Thats a bit more accurate.

Secondly, I've never met a lazy socialist. Far from it, socialism is all about contribution, hard work and smart work. The people you're talking about are your fellow citizens and you're judging them without ever understanding their circumstances. And herein lies the reason behind political differences: you, and your fellow right-wingers believe that people are bad because they choose to be. You don't take into account environment and/or circumstance into the reason people are the way they are. We, on the other hand, realise that environment contributes massively to the way people are. Most traits people have are brought out by our systems. It's the whole "nature vs nuture" argument.

I don't give a damn about their circumstances. Period. Anybody can make anything out of their situation that they wish too. The productive way is the way of hard work and immediate individual sacrifice for long term personal gain. The waste of skin way is the easy way where people want everything now without putting in any effort.

Its the difference between me and 99% of the people I went to high school with. I worked hard, studied, got good grades and went on to colllege. So many others dicked off, screwed around and generally did nothing. Thats why my life is now relatively easy and theirs is relatively hard.

Individuals have to make choices and live with the consequences....

Anyone with half a brain can see that its a combination of the two that makes us who we are. We're given a basic set of genes that predispose us to certain types of behaviour. It's how those traits are nutured, influenced by family and society, that determines how people are.

A case in point: the human genome project discovered that the same gene that makes a house burglar get a rush from breaking into people's homes is the very same gene that drove Tony Blair to work to be in power.

The genes are the same, the outcome, very different. And that difference is down to the environment the person was raised in which of course is a result of the way society is structured.

No the difference is in the choices they made. My wife and her sister grew up in the exact same environment. My wife made good choices and is a Dr. Her sister made bad choices and is, well, not doing much of anything aside from weed and meth.

This is what socialism tries to address - to level the playing field. Libertarian Socialism, the end goal, having removed the environments that leads to human waste, inequality etc, then allows people to be the best they can and do everything that's possible to allow people to excel.

Another walking contradiction. Forcing equality of outcome by default suppresses the natural talents of individuals and prevents them from excelling.

Thirdly, if you knew ANYTHING about socialist philosophy, you'd know that socialists view the people that play the welfare system for a free ride as parasites, much like share holders and bankers.

But here you are talking about everyone getting the same regardless of their nutural talents and abilities. How can you hate them and want them to have the same outcome regardless of their abilities all at the same time?

I've answered as best I can given my limited knowledge of this subject area (as I said, I'm still very much exploring these philosophies) and the limited time I have online. I've provided resources like the Chomksy videos that you've chosen to ignore. Your belief system is being thoroughly challenged here - that is the belief that you're an island, people generally are shit, people aren't equal, and money is god.

You haven't done anything to challenge my beliefs. You've trotted out the same tired old arguments that I've heard 1000 times. Its simply more of the same tired justifications for forcing your ideas of how you think the world should be on the rest of us.

1. Is an employee equal to their employer? Does the employee have a say in their worklife? Normally no - you can't choose your hours, you can't choose how you work, you have no say in the direction of the business. Now, just simply removing equality is enough to call it exploitation.

Sorry but you can't dictate your idea of exploitation to the rest of us. If the employee voluntarily agrees to enter that arangement it is nobody else's business. Period. You may not have a say in the business, but you have a say in whether you stay or not. If you don't like the direction things are going, leave and find some place else to work, or start your own business. Its just that simple.

2. But it does all the time nowadays and with good reason. What if the minority wants to rape and pillage? Kill and maim? Decisions have to be made, surely it's better for those decisions to be put to the vote of everyone than just decided by representatives who have been voted in because they're on your team?

That has to be the dumbest motherfucking statement I think I've ever seen anybody make. Hands down. I honestly can't believe you're drawing those parallels.

Quite simply, NOBODY gets to rape and pillage, minority and majority. Stopping people from oppressing the rights of others, is not itself oppression. Liberty rights do not extend to denying other's their rights to life liberty and property.

Yes, decisions have to be made and they should be made by a majority BUT it is fundamentally unjust for the majority to oppress the fundamental rights of the minority. The majority is not allowed to vote to kill people any more than an individual is allowed to kill people.

I asked you once before, do you think it would be acceptable and "fair" to drop a bunch of Jews in the middle of Tehran and let a mob vote decide their fate? Answer that question and all the other difficult one's I've asked you.


And with that, I'm done. With your whacked out definition of exploitation and your refusal to recognize the fundamental rights of man, we have no basis for discussion. All you want is oppression of a different form that we normally see, namely tyranny of the majority based on your personal value system...

 

[edgray]

Its like I'm talking to a goddamn brick wall.. :thumbdown

Well yeah I suppose it must be. Try raising valid points for start, that might help. Maybe even read up a little too, listen to the youtube clip and stuff. I'm getting very bored of treading the same old ground here and being constantly attacked by you. We're just having a little debate, everyone else seems to be being quite nice...

We are all different and have different values. Thats part of being individuals. The point being that your system, by your own admission requires agreement and cooperation by EVERYONE. In that situation, a majority means absolutely NOTHING. Its meaningless till you hit 100% agreement.

Why are you still arguing this point at all? You don't believe people can agree on an anarchist system, even though it's happened before (yes, those dreaded examples you refuse to believe) and yet you still hammer on about this. If you don't believe it, then fine, keep quiet please and let the rest of us debate. I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me of anything.

Whats simple and obvious is that people will cooperate for the same reasons they always have, blatant self interest. Out and out self interest has helped more people that altruism ever has or ever will. The entire reason you live a fat happy life instead of scrabbling in the dirt sunup to sundown for subsistence, is some farmer wants to make a buck and build a better life off of selling you food. That goes for just about anything else...

Just because everything YOU do is out of self-interest, don't tar the rest of us with that brush. Not everyone is like you. Far from it in fact. People are generally warm, generous, willing to help and not living for total self-interest like yourself. That is what you fail to understand, that there are people out there that simply aren't selfish.

I seriously love how your first attempt to "argue" the point is to demonoize me. Oh well you just hate your fellow man your poor sad individual.

Actually you've been the one lowering the tone of this debate my friend. I was simply pointing out a simple fact - you have no time for your fellow man. It's very simple.

If you think my obviously facetious statement is hateful, then you've got serious issues. I used the same argumentative basis that you did, just taken to the Nth level to demonstrate exactly how fucking ridiculous your statement was. You don't like it so you resort to the "bleeding heart" argument of "you just hate your fellow man."

Again, just pointing it out. Your defensiveness here speaks volumes.

Socialism is about demanding equality of outcome based on your abitrary definitions of what is fair and oppression of the individual. Thats a bit more accurate.

If that's the description you want to use, so be it. Clearly I'm not going to be able to change that. Why don't you submit it to a dictionary and see if they use it? Or maybe to an academic establishment?

I don't give a damn about their circumstances. Period. Anybody can make anything out of their situation that they wish too. The productive way is the way of hard work and immediate individual sacrifice for long term personal gain. The waste of skin way is the easy way where people want everything now without putting in any effort.

Ok great, tell that to a starving Ethiopian. No one is 100% responsible for the outcomes of their lives. That is a simple fact. Contrary to what you think, you are not an island. None of us are.

To not give a damn about circumstances is expecting everyone's mind to work like yours. They don't. People are different, they have different levels of drive, different levels of creativity, different physical abilities etc etc.

Its the difference between me and 99% of the people I went to high school with. I worked hard, studied, got good grades and went on to colllege. So many others dicked off, screwed around and generally did nothing. Thats why my life is now relatively easy and theirs is relatively hard.

Individuals have to make choices and live with the consequences....

True, individuals do make choices, but those choices are based on their mindset, which could have been molded by anything. All sorts can happen in people's lives to effect this, that or the other.

No the difference is in the choices they made. My wife and her sister grew up in the exact same environment. My wife made good choices and is a Dr. Her sister made bad choices and is, well, not doing much of anything aside from weed and meth.

Clearly your wife was fortunate enough to be blessed with a certain type of mindset. I also know people who've come out of a very bad childhood and succeeded and also lots who've "failed". Their failure needn't be so though, our current systems, much like yourself, are very unforgiving. Why be like that? For what purpose? What's the need?

Another walking contradiction. Forcing equality of outcome by default suppresses the natural talents of individuals and prevents them from excelling.

You're viewing outcome solely in monetary terms, probably because that's how you view everything. No reason why natural talents wouldn't come out, none at all. In fact, if you think about, take away all of the usual worries that people have to deal with in life, created by our capitalist systems, and people would surely excel even more?

But here you are talking about everyone getting the same regardless of their nutural talents and abilities. How can you hate them and want them to have the same outcome regardless of their abilities all at the same time?

Actually their are a few schools of thought on this one. I don't personally see why there can't be a variation of things like income, provided everyone gets the share they deserve and no one is profiting off another man's work. There are many ideas of how people are rewarded. At the end of the day, these would be decided by that oppressive regime of the society.

You haven't done anything to challenge my beliefs. You've trotted out the same tired old arguments that I've heard 1000 times. Its simply more of the same tired justifications for forcing your ideas of how you think the world should be on the rest of us.

And "Socialism is a bandwagon jumped on by wastes of air and skin who are too fucking stupid and worthless to get ahead on their own, they want everything handed to them." isn't just a tired old argument? :24: :24: :24: :24: :24:

Thanks, that's just totally made my day!

Sorry but you can't dictate your idea of exploitation to the rest of us. If the employee voluntarily agrees to enter that arangement it is nobody else's business. Period. You may not have a say in the business, but you have a say in whether you stay or not. If you don't like the direction things are going, leave and find some place else to work, or start your own business. Its just that simple.

Ok I get it, you're happy being exploited. Ignorance is bliss as they say!

That has to be the dumbest motherfucking statement I think I've ever seen anybody make. Hands down. I honestly can't believe you're drawing those parallels.

Ok, fair enough, it was a bad example.

Quite simply, NOBODY gets to rape and pillage, minority and majority. Stopping people from oppressing the rights of others, is not itself oppression. Liberty rights do not extend to denying other's their rights to life liberty and property

Yes, decisions have to be made and they should be made by a majority BUT it is fundamentally unjust for the majority to oppress the fundamental rights of the minority. The majority is not allowed to vote to kill people any more than an individual is allowed to kill people.

Which rights are being oppressed again? Oh yes, your right to exploit your fellow man.

I asked you once before, do you think it would be acceptable and "fair" to drop a bunch of Jews in the middle of Tehran and let a mob vote decide their fate? Answer that question and all the other difficult one's I've asked you.

This is exactly why I brought up the extreme examples of murder and such before because that's just a ridiculous example and bears no relation to anything we're talking about here. no one has been talking about "mob rule".

Oh, and sorry oif I missed out some of your "difficult" questions. I'm a busy man and this debate is filling up much of my spare time. Apologies for not being able to answer everything. You could Google stuff though, look it up, read and research. But you have no interest in actually learning about this philosophy, only trying to convince me it's wrong. Well, you've got a lot of people in this world to convince.

And with that, I'm done. With your whacked out definition of exploitation and your refusal to recognize the fundamental rights of man, we have no basis for discussion. All you want is oppression of a different form that we normally see, namely tyranny of the majority based on your personal value system...

Fundamental rights of man? by YOUR standards. Tad hypocritical, don't you think, for you to say that my definitions are "whacked out", and also that everything I believe is oppressive and everything you believe isn't. Everyone has different views on what should be fundamental human rights. You imposing yours on mine is no different to what I'm doing here.

I'm just trying to explain a system as best I can. I've given plenty of examples, posted information. It's falling on deaf ears though.

 

[edgray]

Sorry to Accountable, I will get around to your questions, I promise!

 

[edgray]

This is interesting:

Its the difference between me and 99% of the people I went to high school with. I worked hard, studied, got good grades and went on to colllege. So many others dicked off, screwed around and generally did nothing. Thats why my life is now relatively easy and theirs is relatively hard.

so, the rest of the people, you say 99%, have to lead miserable lives because of the way You want the world to be? Is what what you're say?

 

[nova]

Well yeah I suppose it must be. Try raising valid points for start, that might help. Maybe even read up a little too, listen to the youtube clip and stuff. I'm getting very bored of treading the same old ground here and being constantly attacked by you. We're just having a little debate, everyone else seems to be being quite nice...

The fact you don't have enough grasp of logic to see my points is not my problem.

Why are you still arguing this point at all? You don't believe people can agree on an anarchist system, even though it's happened before (yes, those dreaded examples you refuse to believe) and yet you still hammer on about this. If you don't believe it, then fine, keep quiet please and let the rest of us debate. I'm sorry but you're not going to convince me of anything.

Thats ok, I knew I couldn't convince you of anything the minute you threw out any semblance of logical consistency. You can claim those "examples" all you want but it doesn't make them so. Just because they don't fit the traditional form of government, does not mean they lack governance.

Just because everything YOU do is out of self-interest, don't tar the rest of us with that brush. Not everyone is like you. Far from it in fact. People are generally warm, generous, willing to help and not living for total self-interest like yourself. That is what you fail to understand, that there are people out there that simply aren't selfish.

Go down to the supermarket and tell them you want all your stuff for free and see how far generosity gets you. Yes, people will help out because we are social animals, but only as long as its not to our own detriment.

Actually you've been the one lowering the tone of this debate my friend. I was simply pointing out a simple fact - you have no time for your fellow man. It's very simple.

And I'm just pointing out a "simple fact" that you socialists are all lazy, feckless, wastes of skin. Since I'm just pointing out a simple fact you should have no issues...

Again, just pointing it out. Your defensiveness here speaks volumes.

Oh yes, pointint out how fucking stupid your statements are is defensive. You got me there... :crazy:

If that's the description you want to use, so be it. Clearly I'm not going to be able to change that. Why don't you submit it to a dictionary and see if they use it? Or maybe to an academic establishment?

I'm just using your crazy constantly changing definition that you've tried to present here.

Ok great, tell that to a starving Ethiopian. No one is 100% responsible for the outcomes of their lives. That is a simple fact. Contrary to what you think, you are not an island. None of us are.

Hey Ethiopian! You can only feed so many people per acre of worthless fucking desert. You might wanna try growing food elsewhere.

I'm also sick and tired of your "island" bullshit. We are all individuals.

To not give a damn about circumstances is expecting everyone's mind to work like yours. They don't. People are different, they have different levels of drive, different levels of creativity, different physical abilities etc etc.

Hey, look, that might be the reason some people are succesful and others aren't. Thats a shocking thought! Some people are just fucking better at life! :eek :eek :eek :eek

True, individuals do make choices, but those choices are based on their mindset, which could have been molded by anything. All sorts can happen in people's lives to effect this, that or the other.

Not relevent. Nothing makes anyone make bad decisions, they're simply not smart or capable enough to make good decisions. Most good decisions are damn obvious and yet so many people make bad ones. That goes to intelligence and nothing more. Protecting people from their own stupidity is a bad idea..

Clearly your wife was fortunate enough to be blessed with a certain type of mindset. I also know people who've come out of a very bad childhood and succeeded and also lots who've "failed". Their failure needn't be so though, our current systems, much like yourself, are very unforgiving. Why be like that? For what purpose? What's the need?

What reason is there to coddle people like children and make life easy? None that I can see. Let them take their lumps and either learn from their mistakes and improve themselves or suffer the consequences.

You're viewing outcome solely in monetary terms, probably because that's how you view everything. No reason why natural talents wouldn't come out, none at all. In fact, if you think about, take away all of the usual worries that people have to deal with in life, created by our capitalist systems, and people would surely excel even more?

Quit putting words in my mouth to try and make your ridiculous points. I've already said that excelling is in the eye of the beholder. Trying to force equality of outcome puts us all under one arbitrary defininition of success. One which you seek to create and enforce.

Actually their are a few schools of thought on this one. I don't personally see why there can't be a variation of things like income, provided everyone gets the share they deserve and no one is profiting off another man's work. There are many ideas of how people are rewarded. At the end of the day, these would be decided by that oppressive regime of the society.

Who makes the arbitrary decision about what any individual deserves? Again I thought we were going for equality again. Can't have equality if one person is getting more for their labor than another now can you? And you know, if one guy in a factory is making more for the same 8 hours as some other guy, well then he's profiting off the other guy. Can't have that either....

Its funny how your never gonna happen system has all these issues that have to have mechanisms created to solve that free market capitalism just kinda works out on its own.... :24:

And "Socialism is a bandwagon jumped on by wastes of air and skin who are too fucking stupid and worthless to get ahead on their own, they want everything handed to them." isn't just a tired old argument? :24: :24: :24: :24: :24:

Thanks, that's just totally made my day!

Its facetious hyperbole but despite me telling you that 3 FUCKING TIMES I guess you'll never get it, which indirectly proves part of the statement ironically enough.... :24::24::24:

Ok I get it, you're happy being exploited. Ignorance is bliss as they say!

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in heaven then :24:

Which rights are being oppressed again? Oh yes, your right to exploit your fellow man.

That foreign concept that you really don't understand called LIBERTY, including the LIBERTY to sell your time to whomever you please, whenever you please, for whatever you please. Again we come back to the point where you don't like the choices people make so you seek to restrict them. Thats the textbook definition of oppression.

This is exactly why I brought up the extreme examples of murder and such before because that's just a ridiculous example and bears no relation to anything we're talking about here. no one has been talking about "mob rule".

Thats EXACTLY what you've been talking about and the fact you're too fucking ignorant to realize it is downright scary. You said repeatedly, direct democracy, direct democracy and said it in the context of restricting the liberty rights of the individual. Thats exactly what mob rule is.

Oh, and sorry oif I missed out some of your "difficult" questions. I'm a busy man and this debate is filling up much of my spare time. Apologies for not being able to answer everything. You could Google stuff though, look it up, read and research. But you have no interest in actually learning about this philosophy, only trying to convince me it's wrong. Well, you've got a lot of people in this world to convince.

Or you could quit playing the consumate politician and answer the fucking questions. I know you won't do that though because it involves admitting to the logical contradictions in your ridiculous ideas. Thats the whole reason I asked them. :thumbup

And I learned a long time ago not to try to convince socialists of anything. The only reality thats gotten in their way in the past has been the reality of a noose around the neck when people got fed up with their oppressive bullshit. I don't expect that to ever change for you and your compatriots. My arguments are for the benefit of people with good sense and a firm grasp on reality.

 

[nova]

Fundamental rights of man? by YOUR standards. Tad hypocritical, don't you think, for you to say that my definitions are "whacked out", and also that everything I believe is oppressive and everything you believe isn't. Everyone has different views on what should be fundamental human rights. You imposing yours on mine is no different to what I'm doing here.

Hypocritical my ass. Recognizing and protecting fundamental individual liberties is only oppressive in whacked out socialist land where you live at. When you talk about mob rule with no protection of those individual rights, thats the very definition of oppressive.

My way has people living however they please as long as they allow other people to do the same.

Your has people living only as the mob will allow them.

I'm just trying to explain a system as best I can. I've given plenty of examples, posted information. It's falling on deaf ears though.

No its falling on someone with enough sense to know the smell of bullshit when it hits his nose. I know its tough for socialists to deal with little things like logic and reality.

This is interesting:


so, the rest of the people, you say 99%, have to lead miserable lives because of the way You want the world to be? Is what what you're say?

Nobody said they HAVE to do anything. They have all the power in the world to make choices to change their life, they simply choose not to. Their condition is simple a result of their choices coupled with reality.

Saying they HAVE to live that way is kinda like saying you HAVE to die when you stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. Its technically true, but dieing is simply the consequence of reality that when you make the choice to pull the trigger, a bullet is coming out at high speed....

 

[All Else Failed]

How can a system that works on maintaining the status quo solve any problems. Really? How are our capitalistic systems tackling poverty? Inequality? War? Famine? Climate Change? Corruption? Greed?

Simple answer: it's not. Politicians just throw band-aids at problems, never looking to the root causes. And of course it doesn't, why would it? The systems we have now are the very causes of those problems.

What makes you think Conservatism cannot allow certain forms of progression?

Conservative values are what holds civilizations together, not the other way around.

great contribution to the debate! Bravo, sir, bravo!!!

The burden is on you to explain how a large society like the U.S. could possibly apply such a philosophy as anarchism. I'm asking you to explain how this seemingly impossible feat could be accomplished.

 

[edgray]

What makes you think Conservatism cannot allow certain forms of progression?

Just by the very meaning of the word, which comes of course from the verb "to conserve," you can understand it's not about progress. It's about maintaining. Conservatives speak about things like traditional values and such. Now, if you're binding yourself with traditional values, values that are potentially outdated, how can you possibly progress?

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, to "save" or "preserve")[1] is a political attitude and philosophy that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically,[2][3] thus emphasizing stability and continuity.[3]

It is thought by many that conservative views come from a very low tolerance to and/or a fear of change. There's a good article about the psychological research into conservative views:

07.22.2003 - Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

Conservatives, and in fact most right-wing people, see the world in black and white definites. We can see this by many of the posts in this very thread. It's that black and white view of the world that can hinder society's progression.

Conservative values are what holds civilizations together, not the other way around.

I would argue that conservative views are pulling us apart, not bringing us together. A larger percentage of people these days want us to progress and we need to progress, that's how we overcome, or at least attempt to overcome problems within our societies.

If conservatism would have been maintained continually through the 20th century, there'd still be segregation and so forth. No gay rights. No welfare. No healthcare etc etc.

The burden is on you to explain how a large society like the U.S. could possibly apply such a philosophy as anarchism. I'm asking you to explain how this seemingly impossible feat could be accomplished.

I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and it's a real noodle scratcher.

As mentioned before, an anarchist society would be the result of a progression through various forms of socialism. That would be the starting place for a large society like the US.

I've often wondered if the process would be better applied to lots and lots of smaller communities, spreading throughout the country, rather than a large-scale change, which could potentially be disastrous.

As mentioned before, anarchy can only be applied when the people, society as a whole, want it. In that sense, we're a long way off getting sufficient support for a system. But I meet more anarchists all the time, so maybe when enough people discover and understand not only the system but it's benefits and purpose, then perhaps things can start to change.

To be completely honest though, I couldn't begin to predict how a large scale change like that required in the US could possibly happen. Organically I would guess, and over many years of gradual steps.

 

[All Else Failed]

Just by the very meaning of the word, which comes of course from the verb "to conserve," you can understand it's not about progress. It's about maintaining. Conservatives speak about things like traditional values and such. Now, if you're binding yourself with traditional values, values that are potentially outdated, how can you possibly progress?



It is thought by many that conservative views come from a very low tolerance to and/or a fear of change. There's a good article about the psychological research into conservative views:

07.22.2003 - Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

Conservatives, and in fact most right-wing people, see the world in black and white definites. We can see this by many of the posts in this very thread. It's that black and white view of the world that can hinder society's progression.



I would argue that conservative views are pulling us apart, not bringing us together. A larger percentage of people these days want us to progress and we need to progress, that's how we overcome, or at least attempt to overcome problems within our societies.

If conservatism would have been maintained continually through the 20th century, there'd still be segregation and so forth. No gay rights. No welfare. No healthcare etc etc.



I've been thinking a lot about this lately, and it's a real noodle scratcher.

As mentioned before, an anarchist society would be the result of a progression through various forms of socialism. That would be the starting place for a large society like the US.

I've often wondered if the process would be better applied to lots and lots of smaller communities, spreading throughout the country, rather than a large-scale change, which could potentially be disastrous.

As mentioned before, anarchy can only be applied when the people, society as a whole, want it. In that sense, we're a long way off getting sufficient support for a system. But I meet more anarchists all the time, so maybe when enough people discover and understand not only the system but it's benefits and purpose, then perhaps things can start to change.

To be completely honest though, I couldn't begin to predict how a large scale change like that required in the US could possibly happen. Organically I would guess, and over many years of gradual steps.

Conservatism is about maintaining, yes, however its about maintaining the right things. You can easily have progression in a conservative society. I find that with liberal/progressive types, almost anything new is seen as "good" and as "progress". This view is crazy, seeing as how a lot of "progress" in our societies is entirely bad and corrosive.


From your link:

• Fear and aggression
• Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Need for cognitive closure
• Terror management

- Yes, conservatism can guard against aggressors because its based on what works.
- Ambiguity SHOULD not be tolerated.
- Yes, if you can assure to avoid uncertainties, this is good.
- Whatever, not important
- Yeah, this one is a given.


You say we need to "progress" to "overcome". What exactly are we progressing to overcome? Should we totally throw out all of our traditions and historical institutions in favor of a totally untested world view? Again, you're in this mindset that "old = bad, new = good".


It would be amazing if there was no welfare.



Yeah, anarchy can be attained if enough people "want it", but most people are not that dumb. It may work on a small scale, however, once you get up towrads 300+ million people, there is zero chance of an anarchist nation to exist. There are too many differing views, beliefs and opinions for anything like national anarchism to take place. A policy of "do whatever you want" is not a formula for a healthy or long lasting civilization.

I don't think that its any coincidence that most of the anarchists I know and read about are either failures or mentally unstable people.

 

[edgray]

Conservatism is about maintaining, yes, however its about maintaining the right things. You can easily have progression in a conservative society. I find that with liberal/progressive types, almost anything new is seen as "good" and as "progress". This view is crazy, seeing as how a lot of "progress" in our societies is entirely bad and corrosive.

The right things? Like inequality? Poverty? Crime?

I agree that some progress isn't necessarily good, but progress in general is needed. As a race, humans need to progress - it's how we got to where we are now and it's how we'll improve life even more.

- Ambiguity SHOULD not be tolerated.
- Yes, if you can assure to avoid uncertainties, this is good.

Life is peppered with ambiguity and uncertainties. I don't think you can ever try to eradicate them completely.

You say we need to "progress" to "overcome". What exactly are we progressing to overcome? Should we totally throw out all of our traditions and historical institutions in favor of a totally untested world view? Again, you're in this mindset that "old = bad, new = good".

Well, since the enlightenment, many have seen it necessary to address traditions and their purpose. Traditions and historical institutions need to be valid in terms of logic and reason. If they aren't, then surely they need to be replaced. Whatever holds up to scrutiny stays.

Traditionally, conservatism promotes conservation of hierarchical structures in society based on little but the family you were born into or how much money you have.

If conservatism had been a governing factor for the past 150 years most people wouldn't have the vote, decisions would be made by "our superiors".

As for what we're trying to overcome: inequality (which of course hinders freedom), poverty, crime, the burden of the prison population, corruption, greed etc etc. Surely you cannot possibly tell me that how we organise ourselves at the moment is the best we can do?

Crime is actually a really good topic regarding conservatism. Conservatives, or at least those in the UK, have a hard line on crime: "lock the bastards up" with no attempt or thought at the causes of crime. This is a terrible waste for society, and not to mention costly running the prison service. The War on Drugs is a classic example of this: totally ridiculous laws being upheld for the sake of outdated "moral" views and a refusal to tackle or accept root causes.

It would be amazing if there was no welfare.

If there was no welfare, I'd have had REAL problems earlier last year: http://www.offtopicz.net/57171-request-help.html

Ideally there should be no need for welfare, but it's a necessary evil to try and counter the unforgiving and wholly unfair nature of our capitalistic economic models.

Yeah, anarchy can be attained if enough people "want it", but most people are not that dumb. It may work on a small scale, however, once you get up towrads 300+ million people, there is zero chance of an anarchist nation to exist. There are too many differing views, beliefs and opinions for anything like national anarchism to take place. A policy of "do whatever you want" is not a formula for a healthy or long lasting civilization.

It's a bit harsh calling anarchists "dumb" considering it's weightiness in academic circles. There are many differing views in society of course, but there are common ones too. An anarchist society would evolve over time, and as I mentioned before, that would affect people's beliefs and what they want. As people change society, and then society changes, their beliefs could change again. This is how society has progressed in the past. Look at how different people's views are now compared to 100 years ago. Back then, at least in Britain, conservatism was a very core belief of the country as a whole. Now, it's considered something of a bad joke by the majority of the population.

I don't think that its any coincidence that most of the anarchists I know and read about are either failures or mentally unstable people.

Again, a bit harsh. Am I a failure? Well I don't think so, not at all. I'm known in my field within my area and haven't had to apply for a job for years because I get head-hunted. I earn well above average. Am I mentally unstable? I really don't think so, no need for medication here.

It's a shame you had to end your argument with a statement like that, it belittles the good arguments you had placed before it.

 

[Accountable]

I'm known in my field within my area and haven't had to apply for a job for years because I get head-hunted. I earn well above average.

Can I assume you walk your talk by sending any income you receive above the average to your community leaders or government, or at least distributing it among your lowest-earning colleagues to help make them equal? :cool

 

[edgray]

Can I assume you walk your talk by sending any income you receive above the average to your community leaders or government, or at least distributing it among your lowest-earning colleagues to help make them equal? :cool

Well obviously I pay much more tax than average, so that's my contribution to the local community and govt. As for my lower-paid colleagues, it's actually something that I've thought about and will certainly try and do something to address the balance at some point in the future, however right now I'm still catching up from the debt I got into in 2008 thanks to a certain architecture company, mentioned above.

I'm not a believer in charity though, and my experience is valuable to my lower-paid colleagues. They're getting great training from me and not paying a penny for it, I don't mind this as it's also in my best interest for them to know more.

If I were in charge of the company however, I would change it to being a co-op.

 

[Codrus]

It would be amazing if there was no welfare.

i would be a lot happier if those that abuse the system were off of it and worked for a living like the rest of us, but it seems as though this will never happen as long as we maintain out current direction.

everyone has the ability to contribute something to the betterment of society/mankind,
instead of feeding off of the system and pulling everyone down with them.

...but then i also feel that some would be better off as fertilizer.

 

[edgray]

i would be a lot happier if those that abuse the system were off of it and worked for a living like the rest of us, but it seems as though this will never happen as long as we maintain out current direction.

everyone has the ability to contribute something to the betterment of society/mankind,
instead of feeding off of the system and pulling everyone down with them.

...but then i also feel that some would be better off as fertilizer.

It surprises me that govts don't insist on unemployed people working for their benefits. I would've been over the moon to actually have some work to do during my unemployment last year. Being idle doesn't help people's motivation at all, and the labour unemployed people could bring to their communities would be very valuable.

This would also stop those abusing the system and claiming with no intention of working.