On equality:destroying one of the favorite arguments by the liberals

What does that mean?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they do. Your notion is absolute stupidity. Society has needs that do outweigh those of the individual.

 

I don't think anyone, left or right, expects all things to be equal. Where the two sides often differ is in what each believes can or should be made equal, and how government can or should be involved in achieving that balance.





​

 

Weren't you dead?

(*)(*)(*)(*) yeah I DO want absolute equality, at least as far as opportunity is concerned, everybody should be absolutely equal. You shouldn't get a big leg up over everyone else because your daddy's got a lot of money, nor should you be (*)(*)(*)(*) on because he didn't. Once you start then the race should go to the swift, but it should be a level playing field, that's the American way.

Really, your modern conservatives have the mindset of European nobility, not American entrepreneurs

 

Didn't read whole thread. It's childishly simple to see through the Complex appeals to "wealth/income inequality" as appeals to line their own pockets with high taxes, crony capitalist grafty regulations and out and out redistribution. It's like the middleman who gets a cut of any transaction appealing to "consumer protection," it's actually gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-lawyer-MSM Complex "protection" they are interested in and nothing more. Remember Godfather 2, where the corrupt Don needs to "wet his beak?" this is all wealth/income inequality appeals are, Complex advertisements towards more and more "beak-wetting." They desperately need a permanent, dependent underclass being fed redistribution to fuel their piggy trough, so it's not decreasing inequality they are after, just increasing THEIR cut and the money THEY get to put their greedy, grafty, corrupt hands on before it gets to those who actually earn it and provide real value to society.

The big secret the Complex never wants you to figure out, other than 10-20% of incorrigibles who will make bad choices constantly no matter how much money they are given, the poor and the rich in the US are the EXACT SAME PEOPLE, at different points in their careers. They hope that by focusing on static graphs of a certain point in time, you won't realize this. Are you fooled?

 

Schooling? Inheritance?

 

Actually, If you will remember the movie you are quoting Mr. Spock originally said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" Just before sacrificing himself to save everyone else.

So you've kinda got it backwards.

 

Why would you want to preserve inequality? You mean, put resources into making sure that some people are better off than others?

I wouldn't put resources into either one.

 

Sometimes the only way to make things equal, is to destroy value.




​

 

Yeh, but later Kirk paraphrases it to "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many," to explain why he's saving Spock. That's Kirk's ultimate characteristic, he cheats.

Can we get an example here?

 

I am aware of that.

 

I can try to offer one. Exceptional effort, luck, or kindness creates inequality. You can equalize the results of work, speculation, and charity by channeling the activity or redistributing the gains produced. But that restrains the activity or reduces enthusiasm for it. You get less activity and thus less results.

Edison was active a fan of all three. I doubt he would have been as much if folks were trying to enforce equality on his endeavors. And as a people we'd be poorer for the loss.




​

 

You're argument in this post seems to boil down to the fact that we have a constitution, laws, etc. in an effort to make sure that when a party loses their "needs" it was for a reason and that the party loses only to an extent that we see as necessary for society. So, neither society nor individuals have a free hand.

Yes, the police need to have some level of justification for bashing in your door, but when the needs of society are deemed to include that your door gets bashed in, there are trained and ready police to do the job even though you have needs for personal security. And, when society needs money, time or property (which ALL civilizations require) and the need is justified, individuals will be required to contribute. etc.

 

No it does not.

You see, if it weren't for the consent of the individual you can not have a society.

 

Oh please we lost that after the Civil War.

 

But no one's talking about completely equality of outcome. As another poster has noted, that's Communism, not liberalism, and pretty much nobody thinks that actually works. Hence the dearth of actual communist countries around the world.

However, complete inequality isn't an answer, either. Taken to an extreme, if one person has all the wealth and everybody else has none, you don't have a functioning society -- you have one guy who controls everyone else by controlling their access to basic necessities of life. (What you actually have is a recipe for revolution, but that also validates the point).

A functioning society needs several things:
1. Enough inequality to incentivize people to work hard on their own behalf;
2. Enough equality to avoid all the social ills (including, at the extreme, violent revolution) that is harmful to society.
3. A way to ensure that #1 is achieved through means that are societally beneficial, rather than harmful.
4. Providing the tools so that #1-3 can be achieved.
5. Enough taxation to pay for #3 and #4.

#3 is basically regulations -- criminal laws, civil law, market regulations, etc. #4 is things like funding education, infrastructure, scientific research, cultural development, etc.

Where you draw the line on #1 and #2 is the key question. Going extreme in either direction is destructive, however ideologically satisfying it may be.

 

Very good post. I've made the point on the extreme of all wealth in the hands of one man, which clearly cannot work, in a post above and fully agree with your analysis.

Like matter, money has two opposing tendencies: To concentrate and to disperse. A balance of these two tendencies is needed for sufficient money velocity. Currently, the rules favor concentration of money over dispersion. Thus, money velocity is low, the general economy suffers, and inequality increases. Eventually, even the rich will have to pay the price, if not in form of a violent revolution, but definitely in a reduced standard of living.

 

I understand the concern of an imbalance of power or responsibility within a society. There's a similar challenge with friendships. Difference in personal wealth can put a strain on even very old friendships. What works well is to keep that excess personal wealth out of the friendship. Enjoy activities together that don't cost money, eat at restaurants where either can afford to pick up the bill, plan projects each can contribute to, and keep excess wealth out of that shared realm.

The problem with America isn't that some have excess wealth, the problem is it's been pulled into the relationship. As a group we spend so much that the less wealthy of us can't pay their share of the cost. And that creates stress on the relationship. It changes the dynamic from equals working together, to something else. It ain't healthy.

I don't think the solution is designing a system that produces 'roughly' equal wealth, anymore than engineering a friendship is likely to work.




​

 

Agreed.

But that's a strawman. Nobody is arguing in favor of that.

Basically, liberals think we have too much inequality (both of wealth and opportunity) right now, and need to take steps to reduce it.

Some conservatives agree, but disagree on method and priorities. Others, dishearteningly, disagree, and think the answer to everything is "tax cuts for the job creators." Which just increases inequality.

 

It seems like it is being argued. We're talking about using taxes to change how much some one has, instead of just pay the bills. Reducing the 'inequality' in what each has in his pocket.

It sounds a lot like two friends going to a restaurant that they know one of them can't afford. Then solving the problem by saying each will pay a percentage of the bill based on the how much each has in his wallet divided by the total money in both wallets. Something that might sound good as a one off, but when it becomes the go-to plan will put stress on the relationship.

There is no percentage other than 50/50 that is fair (by definition). Both friends know it. The reality is one guy is carrying the other. The more they both try and hide that fact, the more awkward it all gets.

Better if they just ate at Arby's instead.




​

 

Well, sort of close, but worth discussing.

Differences in opportunity - I think we can all agree that's a problem, right?

Differences in wealth are not a problem, although it may be an indication of problems. We see the middle class stagnating while the wealthy get wealthier at a rapid clip. That shows that there is a problem, but the wealthy getting more wealth isn't the problem. The problem is in other aspects of our system - how we value work, differences in opportunity, aspects of how our competitive system works, etc.

Another point of confusion is that America believes in a graduated tax system on the grounds that a flat percent on those living paycheck to paycheck is a far greater burden than it is for those with huge income - a tax burden distribution system. Some folks confuse that with "wealth redistribution", but it has nothing to do with that. For one thing, our government doesn't measure wealth. A poor person hitting the lottery will pay a wealthy man's taxes, because we tax income, not wealth. We do tax property which is sometimes a wealth component, but everybody pays that regardless of wealth OR income - with renters paying indirectly.

 

If government creates the opportunity, sure. Our laws and government tries to and should be equal to equal citizens. But let's face it, a good looking guy has more opportunities to pickup girls that his homely friend and a clever guy will have more opportunities to make money that a guy who doesn't see things as clearly. And that's just the way it is.

Trying to fix differences in opportunity that result from our private lives, from who we are outside our shared relationship, is gonna lead us down a bad road. The rich guy will have opportunities the poor guy doesn't have. The only way to fix that is to put artificial barriers or burdens on the rich guy, the handsome guy, or the clever guy.

If we do government isn't being equal to both. Plus adding barriers and burdens to any process will reduce the net gain.




​

 

"Reducing inequality" does not mean the same thing as "eliminating inequality." Read what people write.

True, for dividing a pie or something. But that's not the only use of percentages.

You are not seeing (or ignoring) that part of the point of a fine is to be a deterrent. That's why there are larger fines for more serious offenses.

In order to be an effective deterrent, the fine must represent a high enough economic cost that people will seek to avoid it.

A flat fine amount doesn't achieve that basic goal, because it's too high for poor people (and beyond that, often having a cascade of effects on them far beyond the intended punishment) and way, way too low for wealthy people (for whom the fine is so small it's a joke).

Maybe we should do away with fines altogether, and impose punishments that affect all men equally. Jail time does so, but jail time is very expensive and isn't appropriate for every offense.

But as long as we have fines, they should be structured to deter everyone equally. The only way I can think of to do that is base fines on percentage of income. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.

 

The catch is that the rich guy doesn't want to eat at Arby's.

For example, our health care system is designed for those who have no or nearly no concern about money. We look at the GIGANTIC disparity between US health care costs and those of EVERY other nation on earth and we say "so what - we can afford it". And, we say that even though there is little statistical difference in outcome.

 

Then he's free to eat at Brown Derby on his dime, but when we do things as a nation we eat at Arby's. *shrug*

It used to be we sought out medical advice, paid a reasonable price for it, and took responsibility for applying it to our lives. We don't do that anymore. We think of good health as a product we can buy and have delivered to us. We go for the loudest brands thinking it will give us the best results. We choose the hospital with the new specialty wing or highest resolution MRI when all we need is a blood draw. We ask for the new pills or latest specialist advertised on TV without any research, drop by the emergency room when we see a little blood, and always say 'sure!' instead of 'how much?' when the guy in the white coat mentions something that might work a little better.

And send the bills off to the insurance company without even reading them. So we never know how expensive our choices are.

Instead of running laps we want someone to install a lap band, instead of skipping cheeseburgers we order two with a side of Lipitor. We don't seek advice and try suggestions to solve our medical concerns we expect the physician to know exactly what's wrong, fix it without our help, and get us out of the 'shop' without inconveniencing our schedule. And if our expectations aren't met we sue.

That level of service is expensive. Maybe the millionaire that eats at Brown Derby can afford that luxury but the rest of us can't. And trying to make that level of service a national entitlement is breaking the bank.




​

 

What it really is is like a bunch of people who don't know each other being required by law to eat at the same restaurant at the same time every day. The waitress adds items no one ordered to all bills, together with a 25% non negotiable gratuity, and pockets not only the tips, but all the money from the fake tacked-on items as well. When anyone complains about it, the waitress says "well you had to pay more so that some (unidentified) poor person could eat too," even though the waitress jacks up EVERYONE'S bill and the restaurant doesn't really -give- anything to anyone no matter how poor. Complain enough and Joe Pesci comes out of the back for some customer "attitude adjustment." The whole scheme is for the benefit of the crooked waitress, Joe Pesci, and no one else, no matter what she or he says as rationalization. Oh, and the food is LOUSY and unwholesome, full of bugs and rats run all through the kitchen. Don't show up to eat there one day and the bent nose guys show up at your door. The restaurant is doing very, very well... the customers? Not so much.