Do you support the existence of class hierarchies in society?

Interesting. If we could avoid the bureaucracy and elitism you complain of while at he same time achieve the ending of scarcity. Hypothetically speaking would you be for it or would you still prefer that some people are given a great start and others not so much?

 

There is no way to implement this without bureaucracy and when you have an "in crowd" in control of resources, measurement of outcome and redistribution, you will not avoid elitism.

It won't end scarcity, it will increase it.

I'm for the private property, free choice, free markets and equal standing under the law. I'm for the government only taking what is needed for the government to accomplish their constitutional role.

I'm not for the government controlling everything, measuring everything and determining who gets what. In such a system I can assure you the government will get the first and best share.

 

Yeah I'm sure you're for and against a lot of things.

Just answer the question. Please

 

I did. I'm not for a small oligarchy taking charge of the means and products of production under the promise of instituting uniformity because it will result in great conditions for them and terrible conditions for us.

I'm for the Constitutional restraints on government that protect our inalienable rights to own property, pursue our interests, freely engage in labor and trade and give the fruits of our efforts to those we chose to give it to.

Just read the answer. Please.

 

Yes but my question qualified your objections by asking if you would support it where elitism was avoided.

You ignored that. So again. Please answer. I don't want to hear this rubbish about constitutional restraints that's more to do with the mechanics of individual governance structures and not widely applicable.

 

I like hierarchies because I like to be able to identify upper class fannies in order to kick them.

 

I did not ignore that, I rejected the premise.

I do not view our Constitution as "rubbish" although I do view folks that swear an oath to obey it who then ignore it to be a "rubbish" of sorts, certainly such folks are not be trusted, and certainly not with the level of power and control you advocate.

But that aside, our Constitution could be amended to allow for a small oligarchy to control the means and fruits of production in order to mandate government uniformity imposed by force. I would not support changing to such a system as I would expect it to prove to be an exploitive poorly performing nightmare.

Humans operate best under free choice, free will and free markets. Tyranny always masquerades as Utopia. Do not be fooled into surrendering your natural rights as a human being in exchange for government enforced uniformity. A government with the power to enforce uniformity necessarily has the power to take everything and under our system of government, the government is restrained, in order to protect our rights.

I prefer our system of government restraint over the system you advocate of government uniformity imposed through force. One size fits all simply isn't a good fit for individualized human beings.

 

It's a hypothetical question. There is a qualification not a premise to accept or reject. You were asked if you could support socialism where bureaucracy was avoided. Therefore there is no premise to reject. So last time try and answer for your own sake.

We are not here to listen to you drone on and on.

As for constution all drivel. Your said documents don't apply across the world and therefore are irrelevant to most people . It's not about you.

 

You seem a bit argumentative today so I'll bid you farewell.

Take care,
Zorro

 

Farewell.

 

The constitution isn't a holy book, and even if it were, these things are not contrary to it. Well, at least wealth redistribution. Federal monitoring isn't necessary. Socialism doesn't mean domestic spying, and I'm not sure why you believe such a thing.

It seems you've internalized the sparknotes version of the heavily distorted version of history given by US propaganda.

People in the USSR pursued a variety of different lives. People could choose their occupation and find their calling in life. And the "bureaucracy" is a trotskyite myth. Party officials lived in normal apartments, like all other city dwellers. It wasn't a totalitarian hellhole.

I'd argue about the PRC, but I know next to nothing about the PRC, so I'll leave that subject alone.

That is what the shiny advertising brochure that urges us to exchange our birthright for a mess of porridge claims, but the following I believe captures the truth of it much better:

Even if you think that the tenets of Marxism-Leninism would lead to such a scenario, that doesn't refute criticisms of capitalism. It just indicates that you should consider another left ideology, like Luxemburgism, Trotskyism, or Anarchism.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what happens when people don't read actual historians on the USSR. And no, Robert Conquest is a not a historian, he's just a bourgeois propagandist.

 

I agree as long as opportunity exists. Places around the world have a 'caste' system and if you are born into a lower 'caste' it is exceedingly difficult to rise. I once knew a guy from India (engineer) that had an arranged marriage and said that he was able to become an engineer and immigrate to America only because he was in the correct caste and was able to go to a different school than those of lower castes.

 

I never said otherwise. The constitution does not empower the federal government to establish uniformity on society. It can be amended to do so, good luck.

Sounds like you were quite impressed with it.

Thank you, but I'll stick with free markets, free choice, free will and limited constitutional government.

 

You've mistaken yourself for free. That's interesting.

 

Our freedoms are maintained through the restraining of government, and I think we could do a better job of that, but we have lawful constitutional processes to address government overreach that are equal to the task

You are clearly a thinker that enjoys study and new ideas. Below is a book I read recently that I greatly enjoyed: It is available on Kindle.

Restoring the Lost Constitution
THE PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTY
Randy E. Barnett

Barnett, Randy E. (2013-11-24). Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty (p. iii). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Take care,
Zorro

 

"the bottom should suffer" If that sentiment isn't the root of right wing ideology then I don't know what is. A sobering illustration of how the hard right thinks.

 

If you create a system with an even playing field that would certainly be true. Unfortunatly in America class mobility continues to decline. Reasons can be debated but not the fact that our system has increasingly diminished class mobility.

Here is an article that may be of interest:

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...015/07/economic-mobility-in-the-united-states

 

But the funny thing is that sentiment seems more prevalent among the lower classes of the right wing ideology. The upper classes know that the illusion of class mobility is necessary to keep the lower classes from demanding change.

 

Traditionally the benefit of class hierarchies is that there is less movement between classes. Each class knows just how far they can go and limits their expectations accordingly.

I guess what I mean is that it gives a sense of place and identity that a "classless" society cannot.

Reducing class barriers has allowed much faster progress in almost every field though. Everyone feels less secure in their place, but the world is better off on the whole.

 

I have heard a lot of explanations in my life, but I have never heard one for why society is ruled by the top 1 percent.

 

The problem with that line of thinking is that people aren't born with the same advantages and those in the upper hierarchy try their best to stay on top and keep everyone else below them and they use their power to do so. Please tell me how the top using power and influence to purposely keep people lower is a benefit?

 

I guess that depends if you are talking about social class or economic class. In the North East and the South there is more of a rigid social element to the class system but in other parts of the United States class is pretty much just about money.

- - - Updated - - -

Money is power. What more explanation do you need?

 

There is no absolute escape from class hierarchy. The US is mostly a class system built on money and personal success, roughly merit based. It's a little difficult to move up but nowhere near the difficulty of traditional class systems.

Every now and then I get to rub shoulders with the old money. Honestly not better or worse people than anyone, maybe a little more self conscious.

 

You sound like the guy who is always waiting for the elevator.

I take the stairs and go up AND down at will.

 

Define class.

That there are a range incomes is not a bad thing.

But the class conflict created by the capitalist mode of production is never a good thing in its own right. The bourgeoisie are defined from their capacity to appropriate the product created by the proletariat, who are in turn defined by this exploitation. And I cannot see any way this can be avoided until relations of production change.

To change the relations of production is for these classes to cease to exist and thus we have a society where people are free to gain an output proportional to their input and where work and personal responsibility are the guiding factors of ones destiny.