[quote="Headless-Pixie";p="37020"]Pay should be distributed by effort not by ability. A African farther working 18 hour days, day in day out should get paid less than a Singer who just got a bit luck and now gets paid obscene amounts of money for little effort?

And Warpath learn to read. EQUAL rights. Not more rights. Yes, i think we should have more freedom but i'd rather no-one had freedom than 50 did and 50 didn't.[/quote


Ignorant people think of the economy as a big juicy pie, like the expression, "get your slice of the pie." Now there is an inherent flaw in that mentality. Pies don't grow. If you take of bit of someone's piece and give it to someone else, the pie still is just as big but more evenly proportioned. The economy is not a big juicy pie. Money is more intangible than you think. If you don't think so, try spending some Confederate dough.

Here's where capitalism comes in. When someone buys a house, he puts money back in the system. He gave a way a piece of his "pie." The difference is now he has something to show for it, a home. Thats how the economy works in a nutshell. when money is in circulation it produces goods and services that benefit both parties. The social economy is only half effective.

I have a question. When you go out shopping do you decide what to pay for something based on the effort that was put into it or what it is worth to you?

I know that your beliefs feel good and sound good and in a perfect society would work but the truth is that intent doesn't build bridges and intent doesn't feed your children. Hard work and ability does. Like it or Not.

"It's not fair and you're selfish" Well maybe so... but I'm right. At least I don't cure my conscience with other people's money. I do it myself.

__________________
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

here is an interesting view of the living conditions of a communist country from a visiting doctor:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=90000453

-j

__________________
Я капиталист, конечно!

but in the mind of many, the fact that their lives are horrid and impoverished doesn't matter, we should instead look at the lack of "disparity" and "inequality"...

My comments are a little off topic. Just to let you know up front.


"regulated" being the operative term here.

The only argument I would make is that you have to give something more nobler than more materialism as an incentive. Capitalism is based upon compounded self-interest. It is not truly a system based on merit. For example, the credit card company is not providing us anything of practical value-- they are just bloodsucking the producers of things we need. People who are making no physical improvement to our society should not be paid for it.



There is such a thing as working for the betterment of the nation as a whole than little me. It would be 'less arbitrary' because it doesn't create this hierarchy based upon finding the best scam, but upon actual self-sacrafice.
Of course, I'm admitting here that I'm a Nationalist, not a Communist.

I think pay should continue to be according to productivity, within reason. I think businesses should not be allowed to rise above a political body. The government is the will of the people, not some multi-national corporation's puppet theater. The latter should have no say in our legislation. If we decide through a government that singers or basketball players have to donate so much money to the medical scholarship fund (as a bad example), I'm not going to shed a tear. What good is Britney Spears doing us? I would much rather have a cure for cancer and someone besides Bozo the Clown for a pediatrician. Not that anyone has asked for my opinion.


I thought this was a good post. You make an excellent argument.

I counter every argument about equal rights by talking about rights? How else would I counter? By talking about fried chicken? Equal is a description of how the law is applied to individuals. All individuals are entitled to equal rights under the law. In other words the government equally applies the law to every person. This does not mean, as you seem to believe, that the government has an obligation to create an artificial equality, and force everyone to have the same income. I don't ignore the equal part... the rights to life, liberty, and property are rights that every person has. This makes them "equal" rights. Equal rights does not mean that everyone has the right to have equal income. If you believe that is what equal rights means, you have absolutely no understanding of the term. And I'm not trying to make you seem ignorant. That's something you do on your own, and you are pretty good at it. And no I don't say that "people should have what is given to them, and not what they deserve." I say that people should have what they earn, and what they earn is what they deserve. I don't add positive and negative to my sentences to sound elitist, I do it so that some people reading the forum can understand the differences in our arguments, even if you lack the ability to do so yourself. Furthermore, I am not a "right wing liberal". The political compass placed me exactly where I belonged. Slightly on the right side of libertarianism. (Meaning I am a right libertarian, not right of libertarianism.) If you believe this makes me a conservative, then you only further reveal your immense store of ignorance. I don't want to have to keep blowing you out of the water.... I don't enjoy making you look stupid. If you are going to respond to this again, PLEASE do not waste my time with a moronic post, that further demonstrates your lack of understanding for the topic which you choose to discuss. Do not label me as anything, in a attempt to somehow make my argument not count. Even if I were a conservative, that says nothing about my argument. Its just a failsafe that you use when you can't argue with me anymore. Do not assume that I recognize all political equality as equality of results, and do not assume that I buy into the modern liberal interpretation of equality of opportunity as equivalent to equality of results. I have a negative definition of equality of opportunity, as equality under the law. And if you don't understand what I just said, then refrain from saying why it is wrong, and refrain from saying I am elitist just because you are too much of a twit to understand a simple post.

Give an example won't you.

Communism doesn't work though. It doesn't promote any progress or hard work at all. If workers that do the same required amount of work get the same reward as workers who go above and beyond the call of duty, why would anyone do better. If all benefits come from the government, then there is no compitition, and no drive to create new technologies and advance the human race.

He can't because non of them worked, and have failed like the USSR or will like North Korea