New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[fargon]

Last Sundays Get Fuzzy says it all.

[9th Engineer]

I see. Well, I'll change my plans for after law school then. I'll take out loans to pay for it of course, but I'll just pay the minimum each month since there's no advantage to being debt free. I'll spend not only my generous paycheck, but I'll run up credit card debt like a typical person. Cars, a huge house, fancy vacations and all the techno-toys I want, I'll push myself as far as I can just like other people do. Then, when my house of cards topples I'll declare bankruptcy and use my knowledge as a lawyer to write off everything I can as necessities; after all, why should I give up my house when others aren't forced to? I'll end up paying back 10 cents for every dollar I owed, and in a few years I can start the whole thing over again. And while I'm unemployed I'll have Dana there to defend my right to money even though I was a complete asshole and screwed so many other people over. It's the same thing that lots of other people do, I'll just do it a bit bigger. I love my rights!

[DanaC]

I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.

Depends on your definitions. You appear to think that treating people 'better' means throwing money and assets at them that they haven't earned. This sort of 'treatment' without an expectation of commensurate responsibility only leads to people despising what they are given, and despising the givers.

A case in point: in Moosonee (on James Bay), where my husband and I practiced medicine when our oldest child was small, the government provided taxpayer-funded housing for both band status and non-status Indians. Fairly frequently the local band would complain to the government that the housing was in bad repair and needed to be replaced. It happens that my brother-in-law, who is a cabinet maker, was contracted to provide new kitchens and baths in the housing that the government built around that time. He was paid to put in very good quality cabinets - not base, cheap stuff; and he did. When he returned two weeks later to deliver a few more cabinets to one last house, he checked on the other houses to see if anything else was required. In the majority of brand-new houses there were holes in the walls, and cabinets had been ripped right off the walls. No one took care of the houses or fittings, because no one there had paid for them.

In this same community, when I made house calls, I would typically visit a house that had broken windows, holes in the walls, and dirt everywhere. But there was a big TV and satellite dish, new snow machines outside, and new trucks. The government-provided housing (exactly the same stuff as I lived in with my family) was trashed and the welfare checks had gone on the luxuries. The clinic was expected to provide the baby formula and medicines that people 'couldn't afford'.

I think that expecting integrity and responsibility from people is actually treating them 'better' than giving them endless handouts. That proved true in our practice, where we expected people to be on time (and we respected their time by also being on time - really!), and expected people to take responsibility in certain things. We developed an excellent relationship. If we had not asked anything of our practice, we would have received exactly what we had asked for.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.

Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.

[DanaC]

In other words, redistribute wealth so that no one has more than Dana?

That's not what I said. I am talking about a change in the balance of redistributive taxation, not instituting a communist revolution. In my own country we used to have a system of 'super tax' for the highest earners. That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.

Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.

Like I say, what I am talking about is changing the balance of that taxation system, not abandoning capitalism in favour of a workers' state.

As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong. When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.

You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.

The world changes. People write and philosophise to the world as it is to them. Some of what they write and philosophise still applies to our world, some of it is consigned to the point in time when they were writing.

Another pipe dream. Attitudes like that will make you fresh meat.

Attitudes like that underpin much of what has been termed European Socialism.

[orthodoc]

Originally Posted by DanaC

That supertax had those earners paying £0.90 in every £1 that they earned above the threshold.

Even I think that's too much. It damaged the country and led to problems. But, I think we've now gone too far the other way, with the highest earners paying ( I believe) £0.40 in every £1. What I am in favour of is an increase in the current level without going as high as we did in the 70s.

England saw the inevitable result of drastic forced distribution of wealth when the supertax was in place. Those who had previously earned more either left the country or stopped earning. The trouble is, with the top few percent of earners basically supporting the entire country (in this country, the top 25% of earners pay 85% of all taxes; the top 1% of earners pay 37% of all taxes), when you remove their will to be productive by stealing most of their income, you have nothing left to redistribute.

I suspect that the top marginal tax rate in England is probably better than 40% once hidden taxes are added in. In Canada the official top federal marginal rate is 29%. Sounds great. But with provincial taxes, health tax, and the Canadian version of the supertax, someone earning in the top ten percent pays more than 50% of income to taxes. Then there are high property taxes and a 14% sales tax on all goods and services. At that point there's a serious disincentive to continue being productive.

As to the 'marxism' thing. Yes, he saw revolution as a necessary phase to go through in order to achieve a workers' state. But that was in a particular time and place and yes I think he got that part wrong.

When it's a critical part of his program, can you then truly say you're a Marxist? You seem to have created your own version, which is fair enough, but when you say you're a Marxist it leads people to think of his program, not yours.

When I say I take a marxist analysis, I am talking about a way of looking at the relationship between the owners and the producers of wealth. Like many 'marxists' or 'socialists' in Europe I believe that perspective still has much to tell us about the world and is still relevant.

But the owners of wealth are its producers, i.e. the ones who started the companies to produce goods that people want. The line workers in this analogy haven't the knowledge or ability to start that company and run it; if they did, they wouldn't be on the line. And not all wealth is produced in factories. Someone who writes a book or composes music or invents something that no one else can, or has done, owns that. You could take away their earnings and give them to other people to 'help' them create things, but you wouldn't achieve your object. I believe that the 'marxist' perspective only panders to envy and resentment, and is actually in serious error.

You mentioned Aristotle. Another philospher whose thoughts on the world still have relevance today. But also, like anybody writing in a different era to our own there will be elements of his thinking which do not apply to the modern world (read 'Politics' and how it deals with the issue of slavery and the role of women in society) which were central parts of his worldview and which if we follow your logic should mean we cease to apply all his logic/philosphy to the modern world.

???I didn't apply any logic to Aristotle's worldview; I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal. Instead of diverting the discussion with references to slavery and the role of women, why not address the issue that people are not all the same and therefore interchangeable, and that the mopper of floors may do an admirable job cleaning the tile but is not exchangeable with whoever started and runs the company?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by orthodoc

I said that one of his ideas was useful and true: that it's a bad idea to attempt to make unequal things equal.

What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?

Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma. The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.

That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area. It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.

If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?

Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.

Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma.

It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.

The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.

There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.

That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area.

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.

It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.

Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.

If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.

When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.

I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.

And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?

It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.

I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.

When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.

This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.

And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.

There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.

I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.

It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.

You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.

It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker. In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.

Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.

Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites. Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.

When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.

Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.

You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.
Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world.

And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?

There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.

I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.

Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.

This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.

Been there, done that, from Shakers to hippie communes. They all failed.

And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.

No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.

Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.

Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.

It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker.

No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.

In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.

And communist societies don't work.

Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites.

What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.

Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.

You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.

Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.

It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.

I do not want equality in everything and never implied it, I just want to get rid of the stumbling blocks as well. I do not want the guy with the 75 IQ to go to Harvard, I want the everyone with a potential 175 IQ to have an equal chance to show that they can go to Harvard.

Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world. There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.

I agree with this. I never wanted equality in every aspect if there was a misunderstanding there.

Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.

Thats what I was saying the whole time...

No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

He got the best cut, but the other people didn't go hungry either.

Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

Thats why I don't think a leftist government is possible right now and would never fight for one either.

Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.

No class? That shows that he would have a lot of class, the word you are looking for is fool.

No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.

Ok, thats still not a direct representation of skill and effort then. A manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.

What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.

So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?

You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.

Ok, your right on that but the point I am trying to get at is that racism has gone down since every generation is being raised in a society that is less and less racist.

It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.

I am not denying that, I am talking about how much power the chiefs and shamans should have over the population. And just because there is a leader doesn't mean there is a class difference.

[Cicero]

Wow...people assume that since I gave some money away unasked that I was presumptuous and not helpful at all.....but presuming that he went to spend it on drugs and beer is ok?

Proving my point as I'm trying to make it? Maybe he needed money to call his momma? Who cares.

I let him keep some dignity by assuming that he was an adult that could possibly spend his money on something useful. Or not....that's the point of gifting anything...maybe it will make a difference in someones life or not. You never know. If you buy someone a steak and they choke to death on it is it your fault for buying it? Poor people shouldn't get gifted money because they are automatically suspect. That's so shitty. This is an example of the status and class warfare rearing it's ugly little head again.

When the "Monday Morning Man" story began my financial situation was contrastedly different than it is now. Now I really do hope that when I need it there will be help provided, and no judgements are made about what I'm going to buy. Because you never know do you. My little world is starting to crumble.....fuck it...maybe I will go suck some dick UT if it means getting through this recent change in all my financial affairs. Or just do the side-business that I was planning in the first place.....Wait....sucking dick is "bad" maybe I'll do that because that's what I'm about. Oh, I know you are going to be pissed: I wouldn't pay taxes on sucking dick UT. It's taxing and compassionate enough as it is I'm sure.....Maybe sucking dick is more of an honest exchange than the things I do for work every day? Not sure......could be true. Sounds true to me but maybe not. I have thought that before.

I already said that my comments were unfair and not justified. You obviously aren't going to listen to a sincere apology for that. So I'm not going to make it again. It's not just because you are a leader on this board....I don't pander. It's because it was uncalled for and I know it. I would have tried to erase it before you saw it if someone hadn't commented on it so fast- because that behavior isn't like me and there was no reason for it other than just plain acting petty.
It's really not usually like me to personally attack people. Hey- I guess there is a human bone in my body. I'm going to get over it and be more kind. (to everyone)

UT-You didn't check me by any means. I quickly tried to make up for it myself. So don't go and give yourself a pat on the back for being a jerk back. Nothing good came of that. Which is why I don't usually take up that kind of attitude. More good has probably come from sucking dick. Ooohh. Sucking dick- big whoop. Please don't alter my statements or stories just to suit your purposes whether I agree with you or not. Just a request. This is all.

On that note: I hope everyone is having a nice weekend, and I will play nice....not because people try and sit on my chest when I'm not nice. It's because I think myself, amongst others, need to enhance rather than destroy. Too much negative energy about....make a concerted effort not to create it. I catch myself doing it and it's not right.

[DanaC]

@ Orthodoc

If I say on this quite politically minded board that I am a Marxist, there will be an assumption that I am referring to Marx's revolutionary programme of change, in which he both favoured, and predicted as inevitable, a workers' revolution which would create a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' as a temporary stage en route from capitalism to classless society.

If I were to say the same thing to a politically minded person from Britain, France, or Germany, they would most likely assume I was referring to 'modern marxism', a school of thought which underpins European socialist theory and, to an extent, practice.

If, however, I said I was a Communist, they may assume that I lean towards, or directly support classical Marxism, or (even more likely) orthodox Marxism.

The world now is, in many ways, a very different place to the one Marx, and the many other Communists of the 18th Century, inhabited. Revolution was in the air. It was talked of, written about and plotted for in towns and cities across the continent. The gulf that had become so apparent between the employer class and the working class, continued to widen and discontent was gathering pace.

Marx was a very clever man, but he lived in the time that he lived and however much he may have thought he could predict the future, he had no Crystal ball either.

But his analysis of how capitalism functioned and related to the social conditions of the day had merit. The same analysis can be applied to the modern world, but it won't paint an 18th century picture.

[lookout123]

marx's problem begins with the BS that anyone has a right to the fruits of my labor other than me and my family.