Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Ancient Greece: more or less egalitarian
The xeno-induced headache I'm getting tells me that hoping for a real substantive discussion of the issue at hand is useless. I'm out, and I'd suggest whoever is still bothering here join with me.
Zarf, if it is going to be a constructive discussion, great. If not, then I'm not interested. In order to move on to have constructive dialogue, we have to agree that,
1. having a more egalitarian distribution of wealth in society is a GOOD thing for EVERYBODY.
2. the current distribution of wealth in our societies is ANTITHETICAL to the values purported to be held dear to liberal democracies.
Do you or do you not agree? If you do, we may move on to more pressing matters.
So... I have to agree with your monolithic values on economics and politics before I can have a debate with you.
As I said, this would be the exact same thing as if I were to say "How should we best increase the amount of global genocide." Then, if someone were to say "Um... you shouldn't... genocide is bad..." my reply would be, by this logic:
If it is going to be a constructive discussion, great. If not, then I'm not interested. In order to move on to have constructive dialogue, we have to agree that,
1. Genocide is a good thing for EVERYBODY.
2. The current amount of genocide in the world is insufficient to meet the desired amount of genocide in the world.
Do you or do you not agree? If you do, we may move on to more pressing matters.
As a result, that genocide thread would have very little content because people who do have proper ethics (people who actually do believe genocide was bad) would be excluded from the debate. The person with a terrible ethic (the person who is trying to expand genocide globally, and who wants advice on how to achieve that), ends up insulated in their own little world because they do not want the underlying ethical concerns addressed.
No. That is not constructive discussion. It's just a way for isolated communities to retain their own frames of thinking without needing to deal with the hassle of having to question their own values. It's the type of ethic which has allowed so many evils to perpetuate the planet. Open communication asking people to cross-examine their own values is exactly what is needed to check people who have poor value stances. It's the very reason we have this forum.
His way or... his way
Zarf, is it an elected government's mandate to serve in the best interests of the majority? Yes / No?
No. It's in an elected government's mandate to serve the best interests of the society as a whole. Recognizing only a majority requirement would de facto justify every form of minority oppression in history.
xeno,
No. it is an elected government's mandate to serve what they feel is in the best interest of the majority. It has nothing to do with whether the people agree or disagree with the decision made as long as it is made in their best interest. Fact is, if the majority of people want rape to not be a crime anymore, it is still the government's job to outlaw that action as it is in the best interest of the majority. Even if they don't think it is.
And we as people, elect the government based on our feeling that they will make the right choices for us. Not blindly follow what we want them to do. (although some people want them to).
Hmm... that sounds like a more comprehensive theory... I like. 
"(and hopefully, a few others join with me and ignore this thread)"
Hahahahahha now if only we can get him to do this before creating such spam.
"The ELITE, because they are the ones who tend to have time (they don't work), the money, and, obviously, the opportunity to create more wealth, whereas the poor and middle class have NONE of that, because they MUST work, they don't have the money, and they don't have the same access to opportunities to create wealth that the elite have."
Yeah, the wealthy are all lazy slobs. None of them got their wealth as a reward for providing something epic that we chose to purchase in the free market. Non-rich people have 0 free time and no ability to think! What morons the poor are! I'm with you xeno! Preach on!
"Technology should AT LEAST level the playing field if not tilt it in the poor and middle class's favor so as to provide AT LEAST the same opportunity to garner wealth that the rich do. Can we say this about our societies today? No."
Yeah! We're not free at all! Nobody's ever made money in society today by working hard! It's NOT FAIR! *cries along with xeno*
"Zarf, if it is going to be a constructive discussion, great. If not, then I'm not interested. In order to move on to have constructive dialogue, we have to agree that,"
It would appear that you're either too [busy] to understand his arguments, or too rude to reply to them.
"1. having a more egalitarian distribution of wealth in society is a GOOD thing for EVERYBODY."
Why don't you move to North Korea? You'll live in your perfect world, and they can't afford/aren't allowed on the internet so we won't have to feel bad when we see you crying.
"2. the current distribution of wealth in our societies is ANTITHETICAL to the values purported to be held dear to liberal democracies."
"Liberal democracy" does not mean the same thing as "communist state." You gotta work on your vocabulary.
"it is an elected government's mandate to serve what they feel is in the best interest of the majority."
"Feel"?
What they "Feel" is in the majority's best interest?
This is problematic, for I could construe arguments to support that I "feel" taking the majority's money and giving it to the rich elite is in their best interest.
I contend that too often government serves the interests NOT of society as a whole, nor the majority, but, rather, for the most part only the elite, and justify their actions by claiming they "felt" they were serving the interest of the "greater good" or "society as a whole". This sort of thinking allows for abuse of power.
No, I say it should be the interests of the majority that they should serve, within the bounds laws set up to protect the interests of the minority.
Yes, it is what they "feel" is in the majority's best interest. Is it problematic? Of course it is! Thats the whole point....it is our job to elect people that actually have the goal of serving in our best interest. Not those that are slaves to our thoughts. Every person is going to be independent and so should all our politicians.
Don't get it twisted, the majority is not more important than any 1 person. Vice verse on that as well.
I'm surprised how far this thread got after xeno's intellectual property thread. Classic case of "those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it."
The Riddler, xeno doesn't think democracy works unless it's in a tyrannical communist dictatorship. Good luck discussing democratic principles with him.
Actually he is an anarchist/communist sort.
Regardless: My point is that he claims democratic systems/functions/ideas/ideals only work in circumstances which are 0% free and 0% democratic. It's paradoxical and [pointless].
He can believe democratic ideas are stupid, don't work for X purpose, or whatever he wants. But to pretend that democratic ideas only work under completely non-democratic circumstances is [silly] and nonsensical.
> Simon wrote:
> I'm surprised how far this thread got after xeno's intellectual property thread. Classic case of "those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it."
I like the idea of giving people second chances. Oh well. 
Only second?
Perhaps you don't recall how long he went on claiming that labor is unnecessary; we have the technology to have 100% of labor performed by robots. Nobody really needs to do anything ever again.
He's obviously on powerful narcotics. Or just psychotic.
With the distribution of wealth, the consumer CHOOSES to buy the products that make a man rich. You as the consumer have a say in how the distribution of your wealth happens. I for one have boycotted certain companies based on their principles and practices, and althought it may not make a dent in their overall profit, I am still choosing as to how and to who I distribute my wealth with, and this is the sort of power YOU have as a consumer. Furthermore, these are the checks and balances that help people create wealth. So, if we look at your basic needs (food, water, shelter, clothing, air), food can easily be bought from markets/local small businesses where wealth distribution is between the middle class, water is provided by the government (or if you wanna go self sufficient, you can install your own water tank), shelter you buy yourself from the previous owner, air is free, and clothing you can choose to shop at small businesses. This comes down to personal choices and nothing else.
Furthermore, am I allowed to come along, take any wealth you have created and give it to someone else? (Perfect example would be the starving in Africa, but a few people might complain to me about this) If I took your money, gave it to someone else, and explained that this is in the fairness of equality, would you be happy with this? I doubt you would not, since you are seeking more money/power for the lower/middle class, when in fact (if you are living in the US and have disposable income to buy any form of luxury goods) are sitting well above the lifestyle of vast portions of the worlds population.
The only thing that you need to concern yourself with is that there are checks and balances in the world to distribute wealth, and that often comes down to free choices. I for one have no problems adding to a rich person's wealth if it provides me with convenience. My time is actually my most valuable asset, and I am less concerned with money (so I have no problems spending money to save time). Am I not allowed to do this to reach my own goals? Are you going to take away my freedom to choose? What if I chose to work everyday, every week, every year for 60 years? Am I not entitled to that wealth that I generated? All I am honestly hearing is "give me your wealth because I deserve it!".
The Ancient Greeks built a society in which the majority of their wealth was held in by the lower and middle classes. It was the prominence of their middle class that allowed for their economic growth, sustainable prosperity and the advancement of their culture, art, science, etc.. America today, although espousing itself as following in the footsteps of the Greeks, distributes its wealth inversely to the Ancient Greeks, having the majority of their wealth held by 20% of their population.
When was it that America forgot stopped espousing raising the poor into the middle class, having a prominent middle class, and a small, well checked and balanced elite?
"The Ancient Greeks built a society in which the majority of their wealth was held in by the lower and middle classes."
As long as you redefine "lower" and "middle" classes and ignore more than half of the population which was beneath them in wealth, sure. Hell, since you're redefining words you can claim absolutely anything you want and it'll be just as true!
"America today, although espousing itself as following in the footsteps of the Greeks, distributes its wealth inversely to the Ancient Greeks"
This is false. Inversely? I suggest you click on the link you posted and learn to read. And Americans didn't just follow in the footsteps of the Greeks; America's founders took the best Greek ideas concerning free men governing themselves and made them much, much more awesome.
"When was it that America forgot stopped espousing raising the poor into the middle class, having a prominent middle class, and a small, well checked and balanced elite?"
For this, America would have had to start doing all that bullshit.
America never espoused "raising the poor into the middle class." Americans aren't pussies. America is about letting free men take care of themselves. This "free market," it turns out, results in motivated people producing a ton of stuff and innovating stuff. This, in turn, makes stuff super cheap! This, in turn, results in everyone having a lot of really awesome stuff! Pretty cool, huh!? No part of what I just mentioned which involves freedom and wealth for all includes "raising the poor into" blah blah blah blah. May I buy you some history texts?
Which [books were you reading] when you decided to pretend that America has a "small, well checked and balanced elite"? Where do you get ANY of those words?
Small? 0 basis. Says who? Where? Regulated by what authority?
Well checked? 0 basis. Says who? Where? Regulated by what authority?
Balanced? 0 basis. Says who? Where? Regulated by what authority?
"boycotted certain companies" ; "the consumer have a say in how the distribution of your wealth happens."
Well, sure, this is possible to an extent, but to what extent? How much influence can the consumer reasonably have with their purchasing decisions in a society where the minority segment retains most of the wealth? Without the middle class doing most of the spending, an economy could chug along in a particular direction regardless of the spending habits of the middle class and regardless of any personal boycotting consumers might make; it becomes an economy sustained by the spending habits of the minority-rich, and the economy heads in the direction this minority takes it. In addition, in an economy where virtual monopolies control the markets for those products which people can't do without and in an economy in which the majority of people only have enough money for those bare essentials that are supplied by those virtual monopolies, there simply wouldn't be any effect of any sort of even organized boycotting by the majority. In other words, in an economic situation in which the majority of the wealth is retained in the hands of the minority-rich rather than the middle-class; in an economy in which there is price-fixing of the bare essential products and services by monopolies, oligopolies, or conglomerations of closely associated corporations, the "checks and balances that help people create wealth" that you speak of don't function.
"This comes down to personal choices and nothing else."
In an ideal world, yes. But in reality, this is just not the case. I wonder, wornstrum, are you the idealist here or am I?
"am I allowed to come along, take any wealth you have created and give it to someone else?"
No. The government does, though, in the form of taxation. Let me ask you this: do you think the system of taxation in place in our societies is designed in such a way as to allow the poor and middle class the opportunity to retain / grow their wealth?
Again, the system of checks and balances are inevitably eroded as mean wealth distributions shift from the majority segment of society to the minority segment, which has been the trend for the last, what 60 years?
If the rich decided, why did the Gremlin car cease to be sold?
"Well, sure, this is possible to an extent, but to what extent? How much influence can the consumer reasonably have with their purchasing decisions in a society where the minority segment retains most of the wealth?"
To virtually any extent. The middle class still buys the majority of food, clothes, TVs, cars, etc. That wealthy people have X% wealth does not give them a majority of purchasing power in any market. Furthermore, a majority of purchasing power is not needed to cause massive shifts in the market.
Blah blah blah blah. Try getting a _tiny_ clue what you're talking about. All I see is [unsubstantiated claims].
""This comes down to personal choices and nothing else."
In an ideal world, yes. But in reality, this is just not the case. I wonder, wornstrum, are you the idealist here or am I?"
Yes, it is the case. You failed to explain why it isn't the case because it is the case. Again, consider getting any clue what you're talking about. It'll inform your posts, which are currently coming from [Pacific playland].
""am I allowed to come along, take any wealth you have created and give it to someone else?"
No. The government does, though, in the form of taxation. Let me ask you this: do you think the system of taxation in place in our societies is designed in such a way as to allow the poor and middle class the opportunity to retain / grow their wealth?"
My society has more wealth than any population on earth has ever had before. My society is barely 200 years old. Even the poor in my society live better than 90+% of the rest of the world. I'm going to go with "Yes, obviously. Stupid question."
"Again, the system of checks and balances are inevitably eroded as mean wealth distributions shift from the majority segment of society to the minority segment, which has been the trend for the last, what 60 years?"
What system of checks and balances? What the hell are you talking about?
"In addition, in an economy where virtual monopolies control the markets for those products which people can't do without and in an economy in which the majority of people only have enough money for those bare essentials that are supplied by those virtual monopolies, there simply wouldn't be any effect of any sort of even organized boycotting by the majority."
Care to provide an example of this?
"In an ideal world, yes. But in reality, this is just not the case. I wonder, wornstrum, are you the idealist here or am I?"
Hmmmm....do I need to spell it out to you...I. AM. EMPOWERED. TO. BUY. WHAT. I. NEED. FROM. WHO. I. CHOSE. TO. BUY. IT. FROM! I do not complain about what others have, nor do I care what others have. I do not go down the idealistic path of "the perfect world will be like this..." I only take charge of my own person (ie. my wealth, my belongs, my interests). There are anti-monopoly laws designed to stop a monopoly taking over and forcing you to buy price-inflated products (and although you may disagree here, in a free market, it does allow for a competitor to enter the market and offer competative products. IF they can't offer competative products, then obvious the first company will be offering the cheapest method for that product. All of this you ignore, or dismiss without backing up your claims. Furthermore, I am not going on ANOTHER ramble, ignoring anything that doesnt agree with me. So to answer your question, you are the idealist (especially since I have yet to see anyone agree with any of your latest rants)...
"What system of checks and balances? What the hell are you talking about?"
I brought up checks and balances regarding purchasing habits, in that people choose where and what they buy. If people do not have the money to buy these products, then these big businesses no longer have customers, and they go bust. If customers do not like a product, then they are going to move away from that product (perfect example is the lean beef thread that was posted earlier in the week...they are worried about the company going bust because consumer confidence was lost...but I guess this will be used as an example by Xeno as to how large corporations are behind it). Consumer demand is one of the checks and balances that keeps money flowing, and this is entirely in the power of consumers. However, I do not see how this sort of system has eroded over time, and how it is causing the trend?
Xeno, IF you want more wealth, you will have to go out into the world and earn it like everyone else...furthermore, as Kemp pointed out, the majority in the US have better standards of living than large portions of the world. IF you are saying that wealth be distributed equally, then you will also lose a fair portion of your wealth and your standard of living will drop as you redistribute wealth around the world.
Also, I will give you an example of how moving towards a freer market has actually increased the middle class, China and Indonesia. Both have started to develop more private sectors and vast portions of people are moving out of poverty and into a life of surplus. I guess free markets are really bad...
> ~Wornstrum~ wrote:
> "In addition, in an economy where virtual monopolies control the markets for those products which people can't do without and in an economy in which the majority of people only have enough money for those bare essentials that are supplied by those virtual monopolies, there simply wouldn't be any effect of any sort of even organized boycotting by the majority."
Care to provide an example of this?
Well, as gasoline prices have risen to their highest prices ever, it is clear that any and every gasoline boycott effort has been ineffectual.
"In an ideal world, yes. But in reality, this is just not the case. I wonder, wornstrum, are you the idealist here or am I?"
Hmmmm....do I need to spell it out to you...I. AM. EMPOWERED. TO. BUY. WHAT. I. NEED. FROM. WHO. I. CHOSE. TO. BUY. IT. FROM!
Wornstrum, what happens if there is only ONE company selling what you need? How could you possibly be empowered by your vote with your wallet?
"I do not go down the idealistic path of "the perfect world will be like this..."
You are an idealist in the sense that you think the system we have is the best possible system. This is idealism if I have ever seen it.
"There are anti-monopoly laws designed to stop a monopoly taking over and forcing you to buy price-inflated products"
Products like, oh, maybe GAS?
"free market"
We don't have a "free market" and never had. For instance, take a look at the monopoly which is the central banking system and how it clearly supposed to 'manage the economy' with its monetary policy: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-20/bernanke-returns-to-academic-roots-to-justify-fed-s-existence.html They espouse the free market system out one side of the mouth allowing for unfettered investing in derivatives which spurned the financial meltdown in 2008, and yet espouse managing the economy on through the other vis a vis their trillions paid in bailouts to the banks.
"Xeno, IF you want more wealth, you will have to go out into the world and earn it"
I honestly don't see how wealth may be 'earned'. I don't see how banks 'earn' their profits. I don't see how derivatives day traders "earn" their gains. I see a lot of wealth is gained in our societies unethically AT THE EXPENSE of others, and that this is NOT 'earned' income. If what you gain is at the expense of the poor and the middle class it is wrongfully gained income. People should be rewarded according to how much prosperity they generate for the poor and middle class; by how much they contribute to the prosperity of the MAJORITY rather than how much debt they can incur upon them.
"IF you are saying that wealth be distributed equally"
AHA! Finally someone is coming to the point. Interesting how I am NOT saying this. Nowhere do I say wealth should be distributed equally. What I am saying is that the system we have in place should be such that the majority of wealth is held by the middle class. The fact that this is NOT the case means we have to change our system to ensure that the middle class remain the prominent, most economically and politically powerful segment of the population.
Again, we don't have a free market. Never did. This is your idealism. Your idealism of the system we have in place keeps you blind to how it is failing society.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Ancient Greece: more or less egalitarian
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.