"We're not arguing about absolute social mobility of a society. But the relative social mobility within a society. Nor is anyone advocating Cambodia. Nor has anyone denied that generation to generation most Americans are wealthier than their parents."

I think you're being confused, the overall mobility is merely the sum of individual experiences. 

BTW

Drug legalization folks cite Portugal as the example of a country that legalized drugs and saw the percent of its population that uses, and will use, no matter what, steady.
At 17%.

If people CHOOSE to put themselves into the lowest 20% of society and KEEP themselves there, where's the unfairness?

Your arguments put it back on government services in childhood.

If most people denied that kind of goodies still stay level or move up, how's it unfair?
Especially since the approach to "level" society works by destroying alternatives and crippling opportunities.

Yell, I don't think Portugal's problems are related to the legalisation of drugs.
Beowolfe. Indeed. And I haven't forgotten this social problem. Whereas earlier I offered a route to a semblance of fairness of opportunity; now we need to use tools to massage fairness of outcome.

In essence you need to ensure that those who work are financially better off than those who do not. You cannot rely on behavourial modifiers and arguments to legitimise why it is 'good' to accept a lower 'income' to work than be on benefits. Though there are good reasons to work: sense of accomplishment, usually better health, socialising opportunities, lower depression levels.

I can see two options:
1. No social welfare to the unemployed. But this is bad for many reasons not worth discussing here.
2. Flat welfare to all, with all income being on top. There's economic arguments for this on some blog post I read years ago. It's expensive and has some flaws. And doesn't remove from society those who absolutely do not want to work.

there's expensive drugs too, that rich people snort off (!) the asses of whores

so I guess that's a 50/50 statistic that neutralises itself

Why so many whores have asses is anyone's guess.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/billionaire-hans-rausing-sentenced-delaying-burial-wife-evas/story?id=16905934

I don't know the economic breakdown of drug usage. You may wish to study cause and effect. In any case tattoos, drug use and tobacco use were all preserves of the rich before becoming mainstream in society. That is they were aspirations. So the poor aspire to be like the rich. If we could show a bit more of the hard work that may rub off... rather than showing the orgies and drunken soirees that society has to aspire to now.

Alcohol and drunkenness is egalitarian. The poor and rich alike are drunkards.

A safety net which prevents death or doom is best, not any welfare.

Spock. I love freedom. But 100% self determination is a fallacy and is dangerous. And you don't set parameters for freedom. But I must credit you for reading my opening post in full :-)

By self-determination being less than 100% I don't wish to imply that there's pre-determination. I wish to imply that our society, our upbringing, our circumstances, our environment, etc all ultimately shape us.

Define 'correct'.
I think it is incorrect to be Christian, sing the star spangled banner, be circumcised and watch baseball. Those that are need to be corrected.

I didn't say behaviour cannot be changed. I am asking what is correct? You say everything is correctable - that implies some things are incorrect. Well if it correct to be Joe Average then presumably it is also correct to be Mo Average?

Revise your earlier post to say every aspect of upbringing can be changed and it may be less factually inaccurate.

Mace,

"But 100% self determination is a fallacy and is dangerous."

What's with this fallacious bull[spit]? Nobody is talking about some sort of "pure" self-determination, which would presumably require 0 government and 0 taxes and some fictional nonsense. You've still given absolutely no explanation of how "self-determinatin" is somehow "harmful."

This isn't difficult subject matter. You said it's harmful. You've not explained how or why, even when I presumed you hated freedom. Absent this explanation, it still sounds like you hate freedom. If you'd like to explain how self-determination is harmful in a way which is not disdainful/fearful of freedom, feel free to do so. This is a forum. We're all waiting.

Yes, stuff in the world affects us. Self-determination is what occurs when people have enough freedom to make choices and be rewarded for exceptional labor, effort, intellect, and insight enough to ultimately choose their own level of success in life. Everyone knows this stuff already, or they certainly shouldn't be spamming a forum about it.

The Yell was referring to things which one desires to change being "correctable." One has to make no judgements of any particular behavior to appreciate the ideal that individuals should have the freedom to affect any changes they decide are desirable for themselves. Bickering over any individual's judgement of what needs correcting misses the point.

Jesus [cluck] this is a stupid level of exchange.