Help
Quote
As for "survival of the fittest": I think that's a silly slogan.
I use this in the sense of the "fittest" having no sympathy for the plight of the poor, as much sympathy as a jungle beast has for its dinner.
Blessed are the poor..... But what about the really poor?
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-May-31, 19:21
I use this in the sense of the "fittest" having no sympathy for the plight of the poor, as much sympathy as a jungle beast has for its dinner.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-May-31, 19:29
Quote
I mean, look at what people are whining about...gay marriage and abortion,
That's because their true happiness comes in telling others how they should live their lives - it makes them feel superior.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#23
- The Abbess
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,401
- Joined: 2004-April-22
- Gender:Female
- Location:Odense, Denmark
- Interests:History, languages
Posted 2007-June-01, 04:11
Yes, and that's where Todd has it wrong. Even if the libertarian utopia was feasible, people would not like it. Other people's lack of freedom is more important than one's own freedom.
Seriously: I agree that it's a survival strategy for some politicians and bureaucrats to give everybody the illusion that income redistribution works in their favor. The latest SocDem PM of Denmark, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, was quite explicit about this. When his coalition partner, LibDem Marianne Jelved, said that they should get rid of all the "I pay your bills and you pay mine" in the welfare system - she wanted only the net givers to pay taxes and only the net receivers to receive subsidies (including indirect subsidies) - the PM's answer was surprisingly honest: he was afraid that the middle class would stop supporting the welfare state (i.e. stop voting SocDem) if it became too transparent who was net giver and who was net receiver.
But I don't think that governments generally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
- Most government activity is about other aims than income redistribution. Of course it .....
(sorry my computer crashed while uploading this comment so only half of it was received.).
Seriously: I agree that it's a survival strategy for some politicians and bureaucrats to give everybody the illusion that income redistribution works in their favor. The latest SocDem PM of Denmark, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, was quite explicit about this. When his coalition partner, LibDem Marianne Jelved, said that they should get rid of all the "I pay your bills and you pay mine" in the welfare system - she wanted only the net givers to pay taxes and only the net receivers to receive subsidies (including indirect subsidies) - the PM's answer was surprisingly honest: he was afraid that the middle class would stop supporting the welfare state (i.e. stop voting SocDem) if it became too transparent who was net giver and who was net receiver.
But I don't think that governments generally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
- Most government activity is about other aims than income redistribution. Of course it .....
(sorry my computer crashed while uploading this comment so only half of it was received.).
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,289
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2007-June-01, 07:29
Quote
But I don't think that governments generally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
The object is to redistribute wealth to the government, who can then pay off the special interest groups.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#25
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,156
- Joined: 2003-July-03
- Location:Portland, Oregon
Posted 2007-June-01, 15:05
helene_t, on Jun 1 2007, 02:11 AM, said:
Yes, and that's where Todd has it wrong. Even if the libertarian utopia was feasible, people would not like it. Other people's lack of freedom is more important than one's own freedom.
Seriously: I agree that it's a survival strategy for some politicians and bureaucrats to give everybody the illusion that income redistribution works in their favor. The latest SocDem PM of Denmark, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, was quite explicit about this. When his coalition partner, LibDem Marianne Jelved, said that they should get rid of all the "I pay your bills and you pay mine" in the welfare system - she wanted only the net givers to pay taxes and only the net receivers to receive subsidies (including indirect subsidies) - the PM's answer was surprisingly honest: he was afraid that the middle class would stop supporting the welfare state (i.e. stop voting SocDem) if it became too transparent who was net giver and who was net receiver.
But I don't think that governments generally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
- Most government activity is about other aims than income redistribution. Of course it .....
(sorry my computer crashed while uploading this comment so only half of it was received.).
Seriously: I agree that it's a survival strategy for some politicians and bureaucrats to give everybody the illusion that income redistribution works in their favor. The latest SocDem PM of Denmark, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, was quite explicit about this. When his coalition partner, LibDem Marianne Jelved, said that they should get rid of all the "I pay your bills and you pay mine" in the welfare system - she wanted only the net givers to pay taxes and only the net receivers to receive subsidies (including indirect subsidies) - the PM's answer was surprisingly honest: he was afraid that the middle class would stop supporting the welfare state (i.e. stop voting SocDem) if it became too transparent who was net giver and who was net receiver.
But I don't think that governments generally redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.
- Most government activity is about other aims than income redistribution. Of course it .....
(sorry my computer crashed while uploading this comment so only half of it was received.).
What do I have wrong? First off, it would be called a utopia if people didn't like it so this is just another way of saying a libertarian or anarchist utopia is impossible. I totally admit that barring a miraculous change in human nature that this is true. However, given that no form of government is stable, I feel totally free to prefer a societal organization that I believe minimizes the systematic violation of rights.
At this point, politicians just like power and they reward those who put them in power. They have two bases...those who give them the campaign money and those who give them the votes. The former are rich and the latter masses are comparatively poor so the government plays a gigantic shell game of taking from and giving to everyone in an attempt to make everyone feel as if they are a beneficiary. Of course, we all know that this is impossible and as Helene illustrates that if the cost of government were easily seen by people that they would revolt. The lowest 50% of wage earners benefit and the very highest of the financial elites benefit and everyone else in the middle is a net loser but hey...they are a minority so this is democrazy in action is it not?