Effort or Luck?

Why would that baffle you, I'm not a British subject.

I simply do not wish to reacquire any chains.

The goals of citizens of other countries are their business, what right have I to interfere as long as they remain internal?

 

You seem to think that new laws are necessary to achieve the results that a majority, which may consist of the people, or just the government, desires. This produces uncertainty in the society when right and wrong can change without prior notice.

 

Indie

You are still not explaining why you have your views in any rational way – it is not about whether it could happen it is about why you think it should or shouldn’t happen.

As I’ve said - This sidestep into the US constitution seems more and more like a trick you are trying to pull to distract from the fact you still haven’t produced any rational, reasonable or logical arguments to back up your viewpoint.

*

I don’t think you can argue that your opposition to assisting the disadvantaged are different when Federal or State. Up till now you have implied these are simply your views, not that these are views that change due to governmental circumstance.

Again you seem to be evading the questions and criticisms of you ideas by trying to misdirect.

Are you claiming that at states level you are ok even supportive of the redistribution of advantage?

So your opposition to Federal taxes is that they make avoiding taxes harder?

Please back up and clarify. I mean this might be just another interpretation of yours based on your irrational ‘feelings’.
Just looking at the statements makes me wonder if that helps the disadvantaged – having a job is wonderful thing if the work is not exploitation that doesn’t help the person from rising out of disadvantage and could in fact make social mobility worse and stifle potential even more.
Many of the reasons why people were able to rise socially and improve their economic position was because they fought against exploitation, part of that was a having a welfare system.

 

Indie

(1)The problem is that you seem unable to produce or explain this interpretation.

Yes I know you have replied - all I’m pointing out is that what you have produced so far hasn’t backed up you views that instead what we seem to get is evasion rather than explanation.
*

No one can choose to be born into advantage or disadvantage so is it justified that someone born into advantage should keep exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn when someone else through no fault of their own is born disadvantaged?

Your answer is yes – although you still haven’t explained in any rational why beyond saying ‘life is unfair’ and ‘shit happens’.

I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

You seem to want an unfair society, in fact you seem to want to make it even more unfair, and you seem to want to limit opportunity by stifling the potential of those born (through no fault of their own) into disadvantage.

What I’m trying to find out is why you have those views and if you can back them up in any rational way.

So far you seem to be indicating you can’t.

*

(2)As many people have pointed out to you even if you interpretation was in any way correct, the thing is it could be changed to bring about a better and fairer society for all. You cannot argue that because your interpretation is such and such that somehow this ‘proves’ that society has to be worse for people and more unfair.

This doesn’t answer the question of how you think that your interpretation of the process somehow proves your views are correct.
*
(3)This interpretation is based on your views which you admit are not rational or reasonable which would imply that the interpretation is irrationally and unreasonably based.

You claim your views are based on you ‘feeling’ them somehow right, so it is likely that your interpretation of things, from life in general to the US constitution are going to be based also on your ‘feelings’ rather than coming about through a rational and reasonable process.

What I’m asking is if you don’t have any rational basis for your ideas why do you have them?

*

But the question is why would you not be supportive and is your viewpoint in any way rationally and reasonably based?

 

I've yet to see a rational or reasonable explanation of why "it" should happen.

The Constitution happens to be the basis of law and government of the U.S., why would I or should I ignore it?

My view is quite different in relation to the Federal government, State government, and local government as to providing assistance to what might be considered disadvantaged persons. They are not based on governmental circumstances, but individual circumstances.

Because I've cited the Constitution as being relevant to what government is allowed to do?

Personally I don't think redistribution of advantage as you might propose it would necessarily produce the overall benefits you seem to think, but I am supportive of most any changes that are brought about by the consent of those who are directly affected, and think that such changes if proven successful have a way of spreading consensually.

I'm not opposed to Federal taxes per se, and am a firm believer that EVERYONE who earns or receives any form of income should be assessed taxes. But then again taxes do not diminish the wealth of the wealthy, and someone with very little income can acquire wealth.

"TEN years ago today I signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act."
"On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law."
"In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today."
A few lines from Bill Clinton in the New York Times on August 26, 2006

 

The answer to all your questions are found in the one document you wish to ignore, the U.S. Constitution, which does not create a Federal Democracy or Socialist form of government. It is a Constitutional Republic made up of States, with sovereignty belonging first to the people, followed by the States, and LASTLY the Federal government. It is not the purpose of government to make all inhabitants equal, eliminate failures, spread the wealth through redistribution, or eliminate excessive success. That is left to Socialist, Communist or other forms of governments, which asks the question "why is not one of those countries seen as the richest country in the world if their form of government is so much better?"

 

roughly some 90% of the people have to make do with only 25% of the wealth of the country

roughly 40% of the people have to make do with less than 1% of the wealth of the country

sovereignty? most of us have nothing

are you really trying to blame all of this on government?

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. Government does not create wealth, it consumes it.

 

Indie

That still isn’t a rational explanation, just more evasion.

That still isn’t a rational explanation of your views, what I’m saying is that you seem to be trying to misdirect people, because you are unable to explain your views in any rational way.

So can you explain in any rational way what your views are?

No because you seem to be using the US constitution as a means to evade explaining your views.

Can you explain why you think helping the disadvantaged would not be of benefit to them?
But what if a majority consensus is achieved that would increase the life, liberty and happiness of all but it is blocked by a few, whose life, liberty and happiness would be little if at all effected, but whose wealth would be marginally effected?
*
In periods of economic upturns welfare rolls are likely to drop and it is argued that had more to do with this fall than the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

I mean the unemployment rate in the U.S. is now something like 15-16 million?

Also your reply still doesn’t answer the other bit about the dangers of exploitation.

 

Indie

Again you are trying to use the US constitution as the excuse for your views, saying that the US-C in your opinion doesn’t allow this or that does not explain why you hold your views or if they are rational.

Just because something says something doesn’t mean you have to agree – a constitution might forbid democracy but that doesn’t mean you have to hate it, a law might say people have to kick a sick child every morning but that doesn’t mean you have to kick hard or at all.

All I’m proposing is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

Why are you opposed to that?

 

It is not a means of evading anything, it is the rules that define the government of the society in which I was born.

Not without looking at each case individually, I could not.

A majority consensus in a community, or even of a State, if within the rules applicable under that States Constitution allowed is one thing, but as the U.S. Constitution is written, the Federal government would have to first seek an amendment to the U.S. Constitution by 3/4 of the States.

So it is, and why is it remaining so?

Just who is exploiting who?

 

I don't find obeying existing laws irrational, especially when they apply to the government.

I wish you would just come out and say exactly what you wish to talk about instead of using words like, "it" or "something". Democracy works best, or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that it ONLY works when used by a closely related social group, which the United States is not.

I see that as more of a moral issue than a government issue.

I'm not, I'm just opposed to using government force to achieve your desires.

 

WHAT DOES IT FUCKING MATTER AS LONG AS THOSE WHO CREATE WEALTH KEEP IT ALL?!?!?!?!

[yelling to get through the brick wall of your skull]

 

Create your own, why should you be entitled to what another creates? No one owes you anything simply because you exist.

 

more insensate sloganeering . . .

 

Nobody creates wealth all on their own. First, they need a societal structure that allows and supports it. Second, they need agreement from the others who share the country that what they are taking is reasonable. That's called living in a civilized society. Fools who would rather return to feudal structures are reacting to their own feelings of self pity - endemic to those who hate to share.

 

Simply a question, left unanswered I might add, along with a statement of fact, without refutation.

It pays to keep a cool head.

 

Wealth is created by the laborers of this world...the ones that dig at the ground, the ones that work their backs like mules, the construction and mining laborers, the agricultural workers,... Indy, I seriously doubt you have any idea what it's like to be a near slave, to sacrifice your body to produce wealth for another...
I began in the work-force as a dirt laborer/ hod carrier, then a welder, then carpenter...for most of my life I have paid my bills (barely) with the sweat of my brow while making fat-cat developers stinking fucking rich in the property boom, many of those high-rise buildings I worked on remain some of the most under-leased spaces in America.. (yet the developers got theirs. remember Silverado bank?) ya know what I'm getting at here don'tcha...It has a little something to do with that that ink-soaked hemp-paper those wig-wearin' slave owners foisted to prevent common folk from gettin' what should have been rightfully theirs. The actual fruits of their labor.

ZW

 

Wealth does not depend on the existence of a society, and a single person living in an area containing an abundant supply of necessities, such as food and water could be considered quite wealthy and without need of a society. The only meaningful agreement that exists within societies are deeds and contracts defining ownership, rights and/or responsibilities. Property is exchanged or shared by the consent of agreeing individuals by giving something in return for receiving something that is considered reasonable and acceptable by both parties, not society as a whole.
The fools are those who wallow in self pity, which is most endemic to those who look at others who are more successful with grievous envy, and act out criminally or demand that government act as their proxy in carrying out their wishes.
The country is an area in which we citizens live and have available to us the goods and services produced by others, which we in turn share in as best our means avail us. No one is taking from another without remuneration, except when government intrudes, or a criminal act by an individual(s) occurs. Societies only become less civilized when government attempts to control it in a way to achieve some perception of a desired equality, common level of success, or elimination of failure. A peaceful society exists only with the consent of the society, not by impositions of government.

 

And I suppose you did all that without receiving any pay? We all have a right to accept or refuse a job, so I would hardly call anyone a slave owner who employs others. The wages paid most often are relative to the supply of workers in relation to their demand by employers, so perhaps a different line of work might have been more rewarding? The "blame game", while may result in disassociating one from responsibility for their own failings in life does nothing to improve it. I used to have a girl work for me who on a daily basis told me "You owe me." although she received the wages agreed upon by the company we worked for and union she belonged to.I eventually was successful in getting her transferred as she was the least productive employee who worked for me, and just created more work for the others. I would have been happier to have eliminated her job entirely and increase the wages of the others who did her work, but the labor union limited what I could do in that area.