Effort or Luck?

So you think that makes it right to take from the wealthier to support the right of the poor and irresponsible to have children?

And you wish to place the blame on those who had nothing to do with making the choice to have the children?

Your interpretation appears similar to the Chicago mob style, for a mere 10% of your weekly income I won't burn your business down.

Exploitation can be handled by law, hardship and sickness are most often not the result of anothers intent.

So some are lucky and some exert effort. You can't protect everyone from everything, nor should we even try.

I'm only saying that life is not equal for everyone in every way, and the protections that government should provide are not meant to equalize everyone monetarily.

I didn't feel a need to. The intent is not to broaden but to focus.

I just don't think democracy works at all when power is held by a centralized government. Like any form of government, it takes power away from the people at the source where it is applied. People who have no idea of the differences in conditions and problems of a large population are primarily interested in getting elected.

Some people learn only through repetition, you appear to have heard the Marxist agenda quite a number of times which makes it difficult to correct.

 

Indie
A baby cannot make informed choices for example it cannot choose who it is going to be born to.

Your philosophy seems to be that people should only receive the advantages they themselves earn, but you seem to be contradicting that by saying that you think advantages that someone doesn’t and cannot earn are ok as well.
You are still not addressing this flaw in your thinking.
*
And the thing is that occurrence can have the greatest influence on the range and depth of the choices a person can take later on.

I have not proportioned any blame, you have, but I haven’t, can you please address the criticism of your ideas.
You seem to agree that the situation is unfair but then seem to contradict that by saying it is fair.
*
As pointed out before protection is a vague term that is open to interpretation.

It doesn’t seem to be so can you please explain?
*
Protection from harm, what about protection from the harm of exploitation, protection from the harm of hardship, protection from the harm of sickness

Again you are not actually addressing what’s been said, yes laws can help against exploitation but they can also protect people from hardship and sickness. And a lot of illness and hardship is environment or work related.
*
I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them protection from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of protection.

So you answer is the same ‘life is unfair’ but as pointed out many times that isn’t really an argument why it shouldn’t be made more fair.
*
Are you saying that this also is just a matter of life being unfair that some deserve protection and others do not?

I’ve said before that I’m don’t think absolute equality is possible but I do think that in places like the US and UK that it could be made more equal.
*
You still haven’t addressed the problems highlighted at

Free Market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=353336&f=36

LOL you mean you can’t. As I’ve said you don’t seem able to address the criticisms of you ideas so they will remain deeply flawed
*
But you have argued against democracy and would like a system where the few would have more votes to counter those of the many.

Like any form of government – you seem to be saying that democracy doesn’t work, which fits in with other antidemocratic statements you have expressed and that seems to back up my statement, you would prefer a society ruled by the rich elites.
*

Again you are seeing life through the prism of your bias and prejudice rather than looking at things more rationally. If you actually looked at what I’m saying rather than thinking you know what I’m saying you would realise that my view are very far from being Marxist.

Your problem seems to be that you see any ideas that are to the left of your own views as socialist.

Anyway your reply still doesn’t address the seeming flaws in your views and just repeating them will not make those flaws go away.

 

Once again, from the beginning.

The answer to your question is obviously NO, and while that may indicate that the family and environment into which one is born is simply a case of luck, it doesn't necessarily have to be a problem unless it is allowed to be. People can be born poor and achieve great success in life, and people can be born into wealth and end up destitute. It is the effort the individual puts forth between birth and death that determines that individuals ability to achieve or retain prosperity. Progress occurs in civilization as a result of both effort and luck, and that should be quite apparent in the advancements of science and technology that have been made in the U.S. over its short history of existence. Often it is the case that great effort results in what might be called luck when achievements exceed expectations. What you seem to view as a problem is a misconception that fairness is achieved only when everyone gets an equal piece of a single pie. In reality life is a condition where many pies exist, and effort is required to find which pie you can produce or assist in producing which provides you a large enough share of it that you can give up some of as a means of acquiring portions of other pies.
On what basis is someone entitled to, or have a right to take from, or receive from another without the consent and willingness of the person(s) providing?

Obviously.

Or, of course, great effort.

That's a defeatist attitude. Instead of focusing on what others have everyone should focus on ways they can best improve on what they can have.

I said I don't believe in heaven or hell, but you can create your own heaven, although most find it easiest to create their own hell and then look for others to blame it on.

I assume you are equating money to be the resources you are referring to? I don't see wealth based inequality as an impediment to realizing human potential. If one truly has potential, it helps to have those available who are able to afford making it productive and profitable.

So in general you would like to see the effort required in life to be more equalized and the results of any luck shared more or less equally?

 

Individual

Why we’ve been through all this before?

*

I’ll keep this short for the moment but the problem here is can someone choose to whom they are born?

Did you read the piece about social mobility I link to? If not do so and then the debate can continue.

Anyway the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

I know this is your argument but as pointed out it is flawed, since the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants – what advancements are you talking about?

Babies can’t eat pies, but let’s take this idea and run with it.

On person is born into a family that has pies every day and lots of different pies, savoury pies, sweet pies, fish pies, fruit pies and meat pies, game pies lots and lots of pies. This family also has the means and resources to experiment with different ingredients and combinations so when that child grows up they know a lot about pies, all the differing types and all out there preparation.

But another child is born into a family where a pie is a once and a while treat - when one can be afforded at all. A family were no-one knows how to make pies or knows much about them. So when that person grows up they also know very little about pies.

You see the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

As to the entitlement to take you have already stated that governments should be able to tax, or are you saying that you think all taxes should be voluntary?

And seeing that no one can choose to whom they are born is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged
Your answer so far has been yes, you readily admit that is unfair but none at the same time think it justified.

The thing is that the only argument you have put up so far for saying it is justified is that ‘life is unfair’ which isn’t a very rational answer.

 

Indie

The chances to achieve a good life are a lot greater for someone born into a rich family than someone born into poverty.

So is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

Your answer so far has been yes, you readily admit that is unfair but none at the same time think it justified.

The thing is that the only argument you have put up so far for saying it is justified is that ‘life is unfair’ which isn’t a very rational answer.

*

So the greatest possibility of gaining a good life is down pure and simply to luck.

But the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.
*

The advantages of being born into a higher social class are many – greater educational possibilities, better social environment, better connections etc, the list goes on.

But it is possible to improve the potential of people and greatly increase the possibilities of what they can achieve by widening advantage.

*
To a very large extent people are not in ‘heaven or hell’ because they made the effort or choose to be their but because of an accident of birth.

But the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

*
This means that a lot of human potential is being lost because of wealth based inequality that could realised by a better distribution of resources.

I’ve already recommended to you the book - The Spirit Level – Why equality is better for everyone by Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett

I’ve even posted reviews of it to give you some of its flavour.

But the greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

Potential is only potential it is like a seed - if it lands in fertile soil and is nurtured it is more likely to grow and flourish than if it falls on stony ground and is trampled on.

*

I want to try and free the potential of people that otherwise wouldn’t have that potential realised.

 

Individual

Re-answering the original post seems like a classic bit of distraction to try and hide the fact you are still not addressing the fundamental flaws in your views that have been highlighted in this debate.

As the above shows we’ve been through all of it already and you still haven’t addressed the flaws in your thinking.

It seems to me that the reason for these distraction tactics is that you know you can’t address the flaws.

Which once more leads me to the question of why you continue to hold what even you seem to realise are flawed ideas?

 

So we have, and your posts only grow in size. Can you not state a key issue that we might agree on and try to resolve an agreeable solution to that rather than expanding upon our areas of disagreement?

I think we can agree on the answer to that question being a firm no. So what?

No, I did not. And is social mobility the issue?

I agree that where, to whom, or even when someone is born can be a source of advantage or disadvantage that "can" affect their lives, but does not have to be accepted as unchangeable.

You're really hung up on advantages and disadvantages. Just because an advantage exists does not guarantee that it will be put to proper use, nor does a disadvantage guarantee failure. If you expect someone, or a government, to provide you with independence you make yourself dependent upon them. You must assume independence on your own.

Science, medicine, computers, etc. think about what exists today in comparison to just a few years ago.

Apparently they know they exist, and feel they have a right to them.

Then just allow the affluent to have children.

Taxes fund the military which protects both rich and poor, builds infrastructure which is available to both rich and poor. What has taxes to do with the OP?

I think it is a fact that such occurs, and would not really claim it to be just or unjust, fair or unfair, except for conversational purposes. As the old saying goes, "shit happens, live with it."

It's the most rational answer, we humans, as well as all other life forms that exist, are not equal to one another, nor can we or will we ever be. You really need to get a life of your own, and if you're really as concerned about others as you would have me believe, then approach others in ways that might promote their willingness to be concerned through choice rather than government mandate.

 

Don't allow chance to determine your life. You're not into astrology too, are you?

I've answered this adequately already, YES! YES! YES! If "YOU" wish to share your advantages, feel free, but please speak only for yourself. That way we ALL remain free.

I don't really admit it to be unfair or unjust, any more than it is for some of a trees seed to fall onto fertile soil and others infertile soil. It's just natural, and something to converse over. Maybe it should be stated, sad but true.

I've already stated that it is quite rational, and if you really wish to make life fair, you will find that not everyone will agree on what would make life fair. But then again you feel that you have the authority to decide. I know what I consider fair, and it may be more or perhaps even less than what you would determine.

Only for those who are most destined to fail. The more intelligent or industrious of the species usually exert some effort.

Didn't you state this in the previous post?

More expensive drugs and liquor?

If potential exists, create the possibilities and put it to work. I have a friend who came from Greece with two bottles of virgin olive oil, and little else. He created three businesses, and is quite affluent today.

So be it.

Are you a human or a broken record?

Ditto above response.

I disagree with the premise.

Obviously I did not agree with them.

Don't you just love Bonsais?

There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things, and two wrongs, especially one that is indeliberate is not made right by a deliberate wrong.

 

Race and gender have great effects too, should we try to control that?

 

so you wish to be separate from society?

presumably you have somehow achieved your advantaged position separately as well?

 

No, I just wish to be a participant where I am free to exercise choice as opposed to government mandate of who I am responsible for supporting.

You assume that I have some advantage. What I have achieved has been of my own doing.

 

wasn't assuming, sometimes i go into esl mode though, sorry

i am just wondering if in any way others were involved in your achieving what you have

"of my own doing" seems an impossible thing to me, please explain

a hint of methodology might help, i'm assuming you were not a bike messenger, but?

 

We already have. Civil rights, voting rights and equal pay, all accomplished by well organized social movements.

.

 

Mmm...
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=404816&f=51

 

I was refering to law, not bigotry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963

.l

 

The law is useless. Always has been.

 

I've watched it work.

My mother went to work when I was about 12, 1960. She made just slightly more than half of her male counterparts. I think it has had a profound effect. Women who work the same jobs as men generally get the same pay today. When you factor in the population as a whole, you get lower pay for women because more of them occupy unskilled positions such as maids and waitresses, which indicates much room for improvement.

.

 

Others provided me with positive examples without necessity of direct involvement that I made use of. Reading above and beyond what school requires helps. Effort may not always pay off in ways that meet or exceed desires, but you can starve to death sitting back waiting on luck.
No, I was not a bike messenger, but I did deliver newspapers at one point.

There's no one solution for everyone, so what worked for me may not work for you.

 

Hey!

 

Individual
I’ll keep this short for the moment but the problem here is can someone choose to whom they are born?

So what?
Are you honestly trying to con people into believing you have suddenly become dumb or have conveniently forgetting what we’ve been discussing these pass weeks?
The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.
*

So you never read something that clarified a point someone was making, you never intended to be an honest debater?

Again why are you suddenly pretending you’re dumb?
Of course social mobility is the issue
“People can be born poor and achieve great success in life, and people can be born into wealth and end up destitute”
That is social mobility and the piece pointed out that US social mobility wasn’t that good.
*

No it doesn’t especially if people are given the help to overcome disadvantages so they can realise their potential.
*

Have I said any different I’m saying that it’s about potential

Is a baby independent?
*

I’m trying to work out your thinking here I mean there have been many advances made since 1776 and in many places so why did you mention only the US?
*

Again why are you pretending to be stupid?
You said - On what basis is someone entitled to, or have a right to take from, or receive from another without the consent and willingness of the person(s) providing?
If you agree a government is entitled to demand taxes then there is your precedence there is the basis.
*

So your argument is ‘shit happens’ that basically the same as ‘life’s unfair’?