Effort or Luck?

Individual

Is the answer ‘life is unfair’ a rational and reasonable answer to the question?

You claim it is the “most rational answer” because in nature there is advantage and disadvantage.

The problem is humans don’t live naturally; we have manipulated, changed and tampered with the world so that we don’t live as other animals.

We don’t live in a tree or a hole in the ground we build houses, offices and huge high-rises of man made brick and steel.

We don’t bark or grunt we have developed language and writing and communicate over man made telephones and optical cable or through satellites in space.

We don’t defecate where we stand we have sanitation, systems of man made reservoirs, piping and pumps that take away and in many cases clean up that waste.

We don’t wander open terrain grazing or hunting our food with tooth and nail, we have parcelled up land and call it property, we have thought up complex methods of exchange, from barter to paper money to virtual warcraft gold.

And we don’t live in herds or packs where might is right, we live in complex societies, with constitutions and laws; we appoint leaders and judges and create political systems. A lot of political thought and political history has been involved in what should be allowed and what shouldn’t over what was just and unjust. Over time some societies have grown that have created constitutions and laws to manipulate, change and tamper societies to suite what they see as been a better and more just existence.

Now it is possible to argue over whether these things are good or bad but I don’t think you can claim that humans are like “all other life forms that exist”.

So the argument that social unfairness should remain because it is ‘natural’ doesn’t wash since societies can and have changed what some have claimed is ‘natural’ to alleviate unfairness.

Now people can argue over what is fair and what isn’t but you have already acknowledge you think it unfair by saying ‘life is unfair’ in relation to it.

What you seem to be saying is that you know it is unfair but you like it to be unfair, want that unfairness to continue and even desire to increase the level of unfairness.

 

that's not what i meant

education?

employment?

where? how?

 

We're not making any progress at all, going over the same things that we agree to disagree on.
The progress I mentioned has not all been sourced from the U.S. many countries have contributed to science and other advances.
I've not stated that a government is entitled to demand taxes.

 

Public school, military service, many different employers in early life, eventually a permanent job where my employer valued my productivity, where? the U.S., Northern states and Southern States, How? I saw work needed to be done and did it.

 

Indie

I never agreed to disagree, if I see what seems to be a flawed argument or viewpoint I think it should be pointed out, especially if the person carries on promoting the same view.

As I’ve been explaining your views seem deeply flawed on the fundamental level and you don’t seem able to address these flaws so the ideas remain flawed.

And you must realise they’re flawed because you seem to be doing your best to get out of facing those flaws.

So I ask again why are you holding onto what seem like such flawed views?

So what has it to do with the argument, I mean many scientific and technological advances have appeared in many differing societies from dictatorship to democracy?

So you think taxes should be voluntary?

 

hmm, public school, military service, certainly no public money there

out of curiosity, give me a hint as to your employers' persuasion? [esl acting up again]

for example, i've worked for corporate law firms, international banks, marine insurers

?

[please note that i am not interested in you, per se, just in you as an example, the way i often use myself as an example, because i am what i know]

 

That pretty much sounds like you agree that we will continue to disagree.

And I see your views to be equally flawed, and not to have been addressed in a way acceptable to me.

Our philosophies differ, therefore we view each others as flawed. I face reality, accepting that changes take place naturally and more acceptably when by choice than by force.

That's your opinion, but I could ask you the same question.

I was just responding to your "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?"

The government claims them to be. Taxes are quite a deep subject to go into, but basically I feel the Federal government should only receive what is needed to run the Federal government, and States should fund their internal needs, borrowing with interest from other States with strict terms of repayment if necessary. Read Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, and try and interpret it as it was "originally" intended.

 

Indie
I never agreed to disagree, if I see what seems to be a flawed argument or viewpoint I think it should be pointed out, especially if the person carries on promoting the same view.

I’ll always disagree with what seems to be a flawed argument.

But my question is why would someone hold onto a flawed argument once it had been shown to be flawed?

You sound like a child in a playground just repeat back an accusation but when people grow up they know or should know that just saying something doesn’t make it true.

If you think my views are flawed then fine, put up some reasonable, rational and logical arguments as to why you think they are, as I have done with yours and found them wanting.

In fact what has happened is that you have agree with much of what I’ve said only putting up the childishly flimsy argument that ‘life isn’t fair’ against them, an argument that, as I’ve explained, doesn’t stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Seeing something as flawed and showing something is flawed are two different things, you may see my views as flawed but you haven’t put up any arguments that seem to show that they are.

I have put forward some criticisms of your views that seem to show they’re flawed and you have so far refused to address those flaws, which would seems to indicate that your philosophy is indeed flawed.

Do you see reality or do you see things through the prism of your own bias and prejudice so far it seems to be more of the latter than the former.
What do you mean by ‘naturally’

History would seem to show that many if not most social and political changes have come about due to strife, they were fought for sometimes peacefully sometimes by more violent means.

*

So I ask again why are you holding onto what seem like such flawed views?

Believing something is flawed and showing something is flawed are two different things, you have the opinion that my views are flawed but you haven’t put up any arguments that seem to show that they are. I have put forward some criticisms of your views that seem to show they’re flawed and you have so far refused to address those flaws, which seems to indicate in my opinion that your philosophy is indeed flawed.

 

Indie

Lets go through it shall we –

You originally said –

Now it wasn’t apparent to me so trying to work out what you meant by this I asked –

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

You then said –

Still not sure what your meaning was I inquired –

"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?"

To which you replied –

Well actually you did say “made in the U.S. over its short history” But still not sure why you said it in the context of this thread I asked

“So what has it to do with the argument, I mean many scientific and technological advances have appeared in many differing societies from dictatorship to democracy?”

*

As I’ve said I’m trying to work out your thinking here, I mean I’m still not sure what advancements you’re talking about and I’m still trying to work out why you brought the subject of science and technology up in the context of this thread?

I mean if anything releasing the potential of all those that otherwise wouldn’t have realised their potential would most likely boost a nations scientific and technological advancement.

 

Indie

Again what is your thinking because you seem to contradict yourself with every reply?

You made the statement that nothing had the right to take from another without the express consent and willingness of the person(s) providing?

But you also seem to think the government should have the right to raise taxes which I’m sure at least some people wouldn’t want to pay, but when I pointed this out you said that-

So I ask what seems like a reasonable question of if you thought taxes should be voluntary and again your reply seem to indicate that government should have the right to raise taxes

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes”
Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

*

As to the original intent of the US Constitution we’ve discussed that and I’m still waiting for you to address the points raised by it.

And I think basing the present health of your society on what was ‘intended’ in a 200 year ago document is a bit like trusting your own health to a 200 year old medical book.

http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1016.shtml

 

Effort or Luck, potential can be realized and put to use through effort, and luck can play a part.

 

Agreed - but as I’ve said I’m trying to work out your thinking here, I mean I’m still not sure what advancements you’re talking about and I’m still trying to work out why you brought the subject of science and technology up in the context of this thread?

I mean if anything releasing the potential of all those that otherwise wouldn’t have realised their potential would most likely boost a nations scientific and technological advancement.

 

All the science and technology advancements, without need to mention any specifically, have created opportunities for both rich and poor. Jobs are where potential is put to use and create useful, valued citizens. Many poor, uneducated, non-English speaking people immigrate to the U.S. annually and seem to find opportunities that they take advantage of and prosper, often far greater than many native born citizens.

 

Indie

Agreed – but I’m still trying to work out why you brought the subject of science and technology up in the context of this thread?

And it should also be remembered that many scientific and technological advancement have only come about because of government funding. In fact one of the great methods of wealth distribution is through the governmental sponsorship of the sciences (and the arts).

Agreed – but I’m still trying to work out why you brought the subject of science and technology up in the context of this thread?

I mean in my view one of government’s major tasks, if not the major task it’s to try and bring about full employment. But that Keynesian approach is not shared by most free marketeer’s.

And others don’t proper and many are exploited, anyway I’m still trying to work out why you brought the subject of science and technology up in the context of this thread?

 

Only because of the jobs they've created which reduces both the effort or luck necessary to make a living.

I still feel that the private sector can do most anything and everything more efficiently than government and the public sector.

I belong to the latter group.

That's three times you've asked the same question, go to the top for the answer.

 

Individual

Yes science and technology have created job and then of course they have caused the loss of jobs as well, it can be swings and roundabouts, but I’m unsure what advancements you are thinking of when you say they have “reduces both the effort or luck necessary to make a living” can you please explain?
And what has it to do within the context of this thread?

But a lot of the things have come about through government sponsorship, jet population, atomic energy, space exploration, computing, the www, later the private sector might get involved but….

Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc.

The thing is that the private sector is motivated by profit not public service, and how do you bring in ‘profit and loss’ into such things as a social worker trying to spot child abuse?

And although it is possible to turn over utilities and services over to private firms that doesn’t mean they are privately funded, which just means you are transferring public money from an accountable (and in a democracy changeable) public body to an unaccountable and undemocratic private corporation, and the costs may be not that different.

*

I know that you claim to be a free market supporter and that’s why I raised the point

You said -

The problem with this is that while a Keynesian approach is to seek full employment that approach is not shared by most free marketeer’s.

Just saying yes you are a free marketeer doesn’t address the issue raised.

*

 

On the subject of the history of science and technology you could try reading -
Unjust Deserts: How the Rich Are Taking Our Common Inheritance

by Gar Alperovitz and Lew Daly

 

More products, more services, more jobs.

Some of what you mention have had government sponsorship and funding. The nice thing about government is that it doesn't have to show a profit, and most of us tend to ignore the debt it creates.

From the Anti-Federalist Papers, #23 "The idea that the powers of congress in respect to revenue ought to be unlimited, because 'the circumstances which may affect the public safety are not reducible to certain determinate limits' is novel, as it relates to the government of the United States"

"Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union, as a fund to loan money upon; and it is probable, in this way, they may borrow of foreign nations, a principle sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. By this means, they may create a national debt, so large, as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink."

For some to fail that others may succeed is inevitable. Even government cannot provide success for all, but it can assure that all will fail through it's many attempts.

 

I suppose if you subscribe to a common inheritance, you might find their work persuasive. I prefer to live not as determined by government, but in spite of government.

 

Indie

Yes but also jobs can disappear as well as appear, get outsourced in another country or just stop existing and products and services are prone to up and downs turns. I mean the US is littered with ghost towns, places where resources or industries rose and declined.
But I’m still unsure why you bring this up in the context of this thread?