What political party do you vote with?

I simply stated a fact.

On the other hand you could say that some individuals are gaining disadvantages they didn't earn and others through no fault of their own are having advantages.

That may be true for those who are quick to accept defeat.

That's your point of view, not mine.

What should I do, provide you with real life examples one after another?

Like I've often said, it takes effort to achieve success in life and most of us achieve the success we deserve relative to our efforts. Nothing is 100% assured in life.

Sometimes I just have to tell the truth.

Set aside your emotions, and accept the facts. We are not all equals, and neither do we through government have a right to demand from others what we are incapable of providing for ourselves.

 

Indie

YOU – “The wider society is not duty bound to assume any responsibility other than that which each individual member of society freely wishes to assume.”

ME – “An assertion but what backs it up beyond your belief?”

To which you reply

But what you stated isn’t a fact; it’s a viewpoint, an opinion.

Now I freely admit that I’m also putting forward an opinion but the difference between us is that I’m backing up my opinion with rational and reasonable arguemet that you don’t seem able to counter with anything but unsubstantiated assertions.

Your views seem closer to religious fanaticism, where faith and belief take the place of rational thought.

*

If some individuals are gaining advantages they didn’t earn and others through no fault of their own are having disadvantages thrust upon them - then your individual deterministic argument seems to fall apart.

Yes exactly - the point being that the individual cannot choose either so your individual deterministic argument seems to fall apart.

It is not the individual who can determine their own outcome since the one of the greatest effects on their life is completely out of their hands. The potential they had to determine their outcome has already been affected by their birth not by them.

Again you are not addressing the issues but just making another assertion

A person cannot choose to be born into a position were the same amount of effort would produce greatly better outcomes. It is not about the effort spent but the starting position.

So a persons potential for success (or failure) is affected in a substantial way not by them but by an accident of birth.

Now if one person is disadvantaged due to their own actions then the problem may be that individual’s problem (and I’d still ask why they were having that problem).

But if many people are in a very similar position that has nothing to do with them as individuals then it is a community problem. It is about the society not the individual.

 

Indie
So disadvantage is not an individual problem but a societal problem.

But the difference is that I’m backing up my point of view with rational and reasonable arguemet that you don’t seem to be able to counter with anything but unsubstantiated assertions.

Yes I know it is not your viewpoint but other than saying you don’t like it what rational argument can you present to counter it?

*

But the thing is you don’t seem to be able to counter it other than with unsubstantiated assertion.

Oh we have been there before - the ‘real life examples’ that you presented in the past never stood up to scrutiny, being basically yet more unsubstantiated assertions that you were unable to defend from criticism - so why do think other ‘examples’ would do any better?

Why not just stop falling back on your personal dogma and instead started to address the criticisms levelled at your views in a thoughtful and open minded way.

*

 

Indie

And again an assertion backed up with nothing but your belief.

This is just a reinstatement of the same theory of individual determinism that has already been shown to be deeply flawed if not false.

I mean 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.

A persons potential for success (or failure) is affected in a substantial way not by them but by an accident of birth.

Again you sound like a religious fanatic.

I don’t claim to own the truth, I just seem to have some rational arguments that you don’t seem to be able to counter and some criticisms of your views that you don’t seem able to address.

*
That’s fine but what is your rationally based counter argument?

LOL you sound like an evangelical preacher.

You seem to be basically saying I should set aside my rational and reasonable arguments and accept your unsubstantiated ‘truth’ without question.

Sorry preacher-man, I gave up religions long ago for the very reason that they didn’t like me pointing out the seeming flaws in there arguments and disliked me asking questions they didn’t seem able to answer.

 

Indie

It is not about equality so much as about potential and bringing about a society where all have a chance of fulfilling that potential.

And again the statement seems another reiteration of the same theory of individual determinism that has already been shown to be deeply flawed if not false (see above).

An individual is incapable of choosing to be born into advantage or disadvantage, so the chances of what level of provision they may be able to archive for themselves is in large part out of their hands.

 

A viewpoint based upon the laws which exist.

So some people have to work harder than others to achieve similar success. Some people are driven to achieve as a result of the hardships of their youth. The real difference between us is that you are incapable of accepting the fact that we are each unique regardless of the wealth we are born into and it is not the responsibility of society or the government in a free nation to produce equal outcomes for each member of society. In a free society each individual is free to make choices that have effect upon their own lives. Laws exist which serve to protect us from one another, but I'm not aware of any law that criminalizes making a profit, or building upon ones wealth.

Hey, Newsweek was wrong, we are NOT all Socialists now. Get over it.

 

Indie

How are you judging success?

But let us say that ‘success’ is X, what I’m saying is that -

Two people could work as equally hard but one would achieve less ‘success’ because they were born into disadvantage.

That one person could work very hard and only achieve the same amount of success as someone that put little effort into it at all, because one was born into disadvantage and the other not.

I’m saying that someone born with the potential to have ‘success’ could never realise that success because of being born into disadvantage.

A person cannot choose to be born into a position were the same amount of effort would produce greatly better outcomes. It is not about the effort spent but the starting position.

 

Indie

LOL - so now your opinions are the law?
Or are you saying you would want a law stopping tax money going to social programmes?

Oh indie I love the diversity of individuals and that is why I’d want 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. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place (as you have said openly) where those that you deem as having little value to society should be left to die.

Again you prefer to mislead rather than being honest.

I’ve been talking about trying to realise and tap into people potential not about producing equal outcomes for each member of society

And again the wish to mislead trumps honesty - I haven’t proposed any laws that would not allow profit, or in stopping people building up their wealth.

I’m arguing for 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. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential.

 

Indie

And again this statement seems another reiteration of the same theory of individual determinism that has already been shown to be deeply flawed if not false.
An individual is incapable of choosing to be born into advantage or disadvantage.

So to a very large extent it is not the individual who can determine their own outcome because some of the greatest effects on their life are completely out of their hands. The potential they have to determine their outcome has already been affected by their birth not by them.

 

Indie

I think most people have worked out my now that you have a tendency to try and mislead people into thinking that anything to the left of your far right ideas are ‘socialist’ but I do wish you’d open your mind (just a jar) or at the very least start putting up some rational and reasonable arguments to back up your views.

All you seem to be producing at the moment are slogans and lies.

 

Most rich don't support status-quo biased parties since about 2008. A status-quo party would be the Peace and Freedom party. Am I wrong?

 

I assume the intent of your question is in relation to others and not myself, and some persons might consider themselves quite successful but poor in relation to wealth and possessions while others may have much wealth yet feel they are failures. It's an individual judgment.

There are many reasons why some achieve more success than others aside from being born into advantage or disadvantage.

That sounds a lot like working in a unionized workforce, and being paid the same wages for the same job title. The most productive workers earn the same as the least productive workers regardless of their birth advantage or disadvantage.

Never? Try and back that one up.

Your argument doesn't hold water, and I have seen many real life examples where lack of education, and/or wealth have not stopped people from achieving great success. A large number of my friends living in the U.S. are immigrants from Asia, most of whom had little or no education and most all of them have achieved middle class, and are property and/or business owners. They all had to start at the very bottom and very few could even speak English on arrival. Surprisingly, many of their American born and schooled offspring are much less successful.

 

There's a guy from Vermont, whose name is changed for beliefs refusing the communist party. But I believe, now, that you are not him. Notch libertarianism as a party of bad dating habits. Alvin Toffler would, I believe, support the Freedom and Peace party only because life cannot be as good as death for the consciounable new age and governance. New age to the right politics of trust in one's own instincts party (was that ringing in my mind?: rather than trust in one's own beliefs party) is A peace and freedom party solely because New Age is hope in Science.

 

Never been in Vermont, but the Freedom and Peace party sounds like a Left coast party to me. Make that a "Far Left coast party".

 

Generally Democratic because I live in Cook County

 

Might as well stay home if you were to vote anything else. I worked in DuPage country, Downers Grove, for a while but after one winter decided I didn't want to experience another one and headed for a warmer climate.

 

LOL; Wiener misquotes too; or is He misqouted. At first. Hey; I'm defending him now. NO accounting for bias changing in the Fei Shung there. You know what I mean.

 

i'm with Dancin'TillDawn on this... ultimately, voting for a party makes no difference whatsoever because the same overlords will be above them, whoever gets in... i believe there's a bigger agenda going on...

 

Democracy begins as a form of government in which all feel they will have a say and gradually degrades over time by dividing and conquering the governed taking from some and giving to others increasing dependence upon the government, until which point a society is created containing the governed and the governing.

Each new law or regulation created diminishes the freedom or liberty of us all, but most often we gladly accept them as they are presented as helpful to the poorest at cost to the wealthiest, and the negative consequences are often not recognized for decades.

Who was it that said "In a democracy you get the government you deserve, and deserve the government you receive."? Most animals exercise great caution, but the human species is easily led by offering rewards with near complete disregard to any accompanying dangers.

Democratic Socialism is, and has been the itinerary for quite some time now, and likely will be achieved in the near future only to result in the eventuality of a violent overthrow of government once again as there will always remain those who value their freedom and liberties above all else. The pendulum swings Left and Right perpetually, or at least until the point of extinction of the human race.

 

Indie
How are you judging success?

You then go on later to explain that you think ‘great success’ is the achievement of ‘middle class status’ and the ownership of property and/or a business.

And studies that have been made point to birth as being the most important. That is where in the social strata a person has been born.
Try reading The Spirit Level Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Well wherever advantages have been granted to those that were disadvantaged it has proved to have released once untapped potential.