- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
And what do you propose the cure is then? (by the way I know you qualified disease with "alleged"... but I know that deep down you know there is a problem)
the problem is too many people who see government taking wealth from others as a solution and too many power hungry turds in office who cater to people who want "something down" in order to gain wealth and power themselves while doing far less than the rich they whine about
But what is the cure to the problem of unequal opportunity at the start of life?
who cares? the government has no business trying to cure that
how are you going to cure athletic genes?
raw intelligence
good looks?
if you want to cure inequality why just limit your crusade to wealthy parents and good schools?
poor but pretty girls have a far better chance of ending up wealthy than ugly ones.
LeBron James had birth advantages most other poor black boys raised by their mothers had.
Well yeah... but there's no interest in changing those advantages... those are natural ones... only interested in weeding out the unnatural advantages... so how do you think crazy progressives or far lefters would go about addressing the problem with unnatural advantages at birth?
Unnatural-that sounds bitter. nothing is more natural than a talented parent wanting to help his or her children. The government doesn't exist to slake the hurt of those who have failed
Bitter... LOL!!
Seriously though... we all want to help our children... perhaps using money to do so isn't the best way? ? Perhaps teaching values etc is better? ?
You assume that one excludes the other
Sorry I think I will fight as hard as possible those who want the government to redistribute income to make the failures feel better. I don't buy into your pie in the sky "its good for society" bs whatsoever. Its even more selfish than those who want to keep what they have
So tell me how one can use money to help his/her children?
Redistribution? I believe you may be using the right word grammatically, but politically, that word carries a whole lot more baggage than it should for the purposes of this debate. Perhaps new generation redistribution would be a better phrase. Because we are talking about leveling the playing field monetarily for each new generation... not for those who have already had their shot.
Of course, there would be more than simple monetary redistribution... there would be equality of education, equality of nutrition and so on.
Now tell me... how is that selfish?
Sure it was a little harsh... sometimes reality is...
I personally don't think those with overwhelming amounts of wealth are evil by nature... I've posted exactly how I see them in other posts. In summary, they are just humans like everyone else and mostly a victim or their environment
The way I thought would be to disallow inherited money, or at least minimize it to a certain amount, so long as other children were allowed the same.
In addition, benefits such as going to better schools etc. would not be allow, instead, funding for schools would be allotted equally to all schools.
Parents could decide which schools they want their kids to go to based on that schools performance...
...or simply home school them... etc. there are many ways to make the starting line more even
Of course these types of advantages couldn't be controlled.
Remember, we aren't talking about equality of outcome here... simply equality of starting points (or as close as we can get it)... what I feel equality of opportunity should actually refer to
There is usually a grain of truth in any argument.
You are-you want others to have their property confiscated to pay for your grandiose dreams
sorry not buying it. you want your kid to have advantages such as top schools or top coaching, pay for it yourself and stop hiding your desires for the wealth of others in flowery social justice facades.
I have to hand it to you TurtleDude, you are very classy with the way you twist and turn arguments... but I'm not buying what you're selling either
I think it says something when 53% of the people responding to the OP chose either option B or C, which says that those 53% are at least open to the idea of leveling the playing filed to weed out the unnatural advantages and disadvantages that occur at birth in the U.S. If 53% are open to the idea, its not that grandiose now is it? I know you were trying to use the word grandiose in a negative way, but whats so bad about having grandiose goals for the US so long as we know that we will never attain perfection, but we can always work towards it?
I am arguing a theoretical argument that concerns the general public more than it does me. But something tells me that your desire to personalize arguments, i.e. making accusations and using the word "you" excessively, points to the probability that you are likely very personally attached to the arguments you post here at Debate Politics. For example, it is likely that you want the best for your children too (if you have them). But, who doesn't want the best for their children? There are of course differing levels of emotional attachment to one's argument from debater to debater. How close are you to yours?
But enough of that... perhaps you are saying "pay for it yourself" to the hypothetical stereotyped poor people who desperately want to steal your money so so bad. ... well enough of that too
I really want to know why you feel so adamant about disallowing progress toward a more natural society? ?
Sometimes delusional rants are harsh too.
Agree, except... victim?
I understand some have a philosophical objection to inheritance, but we inherit lots of things from our parents and not all are financial. Some inherit more "assets" than "liabilities," some more "liabilities" than "assets," if you will. Philosophically speaking, why fixate only on financial forms of inheritance, if "fairness" is the name of the game?
So parents would theoretically be prohibited from privately paying other individuals to teach their children things?
You just said going to better schools is prohibited!
None of this makes much sense, compared to your comment about the rich being prohibited from educational advantages. How do you let people home-school while disallowing them from paying others to teach their children things?
You're right, and that ultimately includes your own proposals too.
Equality of opportunity is just as impossible as equality of outcome. Every species on Earth naturally produces exceptionally strong specimens and defectively weak ones. It simply cannot be controlled. And the mission to prevent parents from intentionally giving their children competitive advantage is not only irrational and immoral, it defies nature and reality.
In Prometheus' case a few posts back, certainly no more than a grain.
because I support freedom and oppose parasites And most of those who want that crap arent the ones paying for it.
you cavalierly demand that others have their wealth taken from them for your pie in the sky ideals
doesn't work that way. lots of us aren't going to roll over and put up with that crap.
Yes, its not their fault the system is the way it is and thus its not completely their fault that they think the way they do.
Nor is it their fault that they are as lonely as they are, or as greedy as they are. It's natural for this to happen. It's lonely at the top.
Do we not want our beloved sports to be played in a fair manner? Why wouldn't we? Of course everyone wants things to be fair. So don't try to pretend that you don't either. We all know life isn't fair, but we all also want it to be.
As far as non-financial related inheritances are concerned... why mess with them? They are natural and that is the goal in my mind. That is, create a society that is as natural as possible, but with as little bloodshed and suffering as possible. I suppose you could call it a less gruesome version of nature. Does that clear things up in terms of why we ought not to fixate on natural inheritances?
Not at all, so long as that financial ability was given to that child's peers
I did? Where? Perhaps I worded it wrong? This is the tricky part.... there still needs to be competition right? Or at least that is what I believe, unless we can come up with some other, equally potent motivator. So, schools could still compete, but admission schools could be decided not by finances, but by parents choice and the child's ability to perform at that school's level.
I don't believe I said that they couldn't pay for others to teach their children things... I just said the money spend would have to be equal to their peers
Why does that necessarily make them victims?
How do you know (or demonstrate) this is true in general?
Sports are played fair even though it is acknowledged some players are simply better than others. It's fair if fouls are called fairly and rules are enforced evenly. It's not fair to tie Lebron James' shoelaces together just because Mike Bibby is guarding him this play, or because he's been performing too well lately.
Fairness is equal enforcement of laws, not government redistribution of resources.
It didn't need clearing up because I wasn't actually proposing that. I was asking why we are fixating on financial inheritance as a means of inhibiting parents from trying to set their children up for success, when that is only one of many many types of ways parents naturally try to do that.
Father A is a derivatives trader who at one point was worth $30 million but, through a series of bad investments, loses most of it, squanders the rest, and leaves his son with a childhood history of emotional abuse and neglect, a proclivity toward alcoholism, and $2.3 million in inheritance.
Father B makes a very modest salary over the course of his career, teaches his child many valuable skills, gives him plenty of attention, engages him in productive tasks and fosters critical thinking abilities and cultivates a desire to learn, but Father B spends all of his money in end-of-life care, leaving his son with $0.00 of inheritance.
Who really is given the unfair advantage? Why are you so bothered about people inheriting money?
You're not making any sense. I asked why parents couldn't pay people to teach things to their children. It has nothing to do with "giving financial ability" to others.
You haven't really thought this through. 1) If parents with money can pay qualified others to teach their children, those children are going to tend to be more competitive to have their pick of the best schools.
2) If funding is equal, what are schools really competing for?
3) If the smartest kids can go to the "best" schools, how is it fair to those who are left to go to the worst?
Your idea isn't making any sense.
In no way is this idea enforceable.
They are victims because of any irrational, unrealistic and unethical thinking etc. they may develop.
For confidentiality reasons, I cannot share details, but trust me, its not all its cracked up to be at the top and one is always trying to find ways to fill the emptiness, usually with money. Of course this is not the case with everyone, but many suffer from this.
How does the above statement involving Lebron James etc. have anything to do with the following statement? When did we start talking about doing anything to natural inheritances? I believe that is the connection you are trying to make?
Again, that does not make them victims, and who says they developed any such cognition?
Claims like this beg citation.
You brought up sports, and fairness in sports is about even application of rules, not making sure each team is equally good at the sport before the game starts.
We started talking about non-financial inheritance because I suspected you would recognize that it doesn't make sense to try to undermine people who inherit non-financial advantages from their parents.
Unfortunately you're still fixated on undermining financial advantages some parents give to their children. If you don't want some kids to have an advantage over others, why fixate on only the cash advantages?
LMAO - you sound scared :lamo
But in all seriousness, there is nothing to be scared about. This would actually produce a better society, with better citizens; why wouldn't you want that?
No one is demanding anything; instead, simply allowing the natural order of things to present itself again
I voted for option A.
It basically says that USA is leading superpower, votes are leaned towards the rich that mostly contribute with taxes, and limits access to education and access to healthcare to the ones that have not. Basically to hell with the people as long as the rich stay rich and USA is no 1 (how this can stand in itself is a question, but moving on).
Now I am not saying that I voted for this because the advantages outweigh the disadvantages because I am not an American (thereby the disadvantages do not strike me, I continue having access to healthcare and education, while you do not). What I am saying is that the disadvantages could be mitigated for Americans could find free access to healthcare and especially education here in Europe instead.
I hear that public university in Deutchland is free and some Americans study there. This while if they had chosen to study in Suomiland they would pay Americans to study there instead. Thus you would have the best of both worlds and what is best the two USA & EU would get to commune more with its people.
Ah, no. That is, in fact, rather the opposite of what you are seeking here. The natural order of things is for competition to create winners and losers, and for winners to pass on advantage to their offspring. You are trying to mitigate or obviate the "natural order of things".
So just to verify, you chose the following course for the USA?
Option A:
Being number one in the world economy.
Increasing the current disadvantage of those born into poor families.
No free access to healthcare.
No free access to any level of education.
No food and shelter safety nets.
Being number one in military power.
Voting power is decided by the level of monetary contributions in taxes.
Why so? Why do you think it is so beneficial for the US for it to be the #1 economy and military power over all other concerns?
How would that work? Then they wouldn't be Americans anymore, lol. They'd be Europeans... right?
Seriously! They pay for this! You've gotta send me a link or something.
But again it seems like you are advocating for American citizens to move to Europe. Why is that?
If you read my previous posts you'd understand. I am all for winners and losers.
In fact I have used the analogy of a race where all racers start from the same starting line and when the race is over, we have winners, runners up, losers etc. Competition is a great and natural phenomenon, a great motivator and a great pathway to creativity and progress.
When I refer to natural versus unnatural, I am referring to the innate versus the material. I'll have to did up the full explanation from an older post, but essentially, monetary inheritance is an unnatural inheritance/advantage, while non-monetary innate (biology) and familial (parenting) inheritance is a natural inheritance.
This way, we can observe and enjoy the unfolding life events that are unadulterated by would be disproportionate unnatural inheritance that would place each child at a different life race starting point. This would fix many problems that wouldn't naturally occur if it weren't for the artificiality of money. For a full explanation of the artificiality of money, especially the way in which it artificially creates wealth, that is unnatural in nature, I can dig a more thorough explanation out of some of my posts.
It seems not, as you wish to constantly restart the race under the theory that some are winning too much.
On the contrary, there is no particular distinction between monetary inheritance and other forms of inheritance (such as what you seem to call "familial").
One is not any less natural than the other
the desire to start over and remake the human race anew is a failed fantasy of bloody ideologies precisely because it so poorly correlates to the natural order of things.
We are discussing (ultimately) the passing on of the fruits of production. Whether done so in the form of M1, a farm, education, personal attention from the parent as a child during time not devoted to labor it is all that which we (naturally) pass on to our children to give them the greatest advantage possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?