One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.
One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.
Many billionaires are actually quite liberal and very altruistic and giving with their money.
I have noticed that as well. Its like looking at life through a funhouse mirror. However, my thought is to not be jealous, but be loving enough to try and design a system where everyone benefits.
Don't even act like one party gives two ****s more about the middle class than the other. You must be overwhelmingly convinced from words rather than actions.One of the most fascinating things about the conservative movement is that they will tell you not to be "envious" about the billions of the wealthy, but to instead be envious of the thousands of fellow middle class workers. One of the most fascinating things about the middle class is that so many of them let conservatives convince them.
Don't even act like one party gives two ****s more about the middle class than the other. You must be overwhelmingly convinced from words rather than actions.
Not everyone has a boat....Yes, quite. I do think it useless to be "jealous". Of anyone. I guess if I had to choose who to be jealous of first, though, it would certainly not be of unionized workers who thereby have done well for themselves.
I want the rich to get richer, but in the context of a mixed economy, where all boats are lifted together.
Sounds like a good argument for promoting more private sector unions to help combat the destructive growing income inequality in this country.
hmmm.... that's odd; it looks like public sector union area's are especially overrepresented in the sectors of the economy that had large wage gains.... and the other major sector (healthcare) is the one in which government payments dominate....
What we see is that health and education (public and private) accounted for an amazing 75% of real wage and salary gains between 2000 and 2009. The rest of the economy–only 25%.
Sure looks like you were implying it in your last statement.Aside from whether I agree with you or not on the matter of the two parties, did I mention one of them at all?
Sure looks like you were implying it in your last statement.
a shortsighted argument. all private sector unions do is make american business less competitive. all public sector unions do is rape the public
Play that grade school game, I like it too.All I can do is suggest you not assume things.
I have noticed that as well. Its like looking at life through a funhouse mirror. However, my thought is to not be jealous, but be loving enough to try and design a system where everyone benefits.
Do you believe Machiavelli was wrong when he claimed that its better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both, as a ruler?
Do you know why the answer is fear?
His work is considered one of the keystones of MODERN politics.I disagreed with Machiavelli when I read his book in one of my business classes (got an A on the paper too) since the situation is far different today than it was during the age of Monarchy. I think his conclusions were mostly correct for his day and age though.
Every civilized society of note had and has, rules as a foundation. To suggest it's a different subject, when it's the practical foundation, is not reasonable.However, my concern is not how best to rule over a population, but rather how best to have an orderly and civilized society where everyone has a reasonable shot at living. Those things are different subjects.
I must say I find your rebuttal interesting. You yourself, have admitted that you have libertarian leanings, however, the very idea of rule by fear stinks of authoritarianism which is directly opposed to the entire concept of self rule, which is the basis of what we have today.
Sure, there is some interplay between those in government and the people, however, the one thing democracy does is flip those ideas on its head. This is why it is not applicable. Fear of the law is one thing and I agree, it is necessary to have an orderly and prosperous society. However, what Machievelli mostly talks about is the place of rulers, not laws.
Fear, or more broadly, negative consequences, are a component of any practical legal system you or I know of. Be it libertarian, or communist, corportate governance, or a competitive sport.
He was involved in that too. Discourses on Livy was about the structure itself.
...includes early versions of the concept of checks and balances..it became one of the central texts of republicanism.
Enlightenment era Republicanism wiki...One important notion was that of a mixed government. Also central the notion of virtue and the pursuit of the common good being central to good government.
Anyway, I was just curious about whether or not you accepted the fact that to be driven by love, you may also be required to use fear..out of love.
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?