[Fanatic]

You guys might have read this story before, but I found it pretty funny:

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and had grown to be in strong favor of redistributing all the wealth in America.

She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked. "How is your friend Mary." She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she had is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for class because she is too hung over."


Her father then asked his daughter, " Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0" He continued, " That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter visibly shocked by the father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican
party."..........

[voodoo]

No.

[eklipse]

.......Then the girl went to a diner to consider her plight. There she met a young waiter. She told him about her discussion with her dad. The young waiter said that he, too worked very hard in school and carried a 4.0 GPA, but he was smart and not an all-star athlete, so he could not get a scholarship. His inner city school was so under funded that most universities would pay no attention to GPA. They assume that regardless of grade average, students there could never make it in a "real school". He had to share books, did not have a computer, and was typically in a classroom with 60 or more other kids. So, because he could not afford college on his own, he was forced to go to work to help support his family. You see, his mother was injured at work. She couldn't afford insurance on her minimum wage salary, and accumulated a large hospital debt. She can't afford the prescriptions, and is forced to choose between buying food or buying medicine. She can no longer work, so her employer promptly fired her. Since she can't afford an attorney, the big corporation will not be held responsible for their negligence that caused her injuries or for her wrongful dismissal.

The young girl said, "That's not fair, you work hard but never get a break !" to which the young waiter replied, welcome back to the Democratic Party.

[gadster]

You forgot to mention that Mary was just looking to marry a rich doctor.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by eklipse:
.......Then the girl went to a diner to consider her plight. There she met a young waiter. She told him about her discussion with her dad. The young waiter said that he, too worked very hard in school and carried a 4.0 GPA, but he was smart and not an all-star athlete, so he could not get a scholarship. His inner city school was so under funded that most universities would pay no attention to GPA. They assume that regardless of grade average, students there could never make it in a "real school". He had to share books, did not have a computer, and was typically in a classroom with 60 or more other kids. So, because he could not afford college on his own, he was forced to go to work to help support his family. You see, his mother was injured at work. She couldn't afford insurance on her minimum wage salary, and accumulated a large hospital debt. She can't afford the prescriptions, and is forced to choose between buying food or buying medicine. She can no longer work, so her employer promptly fired her. Since she can't afford an attorney, the big corporation will not be held responsible for their negligence that caused her injuries or for her wrongful dismissal.

The young girl said, "That's not fair, you work hard but never get a break !" to which the young waiter replied, welcome back to the Democratic Party.

LOL! Obviously, the waiter wasn't a minority. You also forgot to mention how the mother didn't look for new work because her unemployment "benefits" were too good to give up.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
LOL! Obviously, the waiter wasn't a minority. You also forgot to mention how the mother didn't look for new work because her unemployment "benefits" were too good to give up.

Because bad things never happen to minorities.

[vmarks]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by eklipse:
....... His inner city school was so under funded that most universities would pay no attention to GPA. They assume that regardless of grade average, students there could never make it in a "real school".



Bzzzt... ACT/SAT and GPA are the biggest indicators, followed by extracurricular activities. The so-called 'real-school' comment is the among the last things to be considered simply because how the schools are measured varies so wildly, and this blows any credibility for the rest of the parable. -- Nice try, tho. Go hone those skills and give it another go. --

iWrite paid for her own college. My mother paid for her own college, working fast food jobs, back in the day when they actually had to car-hop, take the food to the passenger window on roller-skates.

Ask any guidance counselor- there is always a school for everyone who wants it. Be it a lower GPA, poor test scores, or lack of funds, there are schools. Go for a semester to a year and transfer. A student shouldn't stop applying for scholarships and shouldn't stop working on bettering himself and earning the tuition just because he's been accepted.

But if you really think you deserve a break in life, go knock on your neighbor's doors and ask for their money, in whatever percentage you believe they owe you. Make sure that they understand that it isn't charity or a donation, that you're just collecting on what they owe. If they say they don't have it, tell them you'll just take their car or house and sell it to make up for it.

That's what redistribution of wealth is, forcibly taking money from a person who has earned it and giving it to another who believes he's owed it without having earned it. Sure, you can dress it up really nicely by placing a tax collector in the middle, but if you really believe that's the right way to address a social problem -- by taking people's property -- why is it correct with the middleman and incorrect when you do it on your own?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
That's what redistribution of wealth is, forcibly taking money from a person who has earned it and giving it to another who believes he's owed it without having earned it. Sure, you can dress it up really nicely by placing a tax collector in the middle, but if you really believe that's the right way to address a social problem -- by taking people's property -- why is it correct with the middleman and incorrect when you do it on your own?

You're assuming that every less well off person is in such a situation through no fault but his/her own. Some people are not given the opportunity to succeed to begin with, which is why you end up with such a gap between the rich and poor.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Because bad things never happen to minorities.

No... because minorities with 2.0 GPAs from inner city schools get scholarships and gain entrance to college on the grounds of race.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You're assuming that every less well off person is in such a situation through no fault but his/her own. Some people are not given the opportunity to succeed to begin with, which is why you end up with such a gap between the rich and poor.

I say BS. This is an excuse used by/for the lazy. I am a white middle class male. My parents couldn't afford to send me to college. I didn't get a scholarship, although I got a 1200 ON MY sat'S and a 3.5 gpa in high school. I went to a $24,00 per year school, and funded it through school loans and a full time job. I worked 40 hours per week, and I attended school full time. How as I "given" an opportunity?

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by vmarks:
[B

Bzzzt... ACT/SAT and GPA are the biggest indicators, followed by extracurricular activities. The so-called 'real-school' comment is the among the last things to be considered simply because how the schools are measured varies so wildly, and this blows any credibility for the rest of the parable. -- Nice try, tho. Go hone those skills and give it another go. --

iWrite paid for her own college. My mother paid for her own college, working fast food jobs, back in the day when they actually had to car-hop, take the food to the passenger window on roller-skates.

Ask any guidance counselor- there is always a school for everyone who wants it. Be it a lower GPA, poor test scores, or lack of funds, there are schools. Go for a semester to a year and transfer. A student shouldn't stop applying for scholarships and shouldn't stop working on bettering himself and earning the tuition just because he's been accepted.

But if you really think you deserve a break in life, go knock on your neighbor's doors and ask for their money, in whatever percentage you believe they owe you. Make sure that they understand that it isn't charity or a donation, that you're just collecting on what they owe. If they say they don't have it, tell them you'll just take their car or house and sell it to make up for it.

That's what redistribution of wealth is, forcibly taking money from a person who has earned it and giving it to another who believes he's owed it without having earned it. Sure, you can dress it up really nicely by placing a tax collector in the middle, but if you really believe that's the right way to address a social problem -- by taking people's property -- why is it correct with the middleman and incorrect when you do it on your own? [/B]

I agree completely... I wasn't provided any assistance at all... I got what most people have to get: A LOAN and A JOB.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You're assuming that every less well off person is in such a situation through no fault but his/her own. Some people are not given the opportunity to succeed to begin with, which is why you end up with such a gap between the rich and poor.

And that makes it ok to take money away from all those that actually earned it? Not all rich people got there by being lazy and falling into money.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Not all rich people got there by being lazy and falling into money.

Exactly. But then why the assumption that everyone who is less well off is so because they are lazy? I think it's more complex than that. Sure there are lazy people who would prefer to leech off others, but that is not always the case. Likewise there are people that are rich but haven't necessarily earned their wealth but were just given a head start in life.

I'm not saying it is necessarily right to have this 'redistribution of wealth' precisely because there are obviously people out there who have earned their wealth. But it's not right to totally neglect those who are not wealthy through no fault of their own either. There needs to be a middle ground somewhere that satisfies those who earned their wealth and those who have for whatever reason been denied the opportunity to succeed. Additionally it needs to deal with the lazy people from both sides.

[djohnson]

Why is it that most Democrats just want to be given something while most Republicans give more?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

I'm not saying it is necessarily right to have this 'redistribution of wealth' precisely because there are obviously people out there who have earned their wealth.

You have no idea how long I've been waiting to hear those words. Thank you.

But it's not right to totally neglect those who are not wealthy through no fault of their own either.

True, but is Government the only means to address this problem? I say that it is not only NOT the only means for redress, but also that it is the WORST means for redress.

There needs to be a middle ground somewhere that satisfies those who earned their wealth and those who have for whatever reason been denied the opportunity to succeed. Additionally it needs to deal with the lazy people from both sides.

Well, yes and no.
I feel no need whatsoever to satisfy people who feel they are owed someone else's property - because that satisfaction would mean granting them someone else's property.

I do feel the need to make sure everyone has access to siezing opportunity.

Whatever we decide to only has to address the lazy from the poor (I won't mince words with 'less-wealthy or differently-financially-abled') - if we're going to spend money to create a program (the government solution) then let's only address those who need our attention most, don't fix what ain't broke.

The only means of addressing the wealthy lazy that works for me is by making it in their enlightened self-interest to shuck off laziness in order to help their less successful, poorer neighbors outside of the governmental response.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Likewise there are people that are rich but haven't necessarily earned their wealth but were just given a head start in life.

Isn't this the American dream? To bust your ass and make your way so your kids don't have to go through as much hardship? Why should we punish those that inherited money?

We are TAXING the American Dream.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Exactly. But then why the assumption that everyone who is less well off is so because they are lazy? I think it's more complex than that. Sure there are lazy people who would prefer to leech off others, but that is not always the case. Likewise there are people that are rich but haven't necessarily earned their wealth but were just given a head start in life.

I'm not making either assumption. Or at least I hope I'm not. I'm trying not too.

I'm not saying it is necessarily right to have this 'redistribution of wealth' precisely because there are obviously people out there who have earned their wealth. But it's not right to totally neglect those who are not wealthy through no fault of their own either. There needs to be a middle ground somewhere that satisfies those who earned their wealth and those who have for whatever reason been denied the opportunity to succeed. Additionally it needs to deal with the lazy people from both sides.

I very much agree. But how are we going to find that middle ground? Take from the rich who don't deserve it and give to the poor who aren't lazy? The problem with that (well, one of them) is that the rich people who "don't deserve it" generally make their money in the same was as the rich people who "do deserve it". They just didn't work as hard to get there, so any attempt to tax the "undeserving" rich is also going to tax the "deserving" rich. This is the problem with income tax, there's no way to specify who deserves the money they make and who doesn't without getting really intrusive and bureaucratic (and inefficient and expensive). I haven't done enough looking into it, but the fair tax seems to do a pretty good job, or at least better than our current solution.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I very much agree. But how are we going to find that middle ground? Take from the rich who don't deserve it and give to the poor who aren't lazy? The problem with that (well, one of them) is that the rich people who "don't deserve it" generally make their money in the same was as the rich people who "do deserve it". They just didn't work as hard to get there, so any attempt to tax the "undeserving" rich is also going to tax the "deserving" rich. This is the problem with income tax, there's no way to specify who deserves the money they make and who doesn't without getting really intrusive and bureaucratic (and inefficient and expensive). I haven't done enough looking into it, but the fair tax seems to do a pretty good job, or at least better than our current solution.

If you have acquired your money through legal means, how can you not "deserve" it.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Bzzzt... ACT/SAT and GPA are the biggest indicators, followed by extracurricular activities. The so-called 'real-school' comment is the among the last things to be considered simply because how the schools are measured varies so wildly, and this blows any credibility for the rest of the parable. -- Nice try, tho. Go hone those skills and give it another go.

Actually, those words were not mine (hence the italics) - they come from a response made to a posting of the original story on another site: http://www.alternatevoice.com/blog_archives/000127.html

I thought it was an amusing continuation/counterpoint - even if I didn't entirely agree with it.

My own opinions on education systems and wealth distribution differ substantially from both viewpoints.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I feel no need whatsoever to satisfy people who feel they are owed someone else's property - because that satisfaction would mean granting them someone else's property.

I'll hold you to that the next time we wind up discussing Israel/Palestine.

[Ozmodiar]

What's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?

A Democrat blows, a Republican sucks.

-Lewis Black

[Logic]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I'll hold you to that the next time we wind up discussing Israel/Palestine.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
If you have acquired your money through legal means, how can you not "deserve" it.

Well, for starters, one could make the distinction between legal and ethical, but I don't think the internet has the attention span for the kind of debate that would lead to.

Or, at least, I don't have a very large attention span for debates that happen on the internet.

pick one. Or both.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
True, but is Government the only means to address this problem? I say that it is not only NOT the only means for redress, but also that it is the WORST means for redress.

Why the worst? I'm not sure the government is capable of solving such a problem either, it would require no less than a system overhaul. But, at least government can theoretically be held accountable for it's policies. If you hand responsibility to a non-governmental institution you risk creating more problems. In who's interests would such people be acting? and would this not leave an already disadvantaged group of people open to exploitation?

Originally posted by vmarks:
The only means of addressing the wealthy lazy that works for me is by making it in their enlightened self-interest to shuck off laziness in order to help their less successful, poorer neighbors outside of the governmental response.

Yup.

[djohnson]

Here is a good reason why we need more then one party: Communists

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm not making either assumption. Or at least I hope I'm not. I'm trying not too.



I very much agree. But how are we going to find that middle ground? Take from the rich who don't deserve it and give to the poor who aren't lazy? The problem with that (well, one of them) is that the rich people who "don't deserve it" generally make their money in the same was as the rich people who "do deserve it". They just didn't work as hard to get there, so any attempt to tax the "undeserving" rich is also going to tax the "deserving" rich. This is the problem with income tax, there's no way to specify who deserves the money they make and who doesn't without getting really intrusive and bureaucratic (and inefficient and expensive). I haven't done enough looking into it, but the fair tax seems to do a pretty good job, or at least better than our current solution.

I don't really think that the solution lies in taxing the 'undeserving rich' anyway. After all, that does not deal with the root of the problem, neither does the current system of taxing the 'deserving' rich. Instead of taxing others to remedy the poverty problem, why not deal with the poverty problem directly instead of trying to mask it by throwing money at it (which evidently doesn't work anyway)?
That is working toward equality of opportunity so that at the very least, people start from the same position. This doesn't necessarily result in equality of outcome, but the important thing is that everybody starts off with equal opportunity to succeed.

btw I wasn't trying to suggest you were making the assumption, I was just talking generally.

[thunderous_funker]

Difference? Meh.

All I see is a bunch of people who are desperately clinging to myths about their own party loyalties.

Both parties are passionately dedicated to wealth redistribution from public to private hands, expansion of federal government to protect economic elites at the expense of public good and shifting the burden of the social contract squarely on the shoulders of Labor and removing any social contract burden from Capital.

People who still think Democrats give a shyt about the poor or that Republicans really want to shrink government and restore Liberty are entirely delusional.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I'll hold you to that the next time we wind up discussing Israel/Palestine.

And by opening that door, you bring it about right now.

What, you don't like houses being bulldozed as a means of discouraging violence? That's a shame, too- stop the deaths of Israeli children riding the buses and it will cease. Takings in a war, especially a war started by Arafat, do not have to be compensated for, nothing owed.

Oh wait, you mean you don't like the notion of a fence being put up to stop violent killers from coming in so that there's no more need for bulldozing, surgical strikes, or anything else for that matter - stop the murder of University students, Israeli, American, Muslim and Jew and Christian alike, and it will cease.

Oh, no, what you really meant is that you don't like the notion of Israel withdrawing from any contested territory in an attempt to bring peace.

Oh, what you REALLY meant was that you believe Israel is a colonial state on Palestinian land. Sorry, that's incorrect.

http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm#part4

Oh, you mean Israel owes Palestinians a country? Sorry, that's tantamount to suicide until Palestinians and their leaders get on board with peace. Oh, you think that happened with Oslo?

"But What About Today? Have The Palestinian Leaders Changed Their Stripes?

Recently, as a result of the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, there has been yet another organizational reincarnation.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin sent Yasser Arafat a letter dated September 9, 1993 in which he stated that, as a result of the Oslo negotiations, “the Government of Israel has decided to recognize the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.” [25]

It was therefore the PLO (essentially Fatah) that went on to form the Palestinian Authority (PA).

The argument one hears in the media is that the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process turned the PLO into doves, but that Israeli crackdowns have led them to support terrorism again.

However, at least when they speak in Arabic to Arab audiences, leaders of the PLO and the PA will have nothing to do with this official story. On such occasions they describe the Oslo accords as a ploy, a “Trojan Horse” to destroy Israel in stages. [26]

For example, as reported in the Baltimore Sun: [27]

[Start Baltimore Sun Quote]

“…Faisal Husseini, the top PLO official in Jerusalem…[was] quoted as likening the Oslo accords to a ‘Trojan horse.’…the weekly Al-Arabi, quotes Husseini as calling the Oslo accords ‘just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…the liberation of all historical Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.’ [28]


Sharif Husseini, director of international relations at Orient House, Faisal Husseini’s base in Jerusalem, says his relative was quoted out of context.”


[End Baltimore Sun Quote]



Notice that Sharif Husseini is not denying that Faisal Husseini said these things. Instead he is saying that he was quoted out of context.


I cannot imagine a context in which Faisal Husseini’s words would mean something other than what they literally say, and they are entirely in keeping with who Faisal Husseini *really* was. [29]


Perhaps Sharif Husseini actually meant to say that what a Palestinian official says in Arabic to fellow Arabs is the wrong context for members of a Western audience - for them, an entirely different set of statements must be prepared. [30]

Do you agree with Faisal Husseini's words?

Israel didn't create the refugee problem (which has been exaggerated by people hoping to take advantage of it and exacerbated by the UN which prolongs it) - because Arab states using 'refugees' as political football serves their purposes in attacking Israel much more. But then, we've heard you allude to your displeasure with 'Arab Leaders', but never really heard you elaborate on that displeasure.

I know my displeasure with them- they hold the lion's share of the blame for the predicament that the people they claim to represent labor under- from the responsibility they hold for the refugee problem, to their abject denial of life and property rights of their people, when they made an open practice of executing any Palestinian who dared to sell land to a Jew of their own free will (http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/vilkelis.htm) - only so that they could prevent anyone else from profiting besides them.

So tell me, tell us all, what are your answers: Do you agree with Faisal Husseini, with eliminating the state of Israel? What are your true feelings about Arab Leaders? Do you believe they are holding back the Palestinians? To whom and what do you think is owed?

Don't hold back, so far all we really know of you from all this time of back and forth is, you think Israel can do no right, regardless of the wrong Palestinians may do. Correct that impression!

[vmarks]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't really think that the solution lies in taxing the 'undeserving rich' anyway. After all, that does not deal with the root of the problem, neither does the current system of taxing the 'deserving' rich. Instead of taxing others to remedy the poverty problem, why not deal with the poverty problem directly instead of trying to mask it by throwing money at it (which evidently doesn't work anyway)?
That is working toward equality of opportunity so that at the very least, people start from the same position. This doesn't necessarily result in equality of outcome, but the important thing is that everybody starts off with equal opportunity to succeed.

btw I wasn't trying to suggest you were making the assumption, I was just talking generally.

You know, we're agreeing more frequently than we're disagreeing. Are you sure that you checked out alright after the vehicular incident?

I don't know that you can set up everyone starting from the same position without inequitably taking from people in order to bring them down to the same level- or if you intend to build up from the bottom, that you end up having to take from somewhere or someone to do so.

What I wonder about is making it in the interest of those already wealthy to job train for openings, which is in the interest of those willing to work and train to better their finances. I also believe in teaching personal finance and investment for ALL people, because it truly is possible to earn at the bottom end of the economic scale and build up investments, when you aren't spending on luxury and aren't falling for plans that enrich the brokers more than the investments.

Education is at the root of both of those.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Difference? Meh.

All I see is a bunch of people who are desperately clinging to myths about their own party loyalties.

Both parties are passionately dedicated to wealth redistribution from public to private hands, expansion of federal government to protect economic elites at the expense of public good and shifting the burden of the social contract squarely on the shoulders of Labor and removing any social contract burden from Capital.

People who still think Democrats give a shyt about the poor or that Republicans really want to shrink government and restore Liberty are entirely delusional.

And interestingly, members of both parties see the other as clearly as you do- just oftentimes fail to recognize themselves in that description. The Medicare bill was such an example.

But then, I believe Libertarians are dedicated to shrinking government and restoring Liberty, while it seems to me that by policy at least, folks like Nader have it in for the poor as badly as any Dem or Republican does, maybe worse.

May I suggest you read any selection from http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm ?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I don't really think that the solution lies in taxing the 'undeserving rich' anyway. After all, that does not deal with the root of the problem, neither does the current system of taxing the 'deserving' rich. Instead of taxing others to remedy the poverty problem, why not deal with the poverty problem directly instead of trying to mask it by throwing money at it (which evidently doesn't work anyway)?
That is working toward equality of opportunity so that at the very least, people start from the same position. This doesn't necessarily result in equality of outcome, but the important thing is that everybody starts off with equal opportunity to succeed.

I think you're right here, and I also agree with vmarks that the key is education. Of course education has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before we can get anywhere on that front.

btw I wasn't trying to suggest you were making the assumption, I was just talking generally.

I didn't really think you were, but I wasn't sure so wanted to clarify.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Of course education has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before we can get anywhere on that front.

Seconded.

Two areas I would start? Personal Finances and Strict Constitutional Law.
Two areas I would enhance? Economics and Mathematics.

And I hated Mathematics when I was in school.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You know, we're agreeing more frequently than we're disagreeing.

Nah, I totally disagree with your post to eklipse

Originally posted by vmarks:
I don't know that you can set up everyone starting from the same position without inequitably taking from people in order to bring them down to the same level- or if you intend to build up from the bottom, that you end up having to take from somewhere or someone to do so.

What I wonder about is making it in the interest of those already wealthy to job train for openings, which is in the interest of those willing to work and train to better their finances. I also believe in teaching personal finance and investment for ALL people, because it truly is possible to earn at the bottom end of the economic scale and build up investments, when you aren't spending on luxury and aren't falling for plans that enrich the brokers more than the investments.

Education is at the root of both of those.

I haven't really reached a conclusion on how to go about it myself. Education is definitely the key - but there is also an institution that needs to be reformed itself. For example when I was at high school, in subjects such as science and math we were placed in groups according to ability. Notably, those in the 'top sets' were taught by the heads of department - the teachers with the most expertise or the 'better' teachers. This was immediately separating the 'best' from the 'worst'. Additionally, each set below the 'top set' would not be able to achieve a grade A, even if you scored 100%. That is not equality of opportunity. That is paying specific attention to the more able students - which although in itself is not a bad thing - it was at the expense of the 'less able' students who were denied the opportunity to achieve a top grade. The implications of such a system I think is obvious and is partly why the gap is created.

Though the solution to the wider problem probably does lie in education, the educational system itself needs reforming first.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Of course education has a lot of problems that need to be fixed before we can get anywhere on that front.

Yep!

[finboy]

Originally posted by vmarks:

That's what redistribution of wealth is, forcibly taking money from a person who has earned it and giving it to another who believes he's owed it without having earned it. Sure, you can dress it up really nicely by placing a tax collector in the middle, but if you really believe that's the right way to address a social problem -- by taking people's property -- why is it correct with the middleman and incorrect when you do it on your own?

You are my hero.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And by opening that door, you bring it about right now.

What, you don't like houses being bulldozed as a means of discouraging violence? That's a shame, too- stop the deaths of Israeli children riding the buses and it will cease. Takings in a war, especially a war started by Arafat, do not have to be compensated for, nothing owed.

Oh wait, you mean you don't like the notion of a fence being put up to stop violent killers from coming in so that there's no more need for bulldozing, surgical strikes, or anything else for that matter - stop the murder of University students, Israeli, American, Muslim and Jew and Christian alike, and it will cease.

Oh, no, what you really meant is that you don't like the notion of Israel withdrawing from any contested territory in an attempt to bring peace.

Oh, what you REALLY meant was that you believe Israel is a colonial state on Palestinian land. Sorry, that's incorrect.

http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/Israel.htm#part4

Oh, you mean Israel owes Palestinians a country? Sorry, that's tantamount to suicide until Palestinians and their leaders get on board with peace. Oh, you think that happened with Oslo?

Sorry to interrupt your amusing little conversation with yourself, but, what I really, really, really, REALLY meant was that the Zionists believed that Palestinian 'property was owed to them' and that they were 'satisfied' by 'granting them the Palestinian's property'. You will no doubt counter that the 'land was purchased fairly and squarely', 'there were no massacres' there was no 'intimidation leading to a mass exodus' - all of which are contestable (and have been contested in the past) - regardless, even if the land was hypothetically bought legally from the absentee owners, does this really give anyone the right to evict an entire population from their homes?

BTW: That link you posted to prove your 'point' is nothing more than load of convoluted nonsense and hate-speech. I would have thought it was below you.

Do you agree with Faisal Husseini's words?

I believe you know my answer to that question.

Israel didn't create the refugee problem (which has been exaggerated by people hoping to take advantage of it and exacerbated by the UN which prolongs it) - because Arab states using 'refugees' as political football serves their purposes in attacking Israel much more. But then, we've heard you allude to your displeasure with 'Arab Leaders', but never really heard you elaborate on that displeasure.

Israel didn't create the refugee problem? - Please.

Perhaps you think they all went for a long walk and got lost?

The Israelis and the Arabs share a common 'kitchen' - Israel purposely 'broke some eggs' in that 'kitchen', your opinion appears to be that it is the Arabs who should take responsibility for the mess that was created - which is, quite frankly, bizarre. Regardless, someone has to clean up the mess before the 'eggs' 'go bad' - both Arabs and Israelis want to continue to use the 'kitchen', so the responsibility lies with both of them to clean up the mess. And no, building a wall around the 'broken eggs' does not get rid of the mess and firing rockets at the 'broken eggs' does not clean up the mess - in fact it has the tendency to create an even bigger mess and break even more 'eggs' in the process. (At the risk of stretching the analogy, 'eggs' that 'break themselves' of their own volition are also unhelpful in cleaning up the mess.)

I know my displeasure with them- they hold the lion's share of the blame for the predicament that the people they claim to represent labor under- from the responsibility they hold for the refugee problem, to their abject denial of life and property rights of their people, when they made an open practice of executing any Palestinian who dared to sell land to a Jew of their own free will (http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/vilkelis.htm) - only so that they could prevent anyone else from profiting besides them.

So tell me, tell us all, what are your answers: Do you agree with Faisal Husseini, with eliminating the state of Israel? What are your true feelings about Arab Leaders? Do you believe they are holding back the Palestinians? To whom and what do you think is owed?

Don't hold back, so far all we really know of you from all this time of back and forth is, you think Israel can do no right, regardless of the wrong Palestinians may do. Correct that impression!

There are no Arab 'leaders' in the true sense of the word - there are only puppets and chess players who use Palestinians as pawns. This is one factor 'holding the Palestinians back' - another is Israel's constant aggression and provocation tactics.

'What I think is owed' is simple: peace. For both sides. In the present day scenario I tend to hold the Palestinian and Israeli governments equally responsible for the lack of peace. The further you wish to look back at the history of the situation, the further my sympathies tend to shift towards the Palestinian side. This appears to be different from your 'the Palestinians are, have been and always will be, wrong - and Israel is, always has been and always will be, right' attitude.

I can never recall you criticizing Israeli policy with regards to the Palestinians - the closest I remember you ever coming, was to say that 'you wished such measures were unnecessary' - before launching headlong into an excessive defense of the measures being employed.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I'm not saying it is necessarily right to have this 'redistribution of wealth' precisely because there are obviously people out there who have earned their wealth. But it's not right to totally neglect those who are not wealthy through no fault of their own either.

'Right' and 'wrong' have nothing to do with it. Can it be done? And if it cannot be done, then which is the lesser evil: to neglect those who have fallen on hard times, or to drag everyone else down into hard times?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Millennium:
'Right' and 'wrong' have nothing to do with it. Can it be done? And if it cannot be done, then which is the lesser evil: to neglect those who have fallen on hard times, or to drag everyone else down into hard times?

Why couldn't it be done?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Millennium:
'Right' and 'wrong' have nothing to do with it. Can it be done? And if it cannot be done, then which is the lesser evil: to neglect those who have fallen on hard times, or to drag everyone else down into hard times?

Absolutely it can be done. It's a problem that has to be remedied if we are going to improve the status of society as a whole. It's a complex problem no doubt, but there is always a solution.
I don't see why it can't be done. None of those situations you suggest are acceptable, IMO.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Why couldn't it be done?

It hasn't worked yet, not in the 50-plus years of modern welfare systems, nor the 75-plus years of its immediate predecessors, nor the untold millennia of non-governmental attempts. We are no closer to eliminating so-called 'social injustice' than we have ever been. Not even our greatest advances in science, technology, agriculture, or any other field has brought us any closer as a species to the end goal of making everyone happy. It's not a case of "we haven't solved the problem completely in a short amount of time so it's not worth it". We haven't even made significant progress towards that goal. If anything, we've only gotten worse.

I understand that people's hearts are in the right place when they suggest this stuff, but for most I can't help but wonder: have they really thought this through to its conclusions? Do they really think it can work, when thus far it seems the only way to point people in the directions the liberals want to take is to force them to go that way? And if the only way is force, then is that really a good thing?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Bzzzt... ACT/SAT and GPA are the biggest indicators, followed by extracurricular activities. The so-called 'real-school' comment is the among the last things to be considered simply because how the schools are measured varies so wildly, and this blows any credibility for the rest of the parable. -- Nice try, tho. Go hone those skills and give it another go. --

Hmm...

How many inner city schools have "extracurricular activities"?

Most colleges I know of, don't take "surviving the walk home without being shot or mugged" as an activity (actually met someone who wrote that on his, since he lived in Camden NJ, a terrible neightborhood).

Most colleges I know use a computerized point system to calculate admissions. Simply input ACT/SAT, GPA (and school weight), a few survey questions from the application (mainly financial)... and add bonus points for extracurricular activities. Then calculate.

Take the top X (x defined as open seats for incoming), and you have your admissions.

Different standards for fine arts, since you often have to audition, interview, show portfolio, etc.


Admissions is mainly based on your SAT scores, and how likely you are to pay for college on your own (less likely to get late payments, which is lost interest they make on investments).

College is a non-profit business. It's goal is to grow. That's all it's there for.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Absolutely it can be done. It's a problem that has to be remedied if we are going to improve the status of society as a whole. It's a complex problem no doubt, but there is always a solution.

You have a lot of faith in this, I see. Why is it that you believe it can be done, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary?

I don't see why it can't be done. None of those situations you suggest are acceptable, IMO.

I didn't propose any solutions, only the two conclusions of every situation that has thus far been put forth: screw the poor, or screw everyone.

So far, the only way any socialist system has ever been able to sustain itself was the use of force, legal or military. And that is, to some extent, inherent in the nature of socialism: it only works if everyone is a socialist, and due to the individual nature of humans, that philosophically-homogeneous state is guaranteed to never occur without external pressure of some kind. But if the only way to achieve that is through force (which, incidentally, violates most definitions of socialism, so you could say that a socialist system is already dead once it has to start doing this), the question has to be put forth: is it really worthwhile? Do people really have to be forced into doing good, or rather, can anything people have to be forced to do actually be good? Who has the right to determine that, and whence do they derive that authority?

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It hasn't worked yet, not in the 50-plus years of modern welfare systems, nor the 75-plus years of its immediate predecessors, nor the untold millennia of non-governmental attempts. We are no closer to eliminating so-called 'social injustice' than we have ever been. Not even our greatest advances in science, technology, agriculture, or any other field has brought us any closer as a species to the end goal of making everyone happy. It's not a case of "we haven't solved the problem completely in a short amount of time so it's not worth it". We haven't even made significant progress towards that goal. If anything, we've only gotten worse.

All that proves is that a viable solution has not yet been discovered - it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist and it doesn't mean one should stop looking.

Since the past millennia have been a resounding failure on wealth-distribution front, perhaps society should make an effort to start over from scratch with a completely different set of assumptions. Throw away the rule book and start again - perhaps civilization will get 'it' right next time.

[BlackGriffen]

Marx was right - the flaw is deeply ingrained into the very basis of the system: property and debt. Marx's problem was that he didn't seem to realize that you can't just abolish property - you have to replace it with something that works better.

Until then, tinkering is the best we can do.

BlackGriffen

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:

I understand that people's hearts are in the right place when they suggest this stuff, but for most I can't help but wonder: have they really thought this through to its conclusions? Do they really think it can work, when thus far it seems the only way to point people in the directions the liberals want to take is to force them to go that way? And if the only way is force, then is that really a good thing?

OMG, you are SO READY for Atlas Shrugged right now.

Golf claps.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:

So far, the only way any socialist system has ever been able to sustain itself was the use of force, legal or military. And that is, to some extent, inherent in the nature of socialism: it only works if everyone is a socialist, and due to the individual nature of humans, that philosophically-homogeneous state is guaranteed to never occur without external pressure of some kind. But if the only way to achieve that is through force (which, incidentally, violates most definitions of socialism, so you could say that a socialist system is already dead once it has to start doing this), the question has to be put forth: is it really worthwhile? Do people really have to be forced into doing good, or rather, can anything people have to be forced to do actually be good? Who has the right to determine that, and whence do they derive that authority?

Never mind my last post. You're already there. You and vmarks are now on my Xmas list.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by finboy:
OMG, you are SO READY for Atlas Shrugged right now.

Golf claps.

Already read it. Can't say I liked it much, though it was better than The Fountainhead.

I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand, if that's what you're thinking. The one worthwhile piece of writing she ever did was Anthem.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by eklipse:
All that proves is that a viable solution has not yet been discovered - it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist and it doesn't mean one should stop looking.

Perhaps, perhaps not. First we should take a long, hard look at what we've done, and see why it's failed. Any system better than the current ones will have to take the failings of the current systems into account.

This is something I don't see a lot of people doing.

Since the past millennia have been a resounding failure on wealth-distribution front, perhaps society should make an effort to start over from scratch with a completely different set of assumptions. Throw away the rule book and start again - perhaps civilization will get 'it' right next time.

That's all well and good, but when you throw away everything, you risk losing everything. You'd better have a plan in mind for what comes after the throwing-away bit.

You want to know what I actually believe about wealth distribution? It comes down to this: we may be in a condition of relative abundance right now, or we may not. Regardless, while the amount of resources can grow over time, at any moment it is always finite. That's just simple physics: conservation of matter and all that.

So, we have a large but finite amount of Stuff. What do we do with it? The sensible answer, of course, would be to use at least some of it in some manner or other. After all, if no one ate food, for example, we would all die. So at least some of this stuff needs to be used.

Given that, the question becomes: how to distribute the stuff? In history, there have been three basic answers: distribute according to merit (with "merit" being defined by different ways in different systems), distribute according to need (Marxism), and distribute equally (socialism).

The easiest one to see problems with is Marxism, and distribution according to need. The problem is, how do you measure need to ensure that the distribution is "fair"? This would be easy, if all people were basically identical; you could simply come up with a big list of various needs that a person might go through, and distribute accordingly. Unfortunately for Marx, humanity is not a hive; we are individuals, with our own needs, hopes, and dreams. This makes coming up with such a table impossible. Without a table, consistency is impossible, and therefore fairness is impossible. And I haven't even begun to mention all the ways the system can be abused.

The next problem is socialism's answer: equal distribution across the board. The question here is, ought everyone to get the same amount; is everyone equally useful to society? Again, the problem comes with the fact that not all people are basically identical: while there is a great deal of merit to equality before the law -so that all people have the opportunity to maximize their potential, in whatever way that potential might manifest- the fact remains that some people are Just Plain More Useful than others. This comes down to little more than talent: some people are more talented than others, or talented in rarer or more difficult fields. Are these people not more useful? Ought that usefulness not be recognized?

This leads to "merit". Unfortunately, it runs into most of the same problems as Marxism: how do you measure merit? Certainly it cannot be done by any central body, as Marxism and socialism both require. Or at least, no central body can be trusted with the task, because the measurement can be so arbitrary.

In short, all three of these systems suck. The only one which even manages to recognize the individual nature of humanity is the system of "merit", and even this one, like the others, doesn't have a manageable system of measurement. Nonetheless, it does have that leg up on the other two. But how best to determine merit, given that a central body isn't workable? It seems to me as though the least sucky way to do this -though it, too, sucks- is to put that decision in the hands of each individual, with the determining factor being what the person does. <i>Do, think, earn.</i> It has its share of problems, but thus far it sucks the least of any systems so far.

But given this, what is the role of a government, if it can't directly decide anything? The role of government, as I see it, is to ensure that the process continues to run smoothly. When a person or business tries to disrupt it -look, for example, at Microsoft's anticompetitive practices- this is where government can be useful, to bring the system back to a balanced state. But to take a direct hand in the redistribution of wealth is not something it can be trusted with. That, too, is best left to individuals. That may lead to deficiencies, sometimes, and that is a great shame. It is better, however, than investing that kind of power in a thing which we know cannot be trusted with it, because that <i>inevitably</i> leads to abuse.

[gadster]

Originally posted by finboy:
Never mind my last post. You're already there. You and vmarks are now on my Xmas list.

So should the government be privatised? Or at least held to productivity targets?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by gadster:
So should the government be privatised? Or at least held to productivity targets?

Privatizing a government is something of an oxymoron.

Holding it to productivity targets, though? It'd be a great idea, except for the problem of measuring productivity. If a way can be found, though, then certainly it should be, just like anything else.