Welfare, poor traps, corporate taxes are all methods with the goal be equanimity of monetary success for individuals or it's reverse (subjugation of the poor). I'd rather not get into the viability of methods without first identifying the goal and defining it better.
@Anomalocaris - well the American dream used to be a chicken in every pot, or everyone has an opportunity to make a millionaire of themselves; neither of which seem to have come to fruition and don't seem to be going to. A lot of push (societally) now is about equanimity of opportunity and treating people evenly and fairly with a heavy sense of retributory justice. I believe the numbers prove that that doesn't serve the cause of equanimity of outcome. I'm not sure it's even a step in the right direction, but it's a step. I'm not sure the current trend in stratus of classifications that identify us separately (black, white, rich, poor, fat, skinny, woman, man, etc.) seem to be helpful goals either. I would think that competence would be a good goal for a meritocracy with a finer definition of something like "Are you smart (IQ) and compassionate enough (EQ) to effectively run your self/business/social circle to the betterment of yourself and as many others as you can reach". Possibly redefining power might help. What if power wasn't "the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events (due to wealth or whatever)" but more like " The greatest just sociological influence to co-opt, unify and attract support on your own merit".
Just to clarify, I don't really see societal power as a zero sum game nor do I believe in might makes right as a blanket. I grant that people would have to change. Change their understanding, opinions, drives, etc. but that none of it should ever be forced and I think is a natural evolution. IDK though, I should be busier at work, I'll catch up later. Thanks for engaging.
@Anomalocaris - well the American dream used to be a chicken in every pot, or everyone has an opportunity to make a millionaire of themselves; neither of which seem to have come to fruition and don't seem to be going to. A lot of push (societally) now is about equanimity of opportunity and treating people evenly and fairly with a heavy sense of retributory justice. I believe the numbers prove that that doesn't serve the cause of equanimity of outcome. I'm not sure it's even a step in the right direction, but it's a step. I'm not sure the current trend in stratus of classifications that identify us separately (black, white, rich, poor, fat, skinny, woman, man, etc.) seem to be helpful goals either. I would think that competence would be a good goal for a meritocracy with a finer definition of something like "Are you smart (IQ) and compassionate enough (EQ) to effectively run your self/business/social circle to the betterment of yourself and as many others as you can reach". Possibly redefining power might help. What if power wasn't "the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events (due to wealth or whatever)" but more like " The greatest just sociological influence to co-opt, unify and attract support on your own merit".
Just to clarify, I don't really see societal power as a zero sum game nor do I believe in might makes right as a blanket. I grant that people would have to change. Change their understanding, opinions, drives, etc. but that none of it should ever be forced and I think is a natural evolution. IDK though, I should be busier at work, I'll catch up later. Thanks for engaging.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
