Religious Liberty?

[bennyboy]

Well, that story sheds a lot of light on your own views; thank you for that.

The problem is that the downtrodden can't really stand up for themselves. Poor people need a Spartacus-- someone who has a foot in both worlds, and who knows how big business and finance works but wants to see it fall. There are a few candidates: Branson, maybe, or ones of Bill Gates' kids or something. At the very least, people from poor backgrounds who end up with worthy degrees from Harvard or whatever.

But unless the wealthy have either a strong positive or negative motivator, why would they change their behavior? Complaining about the environment won't even make their radar. What WOULD get their attention is if Occupy Wall Street involved molitovs and crowbars instead of drum circles. What WOULD get their attention is if Bernie Sanders became president. What WOULD get their attention would be a mass arrest of bankers, and maybe a couple of death sentences for the especially prickish ones.

Unless the poor and downtrodden can generate a legitimate threat to the financial or physical welfare of the rich, it might take a revolution to press the reset button on the society.

[Brian37]

Well, that story sheds a lot of light on your own views; thank you for that.

The problem is that the downtrodden can't really stand up for themselves.  Poor people need a Spartacus-- someone who has a foot in both worlds, and who knows how big business and finance works but wants to see it fall.  There are a few candidates: Branson, maybe, or ones of Bill Gates' kids or something.  At the very least, people from poor backgrounds who end up with worthy degrees from Harvard or whatever.

But unless the wealthy have either a strong positive or negative motivator, why would they change their behavior?  Complaining about the environment won't even make their radar.  What WOULD get their attention is if Occupy Wall Street involved molitovs and crowbars instead of drum circles.  What WOULD get their attention is if Bernie Sanders became president.  What WOULD get their attention would be a mass arrest of bankers, and maybe a couple of death sentences for the especially prickish ones.

Unless the poor and downtrodden can generate a legitimate threat to the financial or physical welfare of the rich, it might take a revolution to press the reset button on the society.

Benny, it seems we were never really that far apart in the first place. I don't think it has to get to the point of a revolution, but I would agree we need to have a bigger push and sustained push like the Occupy movement started. It would be nice to do what Iceland did after the crash, arrest some bankers and bail out the homeowners.

I'd have no doubt if we had a sudden mass worker walk out it would send a message. I think the limited ones we have had are sending a message, but business has a horrible shell game they play long term by throwing crumbs at workers to get them to back off so they can re-group.

I would advise the uber rich in America to stop listening to the likes of the Walmart Family and Kochs and start listening to the likes of Nick Hanauer, and even Bill Gates, who has said leaving some industries to their own devices is hurting our planet. It really cannot continue the way it is going currently, not just in America, but globally. 

"Downtrodden" is such a demeaning term. I don't think you mean it like that, but I'm not an "untouchable" caste system slumdog. Instead of putting like that, just say "low wage" or "no wage". I don't see you as better than me so please don't see me as less than you. We are both human beings.


It is ok to have empathy for those who have less or are hurt by life more. I don't think it is however to use language like that which may be well intended from your point of view, is seen as demeaning to the very people you say you have empathy for.

And as far as motivating the wealthy to do better I'd simply say what Nick did, if you don't want the pitchforks coming after you, then don't let your selfishness or greed be the center of your existence. I don't think rich or poor want it to get to that point.

And again, even without talking about humans, evolution demonstrates why, while inequity will exist, any ecosystem that gets lopsided will become unstable and collapse if nothing is done to counter it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Equality and fairness mean different things to different people. I think of fairness in terms of justice, not wealth, and equality as being treated equality before for the law regardless of class or position. All agree that power and money tip the balance in favor of those with influence and good lawyers. If not for her political prominence Hilllary Clinton would have been in jail long ago and the Kelo decision would have gone the other way, protecting the property rights of regular folks against rich developers. Those abuses are wrong. I don't have the answers.

But others think fairness and equality are about the allocation of resources so that everyone has roughly the same amount of personal wealth. I don't think anyone has come up with a way to do this without using coercive force and curtailing freedoms to undermine property rights. Many, like me, see a clear link between property rights and freedom of conscience.

Liberty does not distinguish between rich and poor. To arbitrarily take away the property rights of anyone, rich or poor, is neither fair nor equal. It seems that "taxing the rich" always results in taxing the middle-classes more. Once in place, the policies of "fairness" used against the "rich" eventually get turned on everyone and we all lose.

[Brian37]

Equality and fairness mean different things to different people. I think of fairness in terms of justice, not wealth, and equality as being treated equality before for the law regardless of class or position. All agree that power and money tip the balance in favor of those with influence and good lawyers. If not for her political prominence Hilllary Clinton would have been in jail long ago and the Kelo decision would have gone the other way, protecting the property rights of regular folks against rich developers. But others think fairness and equality are about the allocation of resources so that everyone has roughly the same amount of personal wealth. I don't think anyone has come up with a way to do this without using coercive force and curtailing freedoms to undermine property rights. Many, like me, see a clear link between property rights and freedom of conscience.

Liberty does not distinguish between rich and poor. To arbitrarily take away the property rights of anyone, rich or poor, is neither fair nor equal. It seems that "taxing the rich" always results in taxing the middle-classes more. Once in place, the policies of "fairness" used against the "rich" eventually get turned on everyone and we all lose.

Nope sorry, this goes way beyond simple point of view. This cuts to evolution itself. The math as we are going by right now, is causing a huge gap, and that gap is like literally stretching a rubber band beyond it's breaking point. 

This is literally ignoring the maintenance of a car engine. Even the smallest part of an engine if ignored can, if ignored too long , long term cause irreversible damage.

[Mr.wizard]

Okay, we all agree, and even some billionaires agree, that the inequality must change.  But who bears the onus of making the change?  The government which is owned by big businesses?  The individual worker, who can barely afford not to work?

Unless these issues can be decided by elections, there's really nobody who can reasonably be expected to bring together what has been torn asunder.

I think workers could force change by unionizing, empowering the workers and giving them a seat at the table legally.

[abaris]

Liberty does not distinguish between rich and poor.

Looks nice on paper. However, if you took the time to reflect, you would notice, poverty definetely takes away one's liberty.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Liberty does not distinguish between rich and poor.

Looks nice on paper. However, if you took the time to reflect, you would notice, poverty definetely takes away one's liberty.

I agree that it limits options.

[bennyboy]

Okay, we all agree, and even some billionaires agree, that the inequality must change.  But who bears the onus of making the change?  The government which is owned by big businesses?  The individual worker, who can barely afford not to work?

Unless these issues can be decided by elections, there's really nobody who can reasonably be expected to bring together what has been torn asunder.

I think workers could force change by unionizing, empowering the workers and giving them a seat at the table legally.

It depends on the industry.  I'd say that electronic factory workers would just fail-- the companies would close plants and send the jobs overseas.  Perhaps America needs a Superunion-- everyone is treated fairly, or NOBODY fucking works.  That would work, in my opinion.

[bennyboy]

"Downtrodden" is such a demeaning term. I don't think you mean it like that, but I'm not an "untouchable" caste system slumdog. Instead of putting like that, just say "low wage" or "no wage". I don't see you as better than me so please don't see me as less than you. We are both human beings.

That word was used deliberately. I'd say a downtrodden group is one which has been so overwhelmed by the power of another that it no longer has the capacity to resist or to overcome. Let me ask you, and I don't mean this to be insult-- what do you have the capacity to do about your situation, and what have you actually done to change the "climate"? Look around, and tell me who are the Spartacuses who will lead the rebellion?

I don't look down at you at all. My parents were working class, and I started my early adult life on welfare. I was perfectly happy, but because it's SO easy to get student loans in Canada, I went to university, got a degree, and fell into a good-paying job in Korea. But I'm stuck in Korea until I retire, because in Canada I'll be just another guy in line for a 7-11 application.

So I don't say you personally are downtrodden-- but the working or jobless in America as a collective seem to have SO little power to change their situation that one wonders how change will come. Collectively, I'd say the poor are downtrodden.

And again, even without talking about humans, evolution demonstrates why, while inequity will exist, any ecosystem that gets lopsided will become unstable and collapse if nothing is done to counter it.

Humanity's problem, ever since the invention of agriculture, has been that small regions can support large populations. Not only that, not all of the population is required for prood production, etc. Bring on the industrial revolution, and now maybe 10% of positions actually do something important in the sense of genetic fitness. The rest are service industries-- 7/11, Starbucks, restaurants, etc. etc., and leech jobs: entertainment agents, stock brokers, big banks, etc.

This is why the working class have no power-- they aren't really needed. And thanks to improved transportation and communication, as well as better-engineered production facilities, they are getting less and less needed.

So we can blame the corporations that take advantage of imbalances around the world, but that's just temporary. In the end, the problem is that there is no political system that can make us any less a victim of our successs, as a species.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Looking back to the 1960's some writers (like B. F. Skinner) used to wonder what people would do with all the free time resulting from industrial production and time-saving appliances. What the hell happened?