Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (2 Viewers)

[coldseat]

I thought of posting this in the All Things Racist thread, but ultimately felt it would be better in it's own thread. I ran across this opinion by George Will warning about the creeping danger of equity based government policy pushed by progressives. His overriding point is:

Harlan’s Plessy dissent insisted that the Constitution’s post-Civil War amendments forbid “the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude.” Today, 125 years later, multiplying departures from colorblind government — myriad race-based preferential treatments — are becoming a different but also invidious badge: of permanent incapacity.

Laws or administrative policies adopted for (in the words of today’s chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr.) the “sordid” practice of “divvying us up by race” can be deleterious for the intended beneficiaries. Benefits allocated to a specially protected racial cohort might come to be seen as a badge of inferiority. Such preferences might seem to insinuate that recipients of government-dispensed special privileges cannot thrive without them.

Government spoils systems, racial or otherwise, wound their beneficiaries. Getting used to special dependency, and soon experiencing it as an entitlement, the beneficiaries might come to feel entitled to preferences forever. Hence, progressives working to supplant equality of opportunity with “equity” — race-conscious government allocation of social rewards — are profoundly insulting, and potentially injurious, to African Americans and other favored groups.

Canellos’s stirring biography resoundingly establishes that Harlan was a hero. So, what are those who today are trying to erase the great principle of colorblindness that Harlan championed?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/30/pursuing-equity-over-equality-reveals-nations-moral-regression/

This is a very convincing argument for equality based government policy, one that I used to believe in, but it ignores a lot of realities and history. First, it ignores that centuries of purposeful inequality in government policy have directly led to the economic, social, and community destabilization and destitution that prevented black families for accumulating wealth. And how those purposeful actions have lead to the astonishing difference in the wealth gap between black and white families that has only worsened over time. While conservative will acknowledge this wealth gap and pay lip service to closing it, they fail to admit/consider how equality based public policy (something we've been trying to implement in race neutral government policy since the 60's) has failed to correct the issue and in many case has served to exacerbate it. While race neutral, equality based government policy may be easier for white voters to accept, it fails to address the historic inequalities entrenched by centuries of purposeful government based inequality. John Oliver make this point perfectly in this piece on housing discrimination. It's a 30 minute commitment, but well worth it because he provides a lot of prospective.



My overall point here is that if we you actually care or want to correct the effects centuries has purposeful government inequality, you actually have to target the aid and remediation to the people who where targeted in the inequality (i.e. equity based government policy). Anything else is paying lip service to the problem and asking black people in particular to "just get over it".

 

[V Chip]

The impoverish working class will soon be replaced by AI and robots. Then what?

The middle/working class will be squeezed out long before the impoverished will. It's much more cost-effective from a capitalist standpoint. To their own benefit, though, the upper class is certainly skilled at making the middle class blame the impoverished for the loss of their own status and wealth.

 

[Paul]

The middle/working class will be squeezed out long before the impoverished will. It's much more cost-effective from a capitalist standpoint. To their own benefit, though, the upper class is certainly skilled at making the middle class blame the impoverished for the loss of their own status and wealth.

I don’t know anyone that wakes up everyday looking for poor people so they can oppress them.

The class warfare view is just not there.

 

[Paul]

They want to immigrate here to get some of the wealth that we stole from them back. At the end of the day, all western countries didn't succeed because of capitalism -- we succeeded because we took with force, coercion, predatory practices, and taking advantage of desperation. Pure capitalism/free-market is by its nature predatory and built upon threat of force/harm or preying on the less fortunate/desperate, which is why we will never see a purely free-market country.

The natural state of mankind is poverty.

97% of the population was poor in the 1800s. Conquering poverty is not the natural state of mankind. The wealth of western capitalist nations was created and continues to be created. Today world poverty is much less due to capitalism. This is the most prosperous time in world history. T

 

[RobF]

I don’t know anyone that wakes up everyday looking for poor people so they can oppress them.

The class warfare view is just not there.

That's a great point. I mean, unless class warfare could manifest in ways other than people you personally know actively waking up and looking for poor people to oppress. But surely not?

 

[Paul]

That's a great point. I mean, unless class warfare could manifest in ways other than people you personally know actively waking up and looking for poor people to oppress. But surely not?

Do you admit that humans exist in a gradation of talent and competency?

 

[samiam5211]

Do you admit that humans exist in a gradation of talent and competency?

Do you believe that capitalism rewards the most talented and competent?

Are the best artists the ones who make the most money?

Did the bankers who used credit default swaps to get rich before the crash in 2008 represent the most talented?

 

[RobF]

Do you admit that humans exist in a gradation of talent and competency?

Hard not to, when we see it all around us. For example, here, some people can respond to forum posts with relevant, sourced, information and well thought out insights, while others seem incapable of responding with anything than unsourced assertions, evasiveness, non sequiturs, and the occasional dog whistle implying that the poor or particular minorities (but not the 'good' ones) are poor because of their lack of 'cultural traits', or talent, or competency.

Definite gradation of talent there. But not one that has much to do with class.

So anyway: do you recognise that the notion of class warfare is about more than your personal acquaintances not actively persecuting poor people to your knowledge, or not?

 

[Paul]

Hard not to, when we see it all around us. For example, here, some people can respond to forum posts with relevant, sourced, information and well thought out insights, while others seem incapable of responding with anything than unsourced assertions, evasiveness, non sequiturs, and the occasional dog whistle implying that the poor or particular minorities (but not the 'good' ones) are poor because of their lack of 'cultural traits', or talent, or competency.

Definite gradation of talent there. But not one that has much to do with class.

So anyway: do you recognise that the notion of class warfare is about more than your personal acquaintances not actively persecuting poor people to your knowledge, or not?

Thanks for the condescending remarks and acrimony. That is the worst debate fallacy there is. I guess that works for you.

In any event humans exist in a hierarchy of talent and competency. In every class in school there is smart kid and another kid that is academically at the bottom. Everyone else is in between. The same can be said about running the 100 meter dash, musical talent, or any other human endeavor. Talent and competency is always variable from person to person. This often predicts success or lack of success in life.

Many people in the forum see those on top as oppressors and those at the bottom as victims. This is well ingrained and I can see why many see themselves as victims. The alternative view is much more painful.

 

[Paul]

Do you believe that capitalism rewards the most talented and competent?

Are the best artists the ones who make the most money?

Did the bankers who used credit default swaps to get rich before the crash in 2008 represent the most talented?

There are exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule the creme raises to the top. If you go to Spotify a tiny group pf artists get 99% of the views. The rest of the artists get almost nothing. Only a very tiny fraction of baseball players make it to the major leagues. There are not that many Bill Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc in the world. You need to watch Bill Maher.

 

[samiam5211]

There are exceptions to the rule, but as a general rule the creme raises to the top. If you go to Spotify a tiny group pf artists get 99% of the views. The rest of the artists get almost nothing. Only a very tiny fraction of baseball players make it to the major leagues. There are not that many Bill Gates, Bezos, Musk, etc in the world. You need to watch Bill Maher.

I watch Bill Maher. He has good jokes sometimes.

You should support your opinions with your own words.

The people who succeed in capitalism, are the ones who can make the most money for people who already have money. Occasionally that may be one of the most talented, but most often it isn't.

 

[Paul]

I watch Bill Maher. He has good jokes sometimes.

He is a liberal with common sense, a true rare bird.

You should support your opinions with your own words.

Humans exist in a hierarchy of talent. This is a predictor of success or lack of success in life.

The people who succeed in capitalism, are the ones who can make the most money for people who already have money. Occasionally that may be one of the most talented, but most often it isn't.

Making money is a talent. Pablo Escobar was a a murderer and an evil person, but he knew how to make money. Your point is well taken.

As for making additional money in an honorable manner. I saved for retirement my entire life. Many years later the return on my retirement savings is MUCH higher than at the onset. 10% of a large number is much more than 10% of a tiny number. Once a person accumulates some wealth additional wealth accumulation is much easier. I saved for a lifetime to get here.

 

[samiam5211]

I saved for a lifetime to get here.

It's a shame you weren't more talented like Paris Hilton, you wouldn't have had to save for so long.

 

[Paul]

It's a shame you weren't more talented like Paris Hilton, you wouldn't have had to save for so long.

Paris Hilton had some ancestors that made money and it was passed to her. I do not envy that. I do not think she is an oppressor just because she was born into a wealthy family. Is she privileged? Hell yes! BTW, you are privileged to post here. Most people in Cuba lost the WIFI.

 

[RobF]

Thanks for the condescending remarks and acrimony. That is the worst debate fallacy there is. I guess that works for you.

Mmm. I'd suggest, given your posting habits (and see below), that you should probably be looking in a mirror when you say that.

In any event humans exist in a hierarchy of talent and competency. In every class in school there is smart kid and another kid that is academically at the bottom. Everyone else is in between. The same can be said about running the 100 meter dash, musical talent, or any other human endeavor. Talent and competency is always variable from person to person. This often predicts success or lack of success in life.

Well, that's simplistic. Totally ignores that the recognition of 'talent and competency' is in itself subject to bias, and even where bias isn't present, remains necessarily dependent on the individual having the opportunity to be able to develop and express that 'talent and competency', and still doesn't address the notion of class warfare and whether it's dependent on your personal acquaintances going out and looking for poor people to oppress.

Many people in the forum see those on top as oppressors and those at the bottom as victims. This is well ingrained and I can see why many see themselves as victims. The alternative view is much more painful.

"Condescending remarks are the worst debate fallacy there is!" said Paul, before immediately going on to post yet another condescending remark.

But the question was, do you recognise that the notion of class warfare is about more than your personal acquaintances not actively persecuting poor people to your knowledge, or not?

Perhaps, having made the statement that "the class warfare view is just not there," on that basis, you could address that. Third time's the charm!

 

[samiam5211]

Paris Hilton had some ancestors that made money and it was passed to her. I do not envy that. I do not think she is an oppressor just because she was born into a wealthy family. Is she privileged? Hell yes! BTW, you are privileged to post here. Most people in Cuba lost the WIFI.

So if her Ancestors had been the property of other people, you're saying that she would not be as successful as she is today, right?

So factors entirely outside of her control are primarily responsible for her success. I thought capitalism was merit based?

 

[Paul]

So if her Ancestors had been the property of other people, you're saying that she would not be as successful as she is today, right?

So factors entirely outside of her control are primarily responsible for her success. I thought capitalism was merit based?

How about getting rid of the inheritance laws? Every time a rich person dies the wealth goes to the state. Do you honestly think that will end the inequality? Why do some people constantly measure their economic situation by comparing themselves to billionaires? What is the point? Why do they compare the standard of living of this era to a utopia that does not exist?

Conrad Hilton bought his first hotel in Texas in 1919. His timing was impeccable. The oil boom in the state ensured rooms were fully booked and could sometimes be turned over three times in one day. He went on to build the towering Dallas Hilton in 1925 and followed with three more Hiltons in Texas over the course of the next five years. His empire eventually expanded to become the world's first international hotel chain.

Barron (Conrad's son) died in 2019 and when his will was read, it turned out he had stuck to his promise to leave 97% of his fortune to charity. The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation is focused on disaster relief and recovery, treating children with HIV and AIDS, poverty alleviation, supporting homeless shelters, and more.

Now, Barron is reinforcing his message to Paris and his family from beyond the grave. He was the second-largest philanthropist in America in 2019 with the $2.4 billion he donated to charity.

Barron Hilton Fulfilled His Promise To Not Leave Any Money To Paris Hilton

Barron Hilton Fulfilled His Promise To Not Leave Any Money To Paris Hilton

www.thewealthadvisor.com

97% of the Hilton fortune is going to charity. I would say Barron Hilton was a socialist.

 

[V Chip]

I don’t know anyone that wakes up everyday looking for poor people so they can oppress them.

Something something anecdotal evidence, right?

Do you think nobody at all wakes up thinking how they can take advantage of or get one over on people less fortunate than them? Really?

 

[samiam5211]

How about getting rid of the inheritance laws? Every time a rich person dies the wealth goes to the state. Do you honestly think that will end the inequality? Why do some people constantly measure their economic situation by comparing themselves to billionaires? What is the point? Why do they compare the standard of living of this era to a utopia that does not exist?

Conrad Hilton bought his first hotel in Texas in 1919. His timing was impeccable. The oil boom in the state ensured rooms were fully booked and could sometimes be turned over three times in one day. He went on to build the towering Dallas Hilton in 1925 and followed with three more Hiltons in Texas over the course of the next five years. His empire eventually expanded to become the world's first international hotel chain.

Barron (Conrad's son) died in 2019 and when his will was read, it turned out he had stuck to his promise to leave 97% of his fortune to charity. The Conrad N. Hilton Foundation is focused on disaster relief and recovery, treating children with HIV and AIDS, poverty alleviation, supporting homeless shelters, and more.

Now, Barron is reinforcing his message to Paris and his family from beyond the grave. He was the second-largest philanthropist in America in 2019 with the $2.4 billion he donated to charity.

Barron Hilton Fulfilled His Promise To Not Leave Any Money To Paris Hilton

Barron Hilton Fulfilled His Promise To Not Leave Any Money To Paris Hilton

www.thewealthadvisor.com

97% of the Hilton fortune is going to charity. I would say Barron Hilton was a socialist.

yea, Paris doesn't need Barron's money, because the Hilton name is enough to keep her rich. Got to love meritocracies.