Socialsim is only possible through Coercion, by Paul (old title: Equity v. Equality and Government Policy) (1 Viewer)

[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".

 

[Paul]

So you agree the U,S. is not capitalist.

The USA is based on capitalism sprinkled with social programs to avoid a revolution.

 

[Paul]

That was hardly your original point.....and this point is highly dubious.

I also said that socialism has never worked. I also added that today in 2021 we are living in the most prosperous times in world history.

 

[UriUT]

The USA is based on capitalism sprinkled with social programs to avoid a revolution.

It's sobering to think one that isn't a billionaire, has this mentality.

 

[UriUT]

I also said that socialism has never worked. I also added that today in 2021 we are living in the most prosperous times in world history.

Is it also fair to say that capitalism was on the brink of failure if not for the monopoly buster of the early 1900s and socialist reforms? Even now you simply don't understand that adam smith's central thesis is flawed, and there are plenty of economists that have stated as such.

 

[Paul]

Is it also fair to say that capitalism was on the brink of failure if not for the monopoly buster of the early 1900s and socialist reforms? Even now you simply don't understand that adam smith's central thesis is flawed, and there are plenty of economists that have stated as such.

If you have an economic model that creates more wealth than capitalism I am all ears. Go ahead and tell me.

 

[UriUT]

If you have an economic model that creates more wealth than capitalism I am all ears. Go ahead and tell me.

Do you understand long term consequences? Do you understand the idea of monopolies? Have you heard of the prisoner's dilemma? That there are at times, cooperation is the more prosperous tactic?

Edit, I've seen these arguments from you, and I'm not walking down this rabbit hole. It would help to understand econ 101.

 

[Paul]

Do you understand long term consequences? Do you understand the idea of monopolies? Have you heard of the prisoner's dilemma? That there are at times, cooperation is the more prosperous tactic?

Edit, I've seen these arguments from you, and I'm not walking down this rabbit hole. It would help to understand econ 101.

Yes, cooperation is part of the human condition, we all know that. But, that is no excuse to throw away capitalism. By the way socialism works quite well in small groups where there is kinship and the goals are the same.

 

[UriUT]

Yes, cooperation is part of the human condition, we all know that. But, that is no excuse to throw away capitalism. By the socialism works quite well in small groups where there is kinship and the goals are the same.

Dude! It's not an either or condition. The whole thread has been derailed because you cannot understand that simple concept.

 

[Paul]

Dude! It's not an either or condition. The whole thread has been derailed because you cannot understand that simple concept.

Ok dudette I am all ears. Explain away.

 

[The moose]

The USA is based on capitalism sprinkled with social programs to avoid a revolution.

Is that sprinkle more because capitalism created extreme inequality or a revolution?

You can't possibly think that the major byproduct of capitalism is not just national inequality. It is actually global inequality. It is about keeping the world down for personal gain.

It also is about dealing with countries in the third world and keeping them there.

 

[Paul]

Is that sprinkle more because capitalism created extreme inequality or a revolution?

You can't possibly think that the major byproduct of capitalism is not just national inequality. It is actually global inequality. It is about keeping the world down for personal gain.

It also is about dealing with countries in the third world and keeping them there.

Capitalism does not alter the inequality of humans. If anything capitalism exaggerates the inherent inequalities among humans. Karl Marx was 100% correct in his assessment of capitalism. It is no wonder that in every generation people fall in love with socialism. The message is very compelling and attractive to the masses. Capitalism simply allows the talented to get ahead of the untalented and that creates a wealth gap. Therefore capitalism has to be sprinkled with social programs.

 

[UriUT]

Ok dudette I am all ears. Explain away.

"Sure little Paulie, I'll explain. Do you remember the time when I took you to the circus? You saw those men in those big red shoes and those big red nose? You were so excited when they came out onto the stage. You laughed and had such a good time. Afterwards, you asked if I could get you one of those costumes, and you wouldn't leave me alone. So I did. We went into a nearby shop, and you came out looking amazing. You had the curly green hair, the big red nose, the whole suit, and even those silly big shoes! You really were a clown! Anyway, we walked a little bit further and a shop had a scarecrow on its window. Your face was stuck to the window and you decided that's what you want to dress like instead. After some crying and screaming, I relented so we went into that shop. We stuffed your shirt with straws. We took off your wig and put on a dingy little hat. But right then was...that's when you looked in the mirror and cried. You realized that we were taking your clown suit off. You screamed, "I'm no longer a clown" and sobbed out of control. Well do you remember what I told you then? Even though you didn't have the curly hair, and had straws stuff in you, you still have the big red nose, the big shoes, the clown suit....and so on. You were still a clown! But you also were a scarecrow too! You were so happy.

So you see we are both a capitalist country now and have a little bit of socialist policies. Just like when you were a clown and a scarecrow!"

 

[samiam5211]

Capitalism simply allows the talented to get ahead of the untalented and that creates a wealth gap.

Capitalism simply allows those born into wealth to get ahead of those who are not.

Poor talented people who succeed are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Paul]

Capitalism simply allows those born into wealth to get ahead of those who are not.

Poor talented people who succeed are the exception, not the rule.

Being born into wealth is useful as wealthy people have more opportunities to succeed. Do you have any plans to get rid of that advantage?

How about kids that are born to parents that emphasize academic skills? This kids have a massive advantage over children that are born to crappy parents. How can you get rid of this advantage?

How about children born to a two parent family? They tend to feel better in life when compared to children born to a single mother. What can you do about that?

How about children born to good looking parents? Attractive people tend to have more opportunities to succeed. What do you propose to change that situation?

Obviously there’s no such a thing as equality. What do you propose to make everybody equal?

 

[samiam5211]

Being born into wealth is useful as wealthy people have more opportunities to succeed. Do you have any plans to get rid of that advantage?

How about kids that are born to parents that emphasize academic skills? This kids have a massive advantage over children that are born to crappy parents. How can you get rid of this advantage?

How about children born to a two parent family? They tend to feel better in life when compared to children born to a single mother. What can you do about that?

How about children born to good looking parents? Attractive people tend to have more opportunities to succeed. What do you propose to change that situation?

Obviously there’s no such a thing as equality. What do you propose to make everybody equal?

You were saying that capitalism gives the most talented an advantage. it does not. it gives an advantage to those born into wealth.

The most talented would have an advantage without capitalism.

 

[SystemShock]

It's sobering to think one that isn't a billionaire, has this mentality.

He's one of those poor capitalists who talk a good game. But it is very telling he doesn't know what portfolio weight is.

 

[UriUT]

He's one of those poor capitalists who talk a good game. But it is very telling he doesn't know what portfolio weight is.

Bring up cooperation in economic terms and he gives you this "human condition" stuff. :/

 

[brandon]

Just like when you were a clown and a straw man!"

Fixed it for you.