Why is the betterment of humanity seen as a bad thing?

[Vyxn]

Which is another bullshit myth, because if you gave the resources to the poorest people, you would directly benefit through higher wages, less taxation, higher property values, higher returns in equities, and stronger communities, so no, the collective benefit cannot be independent of the individual benefit, it's a symbiotic relationship.

wrong wrong wrong

economies grow caused by the creation of wealth not the redistribution of it
dipping water out of one bucket and pouring into another doesn't create more water
taking twenty dollars from a store owner and giving it to one of his customers to spend in the store which that customer does didn't grow that store owners business

[Krigaren]

I earned what I have through my intelligence and my work, not my genitals or my (non-white) skin

It's pretty racist/sexist to assume I have no agency just because of the way I was born by the way

No one is making the claim that you've achieved solely because you have a penis. Just like no one is making the claim that white people achieve solely because they're white. There are plenty of poor white men, and plenty of wealthy women of color. Reducing a claim down to it's most ridiculously simplistic form is idiotic, and it's a distraction from what's actually being discussed.

To always treat overachievers as if they were criminals or unfair inheritors of advantage is to take away human agency and all the inventiveness, dynamism and hard bloody work that has given us human progress and civilisation

Again, no one is treating overachievers as criminals, or that it's "unfair" of them to inherit advantage. That's a bumper-sticker issue that the right uses to avoid - again - what's actually being discussed.

The issue is people who are born to wealth or privilege thinking that everything they have, and everything they've achieved is solely because of their own abilities without recognizing their social and economic advantages. The issue is when those same people go on to make it more difficult for everyone else who wasn't born with those advantages, by demonizing them, marginalizing them, and stripping benefits away from them because they're "undeserving".

The issue is people who think that we're all equal already, and that people who aren't achievers are just lazy, or stupid, while not seeing how much they themselves benefit from society every single day.

[Machismo]

The economy of the future centuries will invariably be influenced by the work of Marx once the true cost accounting of extracting resources out of the Earth and into the atmosphere is included in the price function of goods and services.

- - - Updated - - -



http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-agriculture/

So you don't want more consumer choice? Should of known coming from an authoritarian like yourself.

Forcing labeling is not freedom, it's the opposite. I'm all for consumer choice, but I'm also for the freedom of a business to operate how it likes. You only seem to care about one of those, whcih means you don't give a damn about freedom at all. Authoritarianism is forged through laws. Since I do not support such a law, and you apparently do, which one is the authoritarian?

[Daelak]

wrong wrong wrong

economies grow caused by the creation of wealth not the redistribution of it
dipping water out of one bucket and pouring into another doesn't create more water
taking twenty dollars from a store owner and giving it to one of his customers to spend in the store which that customer does didn't grow that store owners business

This is a historically false premise, the ROI on public infrastructure and services makes private equity returns laughable, and that's the reason, the private market doesn't have the resources nor the appetite for long-term ROI.

[Shadowferal]

Except for the anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO folks, who have a very strong showing in liberal circles.

Anti-GMO...yes.
Anti-Vaxxers...no. (They're typically Christian Conservative)

[Daelak]

Forcing labeling is not freedom, it's the opposite. I'm all for consumer choice, but I'm also for the freedom of a business to operate how it likes. You only seem to care about one of those, whcih means you don't give a damn about freedom at all. Authoritarianism is forged through laws. Since I do not support such a law, and you apparently do, which one is the authoritarian?

So you are in favor of subsidizing business operations through socializing their costs of environmental degradation, lower wages, and outsourcing? You're just another conservative braintrust.

[Shadowferal]

Inflation and raises in income have been steadily widening in the past several decades. Once it becomes too damn wide, it's a safe bet that the country will finally destabilize and then everyone will "eat the rich."

[Machismo]

Anti-GMO...yes.
Anti-Vaxxers...no. (They're typically Christian Conservative)

There has long been a very strong movement among liberals to oppose vaccines. They swear that vaccines cause autism diseases, MS, and a litany of other ailments. On some surveys, up to 60% of anti-vaxxers considered themselves liberal.

[BuckSparkles]

Inflation and raises in income have been steadily widening in the past several decades. Once it becomes too damn wide, it's a safe bet that the country will finally destabilize and then everyone will "eat the rich."

And then after eating the rich, eventually new rich will emerge, and the cycle will begin again.

There will always be poor people and rich people. Fact of life.

[Macaquerie]

No one is making the claim that you've achieved solely because you have a penis. Just like no one is making the claim that white people achieve solely because they're white. There are plenty of poor white men, and plenty of wealthy women of color. Reducing a claim down to it's most ridiculously simplistic form is idiotic, and it's a distraction from what's actually being discussed.



Again, no one is treating overachievers as criminals, or that it's "unfair" of them to inherit advantage. That's a bumper-sticker issue that the right uses to avoid - again - what's actually being discussed.

The issue is people who are born to wealth or privilege thinking that everything they have, and everything they've achieved is solely because of their own abilities without recognizing their social and economic advantages. The issue is when those same people go on to make it more difficult for everyone else who wasn't born with those advantages, by demonizing them, marginalizing them, and stripping benefits away from them because they're "undeserving".

The issue is people who think that we're all equal already, and that people who aren't achievers are just lazy, or stupid, while not seeing how much they themselves benefit from society every single day.

The problem is that people want so badly to be special snowflakes, and live in constant fear that somebody else they consider to be beneath them could replicate and exceed their achievements. Humans have been spending practically our entire history putting up artificial barriers to social mobility, we've put in so many layers of arbitrary hierarchies, rules, and traditions all to ensure that nobody else can follow us up that ladder because one that happens you cease to be special and nobody pays much attention to you anymore.

[Machismo]

So you are in favor of subsidizing business operations through socializing their costs of environmental degradation, lower wages, and outsourcing? You're just another conservative braintrust.

When did I say I would subsidize anything? Nope, try again.

I don't give a damn about outsourcing, that's what capitalism is all about. I also don't give a damn if people earn less than they feel they deserve. They agreed to the job and wage, so that is precisely what they are worth.

[Daelak]

And then after eating the rich, eventually new rich will emerge, and the cycle will begin again.

There will always be poor people and rich people. Fact of life.

Wow, some incredibly deep insights coming from Ohio today.

[Vyxn]

.he issue is when those same people go on to make it more difficult for everyone else who wasn't born with those advantages, by demonizing them, marginalizing them, and stripping benefits away from them because they're "undeserving".

please give an example of what you described because in no way do I se that happening
the vast majority of people are in the position they are in in life is because of their own individual choices they have made, but they don't have the integrity to admit they are personally responsible for their own failures and it is always easier and makes them feel better to blame some non existent boogey man

[Daelak]

When did I say I would subsidize anything? Nope, try again.

I don't give a damn about outsourcing, that's what capitalism is all about. I also don't give a damn if people earn less than they feel they deserve. They agreed to the job and wage, so that is precisely what they are worth.

There will never be a 'society' you are envisioning where businesses can run roughshod through communities of people and there be no government recourse.

[Shadowferal]

And then after eating the rich, eventually new rich will emerge, and the cycle will begin again.

There will always be poor people and rich people. Fact of life.

If history bears out, we'll get another "New Deal" first, and then a period of prosperity for almost a century before the rich fuck it all up.

[Underverse]

Well, Bernie is anti-GMO. He wants to force labeling, which is completely unnecessary.

This is an interesting position to take.

If you're against forcing companies to label GMO products, you demonstrate distrust of the general populace and promotion of a shift in power from individuals to government (information suppression).

If you're for forcing companies to label GMO products, you're promoting the interference of government in free markets.

Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Not sure which I agree with.

[Bodakane]

wrong wrong wrong

economies grow caused by the creation of wealth not the redistribution of it
dipping water out of one bucket and pouring into another doesn't create more water
taking twenty dollars from a store owner and giving it to one of his customers to spend in the store which that customer does didn't grow that store owners business

You have literally no idea how the economy works.

[BuckSparkles]

Wow, some incredibly deep insights coming from Ohio today.

So if we had a 100 people, and gave them all 1 million dollars, what do you think would happen in a year?

Hint: Some would have more, some would have less.

There will always be rich and poor. Elite and non-elite.

[Machismo]

There will never be a 'society' you are envisioning where businesses can run roughshod through communities of people and there be no government recourse.

Once again, did I ever say I wanted that? Nope, try again.

Of course, you've gone from painting me as an authoritarian, to labeling me as an anarchist or corporatist. You're not very good at this, are you?

[Krigaren]

wrong wrong wrong

economies grow caused by the creation of wealth not the redistribution of it
dipping water out of one bucket and pouring into another doesn't create more water
taking twenty dollars from a store owner and giving it to one of his customers to spend in the store which that customer does didn't grow that store owners business

Direct redistribution doesn't work well, though it's not nearly simple as your example.

Everyone paying $5 more in tax per year resulting in a national healthcare system that, on average, saves everyone $100 per year does work pretty well.

Everyone paying $5 more in tax per year resulting in a robust public transit system where people can take the bus or a train every day and spend maybe $1,000 out-of-pocket in fares, as opposed to ~$3,000-5,000 for a car payment, car insurance, oil changes and maintenance, etc.

Which in turn means less cars on the road, and less need for yearly road maintenance and upkeep which saves taxpayers money. Which also in turn means that there's less traffic and congestion that people have to deal with during rush hour, giving people more personal time, less stress, and will increase productivity.

So for, what, $10 more in taxes for everyone, each person can save up to $4,000, which can go directly back into the economy via discretionary spending.

THAT is how "redistribution of wealth" works.