Hmm... It is quite obvious that some work is appreciated more than other work in modern society, and that displeases me obviously as an amateur socialist who seeks equality. But do my personal feelings in any way diminish the logical argument that there is such a thing as the parasitic nature of the rich?
The parasitic nature of the rich is not as great as you make it out to be, at least in Western capitalist societies. First, most of the rich became so due to working. Their wealth is a product of their labor, regardless of what value you place on their labor. Second, their wealth contributes to society. They pay more in taxes. Many contribute to charities. Their wealth drives financial investment. They support people who provide luxury goods.
Like elements in the environment, all people within a society have an appropriate place. Depleted uranium does not fit appropriately when spread haphazardly across the countryside because it then acts as a destructive pollutant when local organisms interact with the substance (absorption, inhalation or ingestion). Likewise, a farmer or servant is not also the most fit artisan, warrior or king, although sentimental populism, in a state of revolt against caste, will argue otherwise. A philosopher will look at the ideas in a society and arrange them in a virtual pyramid, with the broadest at the base being daily methods and their effects, and the highest being the founding principles of that society. The pattern resembles a pyramid because while there are many things at its base, there are just a handful if not a single one at the top. In this process philosophy goes beyond other sciences. Sociology, psychology, science, and most of all, politics, stop somewhere in the middle. They are effective so long as they do not need to rise above their position. When they attempt to become more than what they are, we witness the hilarity of people attempting to regulate cause through effect. http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/pyramid/ Some elements, like unstable isotopes, can arise given the correct conditions. These elements are always destructive in our society-environment and like radioactive particles, constantly afflict a breakdown of the integrity of surrounding structure. What is the problem with Indo-European society? Oh, don't bore me with your socially-acceptable excuses. The problem is too many lower quality people and, out of deference to them, we've given up on evolution. http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/undermen/
the rich pay more tax in america? they pay 35% of their income. anyone with common sense colud see that if you were truly to tax the rich, you would put a tax rate in the high 90%s on any earnings over the average workers wage.
the ease, luxury, and abundance of the highest states of civilization, are as productive to selfishness as the difficulties, privations, and sterilities of the lowest. -colton
Can anyone give me a remotely good reason to click one of Nanonetics links when it has a name like that? First of all, the situation isn't the same, since people who become rich through capitalism usually choose and work towards that goal. By contrast, people don't usually choose their religion/ethnicity. Second, aren't we allowed to criticise people and their choices? If I say 'politicians are parasites', and then somebody else goes on a murdering spree and shoots politicians, is that my fault? I didn't mean they should be killed, I just meant they should get a useful job!
there is only one other poster that posted links to "ass.com" and that is android. coincidence or puppet. hmmm . . .
You seek it? And if so, does that mean that you give away all of the money your make above and beyond your basic needs? Or are you like so many others in the world ..."Do as I say, not as I do."? Personal feelings? In a logical, rational discussion/argument? I thought that was somehow contradictory? And by the way, do you not see a parasitic nature in the poor people of society? ...in the middle classes? Baron Max
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wha? spurious, do you believe that people should be born with equal opportunity, or do you think all people should be equal at the end of their lives, no matter what they have done with it? Because it sounds like you believe in the latter, which is pure evil. And almost everything you say on this issue is complete bunk. Including the gem above. You should crack a few history books and check out the never-ending stream of countries that instituted market reforms and saw their standards of living shoot up immediately. You would also find that socialist systems result in starvation, creulty, corruption, and even greater class differences than capitalism. You are on the wrong side of history, and your ignorance verges on pure evil. I also can't stand the nationalistic hubris you exude regarding Denmark. You love your country above all else, we get that. Those history books would also enlighten you regarding the dangers of such unthinking nationalism. People that belive the things that you do have killed more people, directly, than both world wars. Not sure how you rationalize that, unless of course, you really are oblivious to the history of the last 300 years.
that is not socialism, sockpuppet. the very nature of capitalist society causes this. challenge me on this, i dare you.
all people should have an equal standard of living. that does not make us all faceless drones. a persons success should be measured by their accomplishments, not their wealth. it is pure evil to ensure the wellbeing of your fellow man throughout his life, rather than throwing him to the curb at the end of his childhood? oh yes, how he raves on and on about denmark. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! it would seem to me that you are so caught up in your own beliefs that you refuse to give his posts more than a glance, probably also the reason you believe capitalism is a utopian system. elitistic leaders kill people. it is not limited to socialist leaders. and how many of these so called socialist countries actually had a socialist system? most of the time it is merely a guise of the ruling class to continue opression of the masses. in a true socialist society, elitism would not exist, and neither would the genocidal dictators we both despise.
Again, if you want to give all people an equal standard of living, you are going to have to use force to literally rip it away from those who have it. I am not talking about just the richest few percent, rather everything down to the middle class. Are you willing to do that at gunpoint?
And anyone with any common sense would tell you the earth is flat, we're the center of the universe and acceleration of falling objects depends on weight. All of which evidence has demonstrated the contrary. 90% tax rates is a very high incentive for the rich to evade income tax. 90% tax rate also depresses the economy, slows production, and results in lost jobs, lost revenue and lost support for social programs. Take an econ class sometime.
How else to measure accomplishment than by wealth? If you are well accomplished, you become wealthy. How is socialism any less parasitic? The unemployment rate in France and Germany is high because of minimum wage, benefits, the amount of risk involved in highering new workers, and the fact that people get paid for sitting on their ass, doing nothing, by other people who are doing something. I hear unemployment comp is very nice in Europe. Nice enough to live off of other people working without ever having to do anything yourself.
The two are so deeply intertwined that any discussion of one will inevitably circle back to the other. They are both simply different aspects of the same organism.
were david lange or rod donald wealthy? no, yet they were extremely good leaders, and were widely respected for their success. wealth is a measure of how sucessful you have been in business. success in life is doing things that you enjoy, and making it possible for others to do the same.
Economy class by Edward Wolff (professor of economics at New York University) to Roman. http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
