Feeding them is letting nature take its course. We are not separate from nature. If we start feeding bears, then we have not stopped evolution. We have just changed the fitness criteria. Bears that are better at getting food from humans will survive and reproduce more. Probably leading to a whole species of adorably cute polar bears with huge anime eyes.
I realized I hadn't backup up my positions with citations, so here's a reading list for you that might help clear up your obvious misconceptions about the theory of evolution.
Don't just parrot back disproven theories without checking to see if you even understand what you are saying. See if you can understand what scientists are actually saying, rather than what you imagine they are saying.
I'm sorry but saying "You have no clue what the theory of evolution actually says" is not an ad hominem. You actually don't understand, that is a fact you have demonstrated, even in the above post. You are still talking as if evolution had a direction, as if there were a 'better or worse' from and evolutionary/survival stand point. You have a very basic misunderstanding of the theory which pervades everything you say about it. And this false theory you hold is also demonstrably the same theory that fascists have used to justify their sick policies. That is not an ad hominem, it is a simple fact.
Bullshit, all you've done is show you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. We are not 'weakening' our society by helping the weak. We are making our society stronger. If being 'weak' no longer matters, then it no longer matters and we can't even call it weak. We've changed the fitness criteria.
I'm not tweaking evolution, you are. You are trying to make it an excuse not to care about the less fortunate. We are not discussing giving things to those who can not or will not contribute. We are discussing helping the less fortunate so they CAN have the opportunity to contribute, and the fact that we can do that makes our whole species more fit.
As it is, we have a whole class of sociopathic parasites leaching off the hard work of everyone else. Our system is designed to reward those who have no empathy or remorse with positions of power and influence. Your ideology excuses the parasites at the top, who truly do work to exploit others, because they are 'strong' enough to take advantage. It also blames the less fortunate, those at the bottom, by calling them weak, instead of unfortunate and oppressed by the power hungry sociopathic monsters at the top. Your false and unsupported miss-take on the theory of evolution only serves to excuse inhumanity and exploitation.
Mr. Garrison: OK, kids, let's start the day with a few new math problems. What is five times two? Come on children, don't be shy. Just give it your best shot. [Clyde raises his hand] Yes, Clyde?
Clyde: Twelve?
Mr. Garrison: OK. Now let's try to get an answer from someone who's not a complete retard. Anyone? Come on, don't be shy.
Kyle: I think I know the answer, Mr. Garrison.
Cartman: [mocking Kyle in high-pitched, gibberish voice]
Kyle: Shut up, fat boy!
Cartman: Hey, don't call me fat, ya fuckin' Jew!
Mr. Garrison: Eric! Did you just say the F-word?
Cartman: Jew?
Kyle: No, he's talking about "fuck." You can't say "fuck" in school, you fuckin' fat ass!
Mr. Garrison: Kyle!
Cartman: Why the fuck not?
Mr. Garrison: Eric!
Stan: Dude, you just said "fuck" again!
Mr. Garrison: Stanley!
Kenny: [muffled] Fuck.
Mr. Garrison: Kenny!
Cartman: What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody! Fuck, fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck!
Mr. Garrison: How would you like to go see the school counselor?
Cartman: How would you like to suck my balls?
[everyone gasps]
Mr. Garrison: [enraged] What did you say?!
Cartman: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Actually, what I said was: [picks up a megaphone] "How would you like to suck my balls, Mr. Garrison?
[Garrison stands rooted to the spot, frozen with fury]
Stan: Holy shit, dude.
I'd say, success is being self actualized. Success is the freedom to define 'success' in your own terms, and work towards your own goals.
I've read a study on human happiness, where they asked people all over the world, "Are you happy?" and then asked them a bunch of other questions, to see what factors influenced happiness. Turns out there are only three factors. First is having the resources to see to your basic needs. Having more than that won't make you any happier, but not having it will definitely make you unhappy. The next is being a member of a close social group like a tribe or a village. And the final factor is being a part of a religion (which to me is just a special case of factor two.)
The thing is, we could have a society where hard work and determination were both necessary and sufficient conditions for success. Imagine living in a real meritocracy. I'd like that, and not because I think I'm awesome and would do great in a real meritocracy. No, I'm actually kind of lazy. But I have this sense of justice that I can't shut off, and it physically pains me to see the just fail and the unjust succeed. So my reasons for wanting a meritocracy are still selfish, really.
Again, there is no such thing as 'devolution,' as evolution does not have a direction, it can't go backward. You also can't disable selection. All you can do is change the selection criteria. You should really stop listening to Social Darwinists, who have bent the theory of evolution into a twisted funhouse mirror version of the real theory, just to excuse their own sick and selfish ideals.
You have no idea how evolution really works. It is not directed. It does not move from 'less evolved' to 'more evolved.' Fitness criteria change all the time. What is fit today is unfit tomorrow. Cooperation plays more of a role in evolution than competition. By being better cooperators, we are not making our species weaker, we are making it stronger. We are changing the fitness criteria so they don't favor sociopaths, but decent, loving, cooperative individuals. Your false ideas about evolution serve only to excuse your own selfish belief system and do not represent reality.
Evolution is just as much about cooperation as it is competition. Evolution is not simply "kill or be killed." In fact, that simplification is no more than a justification used by social Darwinists to excuse brutality towards the less fortunate. Better cooperators make better survivors. As we have developed culture, we succeed not by letting our elders die, but by keeping them alive to pass on their knowledge.
You seem to think evolution is directed, that it moves form some less good state to some better state. Not true at all. Fitness criteria change all the time. What is fit today may not be tomorrow. If we cooperate better, and make sure everyone has equal opportunities, we are changing the fitness criteria. That will not cause the human race to 'devolve' as that is not even possible. Evolution does not have a direction, it can't go 'backwards.' What will happen, is that evolution will favor cooperation more, and it will favor sociopathic monsters less. That's a good thing, IMHO.
We can not 'interfere' with evolution, as interference comes from outside a system, and there is nothing outside the system of evolution, that we know about. All we can do is change the fitness criteria, which change all the time anyway.
In short, you have an incorrect and dangerous view about what evolution is. It is the exact same view that some of the worst monsters in history have used to excuse some of the worst atrocities ever committed.
Mexico wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the Spanish. (Who had taken it from the Indians.)
The US wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the English.
We can do this all day.
And you'd love it if we did, wouldn't you? Great job hijacking the discussion away from what raving lunatics Texans are being today, and refocusing it on an historically irrelevant distinction. Wow. I am in awe of your propaganda skills.
"Buckaroo Banzai." The reference was "Buckaroo Banzai" but thanks for playing and here's a copy of our home game, "Obscure references for total dorks."
It isn't all about happiness for me. Historically, who do you think has changed society for the better? Was it the people who "played the cards they were dealt?" Or was it the people who blamed society and others, when society and others deserved the blame?
I'd guess, the later. And maybe they weren't so happy during their lives. But they made the lives of many others who came after them, that much better.
Your anecdotes, while certainly interesting, are simply personal stories and not actual useful data. You and I want minorities to succeed. The powers that be don't want them to. It is far too useful for all the different groups to be fighting each other, rather than looking for the true common enemy: the sociopaths at the top. And that is the real issue facing every society: what to do about the sociopaths. And how to do it without also screwing over the regular citizens, or just handing the sociopaths another tool of oppression.
The thing is, one must look at the results of one's beliefs. If a belief leads one to the conclusion that one is good and right and all one's rewards are deserved, while those who fail deserve to fail, well, it is pretty easy not to question the validity of that belief. IT's kind of funny how many widely held beliefs lead to exactly that conclusion, isn't it? It's almost as if people pick their beliefs based on how those beliefs make them feel, rather than any logical validity.
You can't base a system on the exceptions. We've all seen these types of successes. The lie is that they are common, and that anyone with persistence and attitude will necessarily succeed. That is an example of a noble lie, a lie told for a good reason. The reason is, if you come from nothing, that type of attitude is a necessary condition of success. You DO need to believe that and live it to succeed. And so we tell people, if you believe that and live it, you will succeed.
Unfortunately, while it is necessary, it is by no means sufficient. That is the lie. We tell people it is necessary and sufficient. But the truth is that most people who believe that and live it will still not succeed. But we can't tell people, "Yeah, uh, persistence and attitude will give you a one in ten shot at success. Good luck with that. Oh and by the way, money and connections, which you haven't got, will give you a nine in ten chance of success, ain't that a kick in the pants?"
And the final problem with that ideal is that it provides an excuse not to care about the less fortunate. If we really believe that all it takes is hard work and determination, then those who fail have no one to blame but themselves, and we can wash our hands of their problems. We didn't fail them. Society didn't fail them. They failed themselves.
Yes, there are answers to the problems of information asymmetry. These answers all have, unfortunately, the same problems with information asymmetry. When trying to fix the problem, you get into an infinite regress. Who can you trust to answer the question, "Who can you trust?"
It's funny. I describe how and why the market devalues labor and overvalues capital, and your argument is essentially, "No it doesn't" without any supporting evidence or reasoning.
However, I agree that there could be unintended consequences to any system designed to replace the one we have. One way to overcome this is to make sure people can really opt out of the system. However, we do not want parasites leaching off the system without contributing. And by 'parasites' I don't mean the poor and unfortunate.
What I would do is essentially 'shun' those who can contribute, but don't. If you are not paying your workers a fair wage, contributing to the social safety nets, and protecting the environment, then no one who is doing those things will trade with you. And we will not trade with anyone who trades with you, either. You will be cut off from the community of decent people who take care of each other, free to do your own thing, just not with us. Taking care of the less fortunate is a positive externality for society. If you will not help pay for that externality, you will not get the benefits.
What harm does complaining do, except to make certain people uncomfortable? Here's the thing, you are part of the dominant culture. You have never had to question your assumptions, that's one of the privileges of being part of it. Minorities who try to believe "there is always a way to adapt and come out on top" run smack into the cold hard wall of reality, which says, no, sorry, there is not always a way for you.
Your assumptions only hold true for you and your culture. Or do you really think every poor black man from the inner city has a rich friend to lend them money?
And it's always the members of the dominant culture who say, "All you have to do is SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP BITCHING!" Not because this actually works, but because they don't like to have their assumptions questioned. They like to believe that they are superior, that the reason they succeeded where other failed is because they are better. They hate to be reminded that it was luck of birth and culture, not hard work, that got them where they are.
Actually, it's quite simple. We will just have to convince the ruling class that it is in their own best interest to be equals rather than superiors. Luckily, it actually is in their best interests. Sure, it is great to be top dog, but you can never be real with anyone. You never have real friends, you have temporary allies who will stab you in the back, and vice versa, if the opportunity arises. You can never show weakness, or doubt.
Of course, this only applies to the non-sociopathic rich. I'd say kill all the sociopaths but even that would have negative consequences. My theory is that getting a few 'sociopathic' genes makes you a good leader or a survivor type. Getting all of them makes you an inhuman monster, but if we kill off all the monsters, will we still have great leaders?
That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard in a while, and I think you know it. Right. Like I'm going to go pick up everyone's trash for free. What would be the point of that? Why would you even suggest it? Your initial argument fell flat, and so your counter argument is, "Yeah, well, then go be a garbageman if you think it's so great." It's an argument a two year old would use.
Here's the thing: most people are naturally more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than self interest. They will go out of their way, harming themselves, to enforce fairness if they can. But if everyone around them is acting unfairly and selfishly, they will too, out of self defense. Our society lets the rich and powerful take advantage of the poor. The poor, in self defense, act selfishly as well. The answer is not to blame the poor, it is to give the poor real power to punish unfairness. Only when everyone has access to justice and the ability to punish unfairness can society to truly fair and equitable. Which is what we all want, right?
In theory, the stock market is great. In practice, not so much. Were you in a coma the last three years?
There are only so many better jobs out there, there are many, many more people qualified to do them than there are positions available. And so, if everyone got the best education available, someone who is overqualified would still have to take out the trash. That's my point. The shitty jobs still need to get done, even if everyone goes to college to become a lawyer or a CEO.
Now, I never said that everyone should be paid the same. I'm perfectly happy with people smarter and harder working than me making more money than me. But I'm a little weird. I don't really want power over others. And beyond what we need to take care of our basic necessities and maybe a little for fun, that is all that money is: power to make other people do things you don't want to do.
I've worked for enough dysfunctional small family businesses to know that I'm not making shit up out of whole cloth. But you have a point, many small business owners are decent, hard working, and good leaders. I don't begrudge those people their success at all.
Case in point, my friends the coffee roasters. Cutest little old couple you could imagine. Literally mom and pop. Worked corporate jobs they hated, risked everything on a business they loved, worked their asses off and provided a better product than anyone else in town. They broke even in a year and a half, and started pulling a decent profit in two. Expanded their line to herbs and accessories. And it was word of mouth that did it, most people who went in their had just never tasted that good of a cup of coffee.
So they are doing well, and not only do I not begrudge them their success, I fully support them. This is what the American dream is supposed to be about. I get disheartened thinking about all the hard working people I know who haven't made it, but there are always counter examples like this.
So cheers to all the bosses and small business owners out there doing it right.
But if you think the imbalance comes from government interference, well, you've not thought it through. The money the corporations pour into government would go to other extra-market channels if government did not exist. Money is power, with or without government. At least with government, we have checks and balances, and we have one vote per person, not one vote per dollar. Without government, corporations would be even more powerful and less accountable.
Rich people have rich friends and family to lend them money. Poor people don't. When you say, "It doesn't have to be yours" you reveal your own cultural assumptions, which are very different from those of say, a working poor family. You just assume that capital is easy to come by, because for you, it probably is. For most people, not so much.
It is not an appeal to emotion, it is a valid point regarding societal valuation. The dominant culture gets to set the worth of things, despite what the rest of us may value. So I ask you again, assuming you are the same AC, whose society do you refer to when you say society sets worth?
Hey, I'm a far left liberal born and raised, and I've had to admit that the free market actually works quite well in certain circumstances, because the evidence I've seen supports that conclusion. I think that some hybrid of socialism and the free market will end up being the best option.
You can see the end result of this trend, right? Robots and AI will be able to do anything. Therefore, capital will not need labor anymore. And heck, the owning class will have plenty of robots with which to hunt the rest of us down and kill us once they no longer need us. Except, they will always need us, because they need someone to be better than. So they will keep us around in abject misery, just to have someone to lord it over. Ah, the future. Good times, good times.
"Such as" means "Including, but not limited to." And, unless I am hallucinating, we were discussing wikipedia. It's safe to assume some of the people defending wikipedia might just be wikipedians. And we really don't know if anyone in the thread is a deranged Apple fanboy or a libertarded Randroid but based on the level of holier than thou reactionary idiocy, I'd say chances are good we have one or two with us.
Unless the question is, "What is NOT the answer?" then violence is not the answer. In the chaos of violent rebellions, the sociopaths always rise to the top, and we get to meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or worse, usually an entrenched ruling class develops a sense of noblesse oblige, and an understanding that there are some lines even they can't cross. The new boss is unlikely to know those lines or care about his 'noble' obligations.
The thing is, there aren't enough high end jobs to go around for all those ex construction workers. We will still require things to be produced. Is it all going to be made by robots and poor foreigners? We have a fundamental disconnect in our system, there are people out of work while there are things that need to be done. Personally, I think that is because we have a bad infestation of wealthy parasites, sucking up all the wealth and leaving none to pay people to do necessary things. So things don't get done and people don't have jobs, just so some asshole can have three yachts instead of two.
Slashdot Mirror
Feeding them is letting nature take its course. We are not separate from nature. If we start feeding bears, then we have not stopped evolution. We have just changed the fitness criteria. Bears that are better at getting food from humans will survive and reproduce more. Probably leading to a whole species of adorably cute polar bears with huge anime eyes.
I realized I hadn't backup up my positions with citations, so here's a reading list for you that might help clear up your obvious misconceptions about the theory of evolution.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/web1/mheeney.html
http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_implications_of_the_theory_of_evolution
Don't just parrot back disproven theories without checking to see if you even understand what you are saying. See if you can understand what scientists are actually saying, rather than what you imagine they are saying.
I'm sorry but saying "You have no clue what the theory of evolution actually says" is not an ad hominem. You actually don't understand, that is a fact you have demonstrated, even in the above post. You are still talking as if evolution had a direction, as if there were a 'better or worse' from and evolutionary/survival stand point. You have a very basic misunderstanding of the theory which pervades everything you say about it. And this false theory you hold is also demonstrably the same theory that fascists have used to justify their sick policies. That is not an ad hominem, it is a simple fact.
Bullshit, all you've done is show you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. We are not 'weakening' our society by helping the weak. We are making our society stronger. If being 'weak' no longer matters, then it no longer matters and we can't even call it weak. We've changed the fitness criteria.
I'm not tweaking evolution, you are. You are trying to make it an excuse not to care about the less fortunate. We are not discussing giving things to those who can not or will not contribute. We are discussing helping the less fortunate so they CAN have the opportunity to contribute, and the fact that we can do that makes our whole species more fit.
As it is, we have a whole class of sociopathic parasites leaching off the hard work of everyone else. Our system is designed to reward those who have no empathy or remorse with positions of power and influence. Your ideology excuses the parasites at the top, who truly do work to exploit others, because they are 'strong' enough to take advantage. It also blames the less fortunate, those at the bottom, by calling them weak, instead of unfortunate and oppressed by the power hungry sociopathic monsters at the top. Your false and unsupported miss-take on the theory of evolution only serves to excuse inhumanity and exploitation.
Mr. Garrison: OK, kids, let's start the day with a few new math problems. What is five times two? Come on children, don't be shy. Just give it your best shot. [Clyde raises his hand] Yes, Clyde?
Clyde: Twelve?
Mr. Garrison: OK. Now let's try to get an answer from someone who's not a complete retard. Anyone? Come on, don't be shy.
Kyle: I think I know the answer, Mr. Garrison.
Cartman: [mocking Kyle in high-pitched, gibberish voice]
Kyle: Shut up, fat boy!
Cartman: Hey, don't call me fat, ya fuckin' Jew!
Mr. Garrison: Eric! Did you just say the F-word?
Cartman: Jew?
Kyle: No, he's talking about "fuck." You can't say "fuck" in school, you fuckin' fat ass!
Mr. Garrison: Kyle!
Cartman: Why the fuck not?
Mr. Garrison: Eric!
Stan: Dude, you just said "fuck" again!
Mr. Garrison: Stanley!
Kenny: [muffled] Fuck.
Mr. Garrison: Kenny!
Cartman: What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody! Fuck, fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck!
Mr. Garrison: How would you like to go see the school counselor?
Cartman: How would you like to suck my balls?
[everyone gasps]
Mr. Garrison: [enraged] What did you say?!
Cartman: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Actually, what I said was: [picks up a megaphone] "How would you like to suck my balls, Mr. Garrison?
[Garrison stands rooted to the spot, frozen with fury]
Stan: Holy shit, dude.
I'd say, success is being self actualized. Success is the freedom to define 'success' in your own terms, and work towards your own goals.
I've read a study on human happiness, where they asked people all over the world, "Are you happy?" and then asked them a bunch of other questions, to see what factors influenced happiness. Turns out there are only three factors. First is having the resources to see to your basic needs. Having more than that won't make you any happier, but not having it will definitely make you unhappy. The next is being a member of a close social group like a tribe or a village. And the final factor is being a part of a religion (which to me is just a special case of factor two.)
The thing is, we could have a society where hard work and determination were both necessary and sufficient conditions for success. Imagine living in a real meritocracy. I'd like that, and not because I think I'm awesome and would do great in a real meritocracy. No, I'm actually kind of lazy. But I have this sense of justice that I can't shut off, and it physically pains me to see the just fail and the unjust succeed. So my reasons for wanting a meritocracy are still selfish, really.
Again, there is no such thing as 'devolution,' as evolution does not have a direction, it can't go backward. You also can't disable selection. All you can do is change the selection criteria. You should really stop listening to Social Darwinists, who have bent the theory of evolution into a twisted funhouse mirror version of the real theory, just to excuse their own sick and selfish ideals.
You have no idea how evolution really works. It is not directed. It does not move from 'less evolved' to 'more evolved.' Fitness criteria change all the time. What is fit today is unfit tomorrow. Cooperation plays more of a role in evolution than competition. By being better cooperators, we are not making our species weaker, we are making it stronger. We are changing the fitness criteria so they don't favor sociopaths, but decent, loving, cooperative individuals. Your false ideas about evolution serve only to excuse your own selfish belief system and do not represent reality.
Evolution is just as much about cooperation as it is competition. Evolution is not simply "kill or be killed." In fact, that simplification is no more than a justification used by social Darwinists to excuse brutality towards the less fortunate. Better cooperators make better survivors. As we have developed culture, we succeed not by letting our elders die, but by keeping them alive to pass on their knowledge.
You seem to think evolution is directed, that it moves form some less good state to some better state. Not true at all. Fitness criteria change all the time. What is fit today may not be tomorrow. If we cooperate better, and make sure everyone has equal opportunities, we are changing the fitness criteria. That will not cause the human race to 'devolve' as that is not even possible. Evolution does not have a direction, it can't go 'backwards.' What will happen, is that evolution will favor cooperation more, and it will favor sociopathic monsters less. That's a good thing, IMHO.
We can not 'interfere' with evolution, as interference comes from outside a system, and there is nothing outside the system of evolution, that we know about. All we can do is change the fitness criteria, which change all the time anyway.
In short, you have an incorrect and dangerous view about what evolution is. It is the exact same view that some of the worst monsters in history have used to excuse some of the worst atrocities ever committed.
Texas wasn't WON, it was TAKEN from the mexicans
Mexico wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the Spanish. (Who had taken it from the Indians.)
The US wasn't WON. It was TAKEN from the English.
We can do this all day.
And you'd love it if we did, wouldn't you? Great job hijacking the discussion away from what raving lunatics Texans are being today, and refocusing it on an historically irrelevant distinction. Wow. I am in awe of your propaganda skills.
"Buckaroo Banzai." The reference was "Buckaroo Banzai" but thanks for playing and here's a copy of our home game, "Obscure references for total dorks."
It isn't all about happiness for me. Historically, who do you think has changed society for the better? Was it the people who "played the cards they were dealt?" Or was it the people who blamed society and others, when society and others deserved the blame?
I'd guess, the later. And maybe they weren't so happy during their lives. But they made the lives of many others who came after them, that much better.
Your anecdotes, while certainly interesting, are simply personal stories and not actual useful data. You and I want minorities to succeed. The powers that be don't want them to. It is far too useful for all the different groups to be fighting each other, rather than looking for the true common enemy: the sociopaths at the top. And that is the real issue facing every society: what to do about the sociopaths. And how to do it without also screwing over the regular citizens, or just handing the sociopaths another tool of oppression.
The thing is, one must look at the results of one's beliefs. If a belief leads one to the conclusion that one is good and right and all one's rewards are deserved, while those who fail deserve to fail, well, it is pretty easy not to question the validity of that belief. IT's kind of funny how many widely held beliefs lead to exactly that conclusion, isn't it? It's almost as if people pick their beliefs based on how those beliefs make them feel, rather than any logical validity.
You can't base a system on the exceptions. We've all seen these types of successes. The lie is that they are common, and that anyone with persistence and attitude will necessarily succeed. That is an example of a noble lie, a lie told for a good reason. The reason is, if you come from nothing, that type of attitude is a necessary condition of success. You DO need to believe that and live it to succeed. And so we tell people, if you believe that and live it, you will succeed.
Unfortunately, while it is necessary, it is by no means sufficient. That is the lie. We tell people it is necessary and sufficient. But the truth is that most people who believe that and live it will still not succeed. But we can't tell people, "Yeah, uh, persistence and attitude will give you a one in ten shot at success. Good luck with that. Oh and by the way, money and connections, which you haven't got, will give you a nine in ten chance of success, ain't that a kick in the pants?"
And the final problem with that ideal is that it provides an excuse not to care about the less fortunate. If we really believe that all it takes is hard work and determination, then those who fail have no one to blame but themselves, and we can wash our hands of their problems. We didn't fail them. Society didn't fail them. They failed themselves.
Yes, there are answers to the problems of information asymmetry. These answers all have, unfortunately, the same problems with information asymmetry. When trying to fix the problem, you get into an infinite regress. Who can you trust to answer the question, "Who can you trust?"
It's funny. I describe how and why the market devalues labor and overvalues capital, and your argument is essentially, "No it doesn't" without any supporting evidence or reasoning.
However, I agree that there could be unintended consequences to any system designed to replace the one we have. One way to overcome this is to make sure people can really opt out of the system. However, we do not want parasites leaching off the system without contributing. And by 'parasites' I don't mean the poor and unfortunate.
What I would do is essentially 'shun' those who can contribute, but don't. If you are not paying your workers a fair wage, contributing to the social safety nets, and protecting the environment, then no one who is doing those things will trade with you. And we will not trade with anyone who trades with you, either. You will be cut off from the community of decent people who take care of each other, free to do your own thing, just not with us. Taking care of the less fortunate is a positive externality for society. If you will not help pay for that externality, you will not get the benefits.
What harm does complaining do, except to make certain people uncomfortable? Here's the thing, you are part of the dominant culture. You have never had to question your assumptions, that's one of the privileges of being part of it. Minorities who try to believe "there is always a way to adapt and come out on top" run smack into the cold hard wall of reality, which says, no, sorry, there is not always a way for you.
Your assumptions only hold true for you and your culture. Or do you really think every poor black man from the inner city has a rich friend to lend them money?
And it's always the members of the dominant culture who say, "All you have to do is SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP BITCHING!" Not because this actually works, but because they don't like to have their assumptions questioned. They like to believe that they are superior, that the reason they succeeded where other failed is because they are better. They hate to be reminded that it was luck of birth and culture, not hard work, that got them where they are.
Actually, it's quite simple. We will just have to convince the ruling class that it is in their own best interest to be equals rather than superiors. Luckily, it actually is in their best interests. Sure, it is great to be top dog, but you can never be real with anyone. You never have real friends, you have temporary allies who will stab you in the back, and vice versa, if the opportunity arises. You can never show weakness, or doubt.
Of course, this only applies to the non-sociopathic rich. I'd say kill all the sociopaths but even that would have negative consequences. My theory is that getting a few 'sociopathic' genes makes you a good leader or a survivor type. Getting all of them makes you an inhuman monster, but if we kill off all the monsters, will we still have great leaders?
That is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard in a while, and I think you know it. Right. Like I'm going to go pick up everyone's trash for free. What would be the point of that? Why would you even suggest it? Your initial argument fell flat, and so your counter argument is, "Yeah, well, then go be a garbageman if you think it's so great." It's an argument a two year old would use.
Here's the thing: most people are naturally more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity than self interest. They will go out of their way, harming themselves, to enforce fairness if they can. But if everyone around them is acting unfairly and selfishly, they will too, out of self defense. Our society lets the rich and powerful take advantage of the poor. The poor, in self defense, act selfishly as well. The answer is not to blame the poor, it is to give the poor real power to punish unfairness. Only when everyone has access to justice and the ability to punish unfairness can society to truly fair and equitable. Which is what we all want, right?
In theory, the stock market is great. In practice, not so much. Were you in a coma the last three years?
There are only so many better jobs out there, there are many, many more people qualified to do them than there are positions available. And so, if everyone got the best education available, someone who is overqualified would still have to take out the trash. That's my point. The shitty jobs still need to get done, even if everyone goes to college to become a lawyer or a CEO.
Now, I never said that everyone should be paid the same. I'm perfectly happy with people smarter and harder working than me making more money than me. But I'm a little weird. I don't really want power over others. And beyond what we need to take care of our basic necessities and maybe a little for fun, that is all that money is: power to make other people do things you don't want to do.
The more money you have, the more power you have. And the more power you have, the more say you get in what is valuable and what is not. So, you get to say, "I'm valuable, and he's not" if you have money, but not if you are poor. It's a self amplifying cycle, a positive feedback loop. There are no checks and balances. We see this in the phrase, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer," which has been true for decades. See this graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Income_Inequality_1967-2003_relative_to_median_(log_scale).svg from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
I've worked for enough dysfunctional small family businesses to know that I'm not making shit up out of whole cloth. But you have a point, many small business owners are decent, hard working, and good leaders. I don't begrudge those people their success at all.
Case in point, my friends the coffee roasters. Cutest little old couple you could imagine. Literally mom and pop. Worked corporate jobs they hated, risked everything on a business they loved, worked their asses off and provided a better product than anyone else in town. They broke even in a year and a half, and started pulling a decent profit in two. Expanded their line to herbs and accessories. And it was word of mouth that did it, most people who went in their had just never tasted that good of a cup of coffee.
So they are doing well, and not only do I not begrudge them their success, I fully support them. This is what the American dream is supposed to be about. I get disheartened thinking about all the hard working people I know who haven't made it, but there are always counter examples like this.
So cheers to all the bosses and small business owners out there doing it right.
But if you think the imbalance comes from government interference, well, you've not thought it through. The money the corporations pour into government would go to other extra-market channels if government did not exist. Money is power, with or without government. At least with government, we have checks and balances, and we have one vote per person, not one vote per dollar. Without government, corporations would be even more powerful and less accountable.
Rich people have rich friends and family to lend them money. Poor people don't. When you say, "It doesn't have to be yours" you reveal your own cultural assumptions, which are very different from those of say, a working poor family. You just assume that capital is easy to come by, because for you, it probably is. For most people, not so much.
It is not an appeal to emotion, it is a valid point regarding societal valuation. The dominant culture gets to set the worth of things, despite what the rest of us may value. So I ask you again, assuming you are the same AC, whose society do you refer to when you say society sets worth?
Hey, I'm a far left liberal born and raised, and I've had to admit that the free market actually works quite well in certain circumstances, because the evidence I've seen supports that conclusion. I think that some hybrid of socialism and the free market will end up being the best option.
You can see the end result of this trend, right? Robots and AI will be able to do anything. Therefore, capital will not need labor anymore. And heck, the owning class will have plenty of robots with which to hunt the rest of us down and kill us once they no longer need us. Except, they will always need us, because they need someone to be better than. So they will keep us around in abject misery, just to have someone to lord it over. Ah, the future. Good times, good times.
"Such as" means "Including, but not limited to." And, unless I am hallucinating, we were discussing wikipedia. It's safe to assume some of the people defending wikipedia might just be wikipedians. And we really don't know if anyone in the thread is a deranged Apple fanboy or a libertarded Randroid but based on the level of holier than thou reactionary idiocy, I'd say chances are good we have one or two with us.
Epic fail to you, good sir.
Unless the question is, "What is NOT the answer?" then violence is not the answer. In the chaos of violent rebellions, the sociopaths always rise to the top, and we get to meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Or worse, usually an entrenched ruling class develops a sense of noblesse oblige, and an understanding that there are some lines even they can't cross. The new boss is unlikely to know those lines or care about his 'noble' obligations.
The thing is, there aren't enough high end jobs to go around for all those ex construction workers. We will still require things to be produced. Is it all going to be made by robots and poor foreigners? We have a fundamental disconnect in our system, there are people out of work while there are things that need to be done. Personally, I think that is because we have a bad infestation of wealthy parasites, sucking up all the wealth and leaving none to pay people to do necessary things. So things don't get done and people don't have jobs, just so some asshole can have three yachts instead of two.