If so many people hate the rich-why don't we get rid of the

Post Reply New Topic

I wasn't talking about people who live in third world countries. I was talking about the poor in developed countries. Obviously that is a result of political instability so nice try at insulting my intelligence cuz that's obvious to anyone.

i like money. i do whatever i can to acquire it.
i like it so much i find it hard to let go of.
i do not like parting with my money to buy things.
i like to see the balance of my accounts rise healthily and i am addicted to that aim.

The attitude is the same in developing countries. I bet if you talked to a lot of right-wing middle and upper class Mexicans many would likely tell you that their own poor, the ones living in shanties, have "equality of opportunity". It's the same everywhere. They repeat and repeat what clearly aint so. It's called the "Just World Hypothesis" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon). The only difference between a third world country and here is a matter of degree. The poor in the US and Canada clearly have a lot more opportunities than the poor in third world countries, but it is still far from being equal.

I've heard of the concept of a just world fallacy, no need to link me to it. It's a matter of a huge degree. The poor in third world countries walk miles for a bucket of water lasting em a day, while the majority of the poor here aren't starving but face financial insecurity. It is mostly subcultural paradigms that don't encourage values essential to succeeding in education and learned helplessness that results in generations of poverty in developed countries. Opportunities are supposed to be equally accessible, not equally convenient. Our modern society has brought on a culture of instant gratification and entitlement. This is a generational problem rather than a socioeconomic one, but it affects the poor even more on top of the subcultural paradigms that breed in their communities.

If you would give me and others the same benefit of the doubt. Don't accuse people you don't know who are working minimum wage or not working at all of "learned helplessness" if you yourself don't want to accused of things you know aren't true.

I accept that certain subcultures are problematic and exacerbate the cycle of poverty. My problem is the black-and-white thinking and judgemental generalizations.

A debate doesn't have to be an argument and we don't have to trade insults. But it's up to you what you do.

I thought I said 'lack of education' or at least that's what I meant. I think you are mixing opinions?

Even without corporate welfare (which really seems to be a logical consequence of a large concentration of wealth in few hands in any society), those who've inherited particularly large estates have immeasurable advantages. It doesn't require too much competence to maintain an estate - all it requires is the ability to hire good upper management. The social connections wealth gives you also has a perservation effect on said wealth.



Property rights disportionately benefit those with lots of property. Enforcing the system isn't free - it makes perfect sense to require larger upkeep fees from those with more propery. Like so many economics textbooks, you seem to be ignoring that property rights are an institution that requires administration and enforcement.



A millionaire can afford to pay more upkeep for a society, in some senses he has gotten a sweeter deal (via work but also luck and protection from various institutions) in said society, and a dollar to him is worth less than a dollar to someone making 15K a year, so it makes sense to tax the richer man more.



"Social engineering" is a word made to sound scary by people who fail to realize that almost all facets of society are the result of social engineering, either by parents or government (government law enforcement plays a crucial role in legitimizing or "socially engineering support for" the institution of private property).

And there are instances of municipial governments having an effect on social capital, the Mockus Mayoralty being such an example (although it wasn't an overly "bureaucratic" method, it still is an example of muncipial action effecting social change).



How does redistributing wealth or enforcing labour standards have anything to do with "violating free association"? I suppose you can claim that it inhibits poor and disadvantaged people from selling themselves into slavery on the basis of book-length contracts, but I hardly think that's the type of "free association" anyone longs for.



Wealth distribution and income inequality have a well known effect on social cohesion.



Putnam, Robert (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community (New York: Simon and Schuster)., pg. 359



I deny such an absolutist distinction. Legislative authorities ARE a cultural institution and key player in cultural change. While they are influenced by societal precepts, attitudes, and extraparliamentary action, they also influence the broader culture as well.