It's the right to property, a fundamental American right.
I think C-R said it earlier. If these documents could be written over from 200 years ago, would it be "the right to property" or "the right to have the opportunity to have property"?
I'm sorry, but it's laughable to me when taken literally.
"I have a right to your property because I exist".
mr train you are a pain, your words - they make me go insane
they strike my ever-thinking brain like little drops of acid rain
oh, to my life you are a bane; crazy, mixed up, mr train - r2e
mileage hound
Yes, an army of straw men and a fleet of red herrings. No one argued for "giving money" to anyone. Or for equalizing all wealth relations. The basic point that got everyone upset is that Obama said that the income gap is a threat to democracy and got called a commie for that. I wanted to make the simple point that it's not just communists who see this problem as a threat to democracy. Somehow along the way this got turned into the idea that I want to make all things absolutely equal or should disconnect LABOR from PROPERTY! When in fact it's the connection between labor and property that I want to make!
Yes, an army of straw men and a fleet of red herrings. No one argued for "giving money" to anyone. Or for equalizing all wealth relations. The basic point that got everyone upset is that Obama said that the income gap is a threat to democracy and got called a commie for that. I wanted to make the simple point that it's not just communists who see this problem as a threat to democracy.
Somehow along the way this got turned into the idea that I want to make all things absolutely equal or should disconnect LABOR from PROPERTY! When in fact it's the connection between labor and property that I want to make!
I think it was the assertion that somehow most of the people who have money are not doing the labor to deserve it. I equate "labor" with taking action that creates value. There are a lot of people that sit at desks and create incredible amounts of value for themselves, their employer or others. This labor can be physical, intellectual or otherwise. My work creates value for my company; yours creates value for Vandy because they can charge a lot for your course. Both of us only ever see a fraction of that value in our paychecks so apparently we are both suckers.
There are a small minority of wealthy people that perhaps do not deserve what they get. However I believe most of us are so disconnected from what they do or how they got there that we look at it and do not see the labor-reward equation accurately and think they "don't deserve it." Does an NBA player that barely graduated HS and did not finish college deserve the millions they get? While I'm sure many of us are disgruntled by this one has to remember the tens of millions they may generate for their employer. So from that perspective, maybe they do (though I say maybe because I would be loathe to say that).
Obama gets flak because of the policies. Despite the incredible deficit we're still going after expensive "social programs" and "the rich" are always a nice target for taxes to make these happen. The Constitution never established massively overpriced healthcare as a fundamental right, nor being bailed out of a foolish sub-prime mortgage that went south. Yet now these are on the table and "the rich" are going to pay for it.
As C-R eluded to, once the work-reward equation gets out of whack bad things start to happen. Many of "the rich" in question are small business owners (a group already struggling). As they are mandated to provide healthcare and taxes increased, there comes a point where many will just decide it isn't worth it anymore and close shop, or people will be disincentivized from taking the huge risk to start their own businesss.
I have had the ideas and capabilities to start several businesses and have considered doing so. The risk of quitting a steady job to do this is already a high enough hurdle; add onto it all the cost, red tape, overhead and uncertainty around employees and benefits and there is NO WAY. And then if I am successful, I'm going to be in the next tax bracket and socked with extra taxes? No thanks, I'll keep my job and the economy can do without the ones I may have created. It was not so long ago I was in business school working with many others of the entrepreneurial spirit and my thinking is hardly unique.
As C-R demonstrates with the classroom example, people behave according to their incentives. At a time when we need business development to drive the economy forward, we are looking to take steps to remove the needed incentives and that is a big problem.
2012 goals: Fastest race times since 2006.
I think C-R said it earlier. If these documents could be written over from 200 years ago, would it be "the right to property" or "the right to have the opportunity to have property"? I'm sorry, but it's laughable to me when taken literally. "I have a right to your property because I exist".
"Property" doesn't mean stuff. It means "the stuff you accumulated by your labor." It's got the "pursuit," the "effort" built into the definition.
That it is taken to mean something different today shows how cleanly the bond between labor and property has been broken.
In the fight between you and the world, back the world. --Kafka The Logic of Long Distance
I think it was the assertion that somehow most of the people who have money are not doing the labor to deserve it.
The top 5% own more than half of our country. Did they really do the labor to deserve this? Did they work that much harder?
Most of us, here, fall in the middle, where yes we can see the connection between our labor and our salary. This is a good thing! But there is an increasing number of Americans who cannot make that connection, at either end of the spectrum. If this disparity is not stopped, the right to property is threatened. That's my simple argument. (It's Obama's too. He got called a commie for making it.)
Its the old "who provides more value to the society argument - the garbage collector or the banker - and we should pay the garbage collector more because of the results if this service were to stop". Property is determined by complexity of labor. The connection is there you just don't like the current results. Hell, I want more capital/property and if I am motivated enough, I will find a way to do something to fill a need that others will want to get that for me. I can still do that if I have liberty. Without liberty, I lose the incentive to create and break the boundaries and merely become a serf to the system that restrains me by redistribution.
You can't legislate fairness only justice.
L Train was correct about the possible loss of a consumer class. This is seriously problematic in the long run
No one called you a communist. A hippie perhaps but not a communist.
We need A1 to punch the atomic clown.
Prince of Fatness
1. Life is not fair. We should work to make it fairer. 2. The argument is simple; I linked to it. 3. If you, like me, disagree with those conservatives who called Obama a communist when he brought up the issue, you are welcome to agree with me and take them to task for their anti-democratic views. 4. Point taken. He called my ideas naive. There is a difference. The point I was making is that he called the idea communist when it is not communist in origin. It's the right to property, a fundamental American right. 5. This is not an argument against my position. Your statement in (3) leads me to believe you agree with me, but don't want to admit it.
1. Life is not fair. We should work to make it fairer.
2. The argument is simple; I linked to it.
3. If you, like me, disagree with those conservatives who called Obama a communist when he brought up the issue, you are welcome to agree with me and take them to task for their anti-democratic views.
4. Point taken. He called my ideas naive. There is a difference. The point I was making is that he called the idea communist when it is not communist in origin. It's the right to property, a fundamental American right.
5. This is not an argument against my position. Your statement in (3) leads me to believe you agree with me, but don't want to admit it.
1. Agree
2. I will take the time to read it later.
3. I will take any politician to task if they play partisan politics.
4. OK, my point was that his comment was less personal than you perceived it to be, but this really is a dead horse at this point.
5. No, not really. I might agree if you said "a few" conservatives. Again, I think that you you lump the whole group together when you shouldn't. Just as all liberals should not suffer because of the far left rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of a select few. It is the partisan tone of your statement that I have the problem with. It seems closed minded. Just my opinion.
There is a long dark road ahead of me.
Maybe common ground can be found if we agree on the definitions of "work" and "labor" are. If I understand you correctly, I have a right to those things, and nothing else. Can you tell me how you define those?
That's a tough problem, but let me remind you how this question emerged (I think this will help with C-R's response, too). It came out of the problems that Trent is having here in Nashville, where the public schools are really poor, and the private schools are prohibitively expensive. This has been a problem in the South for a long time, and it's a serious one because it shows that equality of opportunity is affected by inequalities in wealth.
This lack of equality has serious effects on the lives of young people here in Nashville--it threatens their fundamental right to property because it strips them of the possibility of doing the kind of work that leads to property. Property being that which shows you the value of your labor, the value, in the end, of yourself.
The top 5% own more than half of our country. Did they really do the labor to deserve this? Did they work that much harder? Most of us, here, fall in the middle, where yes we can see the connection between our labor and our salary. This is a good thing! But there is an increasing number of Americans who cannot make that connection, at either end of the spectrum. If this disparity is not stopped, the right to property is threatened. That's my simple argument. (It's Obama's too. He got called a commie for making it.)
Your view of business operations is far too simplistic. It is not "did they work harder". It is "did they take more risk?", "did they assume greater accountability?", "did they assume leadership of a larger team and ownership of delivery of greater value?".
I am directly responsible and accountable for my own output and partially accountable for work coordinate with 20-30 other people.
My boss is directly responsible for his own work, accountable for his work AND that of his two reports, and partially accountable for the work coordinated with 50-60 people.
Two levels above him, that guy is directly responsible for his own work and fully accountable for the work of 2,200 people underneath him and coordinating with 20,000 others.
Even if all three of us work just as hard as each other, it should be clear that the most senior person deserves much more compensation for his work.
I know an individual who started his own company to go solo with work very similar to what he had done for a larger company. It was incredibly high risk but, in the end, successful and made him many times over what he had made at the larger company. Did he work more or harder? Not really, pretty much the same. However he assumed a huge amount of risk stepping out on his own and, pretty much by definition, risk = greater need for economic reward. Look up eNPV, discount rates relative to risk, etc etc.
It's not just about who works harder.
I might agree if you said "a few" conservatives. Again, I think that you you lump the whole group together when you shouldn't. Just as all liberals should not suffer because of the far left rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of a select few. It is the partisan tone of your statement that I have the problem with. It seems closed minded. Just my opinion.
Ha, I think my actual words were "the dipshits on the right." I almost put a proviso in that said that not all people on the right are dipshits, but I thought that was unnecessary. Guess I was wrong about that.
Your view of business operations is far too simplistic. It is not "did they work harder". It is "did they take more risk?", "did they assume greater accountability?", "did they assume leadership of a larger team and ownership of delivery of greater value?". I am directly responsible and accountable for my own output and partially accountable for work coordinate with 20-30 other people. My boss is directly responsible for his own work, accountable for his work AND that of his two reports, and partially accountable for the work coordinated with 50-60 people. Two levels above him, that guy is directly responsible for his own work and fully accountable for the work of 2,200 people underneath him and coordinating with 20,000 others. Even if all three of us work just as hard as each other, it should be clear that the most senior person deserves much more compensation for his work. I know an individual who started his own company to go solo with work very similar to what he had done for a larger company. It was incredibly high risk but, in the end, successful and made him many times over what he had made at the larger company. Did he work more or harder? Not really, pretty much the same. However he assumed a huge amount of risk stepping out on his own and, pretty much by definition, risk = greater need for economic reward. Look up eNPV, discount rates relative to risk, etc etc. It's not just about who works harder.
Okay, so do you agree that the top 5% earned the right to own half the country, however you define "earned?" Because that's the question I asked.
That's a tough problem, but let me remind you how this question emerged (I think this will help with C-R's response, too). It came out of the problems that Trent is having here in Nashville, where the public schools are really poor, and the private schools are prohibitively expensive. This has been a problem in the South for a long time, and it's a serious one because it shows that equality of opportunity is affected by inequalities in wealth. This lack of equality has serious effects on the lives of young people here in Nashville--it threatens their fundamental right to property because it strips them of the possibility of doing the kind of work that leads to property. Property being that which shows you the value of your labor, the value, in the end, of yourself.
Jeff, you think that is a Nashville-specific problem? Maine is one of the poorest (and highest taxed, so the wealth redistribution doesn't seem to be working here) states in the country. We have the same private/public school issues, as do many other cities and states, I'm sure.
Respectfully, you didn't give me definitions. And yet you take an extreme view, based on your interpretation of what the founding fathers meant, that we are only entitled to that for which we "worked". If you are going to go that far to one side (albeit in response to the other side) shouldn't you be able to define what you mean?
MTA: I'm not disagreeing with the above post. But that's a watered down and vague version of what you were saying a few pages ago.
CPT Curmudgeon
the dipshits on the right
Seems from where I'm sitting, there's dipshits to the left and right. This thread pretty much proves that point beyond argument.
the unrunner
this is one of the most civil and most fascinating discussions i have read here in quite a while. put away your nukes, miss tonay. this one is a keeper.
jeff - your list of 5 items which i have now lost track of and will have to locate... but on your list there was a disconnect for me between two of the points. i believe it was points 2 and 3 -- okay. hang on b/c i am going to have to find the list and get back with you....
right, okay. i'm back.
point 2 is about a right to property that we earn and point 3 is about conservatives not recognizing this and/or confusing it somehow with communism. okay. my point is that this disconnect appears to involve a definition of terms. for example - redistribution of wealth. that's a hot-button if ever there were one. but, if you say "redistribution of opportunity" that takes on a whole other tone. of course, wealth provides opportunity. and, we are all deserving of the products of our work. and, some people just inherit their wealth and some people inherit opportunity. and, life's not fair.
okay. maybe i didn't have a point. or, perhaps i cannot articulate a point.
but, tanya & scout - you guys are wrong on this one. maybe it's too long and you didn't read it, but this thread is packed with some good stuff.
if you don't run, you'll rust. [tom petty] ..... i just wanna get back on track, even if it kills me. [motion city soundtrack] ..... if i only could be running up that hill, with no problems. if only i could, be running up that hill. [kate bush] ..... still running in place [alkaline trio] ..... at least i'll try and run, and run tonight, everything will be alright [the killers] ..... don't give up the distance. [flavio the magnificent]
The King of Beasts
Pennywise.
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy