Ok now you've really spun something. You're saying that the wealthy prohibit access to a decent public education/ I think you have an agrument with the wrong people. The wealthy pay for private school with after tax dollars and they also pay taxes to the local government to fund public schools which they will not use. In this way they are paying twice. If the education is system is poor, you can't blame this on the people who pay for something they are not even using. You need to deal with those that control the system providing the service. Poor argument.

The schools are not the problem. $$ is not the way to save the schools. The schools ought to be places where all segments of American life interact and learn from each other. The large gap in income prohibits this. See prior arguments and Trent's problem from way back.

I'm bound to throw out a bad argument here and there in my rapid-fire attempt to respond to the pack of wolves / loyal opposition. [insert emoticon]

 

The schools are not the problem. $$ is not the way to save the schools. The schools ought to be places where all segments of American life interact and learn from each other. The large gap in income prohibits this. See prior arguments and Trent's problem from way back.

 

 I believe Trent's issues stem from having a worry about safety and good academics. Safety is an administration issue - period. Academics is controlled by those in charge and "we the people" elect most of those. Using a generality, liberals, or progressives as they like to repackage themselves these days, always seem to think we need to spend more on schools so it is a breath of fresh air to see you believe that $$s aren't the issue. However, you think a lack of diversity is the issue based on the "all segments" comment? And this is what keeps the income gap in place?

So based on that argument, since I attended a really mediocre HS that did not have the "rich" kids attending and had to deal with race riots and other lovely events, I was destined to be a part of the growing income gap with little control over my destiny. But somehow having the "rich" kids there to balance out the landscape would give me a better shot? None of the hard work, attending college classes in the summer between semesters, working nights to pay for college prep and tutors really made a difference in getting into one of those high falutin universities. Seriously?

No, what I've been trying to say is that the problems in the schools are symptoms of a much deeper and more pernicious problem, which is the poverty of life in some communities. I assume that you were able to handle the challenges that school presented (and this was back in the day) because you had a decent home life. For some, the school that you experienced as crappy and damaging is the BEST part of their day, the one institution that is attempting to brighten their community.

This is the issue, and it is caused by and reflective of (in part, not wholly) an huge income gap that threatens the work of democracy. This work is producing a society in which everyone has a chance--and a good one--to flourish. I don't think we're there yet, and I think one way to get closer is to create a stronger middle class, and that means, yes, addressing income inequality.

 

 

Well, honestly what you said wasn't controversial.  Like I said you have a right to your opinion.  Many times it different from mine, but that's OK because I don't mind listening to a different perspective on things.

 

Where you lose me is with the name calling.  That detracts from your argument.  I think that it is ironic that in the same sentence where you are lamenting a person being labeled, called a name, that you are doing the same thing.

Yeah, I was blowing off steam. It makes me mad as something of an expert in political theory that a Lockean argument is construed as a Marxist argument every time. I regret the language (um, but aren't we in the swamp.) But also find it interesting that such a non-constroversial post stirred up such great controversy. It would have been possible to say, damn Jeff you're so right about that. Those dipshits on the fringe of my party really bug shit out of me. And calling Obama a communist--that's ludicrous!

But no one took that path.

Today's system allows people to accumulate ungodly amounts of cash by not doing crap. While others working their ass off somehow never get any property. Locke would say that this is wrong: it's a feudal system, not democratic, and it needs to be reformed. Democracy demands connecting property with labor--that's the essence of the right to property.

Now by "the right to property" the dipshits understand "nobody can take from me what I already have." The question is whether you actually acquired what you have or whether you just ended up with it. That's the relevant question, and the attempt to make it into a question of preserving whatever capital everyone already has is anti-democratic  

This is the original post that got my attention - not the first one.  My argument was that work is only one component.  While democracy may demand connecting capital with labor, capitalism demands connecting property with risk taking and decision making as well. 

And in addition to the dipshit remark (which I assume anyone who feels they have a right to property is, including myself), I took issue with being made to be anti-democratic because I want to preserve what I have "worked" for.  Finally, the idea that I or anyone else "just ended up with" whatever we have demeans the accomplishments of those who have risen above their own obstacles to achieve anything. 

No one would ever argue that risk taking, ingenuity, and creative thinking is not a part of labor-value. Especially not a philosopher.

But all this is a goddamn red herring. You people are arguing Locke with a Ph.D. in political philosophy who wrote his dissertation on the meaning of democracy. Why? Because you can't stand agreeing with me that the shills who called Obama a communist as a way of fear-mongering were just plain wrong.

So you propose to punish or retard those that have built or accumulated property through their work by redistribution via taxation so that it will create a better chance for others to close this income gap? You, I go back to my simple example. Since you worked hard, had some breaks, and some talent, you will now be penalized 35 minutes at each marathon and this will be given to one of us slow old dipshits. Just to even the pllaying field. Same reason I think golf hadicaps are pure evil.

 

Seems unlike Locke who from my limited knowledge someone dedicated to liberty and the pursuit of property and a government dedicated to this. BTW - I assumed that pursuit does not mean actually gaining which is about opportunity. Still seems to me you are mis-representing or trying to dance around an issue that can't quite be sqaured with a utopian view of capital owenership in a society that is performance based.

 

Oh and for what its worth - the dipshits on the right comment didn't bother me because I've seen this all too often from the Olberman, Matthews, Schultz, Maddow ilk on MSNBC who represent the liberal/progressive view. One learns to ignore this. And it is the Swamp afterall.

Goddamn it, none of what you say I said did I ever say.

Your view of Locke would be better if you read him.

Yes, there are dipshits on the left. What in the name of heaven above does that have to do with anything?

Because you can't stand agreeing with me that the shills who called Obama a communist as a way of fear-mongering were just plain wrong.

I'll agree with you in the sense that it is just partisan politics, which both sides engage in.  Not only is it wrong but it accomplishes nothing.

Now, to this....

It means you get to keep what is proper to you: what you earned by your labor

How do we measure this?

What is proper?

What is labor?

How much wealth is enough?

Are we obligated to spend the fruits of our labor on people who are not willing to labor themselves?

How do we decide who is trying and failing and who is simply not trying?

MTA:

And how do we work through the simple fact that time after time the government has proven that they are the last entity that should be managing our money / wealth / property?  Why enable them to mismanage even more?