3 ms·

because socialism free people aren't equal. equal people aren't free.

by fche 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago
>free people aren't equal. equal people aren't free. Citation needed.
- fche 10y ago
  Seriously, not needed, just look around. In the context here, "equal" refers to economic accomplishment not legal standing. But of course the left likes to equivocate this term.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Legal standing and economic accomplishment go hand in hand. Always did. To quote Anacharsis from 25 centuries before: "[your laws] are no different from spiders' webs. They'll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they'll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth." Or to quote Anatole France from last century: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Same goes for economic accomplishments of one's family and the opportunities their offspring get in life: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate You might not want people to be exactly equal economically, but you don't want huge discrepancies either for those reasons. But of course the right, and especially in the US, has a naive child-like view of a world of equal opportunity were individual work and merit make all the difference. One might as well believe in magic fairies...
    - fche 10y ago
      "Legal standing and economic accomplishment go hand in hand. Always did." That's pretty lame, "The rich can buy a verdict." Even if that were true, that would be a bug not a feature. "world of equal opportunity were individual work and merit make all the difference" straw man
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >That's pretty lame, "The rich can buy a verdict." Even if that were true, that would be a bug not a feature. Since the rich also have undue influence on the design of the laws and the general running of society, that's a feature (for them), not a bug. Besides, even if it was "a bug, not a feature" of the legal system, unless it could magically or otherwise go away, it would still be had to be taken into account. >*straw man You can find pretty much the same statement expressed in all kinds of books, articles, political speeches, and interviews. At best with very small caveats. A strawman, on the other hand, is supposed to be something that nobody ever says.
  - Retra 10y ago
    If "just look around" is how you've reached a conclusion, then you need a lesson in human biases.
    - fche 10y ago
      First hand observation is sufficient for some conclusions. Inequality of productivity is obvious. In order to equalize income, those of greater-than-average productivity would have to have some of their wealth redistributed, ergo less free. It's not rocket science.
      - Retra 10y ago
        What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. If I look around and see something different, then what? I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. Your previous argument is crap, and that should be obvious. This: "In order to equalize income, those of greater-than-average productivity would have to have some of their wealth redistributed, ergo less free." Is part of an actual argument. "Just look around" is not. But for what it's worth, I do not agree that freedom intrinsically requires total control of wealth. That it currently does is an artifact of our present culture. I don't even agree that the wealth is "theirs" to begin with.
- Steeeve 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/world/article/An-eerie-look-inside-China-s-ghost-cities-6810665.php http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/world/article/An-eeri... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/fidel-castro-cuba-economic-model https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/fidel-castro-c...
  - coldtea 10y ago
    For one, people weren't actually equal in those regimes. There were sizable privileged bureaucracies and leadership and large swaths of ordinary citizens -- which was exactly what was the issue with them, not equality. Second, who said any attempt at equality has to be made that way? There were historically (and still are) lots of societies both valuing equality and actually way more equal than modern US but with very different structures and/or beliefs. From the Amish and hippy communes, and ancient Spartans, to modern nordic countries.
    - Steeeve 10y ago
      I'm sorry... you're working examples of income equality are hippy communes and Amish villages?
      - coldtea 10y ago
        Perhaps there was a glitch in your browser and it didn't download my whole comment? That's the only explanation I could give to missing not only a couple of more examples, but also the historical extent of them (not to mention my other points).

because socialism free people aren't equal. equal people aren't free.

by fche 10y ago

because socialism free people aren't equal. equal people aren't free.

coldtea 10y ago

>free people aren't equal. equal people aren't free. Citation needed.

fche 10y ago
Seriously, not needed, just look around. In the context here, "equal" refers to economic accomplishment not legal standing. But of course the left likes to equivocate this term.
- coldtea 10y ago
  Legal standing and economic accomplishment go hand in hand. Always did. To quote Anacharsis from 25 centuries before: "[your laws] are no different from spiders' webs. They'll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they'll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth." Or to quote Anatole France from last century: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Same goes for economic accomplishments of one's family and the opportunities their offspring get in life: http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate You might not want people to be exactly equal economically, but you don't want huge discrepancies either for those reasons. But of course the right, and especially in the US, has a naive child-like view of a world of equal opportunity were individual work and merit make all the difference. One might as well believe in magic fairies...
  - fche 10y ago
    "Legal standing and economic accomplishment go hand in hand. Always did." That's pretty lame, "The rich can buy a verdict." Even if that were true, that would be a bug not a feature. "world of equal opportunity were individual work and merit make all the difference" straw man
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >That's pretty lame, "The rich can buy a verdict." Even if that were true, that would be a bug not a feature. Since the rich also have undue influence on the design of the laws and the general running of society, that's a feature (for them), not a bug. Besides, even if it was "a bug, not a feature" of the legal system, unless it could magically or otherwise go away, it would still be had to be taken into account. >*straw man You can find pretty much the same statement expressed in all kinds of books, articles, political speeches, and interviews. At best with very small caveats. A strawman, on the other hand, is supposed to be something that nobody ever says.
- Retra 10y ago
  If "just look around" is how you've reached a conclusion, then you need a lesson in human biases.
  - fche 10y ago
    First hand observation is sufficient for some conclusions. Inequality of productivity is obvious. In order to equalize income, those of greater-than-average productivity would have to have some of their wealth redistributed, ergo less free. It's not rocket science.
    - Retra 10y ago
      What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to anyone else. If I look around and see something different, then what? I'm not disagreeing with your conclusions. Your previous argument is crap, and that should be obvious. This: "In order to equalize income, those of greater-than-average productivity would have to have some of their wealth redistributed, ergo less free." Is part of an actual argument. "Just look around" is not. But for what it's worth, I do not agree that freedom intrinsically requires total control of wealth. That it currently does is an artifact of our present culture. I don't even agree that the wealth is "theirs" to begin with.
Steeeve 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/world/article/An-eerie-look-inside-China-s-ghost-cities-6810665.php http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/world/article/An-eeri... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/fidel-castro-cuba-economic-model https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/09/fidel-castro-c...
- coldtea 10y ago
  For one, people weren't actually equal in those regimes. There were sizable privileged bureaucracies and leadership and large swaths of ordinary citizens -- which was exactly what was the issue with them, not equality. Second, who said any attempt at equality has to be made that way? There were historically (and still are) lots of societies both valuing equality and actually way more equal than modern US but with very different structures and/or beliefs. From the Amish and hippy communes, and ancient Spartans, to modern nordic countries.
  - Steeeve 10y ago
    I'm sorry... you're working examples of income equality are hippy communes and Amish villages?
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Perhaps there was a glitch in your browser and it didn't download my whole comment? That's the only explanation I could give to missing not only a couple of more examples, but also the historical extent of them (not to mention my other points).