4 ms·

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 eq

by 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.

by 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.