6 ms·
This entire post is based on a strawman argument. AoC said that a system that allows billionaires to emerge alongside extreme poverty is immoral - with referenc
by helen___keller 8y ago
This entire post is based on a strawman argument. AoC said that a system that allows billionaires to emerge alongside extreme poverty is immoral - with reference to hookworm(which she incorrectly referred to as ringworm) in Alabama. It's hard to disagree with that, and it's a VERY different point than claiming billionaires should not exist (which OP argues against).
By the way, the point AoC was trying to make when put in context is exactly the argument that the OP was making, which is that people getting rich is OK but it's immoral that people are getting rich and also people are living in extreme poverty, so we should improve the system so people aren't living in extreme poverty.
Where OP differs from AoC is (of course) in his assessment of how we eliminate extreme poverty - AoC is famously advocating a 70% marginal tax rate, while OP suggested some unspecified mix of "technological improvement" and "re-imagining of government" to achieve elimination of poverty. Frankly I think OP is just naive. Maybe he thinks government is literally in the stone age with an army of clerks shuffling paperwork, but I just don't see how eliminating some unnecessary jobs (useful, yes) in government can achieve "medical care for all, affordable education for all, and some amount of income for all" (OP's listed aims).
On top of that, ANY change to government is inherently political. The kind of revolutionary upgrades in government efficiency that OP wants would need to be a major party initiative - which would be opposed by the opposite party, watered down during negotiations, and subjected to compromise by the political process. This is simply a fact about how the world works. We're not an autocracy which means we don't get a visionary Steve Jobs figure who can dictate what the government will do for the next 10 years, and we have to accept both the good and the bad that comes with that.
To think that technology will magically save us from real world problems plaguing real people by "reimagining government" and "cutting unnecessary jobs" is literally wishful thinking. It belongs in a bygone era where tech enthusiasts were sure facebook and google would revolutionize the world by spreading democratic and free speech ideals to every corner of the earth. There aren't easy solutions to every hard problem and OP doesn't seem to appreciate this fact.
- zethus 8y agoCompletely unrelated to the content of your post, but I find it interesting that you lowercase the o in AOC as if it's a technology like IoT.
- helen___keller 8y agoHaha yea wow I didn't even realize I was doing that.
- ilikerashers 8y agoWell written comment. As someone close to the NHS and UK school system, Fred's type of mentality has hit these hard and contributed to Brexit. Both are constantly bringing in "change" type consultants. If only we can cut employees/use this software package/run it more like a business/get better leaders/have more digital strategies. No Fred, they just need money. They need money to pay doctors, they need money to fund beds, the need to pay teachers. Government doesn't run like business. A hospital can't just go bust, a council can't just shut up shop, this isn't how it should work either. His solution is roughly saying "well I like the status quo and if you come up with anything I'll take a look but will probably shoot it down". Sorry Fred, you're on "the let them eat cake" side whether you recognize it or not. Roll on March 29th.
- alexgmcm 8y agoIt seems Brexit will do horrific damage to the NHS though. I mean turning back the clock on half a century of economic integration to become some Juche state probably isn't going to work out so well.
- squirrelicus 8y agoWhat is "extreme poverty" and what is the character of the life of someone who lives in "extreme poverty"? One of my biggest fears with this line of rhetoric: Extreme is a relative descriptor. If the most poor of us made 100k/yr, then they would be on the "extreme" end of the income scale. I fear that it's too easy to forget that making 15k/year today makes you dramatically better off than median income earners from 100 years ago.
- helen___keller 8y agoI don't disagree that descriptors like "extreme poverty" are inherently vague, but I think that's kind of the point - that regardless for where the exact line is, we can all agree there's some point where people are unambiguously in the world of "extreme poverty". For people in that world, we can easily pick out the hugest pain points in their struggle - lack of healthcare, lack of housing, and so on. And then, we can structurally change how these resources are distributed by society in a way such nobody will have to live without them. That's really all the progressive agenda is, right? We recognize that having no healthcare at all (and the associated problems with that level of poverty) is immoral, so we want healthcare for all, even if we have to raise the marginal tax rate at the top level to do so (and so on). I don't think there needs to be a formula for what constitutes "extreme poverty" to make poverty less painful for America. Edit: or to put it another way, since most everyone agrees that going full communism is categorically a bad idea, partially socializing resources that can be considered a common good is a good alternative. We already do this with plenty of things, like the military, we're just looking to take it a step further where appropriate.
- yanslookup 8y agoA rising tide lifts all boats... Or at least it should. What do you think the world looks like for the poorest in the world in the next 100 years? 300 years? Possibly/probably better than you or I have it now.
- normal_man 8y agoAs long as where they live isn't flooded by rising sea levels, or their farms aren't desiccated by drought....
- profalseidol 8y ago> would need to be a major party initiative - which would be opposed by the opposite party, watered down during negotiations, and subjected to compromise by the political process. The current parties? Never. They would simply talk about the wall or destroying another country. Or saction this and that. In the last 6 weeks, the Yellow Vest Movement has achieved so much already. The power is in the hands of the people, if only they realize it. The good news is that this movement is spreading everywhere.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]