5 ms·

I don't believe all people are equal but we should certainly aim to progress in incremental steps to a society which is more inline with the principles of merit

I don't believe all people are equal but we should certainly aim to progress in incremental steps to a society which is more inline with the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.

rhizome 7y ago
This may sound beyond the pale, but I think nothing will happen along these lines until banks (at least) are allowed to fail. There's too much socialism among the privileged and too little among the less so. Society is way behind the people who have figured out how to externalize risks, such that equalization is criticized as oppression.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  There is no logical way to dispute your obviously-correct suggestion, and yet it will never come to pass in USA. Therefore, USA itself doesn't have a great deal of time remaining.
  - rhizome 7y ago
    it will never come to pass in USA Not with that attitude it won't!
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      You're right! If only we had voted harder, a single investment banker who caused the "financial crisis" might have gone to prison for a couple of days. Better luck next time! (Because all the bankers got rich instead of incarcerated, "next time" is inevitable.)
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > There's too much socialism among the privileged You can't have “socialism among he privileged”; that doesn't make any sense. If you want to say cronyism, say cronyism, and leave socialism, which has nothing to do with it, out of the description.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Maybe cronyism is a more correct term, but I don’t see why it’s such a problem to use the above phrasing.
    - 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
      The main point of socialism -- broadly construed -- is to secure self-determination for the working class by ending the dominance of the capitalist class. Redistribution of money is just one possible mechanism that might be employed to that end. In that sense, it's no more "socialist" to bail out or give generous tax incentives to powerful corporations or wealthy people than it is "open source" (let alone "free software") to release source code under a restrictive license.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Yes, and it's an extremely dumb saying that only makes sense within a particular misunderstanding of what “socialism” means that derives from hostile mischaracterization by capitalists. (Socialism about collective, rather than private, ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. The rich in America very much enjoy the benefits of private ownership of the means of production.)
      - hollerith 7y ago
        Socialism has another meaning that fits better into the old saying: namely, the provision by the government of economic security to the individual.
        dragonwriter 7y ago
        That's the exact misunderstanding of socialism that derives from hostile capitalist mischaracterization. If true that socialists believe that socialism has that effect, but “socialism” is not, outside of capitalist propaganda, a general term for any system which has or seeks that effect, any more than “capitalism” is a generic term for any system which has or seeks the effect of enslavement of the mass of the population to a narrow elite (even though socialists believe that capitalism has—and seeks—that effect.)

I don't believe all people are equal but we should certainly aim to progress in incremental steps to a society which is more inline with the principles of meritocracy and equality of opportunity.

rhizome 7y ago

This may sound beyond the pale, but I think nothing will happen along these lines until banks (at least) are allowed to fail. There's too much socialism among the privileged and too little among the less so. Society is way behind the people who have figured out how to externalize risks, such that equalization is criticized as oppression.

jessaustin 7y ago
There is no logical way to dispute your obviously-correct suggestion, and yet it will never come to pass in USA. Therefore, USA itself doesn't have a great deal of time remaining.
- rhizome 7y ago
  it will never come to pass in USA Not with that attitude it won't!
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    You're right! If only we had voted harder, a single investment banker who caused the "financial crisis" might have gone to prison for a couple of days. Better luck next time! (Because all the bankers got rich instead of incarcerated, "next time" is inevitable.)
dragonwriter 7y ago
> There's too much socialism among the privileged You can't have “socialism among he privileged”; that doesn't make any sense. If you want to say cronyism, say cronyism, and leave socialism, which has nothing to do with it, out of the description.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Maybe cronyism is a more correct term, but I don’t see why it’s such a problem to use the above phrasing.
  - 0xcde4c3db 7y ago
    The main point of socialism -- broadly construed -- is to secure self-determination for the working class by ending the dominance of the capitalist class. Redistribution of money is just one possible mechanism that might be employed to that end. In that sense, it's no more "socialist" to bail out or give generous tax incentives to powerful corporations or wealthy people than it is "open source" (let alone "free software") to release source code under a restrictive license.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > There’s an old saying that in America we have socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Yes, and it's an extremely dumb saying that only makes sense within a particular misunderstanding of what “socialism” means that derives from hostile mischaracterization by capitalists. (Socialism about collective, rather than private, ownership of the means of production, whereas capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production. The rich in America very much enjoy the benefits of private ownership of the means of production.)
    - hollerith 7y ago
      Socialism has another meaning that fits better into the old saying: namely, the provision by the government of economic security to the individual.
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        That's the exact misunderstanding of socialism that derives from hostile capitalist mischaracterization. If true that socialists believe that socialism has that effect, but “socialism” is not, outside of capitalist propaganda, a general term for any system which has or seeks that effect, any more than “capitalism” is a generic term for any system which has or seeks the effect of enslavement of the mass of the population to a narrow elite (even though socialists believe that capitalism has—and seeks—that effect.)