5 ms·

Then people need to slow down and think about what justice really is -- is hurting the rich really justice if everyone else gets hurt too?

Godel_unicode 4y ago
Justice is the idea that people are treated equally, impartially, and fairly under a set of standards. If someone breaks the rules justice is them getting the same punishment anyone else would get, concerns about externalities don’t come into it. Is everyone getting hurt ideal? No. But that’s a different question than is it justice. IMO this is what happened during 2008. The government tried to minimize harm at the expense of justice, and people are angry because they don’t realize how bad it could have been.
f-securus 4y ago
If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with b.
- aceazzameen 4y ago
  B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.
  - CapstanRoller 4y ago
    >socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it. Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
      - CapstanRoller 4y ago
        No, it's just called "capitalism". The thing you call cronyism is a core feature, not a bug: under capitalism, the capitalist class advances its own interests. Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        I disagree with you.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        OK, disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that specific words still have specific meanings.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Yes, but we're disagreeing about the specific meaning of words. Capitalism describes an economy where capital is the mechanism through which goods and services are allocated. It is not the partnership of public and private entities, as you suggest. That would be crony capitalism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalis...
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        That page describes how "crony capitalism" is used colloquially. Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology. I argue that usage of the term "crony capitalism" is itself a form of capitalist ideology.
- xeromal 4y ago
  I don't think those are the only two options though. b) The rich now have less billions but still billions and everyone else now has to budget even harder.

Godel_unicode 4y ago

Justice is the idea that people are treated equally, impartially, and fairly under a set of standards. If someone breaks the rules justice is them getting the same punishment anyone else would get, concerns about externalities don’t come into it. Is everyone getting hurt ideal? No. But that’s a different question than is it justice. IMO this is what happened during 2008. The government tried to minimize harm at the expense of justice, and people are angry because they don’t realize how bad it could have been.

f-securus 4y ago

If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with b.

aceazzameen 4y ago
B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.
- CapstanRoller 4y ago
  >socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it. Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
    - CapstanRoller 4y ago
      No, it's just called "capitalism". The thing you call cronyism is a core feature, not a bug: under capitalism, the capitalist class advances its own interests. Please stop trying to redefine basic terminology to suit your agenda.
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        I disagree with you.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        OK, disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that specific words still have specific meanings.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        Yes, but we're disagreeing about the specific meaning of words. Capitalism describes an economy where capital is the mechanism through which goods and services are allocated. It is not the partnership of public and private entities, as you suggest. That would be crony capitalism. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalism https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crony%20capitalis...
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        That page describes how "crony capitalism" is used colloquially. Dictionaries are not a great source for determining canonical meaning of complex political terminology. I argue that usage of the term "crony capitalism" is itself a form of capitalist ideology.
xeromal 4y ago
I don't think those are the only two options though. b) The rich now have less billions but still billions and everyone else now has to budget even harder.