The Rich get a little less RichFollow

The argument that if you want to help people you should climb up the income bracket to help them more effectively is a somewhat interesting one, but fundamentally broken really.

At certain levels it's absolutely true. A person who has a stable life and income can help people more effectively both in terms of donated time and donated money. However, the problem with the idea of investing money so in ten years you can help even more never really ends. When do you start helping?

Another big problem, which I think is missed, is that a person you could help by giving money would be better off earning that money through a job that provides him with skills and experience. The extra money you are now earning would be better spent by just employing him, so the idea that you are seeking promotion to better be able to help people doesn't work.

This doesn't mean that promotions and saving money is wrong or bad or anything, but don't try to glorify it as maximizing your ability to help.

You would think that wouldn't you, you freak. I say that there is too much stratification and it interferes with the political process and you are all like "YOU HATE RICH PEOPLE FOR BEING RICH."

Christ, when I want to talk about taking out the Man, I'll do that biznitch.



You mean back when you could buy a house and support your family on a working class wage. Oh horribles. And having it replaced with taudry symbols bought in a debt driven economy? Really?

Edited, Aug 26th 2009 11:29pm by Annabella

Sweet! It still doesn't imply causation.

While we're at it, let's make a small list of what we could gather from that ridiculously stupid statement you made.

1. When rich people lose money, poorer people lose proportionally more money.
2. When poorer people lose money, the rich lose some money as well.
3. When the richest of the rich lose money, they start a global economic crisis.
4. When the poorest of the poor lose money, they start a global economic crisis.
5. Up until 1900, the poor could lose money without causing the rich to lose money.
6. Up until 1900, the rich could lose money without causing the poor to lose money.
7. Our state of living after 1900 is worse because of how connected wealth is among different social strata.
8. Our state of living after 1900 is better because of how connected wealth is among different social strata.
9. We should separate the connection between the rich and the poor.
10. We should reinforce the connection between the rich and the poor.
11. The state of our country is solely connected to how wealthy the rich are.
12. The state of our country is not connected to how wealthy the rich are.
13. The state of our country is solely connected to how wealthy the poor are.
14. The state of our country is not connected to how wealthy the poor are.
15. The level of wealth amongst the rich is directly connected to the state of the country as a whole.
16. The level of wealth amongst the rich is not directly connected to the state of the country as a whole.
17. The level of wealth amongst the rich is directly connected to the level of wealth amongst the poor.
18. The level of wealth amongst the rich is not directly connected to the level of wealth amongst the poot.
19. The level of wealth amongst the poor is directly connected to the state of the country as a whole.
20. The level of wealth amongst the poor is not directly connected to the state of the country as a whole.
21. The level of wealth amongst the poor is directly connected to the level of wealth amongst the rich.
22. The level of wealth amongst the poor is not directly connected to the level of wealth amongst the rich.
23. No one cares about the middle class.
24. There is no middle class.
25. The middle class is the same thing as the poor.
26. The middle class is not the same thing as the poor.
27. The wealth of the middle class is important in terms of the wealth of the rich.
28. The wealth of the middle class is not important in terms of the wealth of the rich.
29. The middle class has not effect on the wealth of the country.
30. The middle class has a strong effect on the wealth of the country.
31. The middle class has a mild effect on the wealth of the country.
32. The wealth of the middle class is what determines the wealth of the country.
33. The wealth of the middle class is important in comparison to the wealth of the rich.
34. The wealth of the poor is important in comparison to the wealth of the rich.
35. The wealth of the middle class is unimportant in comparison to the wealth of the rich

I could keep going on, but I don't really feel like it.

This is too big a problem to overlook. Not only does wealth translate to political influence quite handily at the current, but the more we rely on wealthy individuals to provide for the needy, the more power they wield over the masses - social as well as political.

It's amazing the degree to which you all ignore what I say and invent something else. Strawmen to the right of me! Strawmen to the left!!!!

The quote you just responded to started with this statement of mine:



This is what I attributed to you. Was my statement an accurate representation of what you believe about wealth in America? Yes or no?

Having no laws over the market is just as bad. That's why people make a compromise.



Look, people are pretty dependent on the government already. The oversight in government comes from other parts of government. And the government is composed of people who were elected into the office. Until that principle is undermined, there's no danger to the people. If an administration is abusing its power for the personal profit of its central members, you can vote them the fuck out in a few year's time.

Then again, since no-one's saying we should give the government absolute control of everything, this point is fairly moot. Again, we compromise. The corporate sector isn't given total freedom and the government isn't given total control.



Then, well, leave the country. You can go be ultimately and completely free on an unoccupied desert island somewhere.

Man, you sound like you got this **** out of a pamphlet. "Taxes are a burden on my personal freedom!" Well, yeah. That's what you pay for - wait for it - free health care. Mutual benefit and everything.

I knew you wouldn't let me down.

But every difference you just pointed out isn't a difference in the argument; it's a difference of matters of fact. The arguments themselves are the same, though whether or not they are sound is obviously up for debate.

Besides, if I think it's a bad argument when you use it, what should that say about this one? Think for a minute. I wasn't relying on you to salvage your own points, but to destroy this one. You sort of failed, but that's okay too.The reason why I preempt this, though, is to prevent you from inexorably making the point that you say the same thing about large government, and something along the lines of "heh, funny how liberals will use the same appeals to argue against big business." I didn't think you'd completely change direction and start arguing for me, but well, it's cool I guess.

Edited, Aug 27th 2009 10:44am by Pensive

You didn't answer my question

Absolutely not. It's the government's job to protect those things. However, if you put the government in the position of running the industries currently run by corporations, then it may not fill that role as well. They'll have a conflict of interest. For the same reason that a corporation is concerned with profits and there must be some outside force to worry about our rights and whatnot, putting the government in the position of being its own watchdog is a recipe for disaster.



Yes. Which is why you have the government as a separate entity to prevent that from happening. But if the government is the only business in town, what then?



Again. If you put the government in that same position, it can do all of those things to. The difference is that with a corporation, there's a government which can regulate it. With the government, you've lost that check.

It's like you guys just didn't get what I was saying. If the problem is removing the ability to prevent abuses by those in control of industry, then the solution is to spread out the "power". This is done by having the industries be privately run, with the government providing regulatory oversight. Having the corporations run everything is a bad idea, and having the government run everything is a bad idea. It's just amazing to me how often people get this when they look at corporations, but fail to see that the exact same risks are run if the government is handed that control.



You can say the same thing about the government. Both government and corporations are just groups of people with a common set of goals. If we leave the government out of industry, it can focus on what it's supposed to be doing: Protecting our rights and freedoms. If you put it into industry, it will adopt the same characteristics you ascribe to corporations.

How can you not see this as a bad thing?

Sure. But the facts do change the outcome, right? Whether the argument is sound is somewhat contingent on those facts, because they establish whether the premise(s) are true.



I didn't fail, you introduced fallacious assumptions of your own. I have argued that over dependence on *anyone* creates a reduction of liberty. However, I have also argued that this is not absolutely bad (because we all must be somewhat dependent on others to be a functioning part of society), but that we should strive to ensure that we are the least dependent that we can possibly be.

You translated that into being dependent on "wealthy people" (more correctly, applied that language directly to my own argument), which is not remotely close to my argument (as I indicated). It's the degree of dependency, not the degree of wealth or power that others around you may have, which determines the degree of liberty you possess (or reduction of it in this case).

I didn't destroy the argument, because aside from the twisting of language, the argument is valid. My "salvaging of my own points" was aimed at showing you how the conditions of wealth in others aren't really at issue. It's the degree of dependency that matters.



I didn't argue for you Pensive. I attempted to show you why your interpretation of my own argument was incorrect and to teach you the difference. Apparently, you're so stuck on the formulation that you once again lose sight of the details.

It matters if we're talking about wealthy individuals or the government. It matters if a government which we've entrusted to make laws and control our military is the one deciding what products and services are available to buy or whether it's private industry, which has none of those other powers.


I don't know how else I can explain it to you so you'll understand. I've said this like 3 or 4 different ways, yet you still continue to misunderstand. It's kinda frustrating, but I suppose I can keep trying...

Edited, Aug 27th 2009 10:44am by Pensive[/quote]

Quite certainly.

If of you think that you'd be any more dependent on the government than we already are on huge insurance corporations, and the the degree of that dependence is in any way practically different, then I don't know what to say.



And failed, as I said.



This is a different point, and unrelated. This point concerns an ideal of what the government should be, not whether or not it would strip more or less freedom to rely on it rather than insurance companies. This point may be true and the other may be totally false; they are simply not in the slightest dependent on one another.

***

And I have conflated this issue with the health insurance threads apparently subconsciously. That's okay. I guess it does serve as an example.

"Provide for the needy" in whatever capacity that means. Housing: rely on government to provide projects, or use non-profit, private shelters funded by the rich. You're still dependent in the exact same degree. Without the presence of one or the other, you will not have a home. Taking away either of these does not suddenly prompt people to start looking for jobs to find a place to live.

You, in the past, have argued that simply by providing the service at no cost to the recipient, he is less free. There is no difference in where that comes from. There can't be. There isn't a way you ahve "sort of" have a place to live provided for you. You either have one given to you, work for it yourself, or don't have it. If it is given to you, you lose the exact same amount of "freedom."

Edited, Aug 27th 2009 9:04pm by Pensive

I'm not going to go off on that tangent until you answer the very simple question I asked you.