- #1
P-Jay1
- 32
- 0
Is inequality bad for society as a whole?
drankin said:Inequality of what?
P-Jay1 said:Is inequality bad for society as a whole?
russ_watters said:In the context of this forum, I took it to me social and therefore financial, but good point...
DanP said:The only relevant equity is before the laws, and the rights protected by the state.
In rest inequality is natural. We are not born equal, we are not part of the same social classes. Some will achieve more than others. So why should we be equal ?
nismaratwork said:I think a distinction should be drawn between a goal of everyone being equal (yuck) in a kind of homogeneous smear, and the notion that we should strive to at LEAST see that people have equal opportunities. I don't want to have a quadriplegic fireman, and the fact that the poor man or woman was dealt a bad hand doesn't matter a bit! In our own pursuit of happiness, we don't have to be the same... that's not what equal means.
We could also say that the life of any given person is of equal value at the outset, or argue that it's not the case. This is why context matters so much.
After all, as The Onion so crudely pointed out with their sketch, would you like to get in a boxing ring with a futuristic cyborg? Equality can be an issue in sport where a particular element of competition is being isolated; hence weight-classes and a variety of forms of a given sport.
Sameness is not the same as Equality... it's just one dystopian form of it. Laws are another form of imposed equality in theory, sort of... if you really believe that. I'm an atheist, but if there is a god and I'm wrong, surely the only equality that would matter would be decided by that being, and supersede law, even nature.
No, the OP is so vague that this isn't even a Rorschach inkblot... it's just playing with words.
P-Jay1 said:I
It it said that these social problems arise because countries like the USA and UK are more socially competitive places to live. This can give pose "physco social" factors- like social anxiety. Peoples feelings have a lot to do with their overall health apparently.
.
DanP said:Equal opportunity dreams are utopic. If I'm born in a rich, well placed socially family, Ill afford the best education money can buy, social relationships in many places and so on. Something others persons won't have. Much more doors will open before me. That are just the way things are.
Ppl don't have equal opportunity. Because we are born in different social contexts and with different gifts. Social injustice is natural. Live with it.
DanP said:In rest inequality is natural. We are not born equal, we are not part of the same social classes. Some will achieve more than others. So why should we be equal ?
Greg Bernhardt said:Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
I just got done watching a fantastic documentary from National Geographic called "Guns, Germs and Steel". It attempts to find the source of inequality in the world, historically. Obviously in a nutshell it comes down to "Guns, Germs and Steel", however the primary factor comes down to geography and how some civilizations were just lucky to be living where they were. For example the landscape and weather determined the quality and variety of farming. It's very good, I recommend it. You can find it on Nexflix Instant.
nismaratwork said:Have you seen the documentary about the moment of death?... a bit disturbing, but also a fascinating way to examine the mind.
Greg Bernhardt said:Nope, but I just added it to my queue :)
Of course, absolutely. Why wouldn't they, unless their political beliefs are corrupted by their own single data point. Having grown up very poor and struggled raising my own family (lower middle class at best), a single data point doesn't affect legitimate political beliefs. Political beliefs just don't follow the rich/poor fictional dichotomy espoused by many on the left.Greg Bernhardt said:Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
Greg Bernhardt said:Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
Jimmy Snyder said:It happened that the neighborhood socialist came by at noon and noticed that I had an apple, but my neighbor did not. "That's not fair." says he. So he took my apple and divided it in three equal pieces, one for my neighbor, one for me, and one for the socialist. Now we have equality.
I'm not sure the label is the problem, but for the record, he calls himself a socialist.DanP said:You can't even call that being a "socialist". he is a Marxist.
Times two. He was by far the most influential man of the 20th century (while he was dead). Probably more influential than anyone man since Mohammad. And not in a good way.DanP said:You can't even call that being a "socialist". he is a Marxist. If there is a devil, I hope he burns Marx in a tar cauldron till the end of time :P
The most sinister aspect of that is that today, people can use "ability" to justify who government should take from, use "need" to justify who to give it to, while simultaneously denying having a Marxist political philosophy. And, at least in some cases, they actually believe that themselves."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", there is no more misguided behavior than this one. A total ignorance of the human nature.
Al68 said:Times two. He was by far the most influential man of the 20th century (while he was dead). Probably more influential than anyone man since Mohammad. And not in a good way.The most sinister aspect of that is that today, people can use "ability" to justify who government should take from, use "need" to justify who to give it to, while simultaneously denying having a Marxist political philosophy. And, at least in some cases, they actually believe that themselves.
Could Marx have ever predicted that socialist propaganda could be so remarkably effective?
Nope. It's not very constructive to repeatedly misrepresent the posts you respond to.nismaratwork said:So... everyone who meets that very broad criteria, even if they don't follow or share the philosophy or even execution proposed by Marx, is a Socialist.
A great philosopher once said, "There's always a bigger fish."Greg Bernhardt said:Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
The devil's greatest trick is convincing the world he doesn't exist.Al68 said:Could Marx have ever predicted that socialist propaganda could be so remarkably effective?
P-Jay1 said:In terms of inequality of society there are now claims that an unequal society creates health problems and social problems for every class, including the rich. It has been said that a country with a bigger gap between the rich and poor is a country with bigger health and social problems.
For instance countries like the USA and the Uk do worse than there equaivalents in more equal countries like Sweden or Japan. Unequal countries like the USA have a lot higher homicides per 100,000 than say Sweden. Unequal countries have higher teen birth rates, more violence, more obesity, more people in prison, and lower levels of child welfare. For e.g. If we were to plot a graph with the equality of countries on the x-axis and the amount of homicides on the y-axis, then we would see diagonal line rising as the equality lessens.
It it said that these social problems arise because countries like the USA and UK are more socially competitive places to live. This can give pose "physco social" factors- like social anxiety. Peoples feelings have a lot to do with their overall health apparently.
I myself am pretty sceptical about this as not sure the figures add up. A correlation between inequality and teen birth rate is just the same as a correlation between the number of birds migrating and the amount of homicides. I think more variables shold be taken into to consideration.
Until you're eaten by a bigger fish.Office_Shredder said:That doesn't change the fact that being a big fish is awesome
russ_watters said:Today's liberals bristle at hearing it, but the reality is that they are pulling the western world toward the failed theory of Marx. The financial and related social problems of the west today are a manifestation of the same sort of failure that brought down the USSR.
[edit] Er, ok - that was basically the whole rant.
A lot of so-called conservatives don't know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right."
russ_watters said:Until you're eaten by a bigger fish.
russ_watters said:Until you're eaten by a bigger fish.
Al68 said:Nope. It's not very constructive to repeatedly misrepresent the posts you respond to.
I was obviously referring to people who do share Marx's philosophy. But you knew that.
Edit: Not all people who share that philosophy object to the word socialist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders" [Broken], for example, refers to himself as a socialist. As much as I disagree with him, at least he's not ashamed of who he is, and knows what the word socialist means.
The word socialist is not a personal insult, or a reference to madmen (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc) who happened to be socialist, as so many apparently believe.
Russ: Star Wars? (THE NEW ONES), and unless you're a fan of Baudelaire, 'The Usual Suspects'? If the latter, the only thing that really merits a response would be to correct you:russ_watters said:The devil's greatest trick is convincing the world he doesn't exist.
I have a rant I've been meaning to post in another open thread on a similar subject, but the thesis is this: Western political philosophy was developed academically for hundreds of years before being successfully implimented in the US and then the rest of the world. It then operated for 150 years before an idea was proposed to modify the concept of "rights" to be things granted/provided by the government instead of just things the government couldn't take from you (or let others take from you). Near as I can tell, this idea came from FDR with his "second bill of rights" speech. This idea was not vetted by academic discourse but instead was proposed by a politician who stood to gain personally in proposing it. Thus, today's move toward implimenting his concept, in particular with the recent 'government sourced healthcare is a right' is seriously misguided.
The one caveat to the "not vetted by academic discourse" is that the nearest relation to a developed political theory that FDR's idea could come from is Marxism. Marxism was discussed in depth by Marx and argued and debated for decades, then multiple attempts were made to implement it in a relatively pure form on a national level, all of which failed. So it may be more accurate to say it was vetted -- just with a negative result (if that's the right usage of that word...). Today's liberals bristle at hearing it, but the reality is that they are pulling the western world toward the failed theory of Marx. The financial and related social problems of the west today are a manifestation of the same sort of failure that brought down the USSR.
[edit] Er, ok - that was basically the whole rant.
There is debate among scholars about whether inequality is natural or not. Some argue that it is a result of human nature and the desire for power and resources. Others argue that it is a product of societal systems and structures. However, regardless of its origins, inequality can have negative impacts on society as a whole.
Inequality can have a negative impact on economic growth. When there is a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, it can lead to lower levels of consumer spending and investment, which can ultimately slow down economic growth. In addition, unequal access to education and opportunities can limit the potential for economic growth for those in lower socio-economic classes.
There is evidence to suggest that high levels of inequality can lead to social and political unrest. When there is a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, it can create feelings of frustration and resentment among those who are struggling to make ends meet. This can lead to protests, strikes, and even violence, which can destabilize society as a whole.
Inequality can have significant consequences for health and well-being. Studies have shown that individuals in lower socio-economic classes have higher rates of chronic diseases, mental health issues, and overall poorer health outcomes compared to those in higher socio-economic classes. This is due to factors such as unequal access to healthcare, education, and resources.
Yes, policies and interventions can play a role in reducing inequality. This can include measures such as progressive taxation, minimum wage laws, and social welfare programs. However, it is important to note that inequality is a complex issue and requires a multi-faceted approach to address it effectively.