Where are you on the political Compass

[selfAdjoint]

If this system results in some people being selfish, so be it. A man should have the right to spend the money he earns as he sees fit.

Sorry but I read that as Devil Take the Hindmost, only randomly ameliorated by private charity. The ethics of 1890. Doesn't add up to a just society for me.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry but I read that as Devil Take the Hindmost, only randomly ameliorated by private charity. The ethics of 1890. Doesn't add up to a just society for me.

Your cynicism is disappointing. I don't see government mandated charity as being evidence of real goodwill - on the contrary, those who choose to give when they don't have to are the truly generous. All we capitalists want is choice - and the responsibility (on both sides of the coin - giver and receiver) that goes with it.

I'm very glad you brought up the ethics (and economics) of 1890 - I was about to, but its better that you did. How'd that all work out? In fact the so-called "robber barons" of the late 1800s, virtually without exception, gave vast quantities of their wealth to charity late in their lives. From the charter of the Rockefeller Foundation, founded in 1913:

"To promote the well-being of mankind throughout the world."

http://www.rockfound.org/Documents/180/1913.html The RF is currently worth over $3 bilion. That's the legacy of a capitalist "robber baron."

 

[selfAdjoint]

Your cynicism is disappointing. I don't see government mandated charity as being evidence of real goodwill - on the contrary, those who choose to give when they don't have to are the truly generous. All we capitalists want is choice - and the responsibility (on both sides of the coin - giver and receiver) that goes with it.

I'm very glad you brought up the ethics (and economics) of 1890 - I was about to, but its better that you did. How'd that all work out? In fact the so-called "robber barons" of the late 1800s, virtually without exception, gave vast quantities of their wealth to charity late in their lives. From the charter of the Rockefeller Foundation, founded in 1913: http://www.rockfound.org/Documents/180/1913.html The RF is currently worth over $3 bilion. That's the legacy of a capitalist "robber baron."

Yep some of them did. Carnegie was another. One of the fine libraries I frequented as a teenager was a Carnegie library. But of course others did not. Where is the Diamond Jim Brady foundation? And Ford gave millions to racist and antisemitic organizarions. Meanwhile Jane Addams and Jacob Riis were documenting the miserable lives of the poor to whom none of this largesse trickled down.

In the nature of things (perpetual scarcity) only a few can be Very Rich, and somewhere around a third won't be able to make enough to live on. Personally mandated charity is statistically invisible in this picture. Right libertarianism is a way for those who have enough to bear the situation without feeling guilty. The reason that R.L. has arisen since WWII is that calvinism, which used to supply that function, has declined.

 

[russ_watters]

Yep some of them did. Carnegie was another. One of the fine libraries I frequented as a teenager was a Carnegie library. But of course others did not. Where is the Diamond Jim Brady foundation? And Ford gave millions to racist and antisemitic organizarions. Meanwhile Jane Addams and Jacob Riis were documenting the miserable lives of the poor to whom none of this largesse trickled down.

Well, I've never heard of Diamond Jim Brady, but fair enough - not all.

In the nature of things (perpetual scarcity) only a few can be Very Rich, and somewhere around a third won't be able to make enough to live on... Right libertarianism is a way for those who have enough to bear the situation without feeling guilty. The reason that R.L. has arisen since WWII is that calvinism, which used to supply that function, has declined.

Well, there's that and the fact that us right-libertarians don't believe your opening premise: wealth is not a zero-sum game, and the US has full class-mobility. There is no reason, other than personal failure, why a third of the population should be in need. And yes, I know, there are those who are truly unlucky. But those are a small fraction compared to those who simply choose to be mediocre or below.

When I was enlisted in the Navy, I lived with some of the poorest of the poor. And most of them choose to go into the Navy because they didn't figure they'd have any other way to make it. That's fine - the Navy is a great place to start from absolute zero and succeed (see: Colin Powell). But most of these kids did nothing but screw-off and waste the opportunity they had. It almost takes effort not to get promoted, and these kids did a very good job of it. These are the types of people I am against helping and opposed to being forced to help.

But besides that, there's the general fact that the strength of the US economy has improved the living conditions for all Americans. So you really can't have it both ways: you can't prevent a Jim Brady from existing without also knocking down the income of everyone including that lowest-fifth.

edit: A little reality check: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h01ar.html is the military pay chart. If you're a real screw-up who has done everything but get arrested, you should be an E-4 by the end of 4 years (just treading water, you should be an E-5, and if you're a good sailor, you should be waiting on the results of the E-6 test), by which time you are 21. At $1,957 a month, not including a housing allowance, which starts at about $600 if you live in a poor area and are not married (or other special pay like sea pay), you're already well-into the second fifth. All it takes is keeping the multiple screw-ups relatively minor.

Case-in point: one of my co-workers was, iirc, 32-years-old when I left. He'd just passed his E-6 exam, having gone up and down the ranks several times to that point (he was arrested several times). By age 28 or so, he had settled-down a little. At $2,888 a month, not including his housing allowance or sea pay, he's cracked the 3rd fifth.

I utterly reject the contention that America is not "the land of opportunity."

 

[Gokul43201]

That was a factual observation, not an inflammatory generalization...

Factual observation ?

Unless you plan to quote from a scientific poll, pray tell me how you intend to support your claim.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not with this, I hope.

We have quite a few liberals here, some very extreme, and it seems only the conservatives have a problem with the tone of the test.

Among those that showed an objection to the wording of this test were at least 3 liberals : vanesh, kat and I.

Aquamarine made a strong objection, and you supported it. That's 2 conservatives (even though we don't really know that aqua's conservative).

Even if you don't call kat a liberal (though others here were surprised by her scores, she only defended them), I can't see what your assertion is based on.

 

[chound]

Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.08
Am i leaning 2 usa or communists

 

[selfAdjoint]

Negative economic combined with positive authoritarian is leaning toward stalinism.

 

[russ_watters]

Not with this, I hope.


Among those that showed an objection to the wording of this test were at least 3 liberals : vanesh, kat and I.

Aquamarine made a strong objection, and you supported it. That's 2 conservatives (even though we don't really know that aqua's conservative).

Even if you don't call kat a liberal (though others here were surprised by her scores, she only defended them), I can't see what your assertion is based on.

Aquamarine refused to take the test. I considered that as well. I didn't see an indication from the others that they considered the tone of the test to be a big enough deal to invalidate the test and make it not worth doing.

Factual observation ?

Unless you plan to quote from a scientific poll, pray tell me how you intend to support your claim.

Scientific poll? Please, this is a message board: my statement was a factual observation regarding statements made on this board.

 

[Gokul43201]

Okay, so when you said

conseratives are more likely to reject inflamatory language than liberals

you were only referring to the liberals in this forum ? That, I'll agree with.

The statement, as you made it, sure sounded like you were talking about conservatives and liberals in general.