http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/03/13/itl_20_gdn_090313_01__.pdf
I thought this would be an interesting topic to discuss. Your thoughts on the article?
The Guardian would never publish anything that is not complete rubbish.
I found these statements amusing.
- “Sweden has a big welfare state and a progressive stance on women’s rights, whereas in Japan the government is a small spender”
Japan a small spender? Not at all. Japan is an enormous spender, with descendants of the old samurai class having become a permanent bureaucratic class endowed with the cushiest jobs, and this large bureaucracy requires huge money maintainance. Japan’s high fiscal deficit is one sign of this consuming, omnipotent government. To say Japan does not have high social spending would also be inaccurate; it’s also one of the more generous East Asian welfare states.
- The British inequality index with a base in 1974
Virtually every British person lives a better life than every British person in 1974. The comparison is meaningless, that Britain is somehow “40%” more unequal than before. I do grant, however, that Clement Attlee retiring and dying poor is a sign of him having been much closer to the status of his voters, but ultimately, inequality means nothing other than the fact that some people earn differently from others, and Britain has always been a nation with some rich, some poor, some between, and almost all moving rapidly between them - old aristocracies have had many descendants now living hand-to-mouth and coming back up slowly again, and many of Britain’s current richest are descended from working class families.
3)“Under Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) the income gap widened to a chasm, as top pay raced ahead and most benefits were frozen. Tax and benefit changes alone account for about a third of the total increase.”
Margaret Thatcher triped social spending in real terms and all social benefits were raised. There was an increase and not a decrease in the British welfare state under her, but it was only coupled with a restructuring of the state and some modest liberalization. Some benefits removed, some new ones brought in, and many new kinds of taxes levied under her - and not some kind of reduction of taxes on rich that progressives fear. This is called unfalsifiability - if a progressive heard that Thatcher increased the welfare state, he’d say it helped things, and if a progressive heard another progressive’s figures on problems coming after Thatcher, he’d blame Thatcher’s dismantling of the welfare state.
Inequality is a silly issue. While the libertarian response to it might be that inequality is one extremely arbitrary and ill-defined term and notion, I prefer the conservative’s response. As conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts and Thomas Fleming have often pointed out, all the levying of inheritance taxes, wage controls, price controls, and progressive taxes have done absolutely zero in “reducing inequality” ever since they were implemented; the ever looming rich elite seem only as powerful as they ever were since 1913 when US implemented income tax.
“Spreading the wealth” nonsense.
The attempt to make equal, what is not and can never be: the mother of all evils.
Inequality is a defining characteristic of civilization. Our differences are, in part, the reason why cooperation and exchange are superior to isolation. Either way, the existence of innate and acquired differences is absolute. Wondering what the would would look like under different circumstances, which are impossible, is entirely useless. The scientist looks at the world as is, and tries to explain it. Any ideology which ignores this fact, or tries to avoid it, is inherently defunct and futile.
“The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom.”
Yeah, Esuric, egalitarianism is nothing but a religion.
But worse, it’s a religion that even serious socialists don’t worship or care much about, if you go by posts in RevLeft.
It’s only followed by American Republicans like George Bush, or European social democrat politicians, but never by anybody whose job isn’t to be a public clown.
In fact, Egalitarianism is a religion far more utopian than Socialism ever was.
Bush thought he could improve the grades of all students, and take them across all academic milestones by throwing more money at them and expanding the educational bureaucracy with No Child Left Behind, even though a second-grader would know some students can never perform, no matter what. Bush thought the New Orleans rescue effort after Katrina could succeed by national level intervention, when the most basic local civic government, down to police officers, failed and turned rogue on their own city. Bush thought that having ethnic characters and levelling the ethnic playing field in the Supreme Court or executive government is going to bring excellence to them. Bush thought wars and building governments in Middle Eastern countries will bring them better leaders, simply because people voted for them, and then they got al-Maliki and Karzai.
This is all egalitarian extremism, and that from someone labelled as a right-wing leader.
Obama, far less of an egalitarian cultist than Bush was, at least aimed for the more modest utopia of equally low premia for medical insurance, which is no less of La-la-land politics.
Jefferson once said that nothing is more unequal than the equal treatmen of unequal people. Thus, let the market figure out how much utility you provide society with.
Only a sophomoric socialist would view inequality as creator of evil. Inequality is the product of evil. If you and I engage in voluntary cooperation, there is no heirarchy created. I may give reverence/respect to you, but you hold no authority over me.
Inequality to someone halfway versed in socialist theory is a value claim, and devoid of any truth value. What is important is heirarchies.
Hierarchies are necessary for complex social organization, the problem that leftists have is confusing voluntary hierarchies with authoritarianism. But this is usually because they don’t understand economic concepts like the division of labor.
Hierarchies are necessary for complex social organization, the problem that leftists have is confusing voluntary hierarchies with authoritarianism
Hierarchy != division of labor.
When you’re talking about heirarchy you’re talking about one man intrinsically having politcal/legal power over another. There are no voluntary heirarchies.
confusing… hierarchies with authoritarianism.
I would say equating, rather than confusing.
When you’re talking about heirarchy you’re talking about one man intrinsically having politcal/legal power over another. There are no voluntary heirarchies.
There isn’t anything innate in the definition of hierarchy (common definition that is) that makes it incompatible with volunteering.
I would agree that the common definition doesn’t require authoritarianism for heirarchy. But, many socialists see it as such.
I would agree that the common definition doesn’t require authoritarianism for heirarchy. But, many socialists see it as such.
Thats a fairly big burden they are going to have to overcome.
That’s what I’m saying. It is a common misconception that socialism means removing all social strata. I don’t think anybody reasonable would see that as feasible in any way. It is only when one man intrinsically has authority over another that the problem of heirarchies arise.
Social-theorists generally look to pre-statist man as a bastion of egalitarianism, but there were still chiefs, shamans, and great hunters who were held in high esteem.
Egalitarianism, for the most part, is not moving when a knight comes strolling down the road.
That’s what I’m saying. It is a common misconception that socialism means removing all social strata. I don’t think anybody reasonable would see that as feasible in any way. It is only when one man intrinsically has authority over another that the problem of heirarchies arise.
So “many socialists” are unreasonable? Sounds correct to me.
Social-theorists generally look to pre-statist man as a bastion of egalitarianism, but there were still chiefs, shamans, and great hunters who were held in high esteem.
I’m looking forward to post-statist man as a bastion of meritarianism my self.
So “many people” are unreasonable? Sounds correct to me.
Me 2
I’m looking forward to post-statist man as a bastion of meritarianism my self.
Personally, I’m looking forward to him being a bastion of free assocation.
But, in your opinion, just seeing hard workers as role models is not enough. Said hard workers should have political/legal authority over the lazy as well?
So “many people” are unreasonable? Sounds correct to me.
Me 2
Luckily, most seem to understand hierarchies correctly.
Personally, I’m looking forward to him being a bastion of free assocation.
Eh, the consequences of free association are really whats more important to me.
But, in your opinion, just seeing hard workers as role models is not enough. Said hard workers should have political/legal authority over the lazyas well?
Before elected officials, sure. Otherwise, I’d say leave the lazy be. They’ll most likely wind up on the bottom of the hierarchy voluntarily anyways.
Ever played a team sport? They are full of voluntary heirarchies. The coach tell the players what play to do. Each player has a defined position and obeys the commands of the captain. Also, all was agreed to voluntarily in advance.
Ever played a team sport? They are full of voluntary heirarchies. The coach tell the players what play to do. Each player has a defined position and obeys the commands of the captain. Also, all was agreed to voluntarily in advance
Yeah. Ever told your coach that since you scored a TD in last week’s game, you don’t have to practice, like the rest of the team (Brett Favre aside lol)?
I despise Leninism (not for the following reasons), but look up “To each according to his contribution” and “he that does not work, neither shall he eat.”
Once again, egalitarianism, in the socialist sense, does not mean equality, in so much as it means rejection of intrinsic, unjustified authority. Equality plays a large role in that, if you see purchasing power as a type of authority.
On the other hand, to a primitivist, egalitarianism does mean equality. But primitivists are silly