But not nearly upset enough for things to be different than they are. The history of tax rebellion is long and varied but, in the modern West, the frequency and severity of tax riots has dropped dramatically even while absolute tax levels have risen to heights unimaginable a century ago.
Power disparity is merely a symptom of a bigger problem and that bigger problem is a culture of tolerance of monopolization of law, security and the cartelization of production of a host of other goods and services. This system of economic privilege creates a de facto dual-law. It is true that we no longer have Counts, Marquesses and Dukes. We have, instead, a system of crypto-nobility whose rank and privilege are enforced through an obfuscated system of laws, regulations and bureaucracy. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Now, I have nothing against safe workplace conditions. In fact, they’re incredibly important. I don’t even mind if regulation makes up the gap, if there exists no incentive for the employer to do so voluntarily.
But beyond that, what sort of ‘power’ are you looking for? Why don’t you present us a list of acceptable solutions? It isn’t just regulation, is it? Do you want the company’s property to be forcefully redistributed to the control of the workers’ union? Do you want them to vote on how many hours they work? Do you want to hamper the ability of an employee to enter into a voluntary contract with an employer without interference?
As well, it is absolutely true that those with more money can more easily control the political process, either directly or indirectly. In the same way, those with more money have more access to goods. Is this unfair? Why should this be unfair? So what if one person has more than another? I need this to be a better argument than simply appealing to covetousness or jealousy, which the majority of it seems to be.
I’d like to see you flesh out some of the points above.
Today “poverty” can mean one of two things a) people who’s pre-redistribution income is below some statistical national average, and b) people who actually lack basic necessities. The class warfare equivocates those two groups and cites statistics about the former as if it were the latter. It’s funny, when you discuss the average indoctrinated “cares about the poor”-leftie, they are actually not aware of the distinction, and seem not to comprehend that there is a distinction at all. We’re having this whole national debate about something that is completely made up and nonexistent; millions of “poor” people that can barely feed themselves. in reality “the poor” are playing Xbox on giant flat screen TV’s. But the class warfare doesn’t care, even fictional poor people are an excuse for more national socialism.
“Oppress” is an absolute term. You are either put down by force or you aren’t. Regardless of how suppressed you are, you are either under the influence of force, or you aren’t. Just like you’re either pregnant or you aren’t…Regardless of what trimester you’re in. In contrast “poor” is a completely subjective term, as illustrated by the fact that Birthday Pony continues to insist he/she is “poor” while I insist he/she isn’t.
Again, your logic does not follow.
Right, he/she either believes in slavery (i.e. I am entitled to the fruits of others’ labor) or he/she believes in slavery (i.e. people are not free to enter into voluntary contracts with each other). I just can’t get him/her to come out and actually clarify which one it is.
Again, the simple state of not having a lot of stuff, or in the case of the gender-ambiguous Birthday Pony, having less stuff than some other people, does not mean you are “oppressed.”
Again, you keep talking about these “flaws”, but I’m still waiting to hear what they are.
I’m not sure whether this was addressed at me, but I’ll respond anyway. You’re basically lying. “From the first post on” you have addressed poverty as a measure of power? Luckily this is an Internet forum, so we can easily check to see the accuracy of this statement. Let’s have a look at your first post:
Poverty is an interesting and many faceted thing, and to assume it means hand-to-mouth existence is, indeed, pretty dumb.
But to cite that the poor have ammenities like a refridgerador as proof that poverty ain’t so bad is equally dumb, and ignores the reality of the situation. While many poor people have homes, cars, fridges, cable TV, and internet access, very few actually own them. In fact, most people in the US have debt between a negative number and zero. The bottom 90% of Americans own 73% of the private debt in the country.
Hmm. Sounds to me like the only thing you’re concerned about is how much stuff people own. Well, I mean, this is just one post, and even though you did just say “from the first post on”, let’s go ahead and try the next one:
I would guess that poverty is a representation of a lack of economic power. It seems to regularly correlate with ownership of wealth, control of commodities, and political power.
Oh hey! There it is! Where was that hiding! That was supposed to be in the first post. Oh well. Let’s investigate shall we? Basically what you’re saying here is people are poor if they have “a lack of economic power” (whatever that means)…could you define that term please? Then you’re saying “it seems to regularly correlate with owning stuff…oh and political positions too.” Really. Ya don’t say. So people who have the power to initiate aggression on others (which you say is legitimate, at least in their case) tend to have more stuff than people who aren’t allowed to force people to do what they’re told. Well blow me down. Next thing you’ll tell me is people who have highly marketable skills and or other valuable personal attributes tend to have more stuff too, right? Things just keep getting crazier and crazier don’t they.
No, that is all you’re complaining about, because you relate having a lot of stuff to having power. (As I said, you think money/wealth=power). So you keep complaining about “not having power”, but in the same time you’re talking about not owning stuff. “very few actually own them”, “When you don’t own any assets it’s hard to have debt”, and so on and so on. You are the one who does not differentiate between simply owning material stuff, and having the ability to force people to do things against their will.
Your problem is that you for some reason think that simply owning a bunch of stuff allows you to be able to force people to do things. But as we’ve addressed previously, (and as you’ve openly admitted) only agents of the state have that ability. So again, if no one but agents of the state can get away with exerting control and command over others, where is it exactly that the root of your concern lies? It certainly can’t be with private individuals…
And what is it the “middle class” have that these supposed “poor people” don’t have? That’s a large point the study illuminates. Increases in wealth lead to decreases in the gap between “wealthy” and “poor”. Just look at the list. These people who are called “poor” people have essentially everything “not poor” people have. That’s a big part of the point.
Just because the wealthy and and the poor both own homes doesn’t mean they have equal things. There’s a big difference between a mansion in Beverly Hills and a shack in the ghettoes of Detroit. Why do so many people go to college if it just gets them the same things that they would have if they didn’t? There are a lot of other issues at play here. Studies have shown that people live longer in areas with equality compared to people with the same amount of wealth living at the bottom of an inegalitarian society. Poor people have to deal with increased levels of crime, drug addiction, obesity, psychological disorders, etc. That list is also going by households. Poor people tend to have larger households. If poor people already have the same things as the “middle class” then why do you fear an equalization of wealth?
JJ, you did a really good job citing and then omitting the word “authority” in your definition of oppress. It’s not often you see someone with the chutzpa to cite something and then just pretend like it’s not staring them straight in the face from their copy-and-pasted definition. Congratulations.
“That was supposed to be in the first post.”
OH MY GOD IT WAS REALLY IN THE SECOND AND THIRD POSTS YOU LYING COMMIE BASTARD!
“could you define that term please?”
I take it you know the meaning of both the words “economic” and “power.” Use some brainpower on this one. Do you need a definition for that one too? How about a definition of the word ‘definition’?
“Then you’re saying “it seems to regularly correlate with owning stuff…oh and political positions too.” Really. Ya don’t say. So people who have the power to initiate aggression on others (which you say is legitimate, at least in their case) tend to have more stuff than people who aren’t allowed to force people to do what they’re told. Well blow me down.”
We’re on the same page here. Lucky us.
“So again, if no one but agents of the state can get away with exerting control and command over others, where is it exactly that the root of your concern lies? It certainly can’t be with private individuals…”
The root of my analysis is within anyone who makes a claim to “legitimate” aggression. The state is certainly one of the perpetrators, but it also tends to be landlords that use the state to evict tenants, oil companies that use it to broker deals, and banks that use it when they go belly up. Conceivably, a post-state world could still be wrought with authoritarianism and gross disparities in power, whether or not those disparities coincide with ownership of something. My concern is not with the state or private individuals, this or that, but with authoritarianism in general. A power disparity is not just another splotchy mark on the state’s record, but a problem in and of itself. Any system that depends on unequal control over one’s own life is one that I oppose.
But this is something that escapes your worldview. When someone chooses to obey their boss over losing their job I suppose you’d say they’ve had as much of a choice as the boss deciding what to command.
I am assuming that when you talk about your studies about equality you are talking about Sweden, because you will find many more societies, both now and in the past, that had equality and very bad standards of living. Detroit got to its state not because inequality increased, it got there because productive people and capital fled the place, and it will never return just because equality is increased there.
I’m sorry, what? I copied the entire opening defintion, as it was the relevant one. If you want me to include the rest of them I have no problem with that:
The country has long been oppressed by a ruthless dictator.
They condemned attempts by the government to oppress its citizens.
people who have traditionally been oppressed by society
Origin of OPPRESS
Middle English, from Anglo-French oppresser, from Latin oppressus, past participle of opprimere, from ob- against + premere to press — more at ob-, press
First Known Use: 14th century
Shall I include the synonyms too? I have no idea how any of that makes any difference to what I said.
Gettin a little aggitated are we?
Yes I know the definition of power. In fact I provided that definition to you only a few posts ago. Here, I’ll give it again:
“power” in this context is defined as "the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: ex. power over men’sminds. "
I also know the definitions of “economic”. The point I was making when I gave you the defintion of power the first time was that private individuals do not have any real possession of control or command over others. Only agents of the state can force people to do things. (again, you said so.) So again, could you please explain how anyone but an agent of the state holds any kind of power, economic or otherwise?
Again, you said the state’s aggression was legitimate. So I’ll ask you again. where is it exactly that the root of your concern lies? It certainly can’t be with private individuals…"
(And just as a side note…a property owner doesn’t have a right to get someone off his property? Whose property is it then?)
Great. So please describe the system you advocate. As I’ve pointed out multiple times in this thread already, you have yet to actually state what it is you’re saying should be done. I’ve heard a lot of whining, but no actual argument. So let’s have it. What is this system you don’t oppose? What should be done about all the “injustices” you can’t seem to quit crying about?
Again, please describe what exactly you’re saying should be done about such a “terrible” situation as someone actually choosing to do their job as opposed to not doing it.
Any system that depends on unequal control over one’s own life is one that I oppose.
No one can have control over someone else (as only we have access to our own minds, electric shocks notwithstanding). One can have great power, as with aggression. But pure capitalism doesn’t create a system of control unless it’s voluntary.
Judging from his posts on FLL, BP doesn’t believe in “right-lib” property rights but looser “left-lib” rights, and this is where the problem may arise from.
Like I said, I don’t think he/she has one. (At least not one that aligns with all his/her whinings and declarations.) As I said earlier this doesn’t seem to be anything more than typical “whine for whining’s sake”…devoting oneself to proving that something human has imperfections. That Earth is not Nirvana. Just like typical statists, it’s a course of whining without end, yet never offering any alternative. Sowell extrapolates this quite well.
Thanks for providing your definition of “necessity”. Now please demonstrate how the rest of us are obligated to use that same definition.
On another note, the above quote by Adam Smith (of all people) is quite revealing about the position of leftists regarding “necessities”. It’s obvious to me that their concern is actually about social standing. That is, they don’t want to have lower social standing than others. They don’t want to feel like others consider themselves superior. They project their own feelings of insecurity onto other people, as if those other people are somehow forcing those feelings upon them. They aren’t. No one ever makes anyone else feel a certain way - he can only do that to himself.
The flipside of this is that no one can make anyone else not feel a certain way. This was exemplified by an exchange I had with Francois Tremblay over on the FLL. He demanded that I stop “invalidating” him. I replied: “Too late.” All he could do at that point, apparently, was sputter in rage - which, I can assure you, had no effect whatsoever on me.
This, of course, raises the question of how you define “control over one’s own life”. I submit that you and other self-professed leftists have a fundamentally different view of this from that of people like John James, Clayton, and myself. We focus on actions, whereas you focus on conditions. We focus internally (i.e. what an individual does), whereas you focus externally (i.e. what others do). We focus on reality, whereas you focus on imagination.
Here’s the thing: other people do not, strictly speaking, prevent one from setting out to do something that he’s willing and able to do. Hopefully you recognize that. Even if you do, however, I don’t think that’s your concern. Your concern is what he’s able to do. You imagine that, if things were different (i.e. better) for him, he’d be able to do more. That’s all well and good, but what basis does that have on what he’s actually able to do in the here and now?
It’s worse than that, actually. Not only are they committing the nirvana fallacy, they’re also trying to jump the shark of the is-ought problem: “Reality is wrong because it’s not nirvana.”
I also know the definitions of “economic”. The point I was making when I gave you the defintion of power the first time was that private individuals do not have any real possession of control or command over others. Only agents of the state can force people to do things. (again, you said so.) So again, could you please explain how anyone but an agent of the state holds any kind of power, economic or otherwise?
Is Obama an agent of the state that can force people to do things? If so, then I don’t see why a capitalist can’t be one too.
Well then, there’s economic power for you. When Birthday Pony mentioned economic power, I figured s/he meant capitalists employing the state’s power for economic purposes.
