Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And yes I do think leaving trillions to a child is equality, but all of us right now have the same opportunity to go out and find a way to collect those trillions for our children.

No, we don't. If you are the son of a millionaire, and I am the son of a pauper, then you will have family connections that I don't have as well as an immense amount of capital to begin your enterprises with that I don't have anything approaching access to.

fyi.

Submitted without (substantive) comment.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And yes I do think leaving trillions to a child is equality, but all of us right now have the same opportunity to go out and find a way to collect those trillions for our children.

No, we don't. If you are the son of a millionaire, and I am the son of a pauper, then you will have family connections that I don't have as well as an immense amount of capital to begin your enterprises with that I don't have anything approaching access to.

I know rich people in my town with family connections like that. And I have competed against them for jobs. And you know what, if you are going to let people like that take your dreams from you then there’s nothing that can be done for you. You may need to be better than those people to get a job, so be better. You may need to work harder, so work harder. But no one is limiting what you choose to do or the dreams you choose to pursue. Everyone in our country has that freedom, and that is as much freedom as you can give someone. If we tried to level the playing field by giving you capital or giving you connections we would be penalizing that person’s father who had to work for all of those things. That’s as good as it gets, and it is a heck of a lot better than most of the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The person's parent succeded against the rich kids of his day, you have that same opportunity now.

The competition is rarely poor versus rich. Life isn't a movie where you are played by Leonardo Decaprio and Billy Zane playing the rich kid. A person can do well in business without ever having to compete in such a way. It is more likely that person will work with a rich person in some capacity (either as an investor or client) than to heads up compete with them. You have to have new ideas. If a persons idea is to try and make the same drugs as Eli Lilly they will get smashed, but if they create a new drug they can succeed and possibly prosper.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And yes I do think leaving trillions to a child is equality, but all of us right now have the same opportunity to go out and find a way to collect those trillions for our children.

No, we don't. If you are the son of a millionaire, and I am the son of a pauper, then you will have family connections that I don't have as well as an immense amount of capital to begin your enterprises with that I don't have anything approaching access to.

I know rich people in my town with family connections like that. And I have competed against them for jobs. And you know what, if you are going to let people like that take your dreams from you then there’s nothing that can be done for you. You may need to be better than those people to get a job, so be better. You may need to work harder, so work harder. But no one is limiting what you choose to do or the dreams you choose to pursue. Everyone in our country has that freedom, and that is as much freedom as you can give someone. If we tried to level the playing field by giving you capital or giving you connections we would be penalizing that person’s father who had to work for all of those things. That’s as good as it gets, and it is a heck of a lot better than most of the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The person's parent succeded against the rich kids of his day, you have that same opportunity now.

So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

Some people are also born ugly. Is this a problem that needs to be rectified?

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

Some people are also born ugly. Is this a problem that needs to be rectified?

That's what alcholol is for.

biccat wrote:
I think honesty is a good because it allows people to know how the game is played, and therefore allows for social mobility by 'playing the game.' Modern politics isn't about success, it's about knowing the right people. A capitalistcracy would overcome that problem, at least in some fashion.

I don't think you can divorce success from knowing the right people. Despite what many will say to the contrary, hard work is itself nearly meaningless in any social system that doesn't have massive amounts of space in which to expand. You have to work hard, towards the right ends, while the right people are watching if you want to get anywhere. This sort of process still applies to the system you've posited here, except that the right people are almost exclusively the wealthy people, as opposed to those who might simply be skilled politicians. That sort of contraction of relevant actors goes a long way towards making the state's interests narrower, but it also basically leaves the majority of population out in the cold when it comes to political power.

Moreover, I'm not necessarily convinced that anyone is really at a loss as to what democracy entails vis a vis income inequality. The rich are always going to be taken care of by the state because they will always have the money to influence people, and the power to direct large chunks of the national GDP. So if you want to get ahead politically you appeal to corporate interests, or develop a populist platform in order to generate funding that way. Of course, given how little funding is ever raised that way, its a much less likely means of succeeding. A fact that, ultimately, should give you pause when considering your own system. After all, if the majority of people cannot contribute to an effective political campaign now, the idea that their votes will be necessarily negated by purchase doesn't lend much credence to the idea that such a state will take any more interests in its people than it already does.

Looked at differently, saying something like "you can always buy more votes" isn't really anymore transparent than "you can always contribute to a political campaign" as both fundamentally ignore the actual forces determining the outcomes of elections.

biccat wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. The US doesn't have the ability to carry over cash from one fiscal year to another and doesn't have a huge corruption problem.

The issue isn't corruption, per se, but the allocation of budgetary resources by the largest contributors to that budget.

biccat wrote:
If people think defense, diplomacy, and state administration are a good thing, then they can pay for it buy buying votes and donating them to candidate X.

If not, then it's not something the people want, and they shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

They have to pay for state administration, even if doing so is only related to the judiciary that you've posited, and the electoral process. The other institutions must similarly be funded in any feasible nation given the current state of the world, and certainly cannot be permitted to suffer massive budget fluctuations.

This is another one of those things that really has nothing to do with what the people want, and everything to do with what is necessary for the state.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

Some people are also born ugly. Is this a problem that needs to be rectified?

That's what alcholol is for.

I try but I'm not getting any prettier!

Maybe I need more alcohol.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

Some people are also born ugly. Is this a problem that needs to be rectified?

That's what alcholol is for.

I try but I'm not getting any prettier!

Maybe I need more alcohol.

No, see, you're supposed to dose other people with it. You're trying to affect their perception, not your own.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Maybe, maybe not. The US doesn't have the ability to carry over cash from one fiscal year to another and doesn't have a huge corruption problem.

The issue isn't corruption, per se, but the allocation of budgetary resources by the largest contributors to that budget.

That's why there's a judiciary, to deal with corruption.

Yes, the administration could say "no" to the judiciary, but that's a problem with any system.

An administration may be able to do this for a little while, but only until he loses an election because someone else was able to raise more money.

dogma wrote:They have to pay for state administration, even if doing so is only related to the judiciary that you've posited, and the electoral process. The other institutions must similarly be funded in any feasible nation given the current state of the world, and certainly cannot be permitted to suffer massive budget fluctuations.

There's no obligation to fund the judiciary, it's merely a check on the abuses of power of the elected government. It can be funded or not according to the whims of the present administration/electorate. As for elections, they do need to be funded, but it could likely be done by a private "electoral college" corporation that administers the election.

I don't see why some government agencies can't suffer "massive budget fluctuations."

dogma wrote:This is another one of those things that really has nothing to do with what the people want, and everything to do with what is necessary for the state.

The state has no authority except what the people give it. Why should the state be able to do something that the people don't want?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And yes I do think leaving trillions to a child is equality, but all of us right now have the same opportunity to go out and find a way to collect those trillions for our children.

No, we don't. If you are the son of a millionaire, and I am the son of a pauper, then you will have family connections that I don't have as well as an immense amount of capital to begin your enterprises with that I don't have anything approaching access to.

I know rich people in my town with family connections like that. And I have competed against them for jobs. And you know what, if you are going to let people like that take your dreams from you then there’s nothing that can be done for you. You may need to be better than those people to get a job, so be better. You may need to work harder, so work harder. But no one is limiting what you choose to do or the dreams you choose to pursue. Everyone in our country has that freedom, and that is as much freedom as you can give someone. If we tried to level the playing field by giving you capital or giving you connections we would be penalizing that person’s father who had to work for all of those things. That’s as good as it gets, and it is a heck of a lot better than most of the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The person's parent succeded against the rich kids of his day, you have that same opportunity now.

So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

You have the same opportunity to give your kid the life that kid’s dad gave him.

And I already said we are equal before the law, and we are equal in opportunity to the extent that no one is going to tell you what to do with your life. Make something of yourself, make nothing. Plenty of rich kids make nothing end their lives poor. But equality of results is not something that can be done or should be done. All that can be done is to leave you alone to make the most of the situation you were born into. That’s real freedom, and real opportunity, and we have that here. No one is going to stop you just that same as they won’t stop anyone else. You are mistaking ease with opportunity, and they are most certainly not the same thing.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You are mistaking ease with opportunity, and they are most certainly not the same thing.

And you're mistaking opportunity for something that I'm not exactly sure what it is, really. Could you give me a definition so that I know what I'm arguing against?

You have the ability to do whatever you want with your life here. No one is going to artificially keep you down because of your race, your class, your heritage or whatever. I know those things have happened here in the past, and they were wrong, and we as a people have fixed them. That is the best opportunity you are going to find in the entire world. An entire nation where if you work hard enough you can achieve to whatever level you want. Yes it is harder for some, math is harder for some, running is harder for some, that's just life and there isn't anything that can be done. But not only is it better here than anywhere else, it is pretty close to as good as it can be.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: An entire nation where if you work hard enough you can achieve to whatever level you want.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:You have the ability to do whatever you want with your life here. No one is going to artificially keep you down because of your race, your class, your heritage or whatever. I know those things have happened here in the past, and they were wrong, and we as a people have fixed them. That is the best opportunity you are going to find in the entire world. An entire nation where if you work hard enough you can achieve to whatever level you want. Yes it is harder for some, math is harder for some, running is harder for some, that's just life and there isn't anything that can be done. But not only is it better here than anywhere else, it is pretty close to as good as it can be.

Ah.

You're not using it in the same way that I am. If person A has a million dollars and person B has a thousand dollars, A has a thousand times the opportunities that B does, because he has a thousand times the capital.

Opportunity isn't binary.

I like Sweden's Constitutional Monarchy system, which I assume is the same as Englands.

I go there most summers, and used to live there as a child, and I really don't understand why the west is so afraid of "socialism". I would love if this country was more Socialist.

biccat wrote:
That's why there's a judiciary, to deal with corruption.

Yes, the administration could say "no" to the judiciary, but that's a problem with any system.

An administration may be able to do this for a little while, but only until he loses an election because someone else was able to raise more money.

Who's paying for the judiciary?

biccat wrote:
There's no obligation to fund the judiciary, it's merely a check on the abuses of power of the elected government. It can be funded or not according to the whims of the present administration/electorate.

So the judiciary isn't independent, and in fact has almost no power at all. All it would take to destroy that institution would be the decision of any given administration to stop funding it, meaning that any succeeding administration that wanted to reestablish the court would have to do so from the ground up.

biccat wrote:
As for elections, they do need to be funded, but it could likely be done by a private "electoral college" corporation that administers the election.

And therefore has absolute control over who can run. who has the opportunity to buy votes, and at what price those votes can be bought; presumably outside of any significant constitutional controls. If its controlled by the Constitution, then its not a private corporation.

biccat wrote:
I don't see why some government agencies can't suffer "massive budget fluctuations."

How you maintain a military when it might have 50% of its year A budget in the year B, and 150% of its year A budget in year C? Even before considering the basic infrastructural costs inherent in running an institution as large as a state military, you have to consider the need to maintain sufficient continuity in order to have a professional staff to support it.

biccat wrote:
The state has no authority except what the people give it. Why should the state be able to do something that the people don't want?

Even if you want to believe that type of moralistic principle, you ultimately have to recognize that the state is an institution with a robust structure, and the ability to exert violent force in an organized manner. That alone grants it power, and from power comes authority. This isn't a question of what the state should do, that's exactly the same sort of idyllic reasoning that makes people believe that Communism is a viable system. This is about what the state can do, and what the state will do. Moreover, it isn't as though the state is composed of aliens. Its nothing more than a body of people with the capacity to maintain a degree of power that grants them de facto (and often de jure) authority. Therefore, minimally, the state derives its authority from the people that constitute it, and the authority over those can easily be exercised over others just as in any other competitive system.

Even your hypothesized state will have to secure its own existence, and would likely find it more pressing a concern then most given that the means of voting described would likely ignore huge swathes of the population.

Orlanth wrote:Short term thinking I am afraid. China was fethed over by Maoism because Maoism is based on Marxism. When they abandoned Maoism for the capitalist-communist state they began to claw back impressively quickly.

As I've explained twice now, the growth we're seeing is entirely based on increasing the number of inputs. Expanding industry and bringing more labour in from the country, it's entirely input based. There's no innovation, no improvement in processes, and where there is it's really only mimicking Western developments.

The USSR posted incredible rates of growth in the 50s and early 60s, by increasing the inputs into their system by putting a lot of their farm labour into industry. But they ran out of labour to call in off the farms, and the system stagnated. Meanwhile the capitalist economies of the world innovated and developed better ways of doing things, and left the Soviets far behind.

China, by sheer weight of population will be one of the world's largest producers. But to actually do the thing that matters - match GDP/capita with capitalist countries, the Chinese cannot do it with a state planned economy.

This year they overtook Japan to be the second biggest economy in the world. They will overtake the US by about 2030, possibly a lot sooner.

They have a billion people. They have five times the population of Japan, but they've only just passed Japan in total production. Good systems don't have one fifth the productivity per capita of other nations.

Their leaders follow their ancestral philosophy closely after decades of trying to destroy it in favour of a little red book.

You've never read about how confucianism and communism merged in China to form Maoism?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:@ Sebster. Will you move to the US? We need more people like you here! You sound more American than most Americans.

Wait until I start talking about how we you could have a much better health system, then watch some folk accuse me of hating America

And yeah, I've always wanted to go to the US, hoping to get there in a couple of years. Couldn't live there, though, too comfortable here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:Our governments change. The next one up apparently for governments to go into is Communism believe it or not but Communism is considered to be the perfect government. As everyone is equal. And USSR was Totalitarian society not a true communistic government.
Democracy is great but it still has its flaws. Communism however does as well, human error.

Communism doesn't claim everyone is equal. Doctors did earn more than street sweepers. Not as much as in capitalist societies, mind you, but certainly they earned more money. What communism looks to do is to put capital in the hands of the state, to take it away from the wealthy.

Oh, and communism and democracy aren't opposed. You can have a democratic, communist state as long as the people vote for it (and therein lies the actual, true and complete problem with communism, no electorate has ever actually wanted it enough to vote it into government, except maybe the UK in the 40s, but they backed away from that very quickly).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:Benevolent Dictator is the best.

No seriously, that thing where you assume 'benevolent' is just crazy. You can't answer a question by saying 'this is best if we pretend an impossible thing will just magically happen'.

"An anarchist state where we all want only the best for society and all agree on what that should be is best because we share a hive mind"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:That comment is based on a couple of assumptions I do not agree with.

1. The US has serious inequality of opportunity. This could not be further from the truth. There are so many programs, and so many ways for disadvantaged minorities to get a heads up I almost think it is beginning to turn the other direction where people who don’t have access to those programs are being put at a disadvantage. The US has by leaps and bounds the most class mobility and equality of opportunity in the world.

This assumption common among so many US citizens is absolutely wrong. US class mobility is the worst of almost all developed nations.

www.americanprogress.org/kf/hertz_mobility_analysis.pdf

"By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."

Frazzled wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote: An entire nation where if you work hard enough you can achieve to whatever level you want.

I had the same reaction.

China has 10 times the population of Japan, 1.3 billion to about 127 million, plus tons more natural resources (Japan has basically none).

Kilkrazy wrote:China has 10 times the population of Japan, 1.3 billion to about 127 million, plus tons more natural resources (Japan has basically none).

Ah, I thought the population was over 200 million. Teach me for not double checking, cheers for the correction.

Good to see we agree on the overall point though, that China has a much, much bigger population, so looking at total GDP and declaring therefore the Chinese system is working is quite dubious.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
That's why there's a judiciary, to deal with corruption.

Yes, the administration could say "no" to the judiciary, but that's a problem with any system.

An administration may be able to do this for a little while, but only until he loses an election because someone else was able to raise more money.

Who's paying for the judiciary?

Why does it have to be paid for? The judiciary has no expenses. There's no 'right' to a salary as a judge, you get paid or not depending on whether the government wants to pay you.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
There's no obligation to fund the judiciary, it's merely a check on the abuses of power of the elected government. It can be funded or not according to the whims of the present administration/electorate.

So the judiciary isn't independent, and in fact has almost no power at all. All it would take to destroy that institution would be the decision of any given administration to stop funding it, meaning that any succeeding administration that wanted to reestablish the court would have to do so from the ground up.

There's no obligation for the U.S. Congress to fund the Supreme Court, yet somehow it does continue to be effective. There's also no requirement (beyond the judiciary) for Congress or the President to follow the rulings of the Judicial Branch. See Andrew Jackson's famous (and probably false) quote regarding Justice Marshall. Or see the current administration's actions regarding Judge Vinson's ruling regarding the HCRA (or whatever the technical acronym for Obamacare is).

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
As for elections, they do need to be funded, but it could likely be done by a private "electoral college" corporation that administers the election.

And therefore has absolute control over who can run. who has the opportunity to buy votes, and at what price those votes can be bought; presumably outside of any significant constitutional controls. If its controlled by the Constitution, then its not a private corporation.

No controls. It's a wholly private corporation that gets paid by the winner for some minor profit margin. It can set the price of votes, but like any profit-minded corporation would set them not at a high rate, but at a rate to generate the most profit.

Like any other corporation, they would have an enforceable fiduciary duty to their shareholders (the American people).

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I don't see why some government agencies can't suffer "massive budget fluctuations."

How you maintain a military when it might have 50% of its year A budget in the year B, and 150% of its year A budget in year C? Even before considering the basic infrastructural costs inherent in running an institution as large as a state military, you have to consider the need to maintain sufficient continuity in order to have a professional staff to support it.

The benefit of this system is that I don't need to figure out all of the specifics. People will spend their money to 'purchase' the benefits that they think their country will have. If the military is believed to be underfunded, then people will support it. If they don't like the military, well you don't have to spend money on it.

There is the same basic issue in most countries. Taxes aren't constitutionally mandated, so hypothetically a new legislature could cut or balloon spending for pet projects. But it doesn't happen.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
The state has no authority except what the people give it. Why should the state be able to do something that the people don't want?

Even if you want to believe that type of moralistic principle

Do you not accept this moralistic principle, that the state is the servant of the people?

dogma wrote:you ultimately have to recognize that the state is an institution with a robust structure, and the ability to exert violent force in an organized manner. That alone grants it power, and from power comes authority.

The authority isn't inherent in the "state," it comes from the people who support the state, be they voters, military members, or simply workers.

dogma wrote:Even your hypothesized state will have to secure its own existence, and would likely find it more pressing a concern then most given that the means of voting described would likely ignore huge swathes of the population.

I think you mean "swaths," not "swathes."

It wouldn't ignore any more of the population than the benevolent dictatorship suggested by other posters.

sebster wrote:www.americanprogress.org/kf/hertz_mobility_analysis.pdf

Wow, you really cited the CAP? You might want to find a more reliable source if you're interested in serious debate.

Meh, the idea that people should be equal is fine. But reality shows that we aren't.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Short term thinking I am afraid. China was fethed over by Maoism because Maoism is based on Marxism. When they abandoned Maoism for the capitalist-communist state they began to claw back impressively quickly.

As I've explained twice now, the growth we're seeing is entirely based on increasing the number of inputs. Expanding industry and bringing more labour in from the country, it's entirely input based. There's no innovation, no improvement in processes, and where there is it's really only mimicking Western developments.

The USSR posted incredible rates of growth in the 50s and early 60s, by increasing the inputs into their system by putting a lot of their farm labour into industry. But they ran out of labour to call in off the farms, and the system stagnated. Meanwhile the capitalist economies of the world innovated and developed better ways of doing things, and left the Soviets far behind.

After the Great Leap Forward China was essentially still a medieval society, it had regressed in many ways due to Maoism. From the seventies a claw back occured, China has caught up and is overtaking other economies.
also there is innovation in China, plenty of it in fact. What China lacked until recently was a technological infrastructure, this is why they have been purchasing design methodologies above all else. China took over Leryland cars not the the factories or the name, but for the production methodologies. Once China knew how to build modern cars, forge modern steel etc they were able to level the field.
Meanwhile Chinese science is making advances of its own, they have learned, they are now as advanced as western technology is. Now they are trying thier own hand at next generation armaments, space technology, stealth, rocketry, advanced manufacturing.

Saying there is no innovation or improvement of process is a gross misunderstan ding of what China is doing.

This is why cheap plastic goods come from all over the far east, but China now makes cheap version of high tech goods. The infrastructure is there to make whatever the world wants, along with the know how to do it.

sebster wrote:
China, by sheer weight of population will be one of the world's largest producers. But to actually do the thing that matters - match GDP/capita with capitalist countries, the Chinese cannot do it with a state planned economy.

They already have, wake up and smell the dragon.

sebster wrote:

This year they overtook Japan to be the second biggest economy in the world. They will overtake the US by about 2030, possibly a lot sooner.

They have a billion people. They have five times the population of Japan, but they've only just passed Japan in total production. Good systems don't have one fifth the productivity per capita of other nations.

Already explained, a clawback after old communism changed to new communism.

sebster wrote:

Their leaders follow their ancestral philosophy closely after decades of trying to destroy it in favour of a little red book.

You've never read about how confucianism and communism merged in China to form Maoism?

Yes a placeholder to give Maoism a veneer of Chinese culture, you have only demonstrated your ability to receive propaganda as intended for the masses, not to analyse it. Maoism practically destroyed Chinese culture in whatever form it contacted.
The new China embraces many things that Communist doctrine would only hijack or consider a threat, even including controlled amounts of western culture and religion. Once the only Marx based dogma is gone communism can proceed to eliminate genuine threats to its supremacy while leaving other inherently non-communistic but not anti-communistic ideals intact.

sebster wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:That comment is based on a couple of assumptions I do not agree with.

1. The US has serious inequality of opportunity. This could not be further from the truth. There are so many programs, and so many ways for disadvantaged minorities to get a heads up I almost think it is beginning to turn the other direction where people who don’t have access to those programs are being put at a disadvantage. The US has by leaps and bounds the most class mobility and equality of opportunity in the world.

This assumption common among so many US citizens is absolutely wrong. US class mobility is the worst of almost all developed nations.

www.americanprogress.org/kf/hertz_mobility_analysis.pdf

"By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States."

I entirely agree with this. The USA allows social mobility but does make it incredibly difficult. This means anyone can claw up to the American dream, but to maintain the exclusivity of the dream and to restrict resource sharing at the top the US has more ways to pull up the ladder behind you than European nations with a class structure and social mobility between classes. There is an adage I find very helpful here: If all the rich men in the world were to share their money between them, there would not be enough to go around. The advantage of the class structure is that it forms natural stepping stones, the fact that most people do not change their social class doesn't in any way prohibit them from doing so. You can always make the jump to the next stone, and you can stay on your stone with a much wider variety of financial circumstances than the US monetary equivalent to a social class will stand. This also means the US is the capital of capitalism and greed as those at the top hoard resources as inherited wealth more vehemently than a noble will. A gentleman who inherits less is still a gentleman, a rich American who inherits less loses his status and 75% of American millionaires are based on inherited wealth.
US social climbing is entirely on bank balance or perceived achievement. This may appear to be more of a meritocracy, but it is actually less of one as those at the top do not want to share.
It doesn't help that a disproportionate percentage of US wealth and industry is held by people groups which are a small percentage of the whole and prefer to prioritise opportunity to others of their own kind.

biccat wrote:
Why does it have to be paid for? The judiciary has no expenses. There's no 'right' to a salary as a judge, you get paid or not depending on whether the government wants to pay you.

Of course the judiciary has an expense, unless you're talking about a national network of part-time judges whose interests are necessarily compromised by direct involvement in other industries; not to mention the issue of time constraints when taking the bench in any nation of even moderate size. And even then you have to employ all the various officials of the court and administrative staff that allow it to function.

biccat wrote:
There's no obligation for the U.S. Congress to fund the Supreme Court, yet somehow it does continue to be effective.

Article 3 Section 1 US Constituion wrote:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Because of the way the appointment of judges works, it effectively means that Congress is obligated to pay, if nothing else, the salaries of judges. If anyone attempted to pull funding from the federal judiciary it is likely that suit would be brought, and that it would be argued that this obligation indicates a further obligation to fund the judiciary as a whole. Moreover, as Congress has the ability to abolish courts, there's not reason to really attack their funding. There's also the matter of the US being a system of split partisan governance at all material times, whereas you're effectively positing single party governance (as I understand it).

biccat wrote:
There's also no requirement (beyond the judiciary) for Congress or the President to follow the rulings of the Judicial Branch. See Andrew Jackson's famous (and probably false) quote regarding Justice Marshall.

There is no explicit requirement, but there is (arguably) sufficient evidence for judicial review in the Constitution itself that it doesn't matter. Though the court is, by its nature, a poor check of executive power.

biccat wrote:
Or see the current administration's actions regarding Judge Vinson's ruling regarding the HCRA (or whatever the technical acronym for Obamacare is).

Vinson explicitly allowed the HCRA to remain law during the appellate process, and later issued a stay on his ruling.

biccat wrote:
No controls. It's a wholly private corporation that gets paid by the winner for some minor profit margin. It can set the price of votes, but like any profit-minded corporation would set them not at a high rate, but at a rate to generate the most profit.

Like any other corporation, they would have an enforceable fiduciary duty to their shareholders (the American people).

If the American people are, collectively shareholders, then it isn't a private corporation. You're basically just talking about an autocratic state institution that is, ultimately, encouraged to decide elections according to who offers them the largest fiscal incentive; especially given that this is a corporation that will receive income, at most, once annually.

biccat wrote:
The benefit of this system is that I don't need to figure out all of the specifics. People will spend their money to 'purchase' the benefits that they think their country will have. If the military is believed to be underfunded, then people will support it. If they don't like the military, well you don't have to spend money on it.

There is the same basic issue in most countries. Taxes aren't constitutionally mandated, so hypothetically a new legislature could cut or balloon spending for pet projects. But it doesn't happen.

Sure, but that's often because legislatures possess mixed representation, and because there's a direct fiscal incentive for law makers to spend money on political institutions of all sorts as they act as a form of financial aid to the districts in which they're located. Note, I'm not saying that you need to figure out the specifics, I'm saying that if you cannot figure out one specific way in which the system will function, then it probably isn't very good.

biccat wrote:
Do you not accept this moralistic principle, that the state is the servant of the people?

It doesn't matter if I do, what matters is that it isn't something which must be accepted. Moreover, I'm not interested in the morality of governance, I'm interested in the reality of governance, and that pays no heed to moral principles except in the sense that they can be used to control people.

biccat wrote:
The authority isn't inherent in the "state," it comes from the people who support the state, be they voters, military members, or simply workers.

Of course its inherent to the state. That's what makes it the state, the functional ability to control the actions of others, and itself, by force of arms; its an extension of the monopoly on legitimate violence.

dogma wrote:
It wouldn't ignore any more of the population than the benevolent dictatorship suggested by other posters.

So you're arguing from the position of "Johnny did it too?"

Either way, I'm not sure "benevolent dictatorship" is the best thing to compare any system too. Its like claiming that your state is no worse than Communist Russia, only slightly less interesting given the absence of a materially comparable system of historical governance (barring third world countries like Uganda).

dogma wrote:So you're arguing from the position of "Johnny did it too?"

Either way, I'm not sure "benevolent dictatorship" is the best thing to compare any system too. Its like claiming that your state is no worse than Communist Russia, only slightly less interesting given the absence of a materially comparable system of historical governance (barring third world countries like Uganda).

No, I'm arguing from the position of "why the hell are you arguing against my proposed system when others have proposed systems which are significantly worse."

You're not attempting to debate the idea, you're just coming up with excuses why it won't work.

Say I come up with a proposition: "one guy is in charge, he makes the rules." Anyone can come up with a lot of reasons why this system wouldn't work. But it did, for a few centuries in England.

Or "everyone has an equal say in choosing who the leaders are." There are a lot of reasons why this system wouldn't work either. What is "everyone?" How do they choose? Who chooses who is eligible for leadership? But the system has worked for a couple hundred years in the U.S.

I'm proposing a system, not saying that it's perfect, and I have no interest in writing a 6000+ word academic thesis on how exactly it would work. I'm suggesting that strong economic actors should have a stronger voice than the average person on the street. Additionally, money (economic success) should translate to a stronger voice in government.

Limitations on expendatures, an independent judiciary, and a constitution based on anti-corruption are mere safeguards against the types of corruption you're saying are inherent.

On the U.S. side of things, you apparently don't realize that the 'glue' holding the government together is cooperation between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Without cooperation, the Constitution is meaningless. The executive has no reason to abide the rulings of the SCOTUS except for the fact that they agree to. Even FDR, with his court packing plan, was willing to abide by the rulings of the court, as much as he disliked them, because he realized the downward spiral that would result from outright war between the branches.

The same glue would hold a corporatocracy together.

You're wrong on the Obamacare (HCRRA? AHCAA?) decision, but that's another topic, all together.

A constitutional republic is the best form of government. Whereby the power of government is limited solely to protecting us from bomb-toting bolsheviks, and people who infringe our rights to life, liberty, and property. This enshrines doctrines of human rights, and ensures that entrepreneurial progress isn't stifled.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And yes I do think leaving trillions to a child is equality, but all of us right now have the same opportunity to go out and find a way to collect those trillions for our children.

No, we don't. If you are the son of a millionaire, and I am the son of a pauper, then you will have family connections that I don't have as well as an immense amount of capital to begin your enterprises with that I don't have anything approaching access to.

I know rich people in my town with family connections like that. And I have competed against them for jobs. And you know what, if you are going to let people like that take your dreams from you then there’s nothing that can be done for you. You may need to be better than those people to get a job, so be better. You may need to work harder, so work harder. But no one is limiting what you choose to do or the dreams you choose to pursue. Everyone in our country has that freedom, and that is as much freedom as you can give someone. If we tried to level the playing field by giving you capital or giving you connections we would be penalizing that person’s father who had to work for all of those things. That’s as good as it gets, and it is a heck of a lot better than most of the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The person's parent succeded against the rich kids of his day, you have that same opportunity now.

Exactly.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

Some people are also born ugly. Is this a problem that needs to be rectified?

That's what alcholol is for.

I like the way you think.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:And yes I do think leaving trillions to a child is equality, but all of us right now have the same opportunity to go out and find a way to collect those trillions for our children.

No, we don't. If you are the son of a millionaire, and I am the son of a pauper, then you will have family connections that I don't have as well as an immense amount of capital to begin your enterprises with that I don't have anything approaching access to.

I know rich people in my town with family connections like that. And I have competed against them for jobs. And you know what, if you are going to let people like that take your dreams from you then there’s nothing that can be done for you. You may need to be better than those people to get a job, so be better. You may need to work harder, so work harder. But no one is limiting what you choose to do or the dreams you choose to pursue. Everyone in our country has that freedom, and that is as much freedom as you can give someone. If we tried to level the playing field by giving you capital or giving you connections we would be penalizing that person’s father who had to work for all of those things. That’s as good as it gets, and it is a heck of a lot better than most of the rest of the world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The person's parent succeded against the rich kids of his day, you have that same opportunity now.

So you agree that those two hypothetical people don't have the same opportunities? That the amount of effort one had to put in was less than the other? That all men are not created equal?

Thanks for making my point.

You have the same opportunity to give your kid the life that kid’s dad gave him.

And I already said we are equal before the law, and we are equal in opportunity to the extent that no one is going to tell you what to do with your life. Make something of yourself, make nothing. Plenty of rich kids make nothing end their lives poor. But equality of results is not something that can be done or should be done. All that can be done is to leave you alone to make the most of the situation you were born into. That’s real freedom, and real opportunity, and we have that here. No one is going to stop you just that same as they won’t stop anyone else. You are mistaking ease with opportunity, and they are most certainly not the same thing.

Yes, equal before the Law. However, whoever has the highest-paid legal team usually has an advantage.

biccat wrote:Do you not accept this moralistic principle, that the state is the servant of the people?

The state is the servant of the people in that it exists to protect them and serve their interests, not that it listens to every little whim they have, as those tend to frequently contradict its actual obligations to protect them and serve their interests. The state is given the authority to act in the best interests of its people, as determined by people who actually know how to go about doing that; if people could just sit back and say "I live in a safe neighborhood, why should I pay for cops?", "I don't have kids, why should I pay for schools?", or "I'm not sick at the moment, why should I pay for public healthcare?" then society falls apart. People are generally greedy and shortsighted, and don't understand the complexities of keeping a state running, so all of that gets delegated to people who at least should know how.

Thus you run into the problem of democracy: the average layman knows exactly nothing about how to run a state, most don't particularly care, and both of the above are easily swayed by flashy rhetoric, the emptier the better. And so conmen and charismatic ideologues get into power more often than people who actually know what they're doing. The problem with dictatorships (in this day and age, at least) is that the sort who generally manage to seize power for themselves are just worse varieties of the above, with an added dose of axe-crazy thug more often than not.


There seems to be a bit of confusion here about what communism actually is: it was a theoretical path from the sort of unbridled industrial capitalism that plagued the nineteenth century to an anarchist society, with a "tyranny of the proletariat" following a workers' revolution to restructure society so that it could keep working without a central authority to run things. Obviously, that doesn't work for a number of reasons, chiefly that anarchism doesn't work in societies larger than a few hundred, and that people who have gotten a hold of power tend to not want to give it up again.

Command economies, however, have nothing to do with democracy or dictatorships, only state control over economic matters. Likewise, modern socialist policies don't either, revolving around the state fulfilling its obligation to take care of its people rather than any sort of method of determination of leadership.