Fe politics versus Fi politics

[Kiddo]

"Well, the corporate entities via the government fucked me over again. Oh fiddlesticks."

Correction

 

[miss fortune]

*briefly ponders removing the head or destroying the brain of this thread*

Has it ever occurred to you that if everyone had at least a decent standard of living the problems that affect all of us would be somewhat aleviated? An unfortunate number of problems in our country and in the world in general can be linked back to poverty (poverty relative to one's surroundings) including most human right's abuses, the rise to power of most dictators, crime, disease and overpopulation. One would think that those with the means to do something about this would do so.

Clean water, for instance, could save a lot of lives and it isn't that expensive

(note: I actually do tend to donate money to a charity that helps out poor people in a less developed country, so the argument stated above doesn't have much power on me)

 

[ygolo]

Poverty is relative

I am little confused by this. I know economists and political scientists measure poverty in relative terms, but why is this so?

How many people are starving to death because they are below the poverty line in a country like the U.S.?

What exactly are we measuring when we measure poverty?

[/derail]

 

[miss fortune]

According to the United Nations

--Relative poverty lines: These have dominated developed country literature where many studies have used a poverty line which is set at, for example, 50% of the national mean income. When the poverty line is fixed as a proportion of the national mean, if all incomes increase by the same proportion, there would be no change in relative inequalities and the poverty line would simply increase by the same proportion; that is, the poverty measure will not change. This can make such poverty lines deceptive for some purposes, such as assessing whether poor people are better or worse off.

A cross‑country comparison of 36 countries, both developed and developing, revealed that real poverty lines will tend to increase with economic growth, but they will do so slowly for the poorest countries. Therefore, the concept of absolute poverty appears to be more relevant to low income countries, while relative poverty is of more relevance to high-income countries.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

All right. Then give your inheritance to the poor. Let me keep mine.

That quip doesn't actually have much substance.
For my understanding of bettering society, I will not let you keep your inheritance(let's just say you're rich) as I would not let a prince take the throne.

 

[ByMySword]

That quip doesn't actually have much substance.
For my understanding of bettering society, I will not let you keep your inheritance(let's just say you're rich) as I would not let a prince take the throne.

You won't LET me? Who the hell do you think YOU are? Just try and take it away. See what happens. (hypothetically of course, )

Edit: And it seems to me as if YOU'RE the prince taking MY throne.

 

[SillySapienne]

That quip doesn't actually have much substance.
For my understanding of bettering society, I will not let you keep your inheritance(let's just say you're rich) as I would not let a prince take the throne.

Please define what level of monetary wealth would constitute someone as that of being certifiably "rich".

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I don't mean this as a diss at all, I just see this IRL too and I don't quite get it. These people/groups/lobbies, are not your allies nor do they have your best interests or really any interest in mind.

Some of the most conservative liberal hating staunchly Republican party supporting people come from backgrounds that make me go And again, I'm not saying that you're Republican or conservative, but your comments about pro-big business/pro wealth remind me of this.

I've heard this argument before and it always drives me crazy. It comes from a mindset that assumes everyone votes based on selfish personal interest. "I don't have any money, so I should vote for the people who will take away rich people's money and give it to me". You're calling people chumps for voting according to what they think is in the best general interest instead of their own personal interest. If they don't have personal wealth and are still conservative, I call that being a person of conviction, not being a chump.

Would you have the same reaction to a rich person that voted liberal? No, you would say that they can see beyond themselves to the greater good. What's the difference?

 

[Kiddo]

$349,000 and above pay the highest percentage of taxes, so I would say that is where the line is drawn.

 

[SillySapienne]

What's wrong with there existing a hierarchical difference in wealth amongst a population???

I can give two shits that Person A can afford to drive fancy cars and fly Leer jets, and drink the poshest of posh wines. That doesn't in anyway affect my own levels of personal success and happiness.

Also, whenever I chat it up with homeless people, or people who were at once homeless, to be honest, it doesn't seem like they've got it, or had it that bad either. (in a "the government has fucked me over" sense)

To each his own, ho hum.

 

[SillySapienne]

$349,000 and above pay the highest percentage of taxes, so I would say that is where the line is drawn.

Okay, so if I make $348,999 dollars a year, I am *not* rich, cool, that makes *perfect* sense.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You won't LET me? Who the hell do you think YOU are? Just try and take it away. See what happens. (hypothetically of course, )

Edit: And it seems to me as if YOU'RE the prince taking MY throne.

I'm not taking it away in this hypothesis, the government is, and the government should probably succeed in doing so.

And I'm no prince, and want nothing just for myself alone, it is for the whole community..
I'd like to give you a longer answer, but I have to, like, right now.
(this was actually written after my response to CC)

Please define what level of monetary wealth would constitute someone as that of being certifiably "rich".

Well, there are number of ways of doing this. Once again, I state that I prefer basing it on a percentage of the community's(using that word in a broad sens) total wealth. To some degree it is arbitrary, as all laws will be.
But I would like to say that these specifics do not matter. In theory, these rules should apply to everyone, including those who are not "rich".

 

[Kiddo]

Okay, so if I make $348,999 dollars a year, I am *not* rich, cool, that makes *perfect* sense.

Technically you could make $348,999.99 and be "not rich".

I was only providing one way to look at it.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Screw this line of work that involves long hours and aggravation. When Magic Poriferan's revolution happens, I'm taking a job as a toolbooth operator.

 

[ygolo]

According to the United Nations

[off-topic]

Ah. Thanks Whatever. So relative poverty levels are a "measure of inequity." --Relavent in higher income countries (according to the U.N.).

But absolute poverty levels is still a "measure of hardship." Which is relevant in lower income countries (according to the U.N.).

Having been used to the concept of "hardship" poverty, I found the concept of "inequity" poverty rather jarring.

Playing devil's advocate here:
What if inequety is the price we pay to reduce overall hardship?

[/off-topic]

 

[Kiddo]

Playing devil's advocate here:
What if inequety is the price we pay to reduce overall hardship?

That is reality. Prosperity comes at the price of some equality and equality comes at the price of some prosperity. One has to remember that the degree of equality determines who gets to enjoy the prosperity. A country can be very prosperous but if it is the top who get to enjoy most of that prosperity, as it usually is, then equality suffers, and ultimately so will prosperity since the bottom will lose motivation to work. Hence why a middle class is essential to the economic welfare of a society. Hardship is a necessity, but the degree of hardship is always what is in question. Western European countries generally have far less "hardship" than the US does, but it comes at the sacrifice of some of their prosperity.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Mankind strives for freedom, justice(which is defined as a system of rights via merrit), and equality.
The fact is, these three things compete with each other. They can not be completely assumed by a society at the same time.
So yes, to some extent it is the choice of the people to focus on one of these three factors at the cost of the other two.

What strikes me as odd is how obsessed people are with freedom.
Freedom isn't even an end, it's just a means. I don't know why people treat it like such and end-all, be-all state.

 

[Kiddo]

Mankind strives for freedom, justice(which is defined as a system of rights via merrit), and equality.
The fact is, these three things compete with each other. They can not be completely assumed by a society at the same time.
So yes, to some extent it is the choice of the people to focus on one of these three factors at the cost of the other two.

What strikes me as odd is how obsessed people are with freedom.
Freedom isn't even an end, it's just a means. I don't know why people treat it like such and end-all, be-all state.

Because human beings like illusions. They like to imagine that concepts like "equality", "freedom", and "justice" are objective and exist outside of human conception. Ultimately all three of those revolve around power. As I said in another thread...

Freedom is the power to act, speak, or think in the way in which we want. Freedom is nothing but power, and power is the illusion. Can you control whether this country goes to war or not? Can you control whether we fall into a depression or not? Can you control the crime in your community? Can you control the choices the members in your family make? Can you control what your family, school, peers, and community teach you and ultimately enforce in your values and morals? You can't control any of those things. All you can control is what you do. You can work, or not work. You can spend the money you earn, or not spend it. You can vote or not vote. You can try to enforce rules in your household or not to enforce them. But even those powers are limited to a certain set of circumstances. The power to decide when you work can be taken away, the power to vote can be taken away, and so forth. Why do we place so much value in those powers? Because humans like the illusion of control.

Humans value power because it is part of our biology. It is programmed in our genes that if we can obtain control of others, then we increase our chances of reproducing. Whether that power is obtained through "freedom" or "equality" is simply an illusion perpetrated by our values. Ultimately, our agenda, whether we are concious of it or not, is to survive and reproduce and power is a tool we seek to meet those goals.

 

[ByMySword]

I'm not taking it away in this hypothesis, the government is, and the government should probably succeed in doing so.

Ok, ok. Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree, as it always is with such arguments. I don't think its right of the government to take anyone's inheritance, since its money and not power. And don't you dare say that "MONEY IS POWER", because I'll just snap.

Yes, money is power, as a rule, but there is always an exception to the rule. There is always gonna be the crusader that you can't buy off, so you'll have to end up whackin' him or some shit. The point is not the money. The point is should the government be allowed to take something. Its like you walking into my room and looking at my guns, thinking "he has enough", and taking several. I should decide what's enough. Its my life and its my money. The government already taxes the shit out us already. They need to rethink what they're spending it on, socially, IMO.

Its the equivalent of being a bully and taking a kid's milk money. The government is the bureacracy that has a monopoly on violence, so it can do so. But that doesn't make it right. And it doesn't matter that the bully is giving it to someone else that doesn't have lunch money. That is irrelevant. The other kid still doesn't have milk money. Sure, he'll go home and his mom will give him more, but that milk money that his parents worked for so that he could eat that day was given to someone else without thought. The reason for which is irrelevant.

And I'm no prince, and want nothing just for myself alone, it is for the whole community..
I'd like to give you a longer answer, but I have to, like, right now.
(this was actually written after my response to CC)

Hey. There can't be good princes?

I never said that I wouldn't help those less fortunate than me. If I had the means, I probably would. But that is my choice. Charity is just that.........charity. I shouldn't be forced to do it.

Hey I just came up with another example: Its like forcing me to give blood.

Yes, I have more, but its mine. Plus, needles bother me.

And what did you have to do?

Drain the main vein?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I accidentally left out the word "go".
I had to go out to catch my last shot at a decent meal for the day.