Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[TruthNotBS]

• 
  
  

Reactions:dblack

You can't refute anything that I say, so all you can do is laugh, like a nervous, confused hyena.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A bunch of right wing convulsions over an idea they don't even understand.

This must be a day that ends in "y".

 

[dblack]

• View attachment 987738View attachment 987737View attachment 987739

Reactions:dblack

You can't refute anything that I say, so all you can do is laugh, like a nervous, confused hyena.

 

[dblack]

• View attachment 987738View attachment 987737View attachment 987739

Reactions:dblack

You can't refute anything that I say, so all you can do is laugh, like a nervous, confused hyena.

Here's a clue, dingleberry. If you copy and paste all those stupid memes, pics and videos from your source - I skip the whole thing. At that point, you're just masturbating in public.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Here's a clue, dingleberry. If you copy and paste all those stupid memes, pics and videos from your source - I skip the whole thing. At that point, you're just masturbating in public.

You skip it, but others don't.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Try not putting all white people in a basket. I am talking about whites on the rght. And the fact is all that you have called nonsense is real. And after living years facing it, blacks can see it when it happens. Whites on the right try denying these things even as they practice it. This forum is full of such things and instead of you fighting THAT, you are here arguing wth me. You are part of the problem. Whites like you have disagreed with me even as I have presented peer reviewed evidence., legal decisons, and studies from professional organizations that proves what I say is rght. And you've done it with no evidence as if all you have to do is be white and say it's not so.

I went to school, got degrees and was a paid professional researching and applying what I learned in the field of sociology, whch is:

the scientific and systematic study of human society that focuses on society, human social behavior, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and aspects of culture associated with everyday life.

Apparently you have not done that, and are mystified as to why I can say the things I do.


No, the problem is that you cannot see the things that you say are racist. I don't have this problem with every white person here. Just whites who are on the right. The whites who support Trump. For some reason you guys seem to think you can talk crazy about blacks and nothng should ever be said about it. You also seem to believe that you can peddle this impression of America that has not existed for blacks and we are just supposed to agree with that impression. Then when you are confronted by someone back who refuses to do so and are frank or unapologetic about it, then we get what you are doing, which is called white fragility by this human being:

View attachment 987235

She goes further to describe the behavior.

“Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism, and because it benefits white dominance not to do so, we have a very limited understanding of it. We are the least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism and being honest about their consequences. At the same time, because of white social, economic, and political power within a white dominant culture, whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.

Being in this position engenders a form of racial arrogance, and in this racial arrogance, whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience. This expertise is often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes, such as ‘people just need to see each other as individuals’ or ‘see each other as humans’ or ‘take personal responsibility.’

White lack of racial humility often leads to declarations of disagreement when in fact the problem is that we do not understand. Whites generally feel free to dismiss informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, seek more information, or sustain a dialogue.”
- Dr. Robin DiAngelo

This assessment comes after more than 20 years of leading racial sensitvity training for corporations.

You have disagreed with me about white racism while you have read whites making racist comments in this forum. You have continued trying to argue with me about things such as our choice in political parties when your party has shown that it not only has no interest in addressing issues we face, but they violently oppose anything we ask in order to have the opportunity to solve the problems this government has created for us.. Then you have had the nerve to tell me how we are being tricked as if we do not have the ability to think for ourselves and you cannot see the racism in your thought processes.

Try not putting all white people in a basket. I am talking about whites on the rght

Oh, excuse me…it’s ok if YOU put people in a basket of though, right? Let me ask you, do you REALLY believe there are no racists in the democrat party? I mean, honestly?? The democrat white folk have managed to purify themselves and have no racism in them…really??

And the fact is all that you have called nonsense is real

No,..it’s nonsense. I’d be more understanding and sympathetic to your cause, but I can’t, because you like to paint people with a broad brush and look for racism that may not even be there. But since you love to assign labels, you do it constantly.

And after living years facing it, blacks can see it when it happens.

Perhaps your perception is off. Perhaps you’ve been conditioned for so long to see everything through the lense of racism..take your pick, but the fact that racism is your “go to” answer, it tells me that you are not seeing clearly.

This forum is full of such things and instead of you fighting THAT, you are here arguing wth me.

Like I said, I’m not the forum police, and the only reason why I push back on you is because you do the things you do, as already explained. What you do is dangerous because people like you, talking like you do, put a target on the back of all white people. I don’t care how many degrees you have, you’re not a mind reader, and you don’t know what people are thinking or what their motives are, especially if you’ve never even talked to them.

Whites like you

Every time you say this, you are proving my point.

even as I have presented peer reviewed evidence., legal decisons, and studies from professional organizations that proves what I say is rght.

Uh huh, all written by left wing or anti white people, like Di Angelo, who feed you with exactly what it is you want to hear. Likely because of some agenda. See, those people have decided that any negative action taken against a black person is micro aggression…and racism, which is silly because, you know…white people can disagree with black people…and they can even get angry at black people…and they can even lash out at black people…and it will have nothing to do with race…but, every time it happens, the left wing media and people like sharpton are on tv calling it racism.

And you've done it with no evidence as if all you have to do is be white and say it's not so.

No, I can read the terrain, and I listen to lefty radio a lot, I’ve listened to people who on this forum who all ascribe waaaay too much to racism. After while you see patterns.

I went to school, got degrees and was a paid professional researching and applying what I learned in the field of sociology, whch is:

That’s great. Somewhere along the way you must have become really jaded to believe everyone who supports trump is a racist. If that’s what your sociology degree taught you, that most right winger white people are racist…then I don’t know what to tell you..maybe you got some bad education?

Apparently you have not done that, and are mystified as to why I can say the things I do.

No, I’m mystified because, with as much education that you have received, how you ended up being like you are. Thinking everything is about racism. Hell, even on that other post, about the U.S. debt, you even tried to bring race into that conversation. It’s like, wherever you can, you try to push race at any chance. That tells me you are looking for ways to push race onto people.

No, the problem is that you cannot see the things that you say are racist.

This is my point. There isn’t a single thing on this forum that I’ve ever said that was racist, but you, because you seem to have this super power that you can spot racism where it doesn’t exist, can read my posts, and if it upsets you, then you just use the “r” word.

Feel free to post anything I’ve ever said that was racist and explain why you think it was racist.

I don't have this problem with every white person here. Just whites who are on the right.

That’s stereotyping you know. But I’m sure that doesn’t bother you. You’re completely fine with lumping people into groups, but ask me not to?

For some reason you guys seem to think you can talk crazy about blacks and nothng should ever be said about it.

Define “crazy”. You mean racist tropes? No, I expect they should be called out every time, but you think everything is a racist attack.

If you’re talking about insult in general, well, take a look around, this is a pretty emotionally charged place.

You also seem to believe that you can peddle this impression of America that has not existed for blacks and we are just supposed to agree with that impression

I’m not sure I follow. What impression have I been peddling? I’ve acknowledged that blacks have had it rough, hell, even in the conversation with curriedgoats, I recognize that black people certainly need some form of recompense, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

Then when you are confronted by someone back who refuses to do so and are frank or unapologetic about it, then we get what you are doing, which is called white fragility by this human being:

I know…lol, the one white person who talks about race that you actually think knows what racism is all about. After all this time saying that white people don’t know anything about racism, and that they are racists and are not even aware of it…then a white woman comes and writes a book that piques your interest and suddenly you believe her.

She, like you, either is looking at everything through the lens of race..or she just has a natural loathing of white people.

Because most whites have not been trained to think with complexity about racism

And I’m sure for a hefty speaking fee, she’ll come in a whip them white boys right into compliance.

and because it benefits white dominance not to do so,

Is this how she views white people? They are all walking around thinking they are the dominant species? I know white people..none of them, as far as I’m aware, view themselves as dominant. They are just average people trying to get along in life.

Most white people don’t even think about race, until it’s brought up by someone trying to beat them over the head with it.

We are the least likely to see, comprehend, or be invested in validating people of color’s assertions of racism

Yep…there we go…”you can’t see your racism, but don’t worry, I’ll be sure to point it out for you!” I’m sure those white people appreciate the uninformed assertion of them.

whites are the group in the position to legitimize people of color’s assertions of racism.

Why? So if a black person says a white person is a racist…that white person is supposed to just throw their hands up in the air and say “well crap, he said I’m a racist so it must be so!”?

whites have little compunction about debating the knowledge of people who have thought deeply about race through research, study, peer-reviewed scholarship, deep and on-going critical self-reflection, interracial relationships, and lived experience.

No..they just debate you when you try to accuse them of racism, when they are not. Certainly they will debate that.

This expertise is often trivialized and countered with simplistic platitudes

Yeah, when that expertise is put to use making blanket statements like she does..yeah, that needs to be trivialized.

White lack of racial humility often leads to declarations of disagreement when in fact the problem is that we do not understand.

Again, so if a black person accuses a ****** of racism, that ****** is supposed to have “humility” and just accept the accusation outright?

If the white person disagrees, it’s because the WHITE person doesn’t understand huh? How convenient.

Whites generally feel free to dismiss informed perspectives rather than have the humility to acknowledge that they are unfamiliar, reflect on them further, seek more information, or sustain a dialogue.”

Yep, that’s exactly what she’s saying..yo ******…if you are accused of racism, you are just supposed to accept it!

Maybe they dismiss (un)informed perspectives because nobody is a mind reader, but they certainly want you to think their research makes them so.

This assessment comes after more than 20 years of leading racial sensitvity training for corporations.

Yeah, I’m sure I know how that goes: it’s where she goes in and tells all the white people that they are all racists and forces everyone to fill out forms, that will be turned in to the HR department at the end of the class, where they have to check boxes and write statements “admitting their racism”, which they reluctantly do because they don’t want to get in trouble or fired by their company for non compliance.

You have disagreed with me about white racism while you have read whites making racist comments in this forum

I have never disagreed with the fact that racism exists..I’ve said it many times. I don’t agree, however, that any party is “the party of racism” like you do. I also don’t agree it’s behind every blade of grass, like you do.

You have continued trying to argue with me about things such as our choice in political parties when your party has shown that it not only has no interest in addressing issues we face,

I’ve only ever asked what the democrat party has ever done for black people. How many decades have black people been overwhelmingly been voting democrat…and are still pretty much in the same place


What does the Republican Party need to address the situation? They want to be constitutionally minded, low tax, small government, and give everyone the opportunity to succeed. What’s wrong with that?

but they violently oppose anything we ask in order to have the opportunity to solve the problems this government has created for us.

Violently? When? What are you asking them to do that they aren’t doing? Reparations? Some people don’t agree with that…and don’t fool yourself…if reparations are ever passed in the amounts that are being suggested, you’ll see those white democrats that you thought supported you all this time suddenly start throwing a fit.

Then you have had the nerve to tell me how we are being tricked as if we do not have the ability to think for ourselves and you cannot see the racism in your thought processes.

No, that’s what YOU took from that conversation. I never said black people didn’t have the ability to think independently, I said that black people have been lied to for a long time, and that decisions are influenced by people’s surroundings and what they hear. So black people grew up being told that right wing white people hated them, so they all voted democrat, and that social pressure (which I linked articles to) were a big part of why black people vote democrat by like 90%. This continued generation after generation until it became “just what you do as a black person” (also linked in the articles I posted)

What’s odd is, you link Di Angelo and chastise me for not believing the years of research, but then I link research about why black people vote democrat, and you want to dismiss THAT.


Also…that’s a long freaking post to make on a cell phone lol

 

[366h34d]

competition requires a winner and loser or they can play to a draw.

You see most of you all seem to think sports makes your point. Yet most do not understand sports. Sports is about competition and playing fairly. Playing by the rules. If they do not play by the rules then it is cheating and they will be disqualified.

Yet its is obvious in sports you do have a winner or loser and sometimes a draw.

Yet they shake hands at the end of the game and may say good game which shows respect.

All sports have rules. Your problem is your concern with winning or losing sitting in you chair or watching TV.

Respect is something fans do not require as they just want their team to win. Yet they are not the ones playing. the game.

no idea what is your point. Are you telling us that Kamala means "all work is noble" ?

 

[dblack]

You skip it, but others don't.

Of course. That's why you're paid to post here.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Of course. That's why you're paid to post here.

How I wish you were right! I would love to get paid to post here.

 

[Curried Goats]

Just saying it is doesn't make it true.

If you refuse to define it or simply can't, it remains subjective.


And?


Again, and?

First you tell me that my belief that capitalism is created on inequality is subjective, it's not. You ask me to define it and I do, showing how it requires people with capital, ie property, and those with none, thus proving the inequality and your response is and?

Isn't that what you asked for?

Not about subjectivism/objectivism you're not.


The "the incongruity of property and equal rights." you idiot.

I already did ask you, dumbass. I asked what you're problem was with capitalism being inherently unequal if at the same time you won't say it should be.

I don't have a problem with capitalism. I have a problem with rampant inequality but I don't blame capitalism for that. Its a tool. I blame policy and I'm amused that libertarians like dblack can't acknowledge the fallacy at the heart of their philosophy and pretend any attempt at creating policy to address inequality and inequity is a violation of their imaginary inalienable equal rights.

Of course you don't. That's because it's a little more complicated than subjectivism/objectivism.

Or I just don't know what you're trying to say. When I don't know I simply ask instead of pretending meaning and definitions from others is whatever I imagine it to be. Is that a foreign concept to you?

Okay, and?

So you don't want equal outcomes? Then why change the system?

Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources. I don't want equality per se, but I'd like a floor and celling.

Created to do what, attain equal outcomes? Now who's indulging in fantasy?

You, when you imagine that's what I meant.

You were talking about nature and how the fittest survive, which includes stronger animals killing weaker animals and taking their shit. I was saying society was created so we don't have to live in a natural state of competing with others to survive but instead working together to provide better outcomes.

We're not talking about murder and robbery, dumbass, we're talking about an economic system.

Well that goes back to how private property is created. Hint, it's with violence and the threat of violence.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

First you tell me that my belief that capitalism is created on inequality is subjective, it's not.

It is. That's because it depends on establishing equality in what. If you mean not everyone has an equal right to try to achieve success, that is simply not true. If you mean not everyone is equally successful, that is just the way the world is.

You ask me to define it and I do, showing how it requires people with capital, ie property, and those with none, thus proving the inequality and your response is and?

Negative. That some people don't have capital is not proof that capitalism is unequal. There will always be people who have capital and those who don't, no matter the economic system in place.

I said you would have to define it and you give me an example of a disparity that would have existed anyway at any time, any place and within any economic system.

Isn't that what you asked for?

Nope. To define "unequal" in this context you would have to show objectively how it should be equal. You have arbitrarily and subjectively applied a concept to the issue of economics that is not an intrinsic element of economics, except to say some will be more successful than others.

I don't have a problem with capitalism. I have a problem with rampant inequality but I don't blame capitalism for that.

You said: ""...capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality.".
First you say capitalism itself inherently creates the inequality then you say you don't blame capitalism for the inequality.

Its a tool. I blame policy and I'm amused that libertarians like dblack can't acknowledge the fallacy at the heart of their philosophy and pretend any attempt at creating policy to address inequality and inequity is a violation of their imaginary inalienable equal rights.

If you're thinking that financial or economic prosperity is included in those "inalienable" rights, you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding their beliefs on this matter. I don't know because I know almost nothing about libertarianism.

Everyone has the right to attempt to achieve prosperity and success but no one has the right to prosperity and success

Or I just don't know what you're trying to say. When I don't know I simply ask instead of pretending meaning and definitions from others is whatever I imagine it to be. Is that a foreign concept to you?

It wasn't rocket surgery. If there are no inalienable rights to property or anything else then there is no inalienable truth as to how wealth should be achieved or spread across a given society. In other words, there is no imperative, moral or otherwise, that says prosperity should be spread more equally among the population at large.

Because I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources. I don't want equality per se, but I'd like a floor and celling.

In other words, you want to stifle ambition.

You, when you imagine that's what I meant.

You were talking about nature and how the fittest survive, which includes stronger animals killing weaker animals and taking their shit. I was saying society was created so we don't have to live in a natural state of competing with others to survive but instead working together to provide better outcomes.

Competing with others never changed with the advent of societies. It just took on a different form.

I read somewhere once that human groups work best when their number does not exceed about thirty people. Beyond that number you begin to see more differences and conflicts that, with the addition of more people, become progressively worse and so become harder to manage.

Well that goes back to how private property is created. Hint, it's with violence and the threat of violence.

"Created" or "acquired"?

I don't know about you but I paid money for everything I own. As for creating private property (I assume you're talking about land), that was all created over a ages ago.

 

[Curried Goats]

It is. That's because it depends on establishing equality in what. If you mean not everyone has an equal right to try to achieve success, that is simply not true. If you mean not everyone is equally successful, that is just the way the world is.

I meant neither of those things. In fact I told you exactly what I meant.

Negative. That some people don't have capital is not proof that capitalism is unequal.

If some people have capital and some don't isn't that inequality of capital? That seems self explanatory my guy.

There will always be people who have capital and those who don't, no matter the economic system in place.

I feel like the economic system in place is kind of integral to that equation but that's besides the point. My point was that for it to exist it requires a state of inequality. That's it. When people like dblack start from the premise of equal inalienable rights this is to show that there is no such thing but especially in regards to access to resources and capital.

I said you would have to define it and you give me an example of a disparity that would have existed anyway at any time, any place and within any economic system.

You need to understand the context in which I make that argument. To libertarians the right to use force to protect property and maintain property rights are inalienable and government comitted to this purpose is justice. They'll never address the fact that aggressive force is needed to create property in the first place but they will whine that any attempt to use the force of law, i.e. taxes and regulations, to democratically address inequities in wealth and capital are violations of these magically inalienable rights.

Nope. To define "unequal" in this context you would have to show objectively how it should be equal.

No I don't. That's something you just made up. Why do I have to do anything other than what I claim to be able to do which is show that capitalism starts on inequality rather than magic property rights.

You have arbitrarily and subjectively applied a concept to the issue of economics that is not an intrinsic element of economics, except to say some will be more successful than others.

What? What the hell is an intrinsic element of economics? Is economics some natural element you think you've discovered in nature?

Nothing is intrinsic to economics. It's an entirely artifical creation. It is whatever we make it to be.

You said: ""...capitalism creates a system of inherent inequality.".
First you say capitalism itself inherently creates the inequality then you say you don't blame capitalism for the inequality.

I don't. I think competition is integral not only to capitalism but to growth. I blame us for not regulating it better.

If you're thinking that financial or economic prosperity is included in those "inalienable" rights, you might be misinterpreting or misunderstanding their beliefs on this matter. I don't know because I know almost nothing about libertarianism.

Nope. That's not what I'm thinking.

Everyone has the right to attempt to achieve prosperity and success but no one has the right to prosperity and success

Why not? Why shouldn't people have a right to a minimum of success? What are rights to you?

It wasn't rocket surgery. If there are no inalienable rights to property or anything else then there is no inalienable truth as to how wealth should be achieved or spread across a given society. In other words, there is no imperative, moral or otherwise, that says prosperity should be spread more equally among the population at large.

Right. I never claimed there was some moral truth or imperative.

In other words, you want to stifle ambition.

Nope, just the ability to acrue wealth beyond a certain point. I'm not stopping anyone from working.

Competing with others never changed with the advent of societies. It just took on a different form.

I read somewhere once that human groups work best when their number does not exceed about thirty people. Beyond that number you begin to see more differences and conflicts that, with the addition of more people, become progressively worse and so become harder to manage.

"Created" or "acquired"?

I don't know about you but I paid money for everything I own. As for creating private property (I assume you're talking about land), that was all created over a ages ago.

I don't care if you use created or acquired. Getting stuffy about word choice is your deal. What I mean to say is that land and resources exist as a part of nature. Property exists as a fiction that those resources belong to you and that you have the right to use force to deny people access to them. Libertarians and the American Founders believed this right came from nature or god and that government existed to protect them but those rights actually come from society and I say there's nothing inconsistent with society designing the parameters and limits of property ownership or any other right. That's what societies do.

 

[sapphiregirl]

This is how you know someone hasn't really gone to college.

This is how someone who has heard about college on right wing media talks.

Yes, he seems not to have attended college.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I meant neither of those things. In fact I told you exactly what I meant.

No, you told me some people have capital and some don't. If you're not suggesting or implying anything beyond that then all you're doing is stating a fact that everyone knows.

If some people have capital and some don't isn't that inequality of capital? That seems self explanatory my guy.

That depends on whether or not you're suggesting something should be done about it. If you are then I say it's not unequal, it's just the way it is and always will be. If not then, again, all you're doing is stating a fact everyone knows.

I feel like the economic system in place is kind of integral to that equation but that's besides the point. My point was that for it to exist it requires a state of inequality. That's it. When people like dblack start from the premise of equal inalienable rights this is to show that there is no such thing but especially in regards to access to resources and capital.

Like you, I don't believe any rights are inalienable. However, I have to ask: How do you think they apply this principle and to what extent? I don't think "inalienable rights", as they believe it, extends to having or possessing property, capital and resources but having equal opportunity to try to achieve these things and to protect them.

You need to understand the context in which I make that argument. To libertarians the right to use force to protect property and maintain property rights are inalienable and government comitted to this purpose is justice. They'll never address the fact that aggressive force is needed to create property in the first place but they will whine that any attempt to use the force of law, i.e. taxes and regulations, to democratically address inequities in wealth and capital are violations of these magically inalienable rights.

Where your premise fails is that you seem to assume that property, capital and resources are finite and that what's available can only be redistributed at various times. Fact is, capital is not fixed but rather, created. That being the case, everyone has access to capital. It's only a question as to whether or not you can make the right choices to create it and grow it.

As to the question of force and acquiring and protecting property, unless the individual property owner himself acquired his property by force, I don't see the inconsistency here.

No I don't. That's something you just made up. Why do I have to do anything other than what I claim to be able to do which is show that capitalism starts on inequality rather than magic property rights.

Capitalism doesn't start on equality or inequality of possession, it starts on the equality of every citizen having the right to (lawfully) achieve possession.

What? What the hell is an intrinsic element of economics?

The creation of, trading and flow of capital in a society via goods and services, among other things.

Is economics some natural element you think you've discovered in nature?

I didn't say economics is an element, dumbass.

There are elements and factors that make up what we call economics and equal possession of property is not one of them.

Nothing is intrinsic to economics. It's an entirely artifical creation. It is whatever we make it to be.

If it's all artificial then so is the idea that capitalism is unequal.

I don't.

You did when you said capitalism inherently creates inequality.

I think competition is integral not only to capitalism but to growth. I blame us for not regulating it better.

Capitalism IS growth.

Nope. That's not what I'm thinking.

Why not?

Because it's not how the universe works.

Why shouldn't people have a right to a minimum of success?

Are you suggesting success should just be handed out?

What are rights to you?

Rights are equal opportunity to try to achieve success. No one has a right to have success and we shouldn't.

Right. I never claimed there was some moral truth or imperative.

You did say capitalism is inherently unequal.

Nope, just the ability to acrue wealth beyond a certain point. I'm not stopping anyone from working.

Yes you are. If an entrepreneur is checked from growing his portfolio or business beyond a certain point, you're stifling ambition.

I don't care if you use created or acquired. Getting stuffy about word choice is your deal.

Are you saying that acquiring property through monetary transaction is semantically the same as creating property through force?

What I mean to say is that land and resources exist as a part of nature. Property exists as a fiction that those resources belong to you and that you have the right to use force to deny people access to them.

I don't have the right to deny a thief access to my property through force?

Libertarians and the American Founders believed this right came from nature or god and that government existed to protect them but those rights actually come from society and I say there's nothing inconsistent with society designing the parameters and limits of property ownership or any other right. That's what societies do.

According to what you said thus far, society created or acquired property through force in the first place. Now you want society to take that force further to redistribute wealth and stifle ambition.

All you're doing is justifying more force from the same entity.

 

[WEATHER53]

Money does not have a race to virtue signal for

 

[Curried Goats]

No, you told me some people have capital and some don't. If you're not suggesting or implying anything beyond that then all you're doing is stating a fact that everyone knows.

I know I was stating an objective fact. You're the one who was confused and suggested what I said was opinion.

That depends on whether or not you're suggesting something should be done about it.

No it isn't. That's an entirely separate issue. Whether or not something is unequal and what should be done about any inequality if there is any are two different questions.

If you are then I say it's not unequal,

You said up top that the inequality is simply a fact everyone knows. Make your mind up guy.

it's just the way it is and always will be. If not then, again, all you're doing is stating a fact everyone knows.

I don't understand what you're doing. Is it a fact is it not a fact?

Let me ask you why you think inequality of property is just the way it is and will always be a thing? Private property as a concept is a fairly recent invention in the scope of human history. I'm not suggesting we're likely to do away with inequality ourselves in this culture but it's not like it exists and has always existed in every human culture.

Like you, I don't believe any rights are inalienable. However, I have to ask: How do you think they apply this principle and to what extent? I don't think "inalienable rights", as they believe it, extends to having or possessing property, capital and resources but having equal opportunity to try to achieve these things and to protect them.

Well to understand that you'd have to read libertarian philosophy. I recommend Frederic Bastiats The Law. It's a quick read and my favorite of the libertarian writers. He sums up Justice as the collective organization of the individual right to self defense. To Bastiat, life was a gift from God but needed maintenance and so God gave man faculties and so through the use of these God given faculties on the resources of the earth (also created by god) he creates property. In such, life, liberty (the use of your faculties) and property (your faculties mixed with natural resources) are essential to God's gifts and these represent individual inalienable rights. The collective (government and society) only acts justly when it does collectively only that which the individual has a right to do. Namely, enjoy their lives, use their faculties on natural resources and use force only to protect their lives, liberty and property. Now some libertarians try to jettison God and use nature instead and call them natural rights but they're the same thing.

I can rock with most of this even though I don't believe rights come from God or nature but where you lose me is where working resources to improve your life turns into claiming resources for yourself at the threat of violence. You chop down a few trees and build a house and I can agree that house is yours. You plop that house down on the bank of a river and say anyone who comes to fish out of this river to use their own faculties on the resources of the river I'm going to shoot and I'm going to question where you imagine that right comes from. It's not God or Nature.

Where your premise fails is that you seem to assume that property, capital and resources are finite and that what's available can only be redistributed at various times. Fact is, capital is not fixed but rather, created.

That's not my premise. In fact I've said repeatedly that private property and capital are creations of society.

That being the case, everyone has access to capital. It's only a question as to whether or not you can make the right choices to create it and grow it.

Everyone does not share the same access to capital, no.

As to the question of force and acquiring and protecting property, unless the individual property owner himself acquired his property by force, I don't see the inconsistency here.

Well this many many transactions after the fact. All protected by the force of law but originally it requires force to even make private property. That's what private property is. The exclusive right to a resource to the extent that you can protect your claim to it with force. In this country the original creators would be our tyrant Founders.

Capitalism doesn't start on equality or inequality of possession, it starts on the equality of every citizen having the right to (lawfully) achieve possession.

We know how it started in this country. With some people owning other people as part of their property and the people with capital and property reserving democracy for themselves. I don't need your fairytales my guy when we have hindsight.

The creation of, trading and flow of capital in a society via goods and services, among other things.

If it's created then it's only intrinsic in the sense that it is created to operate that way.

I didn't say economics is an element, dumbass.

There are elements and factors that make up what we call economics and equal possession of property is not one of them.

They aren't natural elements because this isn't a natural system, it's an artifical one.

If it's all artificial then so is the idea that capitalism is unequal.

No.... that's a fact. We established that up top.....

You did when you said capitalism inherently creates inequality.


Capitalism IS growth.


Because it's not how the universe works.

How does the universe work?

Are you suggesting success should just be handed out?

I'm saying I prefer to live in a society where the success created by society is celebrated and shared by all.

Rights are equal opportunity to try to achieve success. No one has a right to have success and we shouldn't.

So what about disabled people? Let them starve and die if they have no loved ones to care for them?

You did say capitalism is inherently unequal.


Yes you are. If an entrepreneur is checked from growing his portfolio or business beyond a certain point, you're stifling ambition.

Only if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth.

Are you saying that acquiring property through monetary transaction is semantically the same as creating property through force?

I'm saying laws are backed by the threat and use of force. The reason people respect your property rights is because of the threat of force.

I don't have the right to deny a thief access to my property through force?

Your legal rights are determined by the government you live under.

According to what you said thus far, society created or acquired property through force in the first place. Now you want society to take that force further to redistribute wealth and stifle ambition.

All you're doing is justifying more force from the same entity.

I can say whatever I like. I don't believe inalienable rights. I'm fine with force being used to shape reality I just have a different subjective preference on what I'd like that reality to look like. It's libertarians who've imagined they've cracked the code on moral justifications.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know I was stating an objective fact. You're the one who was confused and suggested what I said was opinion.

No. What I said was that some having capital and some not is not an inherent inequality unless equality is expected, required or is otherwise an imperative. Beyond that it is just a fact of life no matter the economic system.

No it isn't. That's an entirely separate issue. Whether or not something is unequal and what should be done about any inequality if there is any are two different questions.

If you're not suggesting something be done or that it should be another way then what is your point? Some people have capital and some don't. So what? Welcome to the real world.

You said up top that the inequality is simply a fact everyone knows. Make your mind up guy.

Nope, that's not what I said. I didn't say inequality is a fact everyone knows, I said that some have capital and some don't is a fact everyone knows. "Inequality" is your word, not mine.

This, again, is that language nuance thing I was talking about.

I don't understand what you're doing. Is it a fact is it not a fact?

It's a fact that some have capital and some don't.

Let me ask you why you think inequality of property is just the way it is and will always be a thing?

Because some having property/capital and some not is the way it's always been.

Private property as a concept is a fairly recent invention in the scope of human history. I'm not suggesting we're likely to do away with inequality ourselves in this culture but it's not like it exists and has always existed in every human culture.

Of course it has existed in every culture.

America is unique in a lot of ways but in this, we are exactly the same as everyone else.

Well to understand that you'd have to read libertarian philosophy. I recommend Frederic Bastiats The Law. It's a quick read and my favorite of the libertarian writers. He sums up Justice as the collective organization of the individual right to self defense. To Bastiat, life was a gift from God but needed maintenance and so God gave man faculties and so through the use of these God given faculties on the resources of the earth (also created by god) he creates property. In such, life, liberty (the use of your faculties) and property (your faculties mixed with natural resources) are essential to God's gifts and these represent individual inalienable rights. The collective (government and society) only acts justly when it does collectively only that which the individual has a right to do. Namely, enjoy their lives, use their faculties on natural resources and use force only to protect their lives, liberty and property. Now some libertarians try to jettison God and use nature instead and call them natural rights but they're the same thing.

I can rock with most of this even though I don't believe rights come from God or nature but where you lose me is where working resources to improve your life turns into claiming resources for yourself at the threat of violence. You chop down a few trees and build a house and I can agree that house is yours. You plop that house down on the bank of a river and say anyone who comes to fish out of this river to use their own faculties on the resources of the river I'm going to shoot and I'm going to question where you imagine that right comes from. It's not God or Nature.

If one pays money for property and is now the legal owner, what difference does it make where the right comes from? Doesn't the investment of time, labor and money count for anything when it comes to rights?

That's not my premise. In fact I've said repeatedly that private property and capital are creations of society.

If you know that capital is created and grown then should we not allow everyone the personal responsibility to create their own capital or choose not to? To succeed or fail on their own?

Everyone does not share the same access to capital, no.

If you mean it's more of a challenge for some, you're correct. But it will always be that way so the point is moot.

Every person's financial situation comes down to personal choices for the most part. If one does not, or cannot, create and grow capital, it's because they made the wrong choices or they simply lack the traits to make it happen.

Well this many many transactions after the fact. All protected by the force of law but originally it requires force to even make private property. That's what private property is. The exclusive right to a resource to the extent that you can protect your claim to it with force. In this country the original creators would be our tyrant Founders.

Do you imagine it would have been different with any other founders? Believe me, it would not. This is human history.

We know how it started in this country. With some people owning other people as part of their property and the people with capital and property reserving democracy for themselves. I don't need your fairytales my guy when we have hindsight.

Is that what this is all about to you, slavery? I thought we were talking about capitalism.

If it's created then it's only intrinsic in the sense that it is created to operate that way.

Operate what way? You asked me what the intrinsic element of economics was, not what the element of a particular economic system is.

Are you telling me that an economic system can exist without the trading and flow of capital in a society via goods and services?

They aren't natural elements because this isn't a natural system, it's an artifical one.

I didn't say they were "natural" elements, dumbass.

No.... that's a fact. We established that up top.....

No, I showed that it was NOT established because I didn't say what you said I did.

How does the universe work?

Nothing is given.

I'm saying I prefer to live in a society where the success created by society is celebrated and shared by all.

That doesn't answer the question. If not by handing out success, how do you propose to build an economic system that is shared equally by everyone, some of whom do not, cannot or will not put in the same effort?

So what about disabled people? Let them starve and die if they have no loved ones to care for them?

Are they being left to starve and die now? That would be a valid question if I had proposed a change to the system and I have not. You, however are proposing a fundamental change to our economic system that, as you pointed out to me in a previous discussion, made us the most prosperous country in the world.

Only if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth.

And how the fuck is anyone going to fairly and objectively determine something like that? Are you suggesting that, in addition to wealth redistribution, we force some kind of character or morality test on those who want to succeed?

I'm saying laws are backed by the threat and use of force. The reason people respect your property rights is because of the threat of force.

Yes, the same way they enforce laws against murder and drug trafficking. So?

Your legal rights are determined by the government you live under.

That doesn't answer the question. Do I not have the right to deny a thief access to my property through force?

I can say whatever I like.

Didn't say you couldn't.

I don't believe inalienable rights. I'm fine with force being used to shape reality I just have a different subjective preference on what I'd like that reality to look like. It's libertarians who've imagined they've cracked the code on moral justifications.

Apparently you think you've cracked the code yourself.

 

[Kilroy2]

no idea what is your point. Are you telling us that Kamala means "all work is noble" ?

Someone responded to my quote with a sports reference to equality and equity. Thus my response was to the sports reference for equality and equity.

 

[Kilroy2]

Thank you for defining capitalism over socialism, dumb fuck

Thank you for misunderstanding dumb fuck

 

[Kilroy2]

You’re completely lost, enjoy the hyena for your president lmao you actually deserve it, the rest of us don’t but you sir, ma’am, dog, tree completely do

You talking about the person who actually beat Trump? Yes you do deserve it.