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

[Kilroy2]

Apparently did my championship seasons wrong then. Of course I was busy up on the podium after the race and wasn’t down in the pits with the losers telling each other good race.

Obviously you do not understand sports. Yes everyone who competes wants to win. And it does make the players happy

The fans are even happier. So glad to see your happy for what they did.

 

[Kilroy2]

Equality in sports is treating everyone who shows up the same. That means anyone who show more potential as a rookie can replace the veteran.

Equity in sports is the spanish guy or whatever ethnicity who shows up and only speaks his native language. Interpreter is hired to translate and the person is given a shot to make the team or not. Gives them a chance to make the team based on their skills and not because they cannot speak english.

a simple example so yes they are treated differently based on their needs. Yet the purpose still is to make the team stronger and win.

 

[Curried Goats]

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.

Inequality of capital isn't a fact of life. Capital and property are inventions and so inequality of them can't be inherent to life, just to capitalism.

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.

I'm am suggesting something should be done, its just a separate question from whether capitalism starts from a place of inequality.

Of course it has existed in every culture.

It hasn't. The idea that the land and it's resources can belong to an individual has not existed in every culture. Native American cultures for example didn't think the land could be owned. That concept they learned from Europeans.

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?

Because individuals don't create capital, societies do and they decide who has access and who doesn't. The free market is a misnomer. It's not an impartial system that produces results on merit. I'm not saying merit plays absolutely no part in it but it is an entirely artifical system who's results then are manufactured, not naturally arrived at. Take sports. The winners and losers of sports competitions are said to be merit based, and they are, but the rules we write for these competitions also select for the type of highly skilled competitors we see. Because of the rules of basketball (height of the net for example) it selects for taller people and we see at the professional level that there isn't a team of 5'9 players in part because of these rules. If we made the height of the net much lower then taller people would now be at a disadvantage and shorter people would be winning these merit based competitions. The market is like that. Its a competitive arena with rules that select for certain qualities. If can't be helped. We (society) can't create a machine and then divorce ourselves from the results it produces.

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.

That's not moot, that's my point.

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.

No. It wasn't personal choice that created the 10 to 1 wealth gap between white and black families.

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

I don't care about your fantasy arguments or what you imagine.

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

Slavery and violence were it's seed.

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?

I don't know what handing out success means. I would like to see the same sort of mixed economies we see in Europe and Asia. Large social safety nets, universal healthcare, paid family leave... supported by higher taxes.

Are they being left to starve and die now?

Because we have a social safety net. Should we not?

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.

What fundamental change? Higher taxes? More social services?

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?

What?

I'm talking about taxing wealth to the point that becoming a billionaire is impossible. I don't give a shit how much work someone wants to do.

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

Killing someone trying to murder you is actual self defense. Killing someone trying to fish out of a river you claimed as your own property is only self defense according to legal fiction, not objective reality. Property can't be forged without threats of violence.

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

That depends on what a right is to you. In libertarian philosophy that's where the imcongruity of their philosophy lies. I don't know what rights mean to you. To me they're legal fictions. Your legal rights are whatever the law says they are.

Didn't say you couldn't.

Apparently you think you've cracked the code yourself.

Nope. Morality to me is subjective. Ask someone else to explain to you what that means.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Inequality of capital isn't a fact of life. Capital and property are inventions and so inequality of them can't be inherent to life, just to capitalism.

If capital and property are inventions then so is inequality of capital and property.

I'm am suggesting something should be done, its just a separate question from whether capitalism starts from a place of inequality.

So again, what is your point?

It hasn't. The idea that the land and it's resources can belong to an individual has not existed in every culture. Native American cultures for example didn't think the land could be owned. That concept they learned from Europeans.

The Native Americans obviously considered themselves to be, if not owners, then stewards of the land and the game therein. Why do you think they started attacking settlers? They saw whites as a threat to their livelihood. Not to mention the fact that the natives had been warring with each other over resources long before the white man showed up.

Because individuals don't create capital,

Yes, they do. When a company or person creates a product or service that no one has before (iPhone for example), this creates a whole new industry that adds capital to the GDP. Why do you think the Stock Exchange increases in points over time?

societies do and they decide who has access and who doesn't. The free market is a misnomer. It's not an impartial system that produces results on merit.

It has nothing to do with merit. It has everything to do with smart choices and effort.

I'm not saying merit plays absolutely no part in it but it is an entirely artifical system who's results then are manufactured, not naturally arrived at. Take sports. The winners and losers of sports competitions are said to be merit based, and they are, but the rules we write for these competitions also select for the type of highly skilled competitors we see. Because of the rules of basketball (height of the net for example) it selects for taller people and we see at the professional level that there isn't a team of 5'9 players in part because of these rules. If we made the height of the net much lower then taller people would now be at a disadvantage and shorter people would be winning these merit based competitions. The market is like that. Its a competitive arena with rules that select for certain qualities. If can't be helped. We (society) can't create a machine and then divorce ourselves from the results it produces.

Then what you're suggesting is akin to changing the rules to where basketball teams are forced to place an equal number of 5' 9" or shorter players on the team (or they do so on their own in the interest of equality).

It's a noble idea but ultimately self defeating.

That's not moot, that's my point.

Yes, and it is moot. It is moot because that's the way it is and the way it will always be. It will never change because mankind will never stop producing people who will settle for mediocrity or less.

No. It wasn't personal choice that created the 10 to 1 wealth gap between white and black families.

In the beginning, no. Now? Absolutely. The black community is, at the very least, partly responsible. You can only blame ****** for so long.

I don't care about your fantasy arguments or what you imagine.

And I don't care about yours. So?

Slavery and violence were it's seed.

No they weren't.

1.) Most of the GDP in the U.S. at the time was in the manufacturing north where there were virtually no slaves. It's part of the reason the south lost the war.

2.) As I've said before, even without slavery, cotton was a huge cash crop because Europe and the U.K. were clambering for the stuff. As I've also pointed out before, even after slavery was abolished and planters were having to hire pickers, the cotton output and revenue nearly doubled in about ten years anyway.

Slavery was bad enough by itself and abolishing it was a good thing. But to attribute some of the things in this country being rooted in slavery is just not realistic.

I don't know what handing out success means. I would like to see the same sort of mixed economies we see in Europe and Asia. Large social safety nets, universal healthcare, paid family leave... supported by higher taxes.

Which the government will just waste anyway as they always do.

It baffles me why it never occurs to Democrats, liberals and leftists to do something about the waste.

Because we have a social safety net. Should we not?

That was exactly my point. You asked if we should let the disabled starve and die when they're not starving and dying now. I never proposed a change to the system, especially any change that would leave the disabled to twist in the wind.

What fundamental change? Higher taxes? More social services?

The point was, you are the one who wants to change the system, not me. Therefore your question to me about what to do with the disabled was irrelevant.

What?

I'm talking about taxing wealth to the point that becoming a billionaire is impossible. I don't give a shit how much work someone wants to do.

That's not what you said.

I said: "If an entrepreneur is checked from growing his portfolio or business beyond a certain point, you're stifling ambition."
Then you said: "Only if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth.

The implication here is that, as long as his ambition is not about accumulating more wealth, his ambition won't be stifled.

Having said that, what you propose is to take an axe to our fundamental liberties. The government should never have the power to tell a citizen how much money he can make.

Killing someone trying to murder you is actual self defense. Killing someone trying to fish out of a river you claimed as your own property is only self defense according to legal fiction, not objective reality. Property can't be forged without threats of violence.

It can be bought or bartered without threats of violence, can't it?

That depends on what a right is to you. In libertarian philosophy that's where the imcongruity of their philosophy lies. I don't know what rights mean to you. To me they're legal fictions. Your legal rights are whatever the law says they are.

You didn't answer my question: Does time, labor and money not count for something when it comes to rights?

Nope. Morality to me is subjective. Ask someone else to explain to you what that means.

Don't pretend that your ideas about slavery, economics, taxes and rich people aren't rooted in some morality code.

 

[Curried Goats]

If capital and property are inventions then so is inequality of capital and property.

Yep.

So again, what is your point?

That libertarians crying about how we can either have equal rights or equity is nonsensical. Rights aren't objective or inalienable. They're imaginary and entirely made up.

The Native Americans obviously considered themselves to be, if not owners, then stewards of the land and the game therein.

So not the same thing. Stewardship and ownership are different philosophies.

Why do you think they started attacking settlers? They saw whites as a threat to their livelihood. Not to mention the fact that the natives had been warring with each other over resources long before the white man showed up.

That red herring still doesn't change the fact that many didn't see land as something that could be privately owned. Property rights are a legal fiction like God is a moral one. Suggesting everyone believed the same philosophy of private land ownership is like arguing everyone has the same philosophy about God just because they pray.

Yes, they do. When a company or person creates a product or service that no one has before (iPhone for example), this creates a whole new industry that adds capital to the GDP. Why do you think the Stock Exchange increases in points over time?

They don't do it by themselves. In this economy we all work together to achieve that. If I had to spend time gathering my own food, or cooking every meal, or making my own fuel to put in my car that I built myself to get myself to work on the road I paved myself then I wouldn't have any time to do the work I do. We all need each other and we should all be able to prosper together and feed our families and buy homes and send our kids to college without having to consider selling your organs on the black market to do it.

It has nothing to do with merit. It has everything to do with smart choices and effort.

You don't think poor people work hard?

Then what you're suggesting is akin to changing the rules to where basketball teams are forced to place an equal number of 5' 9" or shorter players on the team (or they do so on their own in the interest of equality).

It's a noble idea but ultimately self defeating.

Is it? European and Asian counties have done it.

Yes, and it is moot. It is moot because that's the way it is and the way it will always be. It will never change because mankind will never stop producing people who will settle for mediocrity or less.

You guys saying this is moot while we have real world examples to point to is some hilarious shit.

In the beginning, no. Now? Absolutely. The black community is, at the very least, partly responsible. You can only blame ****** for so long.

in the beginning? Segregation only ended 65 years ago. My Dad is older than it's end and in that time Black Americans couldn't insure their homes, couldn't grow wealth or get investment into their community. We can blame ****** for as long as they refuse to provide Black Americans the economic justice they deserve for the economic injustice they suffered through and continue to suffer through.

No they weren't.

1.) Most of the GDP in the U.S. at the time was in the manufacturing north where there were virtually no slaves. It's part of the reason the south lost the war.

The products they manufactured in those factories came from resources gathered by slave labor.

2.) As I've said before, even without slavery, cotton was a huge cash crop because Europe and the U.K. were clambering for the stuff. As I've also pointed out before, even after slavery was abolished and planters were having to hire pickers, the cotton output and revenue nearly doubled in about ten years anyway.

Sure, but without force or slavery or imposed inquality who's recognizing some arstocrats claim to that fertile land cotton is grown on working it for them on their behalf? Also after slavery came Jim Crow and the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery except for criminals. Newly freed slaves with no land or resources and had to go back to work the same fields they'd been liberated from under an oppressive system where former slavers had the economic leverage and the legal tool to arrest black people for loitering or vagrancy so they could put them right back to work.

Slavery was bad enough by itself and abolishing it was a good thing. But to attribute some of the things in this country being rooted in slavery is just not realistic.

You're forgetting Jim Crow and the hundred users segregation and discrimination that can't after. That continues to this day.

Which the government will just waste anyway as they always do.

It baffles me why it never occurs to Democrats, liberals and leftists to do something about the waste.

Waste in this sense seems subjective. I don't know what you would consider waste. I know I don't want to subsidize Israel's bombing of Gaza.

That was exactly my point. You asked if we should let the disabled starve and die when they're not starving and dying now. I never proposed a change to the system, especially any change that would leave the disabled to twist in the wind.

I asked the question because your argument seemed to imply that you'd be okay with that sort of thing. To be clear then you are also for some people succeeding through the grace of society and all we're disagreeing on is where the line is?

The point was, you are the one who wants to change the system, not me. Therefore your question to me about what to do with the disabled was irrelevant.

You're making counter arguments aren't you? Do you imagine them above reproach?

That's not what you said.

I said: "If an entrepreneur is checked from growing his portfolio or business beyond a certain point, you're stifling ambition."
Then you said: "Only if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth.

The implication here is that, as long as his ambition is not about accumulating more wealth, his ambition won't be stifled.

Yes. I don't feel bad about a person with hundreds of millions of dollars not being able to make it to a billion. So sad for them.

Having said that, what you propose is to take an axe to our fundamental liberties. The government should never have the power to tell a citizen how much money he can make.

Ok, what are fundamental liberties? They sound similar to natural or inalienable rights.

It can be bought or bartered without threats of violence, can't it?

With everyone on earth? Claiming a river as your own without violence is something that would have to be negotiated with every single person who wants access to that river.

You didn't answer my question: Does time, labor and money not count for something when it comes to rights?

Depends on your legal structure. It didn't mean much to slaves.

Don't pretend that your ideas about slavery, economics, taxes and rich people aren't rooted in some morality code.

Its a subjective one you dumb Bingo. It's really hard to have a rational conversation with you when you don't understand the difference between opinion and objective facts about reality.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Who was the first person to go from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific? A black Muslim. Did Columbus discover America in 1492, or was it Muslims from Spain, seven centuries before Columbus. Explain the map of Abul-Hassan Al-Masudi, from around 900 AD.

So what did Abul-Hassan Al- Masudi do upon his discovery? Set up a colony or colonies of free trade and religion?

 

[Winston]

So what did Abul-Hassan Al- Masudi do upon his discovery? Set up a colony or colonies of free trade and religion?

It wasn't him. It was Estevanico.

Estevanico - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yep.

But you said capital inequality is a fact.

That libertarians crying about how we can either have equal rights or equity is nonsensical. Rights aren't objective or inalienable. They're imaginary and entirely made up.

I'm not sure what that has to do with inequality of capital.

So not the same thing. Stewardship and ownership are different philosophies.

I didn't say or imply they were the same thing. That's why I said "...considered themselves to be, if not owners, then stewards of the land..."

That red herring still doesn't change the fact that many didn't see land as something that could be privately owned.

It doesn't change the fact that they committed violence to protect the land and resources they say they didn't own when that land and those resources were threatened either.

Property rights are a legal fiction like God is a moral one. Suggesting everyone believed the same philosophy of private land ownership is like arguing everyone has the same philosophy about God just because they pray.

Who said everyone believed the same philosophy?

They don't do it by themselves. In this economy we all work together to achieve that. If I had to spend time gathering my own food, or cooking every meal, or making my own fuel to put in my car that I built myself to get myself to work on the road I paved myself then I wouldn't have any time to do the work I do. We all need each other and we should all be able to prosper together and feed our families and buy homes and send our kids to college without having to consider selling your organs on the black market to do it.

If you're content to live your life and do your job to be able to pay for resources, why are you complaining about others owning, processing, packaging and selling those resources?

You don't think poor people work hard?

That's a stupid question.

To begin with, I said "...smart choices and effort...". Effort and hard work alone will not create capital.

Is it? European and Asian counties have done it.

And none of them have the same level of thriving and bustling economy.

There's a reason we are the largest economy with the largest GDP. Hell, California alone has an economy that dwarfs the economies of many countries. In fact, by itself, California would be the fifth largest economy in the world.

You guys saying this is moot while we have real world examples to point to is some hilarious shit.

Examples of what?

in the beginning? Segregation only ended 65 years ago. My Dad is older than it's end and in that time Black Americans couldn't insure their homes, couldn't grow wealth or get investment into their community.

Your Dad was born in Jamaica, wasn't he?

We can blame ****** for as long as they refuse to provide Black Americans the economic justice they deserve for the economic injustice they suffered through and continue to suffer through.

Irrelevant. Economic injustice is only part of the story and not even relevant anymore. The problems in the black community will never be solved by the white man, even if he wanted to.

The products they manufactured in those factories came from resources gathered by slave labor.

Um, no.

Sure, but without force or slavery or imposed inquality who's recognizing some arstocrats claim to that fertile land cotton is grown on working it for them on their behalf?

What does that have to do with slavery?

Also after slavery came Jim Crow and the 13th Amendment that outlawed slavery except for criminals. Newly freed slaves with no land or resources and had to go back to work the same fields they'd been liberated from under an oppressive system where former slavers had the economic leverage and the legal tool to arrest black people for loitering or vagrancy so they could put them right back to work.

Right. And? What does that have to do with capital inequality today?

You're forgetting Jim Crow and the hundred users segregation and discrimination that can't after. That continues to this day.

I said "...to attribute some of the things in this country being rooted in slavery is just not realistic."

Waste in this sense seems subjective. I don't know what you would consider waste. I know I don't want to subsidize Israel's bombing of Gaza.

So then you would consider that waste, right?

You tell me that waste in this sense is subjective and then you give your own example of what you see as government waste.

I asked the question because your argument seemed to imply that you'd be okay with that sort of thing.

What exactly in my argument implied any such thing? We're discussing economic systems here, not government social programs.

To be clear then you are also for some people succeeding through the grace of society and all we're disagreeing on is where the line is?

Are we talking about succeeding at creating and growing capital or are we talking about providing living assistance to those who are physically or mentally unable to?

I don't know why you're trying to stir social issues into the mix here. One has nothing to do with the other.

You're making counter arguments aren't you?

Against your ideas about economics, yes.

Do you imagine them above reproach?

What do my arguments about capitalism have to do with the disabled?

Yes. I don't feel bad about a person with hundreds of millions of dollars not being able to make it to a billion. So sad for them.

Irrelevant. How do you propose we monitor and regulate ambition in the corporate or business world?

Ok, what are fundamental liberties? They sound similar to natural or inalienable rights.

It doesn't matter what it sounds like. One of the fundamental liberties in this country is that one can strive to be - and be - as successful as they wish. You can say this liberty is granted by the government if you want but most Americans would balk at limiting it in any way.

With everyone on earth?

I could ask you the same thing. Your arguments seem to imply one of two things: 1.) That all property is acquired via violence or force. Or 2.) You're ignoring the fact that most isn't.

Claiming a river as your own without violence is something that would have to be negotiated with every single person who wants access to that river.

What if the river was acquired by payment?

Depends on your legal structure. It didn't mean much to slaves.

Irrelevant. We're not talking about property rights of 150 years ago.

Its a subjective one you dumb Bingo. It's really hard to have a rational conversation with you when you don't understand the difference between opinion and objective facts about reality.

There you go grasping that objectivism/Subjectivism talisman again. You do that every time you argue your own subjective viewpoint against someone else's subjective viewpoint.

 

[Curried Goats]

But you said capital inequality is a fact.

Of capitalism, not of life.

It doesn't change the fact that they committed violence to protect the land and resources they say they didn't own when that land and those resources were threatened either.

They committed violence to protect their access to land that they didn't believe could be owned.

Who said everyone believed the same philosophy?

You did in regards to private property.

If you're content to live your life and do your job to be able to pay for resources, why are you complaining about others owning, processing, packaging and selling those resources?

I told you, my concern is rampant inequality.

And none of them have the same level of thriving and bustling economy.

And? Is the economy a means to an end or an end to the means. See I always thought people engaged in economic activity so they could earn money in order to purchase the things they need. Are you one of those people who judge the American economy by how well the stock market is doing despite the fact that over 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%?

In those European and Asian counties they might have fewer billionaires but their people are better educated, healthier, live longer, happier lives and have more free time because they work fewer hours.

Your Dad was born in Jamaica, wasn't he?

He was. That wasnt my point. My point was that there are plenty of Black Americans who are alive and who suffered the indignity and disenfranchisment of segregation.

Irrelevant. Economic injustice is only part of the story and not even relevant anymore. The problems in the black community will never be solved by the white man, even if he wanted to.

They were certainly caused by white people and the laws they imposed on them.

You tell me that waste in this sense is subjective and then you give your own example of what you see as government waste.

And?

Are we talking about succeeding at creating and growing capital or are we talking about providing living assistance to those who are physically or mentally unable to?

You tell me. I don't know what you mean by giving success. I'm taking about social safety nets and economic justice.

Irrelevant. How do you propose we monitor and regulate ambition in the corporate or business world?

I don't. Again that's your framing. I want a progressive tax rate that makes reaching a billion dollars in wealth impossible.

It doesn't matter what it sounds like. One of the fundamental liberties in this country is that one can strive to be - and be - as successful as they wish. You can say this liberty is granted by the government if you want but most Americans would balk at limiting it in any way.

What's a fundamental liberty, where did it come from and why should I care?

I could ask you the same thing. Your arguments seem to imply one of two things: 1.) That all property is acquired via violence or force. Or 2.) You're ignoring the fact that most isn't.

That's not a fact. Your right to property is protected by the force of law. Without that force no one is respecting your claim to property.

What if the river was acquired by payment?

From who? How would the original owner acquire it without force to sell it to someone?

Irrelevant. We're not talking about property rights of 150 years ago.

We are talking about the results of that system.

There you go grasping that objectivism/Subjectivism talisman again. You do that every time you argue your own subjective viewpoint against someone else's subjective viewpoint.

To point out that we are just sharing differences of opinion. I don't mistake my subjective opinions for objective facts.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Of capitalism, not of life.

Slavery was also an invention but you would say it was a fact of life, correct?

Economic systems, political systems, social systems and culture, among other things, were all invented. But whatever system is adopted becomes a fact of life for those who live in them.

They committed violence to protect their access to land that they didn't believe could be owned.

But they committed violence just the same.

Their philosophy of non-ownership was rendered irrelevant as soon as they chose to commit violence to protect resources. Remember, violence and force in the context of property determination and ownership is your thing. So whether one is talking about Western ideas of property ownership or Native American ideas of non-ownership, violence has been committed under both.

You did in regards to private property.

The fuck I did. I never said a word one way or the other about the Native American philosophy of property ownership other than to say they committed violence to protect resources. I said:

"They saw whites as a threat to their livelihood" and they attacked settlers when that livelihood was threatened. This is a fact.

I told you, my concern is rampant inequality.

You're complaining that 10% own all the resources but you're not complaining that YOU don't own any of that ten percent; that you are just fine with living your life and working to pay for those resources as needed.

And? Is the economy a means to an end or an end to the means. See I always thought people engaged in economic activity so they could earn money in order to purchase the things they need.

And you can't?

Are you one of those people who judge the American economy by how well the stock market is doing despite the fact that over 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10%?

I judge by how prosperous the country is overall and by the employment rate.

It is a known fact that Americans live much better than citizens of most other countries. We have more disposable income for travel, personal vehicles, homes, recreational vehicles, clothing, and myriad other amenities. In fact, having lived in one Central American country (Panama) for three years and having worked in a South American country (Brazil) for seven years, I find that Americans are spoiled and wasteful.

In those European and Asian counties they might have fewer billionaires but their people are better educated, healthier, live longer, happier lives and have more free time because they work fewer hours.

All these things are well and good but the tradeoff is that these countries are not as prosperous.

He was. That wasnt my point. My point was that there are plenty of Black Americans who are alive and who suffered the indignity and disenfranchisment of segregation.

But your father, being born in Jamaica, didn't. So I'm not sure what he has to do with this.

They were certainly caused by white people and the laws they imposed on them.

Irrelevant. Just repeating "Look what ****** did" ad nauseum will never solve the problem.

And?

And, what is the point in telling me it's subjective if you're going to offer your own subjective?

You tell me.

You're the one who brought up social issues, not me.

I don't know what you mean by giving success. I'm taking about social safety nets and economic justice.

1.) The discussion is about capitalism as an economic system and about the share of resources. Social safety nets are a separate issue and the disabled are already given living assistance anyway.

2.) Social safety nets can be created and/or increased without fundamentally changing the economic system. It's simply a matter of allotting tax revenue and including them in the budget.

3.) If by "economic justice" you're referring to people doing things like tax evasion or insider trading, we already have laws in place for that. Beyond that, again, some have capital and some don't. There is no justice to be done because everyone in their respective financial situations are there by choice.

Personally, I don't give a shit that there are billionaires out there. I made my own money and I do pretty well. So I have no problem buying products made from the resources they have because I wouldn't know the first thing about marketing those resources. I don't possess the knowledge or the inclination to process, package and market resources, that's why I don't have any. It's probably the same for you.

I don't. Again that's your framing.

Once again, I said: "If an entrepreneur is checked from growing his portfolio or business beyond a certain point, you're stifling ambition."

You said: "Only if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth."

The obvious question to this is: What if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth?

I want a progressive tax rate that makes reaching a billion dollars in wealth impossible.

Why? What does some guy having billions have to do with you?

What's a fundamental liberty, where did it come from and why should I care?

You don't care about a person's right or liberty to become rich but you care that he is rich and you are not.

That's not a fact. Your right to property is protected by the force of law. Without that force no one is respecting your claim to property.

Okay. Other than your disagreement with libertarians on the subject, is this a problem for you?

From who? How would the original owner acquire it without force to sell it to someone?

If you're not saying that all property all the time is taken by force, I don't see your point.

We are talking about the results of that system.

Do you not own property?

To point out that we are just sharing differences of opinion. I don't mistake my subjective opinions for objective facts.

No, you make a point of telling people theirs is subjective opinion while you do the exact same thing. If you know both are opinions, what is the point in bringing it up?

 

[Curried Goats]

Slavery was also an invention but you would say it was a fact of life, correct?

I would say it's a fact that it happened and it happens now still in other parts of the world. I don't know what you mean by fact of life. I've never been a slave. It's not a fact of my life.

Economic systems, political systems, social systems and culture, among other things, were all invented. But whatever system is adopted becomes a fact of life for those who live in them.

And?

But they committed violence just the same

Again, and?

Their philosophy of non-ownership was rendered irrelevant as soon as they chose to commit violence to protect resources.

Why?

Remember, violence and force in the context of property determination and ownership is your thing.

Nope. That's a fact of property ownership.

So whether one is talking about Western ideas of property ownership or Native American ideas of non-ownership, violence has been committed under both.

That's like saying whether you shot someone who was trying to murder you or shot someone so you could take their shit it's all the same thing. Maybe you see violence in defense of yourself and your ability to live freely as the same as using violence against others to restrict their freedom, but I don't.

The fuck I did. I never said a word one way or the other about the Native American philosophy of property ownership other than to say they committed violence to protect resources. I said:

"They saw whites as a threat to their livelihood" and they attacked settlers when that livelihood was threatened. This is a fact.

I'm taking about post #857. In response to me saying private property was a fairly recent invention in human history you said:

"Of course it has existed in every culture."

And you can't?

I can but I've worked bad and been lucky. Many people in this country work full time and can't afford a home or rent.

I judge by how prosperous the country is overall and by the employment rate.

It is a known fact that Americans live much better than citizens of most other countries. We have more disposable income for travel, personal vehicles, homes, recreational vehicles, clothing, and myriad other amenities. In fact, having lived in one Central American country (Panama) for three years and having worked in a South American country (Brazil) for seven years, I find that Americans are spoiled and wasteful.

Your personal anecdote isn't evidence and every global index has us below the rest of the developed world in terms of health, life expectancy, education, happiness and leisure time.

All these things are well and good but the tradeoff is that these countries are not as prosperous.

Less prosperous for who? That's why O question whether you recognize the economy as a means to an end or the end itself. Having healthier, happier, longer lives spent working less on average seems like a better deal than everyone busting their ass to increase some rich guys stock portfolio.

But your father, being born in Jamaica, didn't. So I'm not sure what he has to do with this.

I already tried explaining that to you. The relevant point is that he's alive and well and older than the end of segregation. The point is that there are plenty of living victims still around.

Irrelevant. Just repeating "Look what ****** did" ad nauseum will never solve the problem.

Thats not what Im doing. I'm suggesting a justice for that injustice.

And, what is the point in telling me it's subjective if you're going to offer your own subjective?

I remind you when things are subjective because I'm not sure you understand the difference between opinion and fact and I share my opinion on matters for the sake of clarity.

You're the one who brought up social issues, not me.

You barged your way into a discussion I was attempting to have with an easily frightened libertarian.

1.) The discussion is about capitalism as an economic system and about the share of resources. Social safety nets are a separate issue and the disabled are already given living assistance anyway.

They aren't separate issues to libertarians. To them government only has a right to do collectively what individuals have a right to do solely. Namely, use force to protect the lives, liberty and property of people. To a libertarian, social safety nets are tyranny. It's no different than a person holding you up at gun point to feed their hungry family. Whether done individually or collectively its still theft to them. A libertarian thinks if a disabled person can't find people willing to support them then that's just a crying shame.

2.) Social safety nets can be created and/or increased without fundamentally changing the economic system. It's simply a matter of allotting tax revenue and including them in the budget.

From your perspective, not a libertarians. I honestly don't even know what you mean by fundamental. That's not some objective term. For me there is no fundamental property of government. I can conceive of governments in all manner of shapes and sizes and scopes.

3.) If by "economic justice" you're referring to people doing things like tax evasion or insider trading, we already have laws in place for that. Beyond that, again, some have capital and some don't. There is no justice to be done because everyone in their respective financial situations are there by choice.

No, I'm talking about addressing segregation, red lining and all the economically discriminatory policies of the 20th century. Justice is being made whole for injustice.

Personally, I don't give a shit that there are billionaires out there. I made my own money and I do pretty well. So I have no problem buying products made from the resources they have because I wouldn't know the first thing about marketing those resources. I don't possess the knowledge or the inclination to process, package and market resources, that's why I don't have any. It's probably the same for you.

Ok. I don't care. I don't find your opinion all that interesting. I do find the irreconcilable differences in libertarian philosophy amusing and interesting. Especially among the libertarians like dblack who are aware of them.

Once again, I said: "If an entrepreneur is checked from growing his portfolio or business beyond a certain point, you're stifling ambition."

You said: "Only if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth."

The obvious question to this is: What if his ambition is driven by the accumulation of more wealth?

Then you have your answer, don't you?

Why? What does some guy having billions have to do with you?

Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing.

Okay. Other than your disagreement with libertarians on the subject, is this a problem for you?

A problem? I don't understand the question. Its simply the reality of what law is. I don't have a problem with laws in and of themselves. I just have my own subjective opinion about what makes for good laws.

If you're not saying that all property all the time is taken by force, I don't see your point.

That is what I'm saying. Property rights are maintained by threat of force, objectively speaking. It's a defensive use of force only as a legal fiction. That said I'm ok with using force to maintain some level of person and private property but I also think everyone in the nation should benefit from allowing you this fiction in terms of providing a healthy social safety net by taxing whatever profits you earn from exclusive fictional rights to said resources afforded to you by said society.

Do you not own property?

Yep.

No, you make a point of telling people theirs is subjective opinion while you do the exact same thing. If you know both are opinions, what is the point in bringing it up?

Because I occasionally don't know what you mean or know if you understand the difference. For instance what are the fundamental properties you speak of? Fundamental to me reads as a term regarding some objective property but everything about government, how it should run, what it should look like, are all subjective.

 

[wamose]

Equity blows. It's good for dopes, bums, lazy bastards, criminals and terminal losers but it sucks for our country. No equity. MAGA.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I would say it's a fact that it happened and it happens now still in other parts of the world. I don't know what you mean by fact of life. I've never been a slave. It's not a fact of my life.

But it was a fact of life for the slaves, wasn't it?

And?

And you said inherent inequality in capitalism is a fact but that capitalism is an invention so that inequality is not a fact of life.

The contradiction here is how you apparently view human inventions differently. Slavery, segregation and institutional racism were all inventions yet you would say these things were a fact of life for African Americans of that time, yes?

Again, and?

You're the one arguing the distinction of force and violence inherent in establishment and protection of property and property rights and that this is a relatively recent Western invention. You are also the one who pointed out that Native Americans had no concept of ownership. Yet violence was committed by Native Americans when the property and resources that sustained them were threatened.

In your argument, force and violence are a distinctive factor of Western ideas of property ownership yet Native Americans committed violence as well even though their concept of ownership was different. So force and violence are not relevant when comparing different views of property ownership. That's the point.

Why?

You're the one who made the distinction of force and violence so you tell me.

Nope. That's a fact of property ownership.

It was also a fact of Native American non-ownership. So yes, violence and force in the context of property determination and ownership is your thing.

That's like saying whether you shot someone who was trying to murder you or shot someone so you could take their shit it's all the same thing. Maybe you see violence in defense of yourself and your ability to live freely as the same as using violence against others to restrict their freedom, but I don't.

What? Again, are we talking about slavery or property rights?

I'm taking about post #857. In response to me saying private property was a fairly recent invention in human history you said:

"Of course it has existed in every culture."

Yeah, and Native Americans fought to protect resources, didn't they?

I can but I've worked bad and been lucky. Many people in this country work full time and can't afford a home or rent.

And how much of that is due to their own choices?

Your personal anecdote isn't evidence and every global index has us below the rest of the developed world in terms of health, life expectancy, education, happiness and leisure time.

Your personal anecdote isn't evidence. We're talking about financial prosperity, not health, life expectancy, education, etc.. In that respect we are far above most other countries.

Less prosperous for who?

Than the U.S. dumbass.

You made a point of telling me in a previous discussion about reparations that we are the most prosperous country in the world. This argument was used to illustrate that we could easily afford reparations. Now you're basically telling me that prosperity is subjective.

That's why O question whether you recognize the economy as a means to an end or the end itself. Having healthier, happier, longer lives spent working less on average seems like a better deal than everyone busting their ass to increase some rich guys stock portfolio.

If it's true that all you're doing is increasing some rich guy's stock portfolio (it's not and you can create your own stock portfolio anyway) then you'll still be increasing some rich guy's stock portfolio because there will always be rich people.

I already tried explaining that to you. The relevant point is that he's alive and well and older than the end of segregation. The point is that there are plenty of living victims still around.

You could have made that point without bringing up your Dad who was not even there at the time. But okay.

Thats not what Im doing. I'm suggesting a justice for that injustice.

That's exactly what it is and is part of the reason the black community as a whole can't make any headway.

What has happened is that ****** is being seen as the devil in all things. Some blacks believe whites are inherently racist. Some even believe blacks can't be racist. Many blacks (and whites too) are too quick to ascribe white supremacy or racism to any conflict, difference of opinion, event, incident or whatever.

The definition of racist and racism changes from day to day and from person to person to the point that the words no longer have meaning and many whites just don't give a fuck anymore. I know I don't.

The point is, all this screaming about racism and microaggressions over the last ten years or so has gotten us precisely nowhere and has done nothing for the black community. All it has done is increase the divide.

I remind you when things are subjective because I'm not sure you understand the difference between opinion and fact and I share my opinion on matters for the sake of clarity.

Bullshit. More often than not, you remind the other person that their argument, point or comment is subjective.

You barged your way into a discussion I was attempting to have with an easily frightened libertarian.

I'm sorry, I fail to see the relevance.

They aren't separate issues to libertarians. To them government only has a right to do collectively what individuals have a right to do solely. Namely, use force to protect the lives, liberty and property of people. To a libertarian, social safety nets are tyranny. It's no different than a person holding you up at gun point to feed their hungry family. Whether done individually or collectively its still theft to them. A libertarian thinks if a disabled person can't find people willing to support them then that's just a crying shame.

Okay.

From your perspective, not a libertarians. I honestly don't even know what you mean by fundamental. That's not some objective term. For me there is no fundamental property of government.

I didn't say fundamental property, I said fundamental change.

If you make it to where people are given resources but have no clue what to do with them, and to where it's illegal to be a billionaire, that's a fundamental change to our economic system.

I can conceive of governments in all manner of shapes and sizes and scopes.

Including ones that chip away at our liberties, apparently.

No, I'm talking about addressing segregation, red lining and all the economically discriminatory policies of the 20th century. Justice is being made whole for injustice.

Segregation and other discriminatory policies ended a long time ago.

Ok. I don't care. I don't find your opinion all that interesting. I do find the irreconcilable differences in libertarian philosophy amusing and interesting. Especially among the libertarians like dblack who are aware of them.

I didn't offer an opinion, I stated facts.

Fact #1: I don't give a shit that there are billionaires.

Fact #2: I made my own money and I do pretty well. So I have no problem buying products made from the resources they have because I wouldn't know the first thing about marketing those resources.

Fact #3: I don't possess the knowledge or the inclination to process, package and market resources, that's why I don't have any.

You give me shit all the time about my supposed ignorance of the difference between subjective and objective but apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and stated fact.

Then you have your answer, don't you?

No, I don't. You still haven't addressed how we go about making that determination. The only thing you've said is impose taxes to make it impossible to become a billionaire. You haven't made it clear yet how someone's ambition is only stifled if his focus is accumulating wealth.

Its about preventing monopolies of resources. I happen to think it's a bad thing.

But what does it have to do with you?

You skipped over my comment: "You don't care about a person's right or liberty to become rich but you care that he is rich and you are not."

I said that because I can't help but detect a note of disdain when it comes to the subject of rich people. I get the same vibe from JoeB. That guy viscerally hates their guts and livers.

It's clear you don't like rich people. That would be fine if all the rich people were assholes or thieves or whatever. But you dislike them on general principle of having a lot of money.

A problem? I don't understand the question. Its simply the reality of what law is. I don't have a problem with laws in and of themselves. I just have my own subjective opinion about what makes for good laws.

In other words, you have a problem with it.

That is what I'm saying. Property rights are maintained by threat of force, objectively speaking. It's a defensive use of force only as a legal fiction. That said I'm ok with using force to maintain some level of person and private property but I also think everyone in the nation should benefit from allowing you this fiction in terms of providing a healthy social safety net by taxing whatever profits you earn from exclusive fictional rights to said resources afforded to you by said society.

I'm not sure what protecting one's property has to do with social programs, capitalism or taxation.

Yep.

Then what's the problem?

Because I occasionally don't know what you mean or know if you understand the difference.

I've always understood the difference. I just don't see the point in constantly bringing it up when we both know we're debating opinions.

On the matter of capitalism, we hold different views for different reasons and we are debating those views.

For instance what are the fundamental properties you speak of? Fundamental to me reads as a term regarding some objective property but everything about government, how it should run, what it should look like, are all subjective.

That's just it, how government should run and what it should look like are subjective viewpoints. The fundamental properties are what make the government or economic system run and how it looks as it is.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I don't believe any of you following along with the OP, and the pied piper senior editor from Reason, understand the meaning of the word, "equity". The sad part, that editor damn sure knows the meaning of "equity".

Pay attention to the video. It is about everyone starting out at the same place, with the same opportunities. That is not happening now.

The most damning statistic about the United States, and the reason we keep finding ourselves falling further and further behind the rest of the world. Here, in the United States a student raised in the highest income quintile, but showing up in the lowest quintile of standardized test scores, has a better chance of graduating from college than a student, raised in the lowest quintile in income, but scoring in the highest quintile on standardized test. That is FUBARED. It robs all of us. Robs us of potential, robs us of innovation and progress.

In counties throughout this country there are vast differences in school districts. Eliminating the Department of Education is a terrible idea. The federal government is the only entity with the capability to help "level the playing field".

In the wealthy suburban area of the county, around the lake, among the golf courses, within the Country Club, there are school districts with plush facilities, astroturf on the football field, Latin classes in high school, first graders are presented a laptop on their first day of school. Textbooks are replaced after three or four years, the library has everything from the old classics to modern literature. They have real working labs, gas-jets on lap tables for science classes. In the inner-city students are showing up in classes where the roof leaks, mold is building up in the bathroom, textbooks came from the last century and are worn and torn. They don't have a lab, they don't know what Latin is, and they have one choice for a foreign language, Spanish. Laptops? LMAO, you people went batshit crazy when the poor were given access to cell phones.

You know another word for "equity"? JUSTICE. Someone, anyone, tell me how it is "just" that two students, attending two different schools, have such a difference in accommodations and opportunities? Is it their fault?

Harris is talking about leveling the playing field, period. And no, she ain't going to get there, it will take three or four generations to get us to that point. And from what I have seen with the most recent generations, it is going to happen, like it or not. First, all the self-absorbed asshat Boomers have to die off.

To them, and to many of you, you believe you are playing a football game. Problem is, there is no change of the field at halftime. And the wealthy, and even much of the upper-middleclass, are trying to score a touchdown on about a 30% decline. And worse, when they do score, they hoot and holler and act like they just bought Jesus back.

Meanwhile, the poor, and actually much of the middleclass, they are on the opposing team and looking at a goalpost that is at the end of a 30% incline. And here is the thing, both teams can see the damn field. Harris might want to move it to a flat ground, she can't get there. But even her attempts at lowering the grade are met with bullshit, like the OP's linked article. Can you blame those that are facing that hill for getting mad, lashing out? I can't. I won't. I reserve my anger for the pussies that are scoring touchdowns downhill.

The people that don't understand the difference between Equity and Equality,
are the same people that don't understand the difference Ignorant and Stupid.

Equity does give everyone a chance at that apple by making adjustments.

equality does not guarantee that you will get that apple and failure is always an option simply because of circumstances beyond your control. There are winners and losers.

So equity makes everyone a winner. levels the playing field.

Only if we're pretending property and capital were equally distributed. Some of us had the right to own others as property.

Lack of “EQUALITY” can be blamed on ‘the system’.
Lack of “EQUITY” can be blamed on culture and inherent genetic coding.

No ‘system’ can control culture and or genetic coding.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The question is how it was built and the answer to that is on the backs of slaves. Pretending otherwise isn't a way to equality but pageantry for soft white people like you who can't live in reality.

Also a lot of black slaves.

Check out all these black folks building skyscrapers.

Can you show us images of all those black folks building America?

 

[Curried Goats]

But it was a fact of life for the slaves, wasn't it?

And you said inherent inequality in capitalism is a fact but that capitalism is an invention so that inequality is not a fact of life.

The contradiction here is how you apparently view human inventions differently. Slavery, segregation and institutional racism were all inventions yet you would say these things were a fact of life for African Americans of that time, yes?

What? Of course I view different inventions differently. Why wouldn't I? A car isn't the same as a boat and a boat isn't the same as a plane. Why wouldn't I view these things differently?

Slavery is a human invention. Some people suffer under slavery some don't. For the people who suffer under slavery, slavery is a fact of their life. For people who don't suffer under slavery it isn't a fact of their life. I don't get what you're confused about.

You're the one arguing the distinction of force and violence inherent in establishment and protection of property and property rights and that this is a relatively recent Western invention. You are also the one who pointed out that Native Americans had no concept of ownership. Yet violence was committed by Native Americans when the property and resources that sustained them were threatened.

In your argument, force and violence are a distinctive factor of Western ideas of property ownership yet Native Americans committed violence as well even though their concept of ownership was different. So force and violence are not relevant when comparing different views of property ownership. That's the point.


You're the one who made the distinction of force and violence so you tell me.

It was also a fact of Native American non-ownership. So yes, violence and force in the context of property determination and ownership is your thing.

I believe again that you are confused. Force is a part of nature. Every action, every motion, every chemical response, everything that requires effort and work is force. Force isn't a European invention, private property is. What's different is the application of force. In order to forge the legal fiction that is private ownership of resources you need to apply force or threaten with force anyone who would seek to access those resources. Someone not believing in your legal fiction trying to access that resource is using force and violence in defense of their person. Shooting someone to defend yourself isn't the same as shooting someone to defend your imaginary belief that natural resources belong to you.

Your personal anecdote isn't evidence. We're talking about financial prosperity, not health, life expectancy, education, etc.. In that respect we are far above most other countries.

That's what I'm talking about. You don't dictate what I talk about.

Than the U.S. dumbass.

You made a point of telling me in a previous discussion about reparations that we are the most prosperous country in the world. This argument was used to illustrate that we could easily afford reparations. Now you're basically telling me that prosperity is subjective.


If it's true that all you're doing is increasing some rich guy's stock portfolio (it's not and you can create your own stock portfolio anyway) then you'll still be increasing some rich guy's stock portfolio because there will always be rich people.

What you're not accounting for is the distribution of a country's wealth. We may be more prosperous as a nation but that wealth is largely held in that hands of a tiny few where European and Asian nations have a much better distribution of their wealth via social safety nets. That's why they life longer, healthier, better educated and happier lives on average with more free time.

That's exactly what it is and is part of the reason the black community as a whole can't make any headway.

What has happened is that ****** is being seen as the devil in all things. Some blacks believe whites are inherently racist. Some even believe blacks can't be racist. Many blacks (and whites too) are too quick to ascribe white supremacy or racism to any conflict, difference of opinion, event, incident or whatever.

The definition of racist and racism changes from day to day and from person to person to the point that the words no longer have meaning and many whites just don't give a fuck anymore. I know I don't.

The point is, all this screaming about racism and microaggressions over the last ten years or so has gotten us precisely nowhere and has done nothing for the black community. All it has done is increase the divide.

I don't really care about your opinion here.

I didn't say fundamental property, I said fundamental change.

Ok. What does that mean? What's fundamental and how do I want to change it?

If you make it to where people are given resources but have no clue what to do with them, and to where it's illegal to be a billionaire, that's a fundamental change to our economic system.

Says who? What is fundamental to our system and what makes it so and also why can't we give people resources and the education of what to do with them?

Including ones that chip away at our liberties, apparently.

What are your liberties and where do they come from?

Segregation and other discriminatory policies ended a long time ago.

Not so long ago that there aren't plenty of living victims.

I didn't offer an opinion, I stated facts.

Fact #1: I don't give a shit that there are billionaires.

That's not a fact guy, that's an opinion. I got to say you aren't off to a great start with this list....

Fact #2: I made my own money and I do pretty well. So I have no problem buying products made from the resources they have because I wouldn't know the first thing about marketing those resources.

What is this fact pertaining to? I don't care about you.

Fact #3: I don't possess the knowledge or the inclination to process, package and market resources, that's why I don't have any.

Again, what are these facts relevant to? I don't care.

You give me shit all the time about my supposed ignorance of the difference between subjective and objective but apparently you don't know the difference between opinion and stated fact.

Buddy you got number 1 wrong.....

No, I don't. You still haven't addressed how we go about making that determination. The only thing you've said is impose taxes to make it impossible to become a billionaire. You haven't made it clear yet how someone's ambition is only stifled if his focus is accumulating wealth.

Why do I need to? If you want to argue something else is stifled beyond the ability to become a billionaire by a progressive tax structure designed to make it impossible to become one then make that argument. I don't know what else you're talking about.

But what does it have to do with you?

I live in a democratic society.

You skipped over my comment: "You don't care about a person's right or liberty to become rich but you care that he is rich and you are not."

I said that because I can't help but detect a note of disdain when it comes to the subject of rich people. I get the same vibe from JoeB. That guy viscerally hates their guts and livers.

I skipped over it because I don't care about musing of your imagination.

It's clear you don't like rich people. That would be fine if all the rich people were assholes or thieves or whatever. But you dislike them on general principle of having a lot of money.

That's funny. I love quite a few of them I call family. They're not hundreds of millions of dollars sort of rich, I probably have 6 or 8 aunts and uncles with tens of millions of dollars and a bunch of them and cousins and in-laws with millions of dollars.

On the matter of capitalism, we hold different views for different reasons and we are debating those views.

Are we? I dont really care about your opinions, you're the one curious about mine.

That's just it, how government should run and what it should look like are subjective viewpoints. The fundamental properties are what make the government or economic system run and how it looks as it is.

It operates according to how the people in charge want it to, be that dictatorship or democracy or whatever. To me the fundamental property is subjectivity.

 

[Curried Goats]

Check out all these black folks building skyscrapers.
View attachment 992642
Can you show us images of all those black folks building America?

Can you show me an argument of yours that doesn't rest on a fallacy?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Can you show me an argument of yours that doesn't rest on a fallacy?

Black folks worked in AG and that’s it.
Saying blacks built America is like saying…”It is not Jeff Bezos who built Amazon, it is Humberto who’s cleaned the shitters at Amazon for 20 years who did.”

 

[Curried Goats]

Black folks worked in AG and that’s it.
Saying blacks built America is like saying…”It is not Jeff Bezos who built Amazon, it is Humberto who’s cleaned the shitters at Amazon for 20 years who did.”

What?

 

[Winco]

Lack of “EQUALITY” can be blamed on ‘the system’.
Lack of “EQUITY” can be blamed on culture and inherent genetic coding.

No ‘system’ can control culture and or genetic coding.

When a child with poor eyesite in seated in the back of the classroom, and moved to the front and changed seats with a student with no learning barriers,

Is that equity fine with you or not.