What is the fair market value of social order?

[manifold]

The thread we've now beaten into the ground about 'fair share' is one way to view the issue of taxation. And a legitimate one at that. But another equally legitimate way to view the issue is from the standpoint of maintaining social order and the consequent preservation of wealth. History is not without notable examples of short-sited wealthy being ultimately stripped of their wealth by the revolting masses. I'm not suggesting that we're anywhere near that tipping point in the US, but it would be naive to believe that it could never happen here. So with this in mind, what is the fair market value of social order to you? What is the fair market value to a billionaire, with quite a bit to lose? What is the fair market value to a hobo with almost nothing to lose?

Please discuss.

 

[manifold]

Bummer.

Of all my countless thread fails, this one ranks up there among the more disappointing.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Intense]

Peace = Prosperity. Everyone benefits. Establish and maintain Justice and we are all served. That is the foundation. Stray, and shit will pop up.

 

[Twofox]

"Fair market value" is a relative term. If I have nothing to give, then monetarily, I wouldn't want to spend much, but it's intrinsic value might be countless. On the other hand, if well to do, then price may not be as much of an object, but if it forceably takes something away from me, then it's value diminishes drastically.

Social order by definition is (paraphrased) the enforcement of laws, and policing of criminals and whatnot. So to both those with, and without, it has extreme value. Those without can rely on relative safety even though they may have to live in a box down by the river.

Fair taxation is more than able to accomplish this, it had for years and years. What changed? The Gov't spending foolishly (ok they do by definition), and letting things get out of control. So now you have folks saying our constitutional republic doesn't work, but subvert anything and you can say it doesn't work.

This brings up a final point on taxation. Paying your fair share would mean that everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. Or they pay the same abount as everyone else via a sales tax. Either way, saying someone doesn't pay their fair share, when they are already paying something, and 50% don't pay anything is complete, utter, bullshit designed to obtain something else completely.

 

[manifold]

Peace = Prosperity. Everyone benefits. Establish and maintain Justice and we are all served. That is the foundation. Stray, and shit will pop up.

In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure what you mean by 'establish and maintain justice'. Social order is a fairly objective concept universally understood. Justice on the other hand can mean different things to different people.

 

[Intense]

Peace = Prosperity. Everyone benefits. Establish and maintain Justice and we are all served. That is the foundation. Stray, and shit will pop up.

In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure what you mean by 'establish and maintain justice'. Social order is a fairly objective concept universally understood. Justice on the other hand can mean different things to different people.

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

 

[manifold]

Peace = Prosperity. Everyone benefits. Establish and maintain Justice and we are all served. That is the foundation. Stray, and shit will pop up.

In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure what you mean by 'establish and maintain justice'. Social order is a fairly objective concept universally understood. Justice on the other hand can mean different things to different people.

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure what you mean by 'establish and maintain justice'. Social order is a fairly objective concept universally understood. Justice on the other hand can mean different things to different people.

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

A great deal.. that's why progressives promote it so. All part of the plan man...

 

[Intense]

In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure what you mean by 'establish and maintain justice'. Social order is a fairly objective concept universally understood. Justice on the other hand can mean different things to different people.

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

That all depends on the safety net. When times turn desperate, people are subject to bad temptation. Pain, Starvation, misery, index.

 

[Twofox]

In the context of this discussion, I'm not sure what you mean by 'establish and maintain justice'. Social order is a fairly objective concept universally understood. Justice on the other hand can mean different things to different people.

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

Agreed, progressives love that. Human nature is such that when people get desperate, desperate measures are taken. Simple survival. This is why a strong economy is important. When folks are able to take care of themselves, the social fabric is stronger, and the need for a Gov't imposed social order is very much diminished.

 

[Intense]

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

A great deal.. that's why progressives promote it so. All part of the plan man...

Ah. It's what you promote too. Create a path to recovery, rebuilding V.S. a path to dependency.

 

[Twofox]

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

A great deal.. that's why progressives promote it so. All part of the plan man...

Ah. It's what you promote too. Create a path to recovery, rebuilding V.S. a path to dependency.

That makes no sense. Unless you mean that by rebuilding the economy creates more poor?

 

[manifold]

I'm getting the impression from the replies so far that many of you believe that the fair market value of social order is the same for everyone. That just doesn't make any logical sense to me. Those with wealth and power have a much greater vested interest in preserving social order (and consequently their wealth and power) than the unwashed masses. How could anyone see it any other way?

 

[Intense]

A great deal.. that's why progressives promote it so. All part of the plan man...

Ah. It's what you promote too. Create a path to recovery, rebuilding V.S. a path to dependency.

That makes no sense. Unless you mean that by rebuilding the economy creates more poor?

Not at all. I'm referring to Rehabilitation, an integral part of the Safety Net, helping Individuals rebuild their lives, one at a time. The end result, complete recovery, Self Reliance. That is what we all want, when you think about it. At least for those capable. It's common sense. Would you prefer they remain dependent throughout the whole course of their lives, or pick up the pieces? Which is true compassion?

 

[Twofox]

Ah. It's what you promote too. Create a path to recovery, rebuilding V.S. a path to dependency.

That makes no sense. Unless you mean that by rebuilding the economy creates more poor?

Not at all. I'm referring to Rehabilitation, an integral part of the Safety Net, helping Individuals rebuild their lives, one at a time. The end result, complete recovery, Self Reliance. That is what we all want, when you think about it. At least for those capable. It's common sense. Would you prefer they remain dependent throughout the whole course of their lives, or pick up the pieces? Which is true compassion?

Ahhh got it now. I can't agree more.... Give a man a fish.... A safetly net should be there to get you somewhere, not simply support you like welfare.

Something else to consider is the "Deserving poor". Those that truly can't, not those that simply won't do for themselves.

 

[DiamondDave]

That makes no sense. Unless you mean that by rebuilding the economy creates more poor?

Not at all. I'm referring to Rehabilitation, an integral part of the Safety Net, helping Individuals rebuild their lives, one at a time. The end result, complete recovery, Self Reliance. That is what we all want, when you think about it. At least for those capable. It's common sense. Would you prefer they remain dependent throughout the whole course of their lives, or pick up the pieces? Which is true compassion?

Ahhh got it now. I can't agree more.... Give a man a fish.... A safetly net should be there to get you somewhere, not simply support you like welfare.

Something else to consider is the "Deserving poor". Those that truly can't, not those that simply won't do for themselves.

And those that cannot, and have no family to take care of them, would then (IMHO) become wards of the state... like those in state run hospitals and mental institutions.... you know.. those without freedom to just leave or do things like others can...

With the advances in communication, technology, etc... many that could not take care of themselves in the past can no provide for the things and care they need... writers who are bed ridden, communicating thru various means, publishing and doing all necessary work online, ordering food and other deliveries, or even paying to live in care communities... so I think what you call the 'deserving poor' are fewer than ever before

 

[editec]

Let me try to turn the question to the cost of maintaining order in society since putting a social worth of people seems like an exercise in futility.

What percentage of a society's output ought to go to maintaining social order and the social benefits that being part of that society offers?

I'll throw a number out for a modern capitalist society with representational form of government -- one that also strives for social order AND social justice.

I think an effective government (including all governments however their parced out) OUGHT to be doable (assuming the society isn't at war or in some kind of terrible straits from natural causes) for not more than 25% of the gross societal product.

Obviously this society has a great long way to go in terms of efficiency to achive that.

 

[Intense]

I'm getting the impression from the replies so far that many of you believe that the fair market value of social order is the same for everyone. That just doesn't make any logical sense to me. Those with wealth and power have a much greater vested interest in preserving social order (and consequently their wealth and power) than the unwashed masses. How could anyone see it any other way?

If the break down of Social Order results in your loss of Life, would it matter to you, if you were rich or poor?

 

[Intense]

Let me try to turn the question to the cost of maintaining order in society since putting a social worth of people seems like an exercise in futility.

What percentage of a society's output ought to go to maintaining social order and the social benefits that being part of that society offers?

I'll throw a number out for a modern capitalist society with representational form of government -- one that also strives for social order AND social justice.

I think an effective government (including all governments however their parced out) OUGHT to be doable (assuming the society isn't at war or in some kind of terrible straits from natural causes) for not more than 25% of the gross societal product.

Obviously this society has a great long way to go in terms of efficiency to achive that.

Tithe was 10%. Good place to start from the bottom up. Programs can also be developed to pay for themselves. Developing Skills and Self Worth, from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down. Pilot's should start small. Work out the kinks as you expand. Federalist Principles apply. That which has merit advances.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The reaction to the failure to establish and maintain Justice is instinctive. When the Social Order strays, there is repercussion. It is pretty universal when you think about it. There are thing that do not sit well across the board. Things that when imposed offend our nature.

And what role do you think poverty plays in undermining social order?

That all depends on the safety net. When times turn desperate, people are subject to bad temptation. Pain, Starvation, misery, index.

I don't want anybody to be poor.... I just don't believe you eliminate poverty by impoverishing people for life in a web of ill-conceived social programs that do nothing but beget more poverty and more social programs.