Exactly what is the definition of "Fair Share?"

[patrick1]

Yes, the eternal desire of the Left is to replace equal opportunity with equal outcome for all.

Talk about the perfect medium to grow sloth...

Take what you need, give if you can.

What's not to love about that plan?

This is a most peculiar straw man. Show me a single modern writer of the left who wants to replace equal opportunity with equal outcome for all.

It's a most peculiar thread really. Everyone has their own idea of a fair share. For some reason the libertarian right among you believe you know what others believe, without asking them, or quoting what they say. And you don't say on the other hand what you believe is a fair share. As soon as you employ someone, for instance, you come to your own assessment of fairness. Every substantial enterprise has made an implicit assessment of a fair share.

Patrick

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is a most peculiar straw man. Show me a single modern writer of the left who wants to replace equal opportunity with equal outcome for all.

It's a most peculiar thread really. Everyone has their own idea of a fair share. For some reason the libertarian right among you believe you know what others believe, without asking them, or quoting what they say. And you don't say on the other hand what you believe is a fair share. As soon as you employ someone, for instance, you come to your own assessment of fairness. Every substantial enterprise has made an implicit assessment of a fair share.

Patrick

You might want to read the full text of Obama's Dec. 6 speech...

"It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success."

How is he going to do that? With more government, more law, more regulation and more taxation.

What is his goal? Equal outcomes in wealth redistribution. He doesn't say so explicitly, but then again, this was the first speech in which he actually began echoing the things he let slip out earlier on, the ideology he tried to hide from us and the ideology we were told in no uncertain terms was not so.

And that's the problem with the word "fair" as you pointed out, the subjective nature of what fair is, if fair is a level playing field of opportunity, then you don't look at the outcomes of that opportunity, but that's not what is happening here. We're looking at outcomes and deducing that the reason they happened was "unfairness" instead of asking ourselves the simple question, "What happens under equal opportunity?"

It's just in how one reads writers of "nuance."



Once we being using government to establish "fair" as measured by outcome and income distribution, we cannot stop until we have a flat line instead of a Bell Curve...



There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀ and while you may be able to advocate for ∃ you won't be allowed to define it and in this manner its limit will be ∀ for ∑f(∪∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will never tend to ∅ by definition so it is easy to see that it is, indeed, an ∀ or ∅ when it comes to government. (Now, the ∑f(∩∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will tend to ∅ but that is politically unattainable for the obvious reason that the more ∃ is defined, the smaller the ∩∃ becomes.)
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Saint Peter]

Put grandma on the street and we can all drive limos!

Woot!!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Put grandma on the street and we can all drive limos!

Woot!!

Grow some nads...



Push her off a cliff.

 

[miles]

Reality settles heavily on those broken from childhood to the notion that, by virtue of their mere existence, they deserve as much as their neighbor; they can either become motivated to search out employment of their own, or turn to professional predators who will organize them into a nagging political reality. In the end at most they become threats to the freedom of productive people, or at least a palpable public nuisance.

These are the people who as children received participation trophies in competitive events with no winner or loser.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

These are the people who as children received participation trophies in competitive events with no winner or loser.

You mean like getting a Nobel Prize based on potential?

 

[RobDownSouth]

You might want to read the full text of Obama's Dec. 6 speech...

"It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success."

How is he going to do that? With more government, more law, more regulation and more taxation.

A_J, the Stupid

Wow....THIS is the "proof" behind your claim that "equal opportunity = equal outcome"?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Liberals love the phrase. Obama was spewing it today. I think it means taking from someone who has more than you.

Comments?

means that they want others to pay for his or her way. long life the welfare state! tax them so that I can live free

or like Sean - I'm just a baby and its too hard. I'm owed a free ride

 

[PadanFain]

These are the people who as children received participation trophies in competitive events with no winner or loser.

Soccer?

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Wow....THIS is the "proof" behind your claim that "equal opportunity = equal outcome"?

forget about Enron, MCI....government is the new 1%

 

[patrick1]

"It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success."

This is a pretty bland statement such as politicians of all hues have been making for generations about equal opportunities.

I have no idea how you can treat it as proposing equal outcomes. It expressly is not proposing that.

As I said earlier, I would welcome a single quotation from any modern leftist that they believe in equal outcomes for all. It's just not true.

Patrick

 

[patrick1]

Here's an interesting quote from the right-wind blog Politico (http://www.politico.com/playbook/):

'Close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.'

Apparaently Ronald Reagan said that.

Blimey, thank goodness a wild leftie like him isn't around any more. Fair share indeed.

Patrick

 

[miles]

. For some reason the libertarian right among you believe you know what others believe, without asking them, or quoting what they say.

Dude....you're practicing the same thing you accuse libertarians of doing.

Nice.

 

[patrick1]

Dude....you're practicing the same thing you accuse libertarians of doing.

Nice.

Well, I think 'Yes, the eternal desire of the Left is to replace equal opportunity with equal outcome for all.' is evidence for what I'm saying.

I think 'Actually, a liberal's worst nightmare is anyone who thinks.' is an example of what I'm saying.

I think your own 'Unfortunately, liberals' ability to process facts and logic are severely limited. They'll respond eventually by calling you a racist, homophobic, right-wing gun nut who drowns kittens and puppies.' is an example of what I'm saying.

There you go.

Patrick

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

You might want to read the full text of Obama's Dec. 6 speech...

"It starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success."

How is he going to do that? With more government, more law, more regulation and more taxation.

Who cares how he does it as long as he makes an effort to get it done?

What is his goal? Equal outcomes in wealth redistribution. He doesn't say so explicitly, but then again, this was the first speech in which he actually began echoing the things he let slip out earlier on, the ideology he tried to hide from us and the ideology we were told in no uncertain terms was not so.

And that's the problem with the word "fair" as you pointed out, the subjective nature of what fair is, if fair is a level playing field of opportunity, then you don't look at the outcomes of that opportunity, but that's not what is happening here. We're looking at outcomes and deducing that the reason they happened was "unfairness" instead of asking ourselves the simple question, "What happens under equal opportunity?"

It's just in how one reads writers of "nuance."



Once we being using government to establish "fair" as measured by outcome and income distribution, we cannot stop until we have a flat line instead of a Bell Curve...

Nobody is talking about equal distribution except you. We don't have a bell curve as is. If that is the goal (it really isn't, but it would be nice) then you should be first in line to be pushing for a solution.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Dude....you're practicing the same thing you accuse libertarians of doing.

Nice.

Got any examples to back up your accusations?

Didn't think so.

 

[koalabear]

Got any examples to back up your accusations?

Didn't think so.

OOPS! Missed tab again.

 

[Unclebill]

Wow....THIS is the "proof" behind your claim that "equal opportunity = equal outcome"?

Not entirely but it gives some valuable insight into the intellectual vapidity of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism (synonymous terms).

Opportunity is a chance, haphazard, random occurrence. Thus no person or organization can provide it much less provide equal opportunity. This is a fallacious fantasy of collectivism which has the ultimate aim of equality of outcome.

Opportunity requires circumstances and awareness of those circumstances coupled with the intellectual capacity to envision an opportunity upon which someone may capitalize. Beyond that, it requires the motivation and persistence to pursue and follow through to actually capitalize on this opportunity.

For example, how many people could have exhibited and followed through on the idea as did John D. Rockefeller when he created Standard Oil?

When Rockefeller began, the oil industry was in its infancy. There were those refining oil and selling the products but it was relatively expensive. When he decided to pursue a career in oil refining, the promise of riches certainly was a lure. Rockefeller's humble beginnings would not likely have projected him as a candidate to bring such radical change to America. Being the eldest of six children whose father was a peddler and whose mother was a home maker, his imagination, creativity and tenacity made him one of the wealthiest men in America and for that he is demonized.

Rockefeller's success in the refining industry comes down to a simple idea never pursued by others competing with him: efficiency. Rockefeller found ways to use byproducts his competitors discarded to provide other products which the public bought.

He learned that by creating a company to build his own barrels, he could make them cheaper and thus could sell his oil products cheaper.

As a result, his efficiency and ingenuity made Standard Oil a magnificent success and at one point it captured 90% of the oil market. He did it by selling a product in competition with others offering the same product but he sold it cheaper!

He managed to take the price of kerosene from $0.58/gal to $0.08/gal. His ability to do that made him a very rich man worth millions. Yet his wealth is small compared to the benefits his mind provided for millions of his fellow American.

No government bureaucrat or agency could even provide an opportunity like that nor has any government program ever produced results anywhere near that.

Opportunity is a thing that cannot be created or distributed by some political thug. How many people were there in America at the time of Rockefeller who were also in the refining business who did not have the vision, initiative and drive of Rockefeller? Yet none of them were as successful.

Rockefeller was a unique individual who was able to see potentials that others did not or were not willing to pursue. Opportunity is a product of the individual human mind in a set of circumstances. Had he been born 100 years earlier or later, he would not have likely been able to achieve what he did at that point in time with his unique skill set.

Liberals/progressives/collectivists don't grasp this and they rely on the ignorance of their audience to not grasp it as well for their political success. Obama is much like FDR is his use of the treasury to reward his political supporters, in his application of class warfare, i.e., because someone has earned more than you, he is your enemy.

In the end, the real tragedy of Standard Oil was the government persecuting it for monopoly activity or anti-trust violations. These government actions were brought about by his competitors in the industry whose efficiency was inferior and who could not sell their products at prices competitive with Standard Oil and thus instigated government action which ultimately forced Standard Oil to raise its process to a level which allowed his less efficient competitors to 'compete' in the marketplace.

The result? The consumer was forced to pay a higher price as the result of government intervention. Those who could not compete effectively in the free market had government remove the freedom of the market and coerce prices to a level at which they could maintain a profit.

And people are still buying into the sucker bet that their politicians have their best interests at heart!

A classic example today where government intervention is causing higher prices is the sugar market. Government subsidies forces the price of sugar higher than the free market would support. Why do we have the subsidies? Certain sugar producers have bribed legislators to subsidize their product supporting higher than market prices.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Standard Oil was much like Microsoft. They came to dominate the market by being very good at crushing small producers in price wars, getting rebates from railroads which shut out the little refiners, and working their contacts in government for all they were worth. Read "The Prize", by Daniel Yergin (not a liberal).

 

[patrick1]

Not entirely but it gives some valuable insight into the intellectual vapidity of liberalism/progressivism/collectivism (synonymous terms).

Opportunity is a chance, haphazard, random occurrence. Thus no person or organization can provide it much less provide equal opportunity. This is a fallacious fantasy of collectivism which has the ultimate aim of equality of outcome.

Liberalism, progressivism and collectivism are not synonymous terms.

Collectivism is no longer your enemy. This is a battle that has been fought and won. Collectivism lost.

The -isms that are around today are entirely different.

Equality of opportunity is entirely different from equality of outcome. It seems to me you are quixotically tilting at windmills.

The world outside the United States, as well as some of your fellows, find these obsessions inward-looking. Things have moved on. There's a financial crisis or two, maybe a recession to worry about, climate change to argue about, science to advance, the widening gap between rich and poor to worry at. Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand are dead.

Patrick

 

[RobDownSouth]

Liberalism, progressivism and collectivism are not synonymous terms.

That's just UncleBill shovelin' his usual drivel. Don't pay the old coot any mind.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

The are simply three aspects of economic tyranny.

He doesn't always say things worth quoting just because their stupid, but when he does, it's a gem.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

we have too many people looking for "free" hand-outs

then we have too many people looking to place blame on others for his or her failures.

obama came in, pumping people full of crap about socialism and people bought the oil from the snake salesperson. socialism is a incorrect state of mind that can be fixed. liberalism is just as horrible.

now, I'm all for socialism when zombies start popping out of the ground like Hermine Cain lovers

Liberalism, progressivism and collectivism are not synonymous terms.

Collectivism is no longer your enemy. This is a battle that has been fought and won. Collectivism lost.

The -isms that are around today are entirely different.

Equality of opportunity is entirely different from equality of outcome. It seems to me you are quixotically tilting at windmills.

The world outside the United States, as well as some of your fellows, find these obsessions inward-looking. Things have moved on. There's a financial crisis or two, maybe a recession to worry about, climate change to argue about, science to advance, the widening gap between rich and poor to worry at. Mises, Hayek and Ayn Rand are dead.

Patrick