Reparations for the social/economic class structure?

[Funit]

...................................

 

[Lazaran]

Should those at the bottom of the social and economic class structure be payed reparations by those at the top for the structural social and economic stratification that exists even to this day?

In practice this will mean that those who had all the breaks, the Nancy Pelosi's, Cuomo's, Bill Gate's, and yes, the Donald Trumps of this world, paying reparations to those failed by the system, AKA "deplorables"?

Think about your comment a little deeper and the answer might become apparent.

I doubt it..... But it might.......

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Should those at the bottom of the social and economic class structure be payed reparations by those at the top for the structural social and economic stratification that exists even to this day?

In practice this will mean that those who had all the breaks, the Nancy Pelosi's, Cuomo's, Bill Gate's, and yes, the Donald Trumps of this world, paying reparations to those failed by the system, AKA "deplorables"?

Yes.


. <- extra character

 

[siobhancan99]

Yes.

Expansion of the social safety net is necessary.

 

[CornusKousa]

Yes.

Expansion of the social safety net is necessary.

It's really not.

Desire =/= need.

Pay for your own shit.

 

[siobhancan99]

I do pay for my own shit. Acting like everyone who supports expanded social programs is some kind of fucking welfare queen is not just bullshit, its like... 1980s bullshit.


So cut your mullet, sell your REO speedwagon records and join the modern era.

 

[icanhelp1]

I do pay for my own shit. Acting like everyone who supports expanded social programs is some kind of fucking welfare queen is not just bullshit, its like... 1980s bullshit.


So cut your mullet, sell your REO speedwagon records and join the modern era.

What you purport is early 1900’s failed ideology, socialism doesn’t work. Expanding social programs to the point that it is clearly defined as socialist wealth redistribution than a safety network or social programs. Who sets the standards, Nancy Pelosi or our constitution. Hence our conundrum, do we want a society based on equity or equality. You can take from Peter to Paul till at some point we all become Paul. That doesn’t mean our political structure can’t legislate a tax structure that is fair and equitable and spread the tax burden to large wealthy conglomerates equally, but you notice they never do, that’s because our political system is in the tank.

 

[CornusKousa]

I do pay for my own shit.

Says this ^^

Then immediately pivots to an "ok boomer" justification....to a 37 y/o because THAT somehow makes it not wealth redistribution, to redistribute wealth.

LOL

Acting like everyone who supports expanded social programs is some kind of fucking welfare queen is not just bullshit, its like... 1980s bullshit.


So cut your mullet, sell your REO speedwagon records and join the modern era.

1917, 1980's or 2021....."Join the modern era" doesn't' change the fact that you want to take my money/property and give it to people/causes YOU think deserve it more than I do, by force....via people with guns, tactical vehicles and body armor.

It's the SAME shit as it's always been.....pursuit of equity via wealth redistribution.

An the answer is still no, not supporting that, I'm a have and I want to keep it.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

What you purport is early 1900’s failed ideology, socialism doesn’t work. Expanding social programs to the point that it is clearly defined as socialist wealth redistribution than a safety network or social programs. Who sets the standards, Nancy Pelosi or our constitution. Hence our conundrum, do we want a society based on equity or equality. You can take from Peter to Paul till at some point we all become Paul. That doesn’t mean our political structure can’t legislate a tax structure that is fair and equitable and spread the tax burden to large wealthy conglomerates equally, but you notice they never do, that’s because our political system is in the tank.

Go cut your mullet.

 

[phrodeau]

Man, some people live in constant fear of revenooers busting in their door.

 

[siobhancan99]

Says this ^^

Then immediately pivots to an "ok boomer" justification....to a 37 y/o because THAT somehow makes it not wealth redistribution, to redistribute wealth.

LOL



1917, 1980's or 2021....."Join the modern era" doesn't' change the fact that you want to take my money/property and give it to people/causes YOU think deserve it more than I do, by force....via people with guns, tactical vehicles and body armor.

It's the SAME shit as it's always been.....pursuit of equity via wealth redistribution.

An the answer is still no, not supporting that, I'm a have and I want to keep it.

I never said its not wealth distribution. why would i say that when it very clearly is? Also there's a difference between a small amount of wealth distribution that takes care of the least able to care for themselves and a horde of peasants shouting "peace, land, bread" and seizing all the means of production for the proletariat.

In part, it is because you want to "keep what's yours" that you should support some expansion of the social safety net. There is no universal right to the ownership of anything. The concept of ownership is a man made (admittedly useful) concept.

There are essentially 3 sources of law. Positivism (i am bound by that which i agree with) realism (i am bound by that which others force me to agree with) and natural law (there's rules for human behavior imposed by a deity or just to be found irrationally in existence despite the absence of a deity).

Natural law, most commonly used to support the proposition of property ownership as a right, is for children. On the right an invisible man who doesn't talk to us made up the inalienable right to do x y or z. On the left despite there being no invisible man there's still an inalienable right to x y or z because... reasons or some shit?

In reality our law is positive-realist. we are bound by that which we agree to or can be made to agree to. As a result, it is in the best interest of someone who enjoys our current regime of ownership of things to not let the gap in control of resources grow so large that the teeming huddled masses rethink whether they want to continue to allow those at the top to reap most of the benefit. The reason for this, is the billions are ultimately able to force the thousands to accept the new regime of "everything is everyone's"

It is in your "enlightened self interest" to address the minimum needs of the people that could, when pressed, destroy the entire system that you benefit from. I like the current system... mostly... probably because of some inherent biases given that i grew up in it and its all that I know. I'm not advocating its overthrow. Whether you're a decent human being and want to expand social programs because its morally good, or you're a misanthrope that doesn't want anyone to get their hands on your shit there are plenty of reasons to think about things like UBI and socialized medicine.

 

[icanhelp1]

Go cut your mullet.

What does reparations mean for you or anyone for that matter? Reparations is forced redistribution of wealth to most who don't deserve it from most who are not guilty of any infraction. Typical promotion of class warfare by the left with all the alibis built in such as *if you disagree you're a racist*...

The system failed them?? You're the system!!! DUMBASS! I'm no more responsible for your failures as you are of mine.

People who believe in reparations whether it be class, race or cultural is nothing more than a cop-out, it's an admission of personal failure, a fucking hand-out..
Big difference between a hand out and a lending hand.

We already suffered through reparations, it was then called affirmative action.

 

[siobhancan99]

What does reparations mean for you or anyone for that matter? Reparations is forced redistribution of wealth to most who don't deserve it from most who are not guilty of any infraction. Typical promotion of class warfare by the left with all the alibis built in such as *if you disagree you're a racist*...

The system failed them?? You're the system!!! DUMBASS! I'm no more responsible for your failures as you are of mine.

People who believe in reparations whether it be class, race or cultural is nothing more than a cop-out, it's an admission of personal failure, a fucking hand-out..
Big difference between a hand out and a lending hand.

We already suffered through reparations, it was then called affirmative action.

So you'll be refusing your social security and medicare benefits in excess of what you paid in to the system then? Since you're so principled.

 

[CornusKousa]

I never said its not wealth distribution. why would i say that when it very clearly is?

Then wtf where you saying here??

Acting like everyone who supports expanded social programs is some kind of fucking welfare queen is not just bullshit, its like... 1980s bullshit.

Right.

Also there's a difference between a small amount of wealth distribution that takes care of the least able to care for themselves and a horde of peasants shouting "peace, land, bread" and seizing all the means of production for the proletariat.

It's not small though...and the majority of the (D)'s seem to support seizing the means for at least several very large segments of our economy. So other than the fact they're currently willing to be democratic about it? They aren't THAT different.

In part, it is because you want to "keep what's yours" that you should support some expansion of the social safety net.

So I should want to give up what is mine to keep it?? LOL

That makes zero sense.

There is no universal right to the ownership of anything. The concept of ownership is a man made (admittedly useful) concept.

The fight over resources throughout history I think totally refutes this statement.

There are essentially 3 sources of law. Positivism (i am bound by that which i agree with) realism (i am bound by that which others force me to agree with) and natural law (there's rules for human behavior imposed by a deity or just to be found irrationally in existence despite the absence of a deity).

Natural law, most commonly used to support the proposition of property ownership as a right, is for children. On the right an invisible man who doesn't talk to us made up the inalienable right to do x y or z. On the left despite there being no invisible man there's still an inalienable right to x y or z because... reasons or some shit?

In reality our law is positive-realist. we are bound by that which we agree to or can be made to agree to.

As a result, it is in the best interest of someone who enjoys our current regime of ownership of things to not let the gap in control of resources grow so large that the teeming huddled masses rethink whether they want to continue to allow those at the top to reap most of the benefit. The reason for this, is the billions are ultimately able to force the thousands to accept the new regime of "everything is everyone's"

Yes that is the theory, yet that's never actually been the case.

All they ever do is just destroy society/economy and murder fuck loads of people pretending they can make everything everyone's....they can't.

It is in your "enlightened self interest" to address the minimum needs of the people that could, when pressed, destroy the entire system that you benefit from.

No, it's in my "enlightened self interest" to ensure they have the tools to address their own needs.

We call these tools "States".

I like the current system... mostly... probably because of some inherent biases given that i grew up in it and its all that I know. I'm not advocating its overthrow. Whether you're a decent human being and want to expand social programs because its morally good, or you're a misanthrope that doesn't want anyone to get their hands on your shit there are plenty of reasons to think about things like UBI and socialized medicine.

1) this assumes expanding social programs has anything to do with morality. There is nothing morally good about forced wealth redistribution.

2) UBI and socialized bullshit is HOW the get their hands on my shit....why the fuck would want to think about giving them my shit if that was exactly what I was wanting to avoid?

 

[siobhancan99]

2) UBI and socialized bullshit is HOW the get their hands on my shit....why the fuck would want to think about giving them my shit if that was exactly what I was wanting to avoid?

For the same reason you pay a small amount of taxes to enforce your magical property rights. I'm not sure why you can't draw the connection there.

 

[CornusKousa]

For the same reason you pay a small amount of taxes to enforce your magical property rights. I'm not sure why you can't draw the connection there.

No, enforcing of rights isn't the same as wealth redistribution for fee fees....you don't have a right to my shit just because you have less shit than I do.

And at the end of the day it's up to me to enforce that right. Those taxes have again and again proven largely a total fucking waste....and I pay them 99% for the military and 1% to keep the goons with guns from dragging me to prison/killing me.

That's it.

I can't draw the connection because there is none.

I don't need to give you all my shit to keep you from taking all my shit....LOL

 

[siobhancan99]

So you have no problem paying for police and prisons to protect your property, but you do object to social programs which might have the same result without the punitive nature... and that seems rational to you.

Not much to say to that i guess.

 

[icanhelp1]

So you'll be refusing your social security and medicare benefits in excess of what you paid in to the system then? Since you're so principled.

Reparations is not SS or Medicare. Reparations is a form of punishment.

 

[siobhancan99]

Reparations is not SS or Medicare. Reparations is a form of punishment.

your stated objection was that it was a forced wealth transfer. BOth of those programs are forced wealth transfers from the young to the old.

 

[CornusKousa]

So you have no problem paying for police and prisons to protect your property, but you do object to social programs which might have the same result without the punitive nature... and that seems rational to you.

Not much to say to that i guess.

Not even....The summer of 2020 shows they aren't worth their paychecks.

If they aren't going to enforce the law, then what the fuck are we paying them for??

LOL, if I had my way I would ABOLISH the police....worthless waste of money.

 

[Lazaran]

For the same reason you pay a small amount of taxes to enforce your magical property rights. I'm not sure why you can't draw the connection there.

Kinda like you drew a distinction between affirmative action and a general assistance program for ALL people living in poverty.

Though unlike you, Creeping Charlie is a racist sociopath who's highlighted distinctions between increased social safety nets and taxes is based on its concrete selfish/racist/sexist interests.

The irritating weed believes "a rising tide lifts all boats" when that rising tide is primarily lifting the wealthy, but not so much when the rising tide is primarily lifting the poor. It becomes racist and sexist when it ignores the historical racist sexist insults and injuries that resulted in a disproportionate number of women and POC being disadvantaged in their ability to accumulate wealth.

Affirmative action actually positively addressed the issue, creating opportunities in education and employment for both disadvantaged groups. It worked, albeit imperfectly,, benefitting white women the most. Hence the need for a more targeted approach to addressing social disparities. A panacea approach will likely yield the same results as affirmative action. However, if a panacea approach is what's on offer and reparations is too hard of a sell, I'm willing to accept "less than perfect". Just like I supported the imperfect but progressive affirmative action.

Compromise, and understanding the "art of the possible", will serve the country well on the issue of social disparity. That's why Biden was elected, and a panacea Covid bill that primarily benefits the general public is likely to pass. As for Creepimg Charlie's opinion, well .......

Potted plants are really dumb.

 

[siobhancan99]

Kinda like you drew a distinction between affirmative action and a general assistance program for ALL people living in poverty.

Though unlike you, Creeping Charlie is a racist sociopath who's highlighted distinctions between increased social safety nets and taxes is based on its concrete selfish/racist/sexist interests.

The irritating weed believes "a rising tide lifts all boats" when that rising tide is primarily lifting the wealthy, but not so much when the rising tide is primarily lifting the poor. It becomes racist and sexist when it ignores the historical racist sexist insults and injuries that resulted in a disproportionate number of women and POC being disadvantaged in their ability to accumulate wealth.

Affirmative action actually positively addressed the issue, creating opportunities in education and employment for both disadvantaged groups. It worked, albeit imperfectly,, benefitting white women the most. Hence the need for a more targeted approach to addressing social disparities. A panacea approach will likely yield the same results as affirmative action. However, if a panacea approach is what's on offer and reparations is too hard of a sell, I'm willing to accept "less than perfect". Just like I supported the imperfect but progressive affirmative action.

Compromise, and understanding the "art of the possible", will serve the country well on the issue of social disparity. That's why Biden was elected, and a panacea Covid bill that primarily benefits the general public is likely to pass. As for Creepimg Charlie's opinion, well .......

Potted plants are really dumb.

I don't know why you continue to state i said affirmative action was bad, when I didn't. What i said was that generalized programs for the poor remove a lot of the obstacles because they are facially racially neutral while practically they benefit minorities more than whites because minorities are over represented in lower income brackets.

Affirmative action =/= bad but

helping all the poor > facially discriminatory programs.

 

[Lazaran]

I don't know why you continue to state i said affirmative action was bad, when I didn't. What i said was that generalized programs for the poor remove a lot of the obstacles because they are facially racially neutral while practically they benefit minorities more than whites because minorities are over represented in lower income brackets.

Affirmative action =/= bad but

helping all the poor > facially discriminatory programs.

Yeah, I never said you even insinuated affirmative action was "bad", only that you were splitting hairs about its benefit to disadvantaged people.

Kinda like Creeping Charlie and others split hairs about taxes for different government programs with similar purposes..

My basic point was; "don't be a Creeping Charlie", and I even clarified that you are nothing like the irritating weed in the most important areas when it comes to being a decent human/citizen.

I'm a pragmatic progressive and I am all about moving the agenda forward however we can. Small steps or giant leaps; as long as it's moving social justice forward and helping create a more perfect union.

 

[siobhancan99]

Amen to that Lazaran

 

[missyunderstanding]

There is a reason for that

Man, some people live in constant fear of revenooers busting in their door.

"Revenoorers" AKA thieves. Taking whatever they want and giving to whoever they want in order to get votes. Of course they take their own cut first.