In every political/economic system

[billwald]

The purpose of every political/economic system is to divide the existing wealth pie. no matter the shape of the income/asset distribution curve of the population and no matter the efficiency of the system in increasing the total wealth, there will always be a top ten percent and a bottom ten percent of the curve.

It is a given that in every system, every person will NOT be "created equal" with respect to their starting position on the asset and the influence/prestiege curve. That being said, it is my position that the ending position on asset curve aka food chain does NOT depend upon the starting position OR the nature of the political/economic system. The system ONLY determines the shape of the curve and the ease of moving to a higher position on the curve.

It is human nature and the mathematical nature of this universe which causes the results of human economic activity to fall on a normal curve aka a bell curve with 90 something percent of the population within 2 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, ten percent big losers, ten percent big winners, and lots of people in the middle.

It is my position that (remembering that statistics ONLY applies to the group and NEVER to an individual) no matter the system, the losers will end up losers and the winners will end as winners. In other words, politics is the opiate of the people in the sense that it gives the losers an excuse for being - in their own minds - lower on the food chain than they should be. The winners are clawing their way up the food chain no matter the system, republic, democracy, socialist . . . doesn't matter to them. They take life the way they find it and run with it.

 

[canadyjd]

The type of system matters.

The opportunities to advance your own economic condition is better in a free marker system than in a socialist or communist system.

All you have to do is remember the 4 hour bread lines, limited products and opportunities for the masses in the former Soviet Empire to understand that not all systems have equal outcomes (i.e. similar bell-curve).

peace to youraying:

 

[billwald]

True. But Stalin and his friends didn't stand in lines. Many party workers did not stand in lines. The top 10% didn't.

 

[Aaron]

The purpose of every political/economic system is to divide the existing wealth pie. no matter the shape of the income/asset distribution curve of the population and no matter the efficiency of the system in increasing the total wealth, there will always be a top ten percent and a bottom ten percent of the curve.

It is a given that in every system, every person will NOT be "created equal" with respect to their starting position on the asset and the influence/prestiege curve. That being said, it is my position that the ending position on asset curve aka food chain does NOT depend upon the starting position OR the nature of the political/economic system. The system ONLY determines the shape of the curve and the ease of moving to a higher position on the curve.

It is human nature and the mathematical nature of this universe which causes the results of human economic activity to fall on a normal curve aka a bell curve with 90 something percent of the population within 2 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, ten percent big losers, ten percent big winners, and lots of people in the middle.

It is my position that (remembering that statistics ONLY applies to the group and NEVER to an individual) no matter the system, the losers will end up losers and the winners will end as winners. In other words, politics is the opiate of the people in the sense that it gives the losers an excuse for being - in their own minds - lower on the food chain than they should be. The winners are clawing their way up the food chain no matter the system, republic, democracy, socialist . . . doesn't matter to them. They take life the way they find it and run with it.

The purpose of the government is to praise the righteous and punish the evildoer. It bears the sword to protect the weak and the innocent individuals from those who seek to damage their persons, property or rights, and to execute vengence upon the lawless.

That's the purpose of government. Though every system can be corrupted, not all systems are equal and none are amoral. I suspect this lecture is an attempt to reconcile your union mentality with Christianity. You abdicated your individual rights to become a part of a collective in order to shake others down to line your pockets.

 

[billwald]

>You abdicated your individual rights to become a part of a collective in order to shake others down to line your pockets.

I deny the concept of individual rights. There will always be someone else quicker on the draw, a better shot.


http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/

Meditation XVII: No man is an island...

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

 

[Dragoon68]

The purpose of every political/economic system is to divide the existing wealth pie. no matter the shape of the income/asset distribution curve of the population and no matter the efficiency of the system in increasing the total wealth, there will always be a top ten percent and a bottom ten percent of the curve.

It is a given that in every system, every person will NOT be "created equal" with respect to their starting position on the asset and the influence/prestiege curve. That being said, it is my position that the ending position on asset curve aka food chain does NOT depend upon the starting position OR the nature of the political/economic system. The system ONLY determines the shape of the curve and the ease of moving to a higher position on the curve.

It is human nature and the mathematical nature of this universe which causes the results of human economic activity to fall on a normal curve aka a bell curve with 90 something percent of the population within 2 standard deviations of the mean. In other words, ten percent big losers, ten percent big winners, and lots of people in the middle.

It is my position that (remembering that statistics ONLY applies to the group and NEVER to an individual) no matter the system, the losers will end up losers and the winners will end as winners. In other words, politics is the opiate of the people in the sense that it gives the losers an excuse for being - in their own minds - lower on the food chain than they should be. The winners are clawing their way up the food chain no matter the system, republic, democracy, socialist . . . doesn't matter to them. They take life the way they find it and run with it.

I'm suspicious, Billwald, and wonder just what point you're trying to make? Are you just trying to normalize our system down to the same level as those that have been miserable failures by comparison?

 

[Eric B]

I think the OP has a great point (and does not appear to be taking a side, from what I see, but rather concluding all ultimately lead to the same thing, just as I have been saying).

Everyone thinks their system uis the best thing on earth, and how DARE anyone try to "bring it down to the level of others". Just listen to that. We're so "up there", above everyone else. I don't know where God's conclusion of ALL under sin fits in with this. All anyone does in politics is proclaim their system as better. It's better for them, yet they want to speak for everyone else.
We look at socialism based on where people similar to us are in that system. But what he is saying is that that system had its 10% at the top, just like we do over here. And they live just the same. A couple of decades ago, Fidel Castro was over here in NYC, living a night on the town, with plays, etc. Hates us so much, but is able to come and enjoy our high life. If you used them as the measuring stick of success, and then compared it with our lower half, you could say that system was better.

Perhaps many of those in the middle might have some things better over here. Or maybe the long bread lines were the bottom 10% over there, and our bottom 10% is not really that much better off. Maybe no long lines for food, but in other living conditions.

And while unions can be corrupt, they are not really to line the pockets of the workers, but to protect them from management, who are tying to line their pockets with money. Then, the union leaders end up doing the same things as well. (You must learn to distinguish union leaders from the actual workers. Those have become virtually separate classes as well, with the union as anothe rbig organization like the company, often).
So it's all necessary evil. Again, I wish we were really looking for better solutions, rather than towing a prty line (that presumes one side as better, in a preconceived fashion). It is true that this is nature, but it is fallen nature. And by shoosing sides, we are upholding what is fallen, and elevating it as God's system. Now, Christians Conservatives may recognize and point out when "godless liberals" do this, but then they are the ones who should know better.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think the OP has a great point (and does not appear to be taking a side, from what I see, but rather concluding all ultimately lead to the same thing, just as I have been saying).

Everyone thinks their system uis the best thing on earth, and how DARE anyone try to "bring it down to the level of others". Just listen to that. We're so "up there", above everyone else. I don't know where God's conclusion of ALL under sin fits in with this. All anyone does in politics is proclaim their system as better. It's better for them, yet they want to speak for everyone else.
We look at socialism based on where people similar to us are in that system. But what he is saying is that that system had its 10% at the top, just like we do over here. And they live just the same. A couple of decades ago, Fidel Castro was over here in NYC, living a night on the town, with plays, etc. Hates us so much, but is able to come and enjoy our high life. If you used them as the measuring stick of success, and then compared it with our lower half, you could say that system was better.

Perhaps many of those in the middle might have some things better over here. Or maybe the long bread lines were the bottom 10% over there, and our bottom 10% is not really that much better off. Maybe no long lines for food, but in other living conditions.

And while unions can be corrupt, they are not really to line the pockets of the workers, but to protect them from management, who are tying to line their pockets with money. Then, the union leaders end up doing the same things as well. (You must learn to distinguish union leaders from the actual workers. Those have become virtually separate classes as well, with the union as anothe rbig organization like the company, often).
So it's all necessary evil. Again, I wish we were really looking for better solutions, rather than towing a prty line (that presumes one side as better, in a preconceived fashion). It is true that this is nature, but it is fallen nature. And by shoosing sides, we are upholding what is fallen, and elevating it as God's system. Now, Christians Conservatives may recognize and point out when "godless liberals" do this, but then they are the ones who should know better.

Socialism is against the founding of this country and the constitution. End of story

 

[Dragoon68]

... Everyone thinks their system uis the best thing on earth, and how DARE anyone try to "bring it down to the level of others". Just listen to that. We're so "up there", above everyone else. I don't know where God's conclusion of ALL under sin fits in with this. All anyone does in politics is proclaim their system as better. It's better for them, yet they want to speak for everyone else. ...

People that believe America is a great nation don't have to believe we as individuals are any better than any other human beings on earth. I sure don't believe that and, by the way, have family in two other nations on opposite sides of this big earth. However, I know that God greatly blessed us - starting with the early settlers and founders and continuing until today - with the best form of civil government and the best economic success of any nation in modern history. People here have enjoyed greater liberty, opportunity, general standard of living, freedom of worship, etc. - more so that anywhere else I know about. Our nation rose from an improbable experiment to a powerful, respected, and admired nation of which many others have, and still, endeavor to emulate. Sure, other people love their homeland and that's great and some of us even have a second homeland we also love. But not everyone is as high on their nation as Americans have been on theirs and there are those who hate America because they're motivated by great envy. The predominant flow of immigrants - legal and illegal - is still into our nation unless you except the draft dodgers and deserters that took off to Canada. I also think if we don't stop tearing it down with our apparent disdain for it and loss of appreciation for it we will lose that with which we've been blessed. This nation has also exceeded all others in its generosity and compassion for others less blessed or in need of help. America is not perfect - its citizens are all sinners just like everyone else - but it's still a damn fine place to be in this world and am not the least bit ashamed to say so. It is not arrogance - it is thankfulness for what we were given - it is appreciation for what so many have fought to preserve. Take your normalization ideas and stick 'em in the muck of those nations you think compare. No offense to you personally, Eric B, for I'm not any better than you or any one else, but your message - at least I'm understanding it - is way off base!

 

[canadyjd]

True. But Stalin and his friends didn't stand in lines. Many party workers did not stand in lines. The top 10% didn't.

But it wasn't the "bell curve" that you claimed. They had the top 10% and the bottom 80% and about 10% in the middle.

peace to youraying:

 

[windcatcher]

There might be some 'virtue' in accepting 'the bell curve' if all things were truly equal in competition except for the skills, abilities, strengths, and weaknesses and perseverance of the competitors. But in every system of government which you mention, there are obstacles and advantages which are beyond the individual's control.

In the socialist/fascist states, at the advent of each power, some of the first purges included those who were physicians, professors, lawyers, leaders who held public office, dissenting clergy, agency heads, corporate leaders, student activist, bankers, present and former military, police officers, owners of property, .........need I mention more? And most who then held offices in power were thugs and outlaws by previous standards of law. Many of the peasant class who succeeded in climbing 'up' did so by their own immoral willingness to strong arm others. The 'clawing to the top' demands, in many cases, an understanding of the 'establishment' (wonder why its called that???? i.e. 'establishment') and a willingness not only to adapt .... but a decision to compromise from standards which should represent the noblest of ideals.

 

[canadyjd]

...I deny the concept of individual rights. ....

The founders of the nation disagree with you and recognized individual rights in the constitution.

Everyone that thinks as you do will always be a threat to individual liberty.

BTW, I find it ironic that most of the people who "deny the concept of individual rights" live in Western democracies where the individual right of free speech is practiced.

I suspect that if you lived in a country where those "individual rights" that you deny exist, actually didn't exist, you would change your mind pretty fast.

peace to youraying:

 

[windcatcher]

People that believe America is a great nation don't have to believe we as individuals are any better than any other human beings on earth. I sure don't believe that and, by the way, have family in two other nations on opposite sides of this big earth. However, I know that God greatly blessed us - starting with the early settlers and founders and continuing until today - with the best form of civil government and the best economic success of any nation in modern history. People here have enjoyed greater liberty, opportunity, general standard of living, freedom of worship, etc. - more so that anywhere else I know about. Our nation rose from an improbable experiment to a powerful, respected, and admired nation of which many others have, and still, endeavor to emulate. Sure, other people love their homeland and that's great and some of us even have a second homeland we also love. But not everyone is as high on their nation as Americans have been on theirs and there are those who hate America because they're motivated by great envy. The predominant flow of immigrants - legal and illegal - is still into our nation unless you except the draft dodgers and deserters that took off to Canada. I also think if we don't stop tearing it down with our apparent disdain for it and loss of appreciation for it we will lose that with which we've been blessed. This nation has also exceeded all others in its generosity and compassion for others less blessed or in need of help. America is not perfect - its citizens are all sinners just like everyone else - but it's still a damn fine place to be in this world and am not the least bit ashamed to say so. It is not arrogance - it is thankfulness for what we were given - it is appreciation for what so many have fought to preserve. Take your normalization ideas and stick 'em in the muck of those nations you think compare. No offense to you personally, Eric B, for I'm not any better than you or any one else, but your message - at least I'm understanding it - is way off base!

:thumbsup::applause::applause::applause:

 

[targus]

In other words, politics is the opiate of the people in the sense that it gives the losers an excuse for being - in their own minds - lower on the food chain than they should be.

I find this to be very introspective on your part - given your earlier admission to "hiding at the bottom of the briar patch" and turning down every opportunity for overtime or advancement in your career.

The winners are clawing their way up the food chain no matter the system, republic, democracy, socialist . . . doesn't matter to them. They take life the way they find it and run with it.

Isn't it too bad that there is such a profound difference between theory and actuality? See my comment above.

 

[Eric B]

Socialism is against the founding of this country and the constitution. End of story

Well, we weren't debating which was compatible with this country.

People that believe America is a great nation don't have to believe we as individuals are any better than any other human beings on earth. I sure don't believe that and, by the way, have family in two other nations on opposite sides of this big earth. However, I know that God greatly blessed us - starting with the early settlers and founders and continuing until today - with the best form of civil government and the best economic success of any nation in modern history. People here have enjoyed greater liberty, opportunity, general standard of living, freedom of worship, etc. - more so that anywhere else I know about. Our nation rose from an improbable experiment to a powerful, respected, and admired nation of which many others have, and still, endeavor to emulate. Sure, other people love their homeland and that's great and some of us even have a second homeland we also love. But not everyone is as high on their nation as Americans have been on theirs and there are those who hate America because they're motivated by great envy. The predominant flow of immigrants - legal and illegal - is still into our nation unless you except the draft dodgers and deserters that took off to Canada. I also think if we don't stop tearing it down with our apparent disdain for it and loss of appreciation for it we will lose that with which we've been blessed. This nation has also exceeded all others in its generosity and compassion for others less blessed or in need of help. America is not perfect - its citizens are all sinners just like everyone else - but it's still a damn fine place to be in this world and am not the least bit ashamed to say so. It is not arrogance - it is thankfulness for what we were given - it is appreciation for what so many have fought to preserve. Take your normalization ideas and stick 'em in the muck of those nations you think compare. No offense to you personally, Eric B, for I'm not any better than you or any one else, but your message - at least I'm understanding it - is way off base!

Still, the trick is, that while individuals aren't better than each other, it is certain individuals who were able to create this system that is better. Or God was on their side. That basically still implies they are better, corporately. Same thing, in the self-exalting human ego. It's called collective narcissism. And using God does not make it right.

For that raises the question whether God really was behind them. With that rationale, the conquest and colonialism always end up becoming justified, because God was guiding it and "blessing" them. I don't see where that was compatible with God's will for us in the New Testament. In the OT, yes, but then that was a totally different dispensation, where God was specifically working through a carnal nation to bring forth the Messiah. And of course, Christians would freely copy the OT when convenient, to justify stuff like that. We're the chosen"; misunderstanding what chosenness was just as much as the Israelites under the OC.
(I was thinking of addressing this stuff in that "Calvinism is the better system" thread, because there was a whole philosophy with the Puritans, using Calvinistic concepts of election--which to them included special privileges in this life, with prosperity as a sign of election; that justified all that stuff, and remnants of the philosophy remain in many conservatives' beliefs; whether Calvinist or Arminian).

Likewise, there is a lot of attribution shifting in the argument. When we do wrong, God is behind it, and it's justified in that we like the system that resulted from it, and we're just frail humans who can't help our imperfections. We were [passively] "given" something, rather than taking it. When others do this, their system is no-good, and Satan's attack against God. This country is so good, and we should not complain about it so much, but then the same people are complaining about the government, and blaming it for all their problems.

For one thing, I think we forget that we're supposed to be citizens of another kingdom, and are here as ambassadors. just think; it's like if we went to one of those dreaded inferior countries, and were stuck there for awhile, but then learned to be "partriotic" for it, and see everything about it uncritically. I see it as just trying to be a good citizen whereever I am, and being here, I can see the flaws in the system, and I can live with it, as well as enjoying the benefits; but I just get annoyed when others refuse to see the flaws, and just blame others, or point at other countries. Things will never get better that way. Only crtain things such as tax breaks, welfare reform, etc., and then these things did not even make the complainers happy. They still berate the government as if nothing was ever changed, yet aain, all of a sudden become so patriotic when the blame is dstributed more evenly.

 

[RAdam]

When bill denied that individual rights exist that should have been enough to shut down this thread, end this debate and discussion, and manifest that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

[rbell]

I deny the concept of individual rights.

Then you have no business being an American.

Why don't you go to a country that will better appreciate your views? Perhaps a fundamentalist Muslim country will fit you nicely. The former Communist state of Albania would have been a good fit...but unlike you, they woke up. Too bad Idi Amin is dead...you would have enjoyed being his subject.


Ladies and gentlemen...here's a great example of a mind that has been thoroughly poisoned by unions (thankfully, even most union members don't hold to such a crazy view). Having said that, however, ya'll watch out: Obama's likely to give billwald a Cabinet position.

 

[targus]

When bill denied that individual rights exist that should have been enough to shut down this thread, end this debate and discussion, and manifest that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

You are right - he does not know what he is talking about.

He has some sort of idea running around in his head - but doesn't seem able to express it or understand it.

His OP was correct in one regard.

Some people use the existing system (whatever that may be) as an excuse for not excelling.

Others take the existing system as a given and work to succeed within it.

He seems to have managed to take both sides of it though in his personal life.

He sees the world as a whole as the system that held him down and prevented him from excellence.

And at the same time he thinks that he took his union job and "ran with it" - meaning keeping his head low so as not to draw any attention to himself, doing nothing more than the minimum, and after putting in enough years now collecting his pension.

I have no idea what he is talking about where it comes to "individual rights".

 

[billwald]

>But in every system of government which you mention, there are obstacles and advantages which are beyond the individual's control.

AGREE! For example, the hand of God and other random events. But those whom Social Darwinists claim are more advanced should be best able to compensate. <G> (I don't "believe in" Social Darwinism)

 

[billwald]

>>True. But Stalin and his friends didn't stand in lines. Many party workers did not stand in lines. The top 10% didn't.


>But it wasn't the "bell curve" that you claimed. They had the top 10% and the bottom 80% and about 10% in the middle.

OK! Keep in mind that was the "normal" distribution of economic assets from Adam being kicked out of the Garden until WW2. The post WW2 large middle class is a freak economic condition and the US (and Europe) is regressing to the mean.

My intent in raising these issues is to skew this regression to benefit the working class aka slaves, serfs . . . . The BIG difference between the first 6000 years of economic history an now is the possibility of the workers joining forces before the crash comes. The problem of organizing is that no one will admit to being in the working class.

If one would (could?) plot mean (average) income and assets instead of median income and assets the true economic situation would be immediately obvious.

One proof of the impossibility . . . consider the annual listing of the richest people. The list only includes new money aka paper profits and NEVER old money aka hard assets. The true richest people in the world are the Queens of Great Britain and The Netherlands. They are never included. The richest people don't want us to know who they are. They have learned the lesson of the French and Russian revolutions.