Ding dong, Scalia is dead!
I think it goes without saying that his succession will now be a dominant theme in the American election: for better or for worse. How do you see this development shaping the election; who does it favour in the nominations and in the general election?
Comments (107)
“It’s unprecedented, by the way, for the Supreme Court to do this, because this has not been adjudicated so far by the federal appeals court, but they had to step in, or else an oil company might have been hurt. And, my question is, one, how are these other countries going to trust us now, on taking the lead on global warming? And two, how can anything get done in America when you have to run it by Antonin Scalia first?”
And:
“It’s so interesting to me the way Republicans always rail against activist judges, except when they don’t get what they want, and then they run to the judges to solve it. Obamacare, McCain-Feingold, climate change, gay marriage, then they want Scalia to step in. And again, this is so political. You don’t think this is political, on the part of the judges? Because this is the oligarchy at work. Americans, including Republicans, want action on climate change.”
Aired 12/2/16.
Republicans are obsessed about Obama. Scalia's demise will raise their hysteria a notch or two. Supreme Court nominations are always an issue in elections. In my youth it was the Warren Court, after Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1953–1969 that the conservatives hated. It was a solidly liberal court, and the right wing absolutely despised the court for Brown vs. The Board of Education (desegregation); Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims, one man one vote which dealt with reapportionment and the over-representation of rural voters and under-representation of everybody else; Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, establishing the rights of indigent defendants to representation and to the rights of people being taken into custody (the Miranda warning); First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rulings expanded bill of rights coverage to the states, expanded the right to privacy, and laid the groundwork for Roe Vs. Wade; mandatory school prayer was ruled unconstitutional.
A lot is at stake. The liberals now have a court that justly deserves loathing for rulings such as Citizens United and for future rulings that may further harm the rights of the people, and may further enshrine the privileges of the plutocratic, cleptocratic, antidemocratic class.
It presents the Republicans with a challenge. They are caught between a rock (whomever Obama nominates as Scalia's replacement) and a hard place ( tie court votes, or the Supreme Court leaving its decision making up to the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 9 of 13 were Democratic appointees).
It will also mean that the GOP's focus of attention will be blurred between, holding the party together, winning the election, and seeing to it that Obama's nominee does not get appointed.
If you think the GOP appears to be in chaos now, just wait.
Pray that they lose -- big time.
Quoting Cavacava
While you're at it, pray for more GOP chaos.
Well, actually, while you're at it, pray that they all follow their belovéd's precedent and just drop dead.
It's also not like we have to read the tea leaves: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tonight issued this statement: 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'”
In terms of party self destruction, did anyone notice that the mid-term elections resulted in historic Republican gains in the House, Senate, state legislatures, and state Governor offices? It took a GW to create an Obama and an Obama to create a Trump.
Reagan nominated Robert Bork in July 1987 and he was rejected by the Senate. He then nominated Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew for personal reasons. Then in November 1987, Kennedy was nominated. The presidential term ends in January.
So, the nomination process actually began for Reagan about a year and a half prior to the end of his term, where this process will begin 10 months prior to the end of the term.
The ONLY reason the date is an issue is that Republicans hate Obama, and if they could hold back the sunrise and then blame it on the president, they would. They're just being spiteful. Wasn't the Supreme Court's slipping George W. Bush past the 2000 vote count enough of a break for Republicans?
I am feeling the Bern, decidedly, Photographer, but I must say, Cruz's ad is one of the best pieces of poli-advert I have seen in years. It should win a Clio award.
The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for Trump. The GOP has for years railed against "elites" and Washington "insiders," and inculcated an anti-intellectual streak. Now that the largely white, low-education, low-information, mid-to-low income voters who normally fall in line with the establishment candidate (provided he talks about Jesus enough and pretends to be a cowboy once in a while) have fallen for the crackpot media star because he spouts the fact-free, xenophobic, populist rhetoric that gets them fired up, the GOP establishment is panicking. The GOP is getting what it deserves.
Neither of the Democratic candidates in this election strike me as being particularly automatically electable on a nationwide basis. I don't think that a woman or a socialist Jew are exactly guaranteed to sail through the general election. And many Republicans who now intensely dislike, say, Cruz or Trump, will likely hold their nose and vote for either them over Hillary or Bernie. When it comes down to it, party purity and self-interest will trump (no pun intended) the best interests of the nation for those voters.
The argument submitted by the Republicans was that typically Presidents don't appoint Justices in the last year of their term. The Dems responded by saying that the Reagan precedent makes that argument inconsistent. My point is that there really isn't a Reagan precedent because Reagan had been making efforts to appoint a Justice well over a year prior to the end of his term.
Sure, they're both equally inconsistent. There is some tradition, though, about not making lifetime appointments during a lame duck period, so it makes sense that it would be argued. I do agree that the underlying tradition of fair play and civility is a thing of the past, although I wonder if it really ever was.
I don't want to find common ground. It only humanizes my opponents and makes their destruction that much more draining.
Favor has no u.
Por favor.
As for Trump, I'm disappointed that you would prefer a schlockmeister Trump to any, perhaps very superior, Democrat. As Martin Luther said, "It's better to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian."
I get that the tradition argument is pretext, but so is the argument that Obama was elected, so the Senate must honor his wishes and vote as soon as possible. It is true that the Republicans must suck it up that Obama gets to pick the candidate, but the Dems must suck it up that the Republican Senate gets to decide when (and if) they vote. No one gets to tell the other what to do, and each gets to explain why they can do whatever they want to do, and we the electorate get to decide who we despise more.Quoting Bitter CrankI disagree with Sanders on much more than I disagree with Trump, so that's why I'd vote for Trump if I had to choose between those two.
The Republican party has moved so far to the right that it is incapable of winning a general election. It survives almost solely through gerrymandering in the House of Representatives. The Democratic party, meanwhile, is squarely centrist. Even someone like Sanders does not veer much past the center, despite whatever provocative labels he applies to himself.
What sorry state of affairs would those be? The fact you don't view the rise of Trump as a problem and that you'd just cast a party-line vote for whatever nutjob the GOP coughs up says volumes about you and the fact that people just pull the lever for whatever their party is. And the fact that you can't see that Sanders and Clinton are infinitely more qualified for the presidency than Trump would be speaks volumes about you as well.
(I also love that you would buy into the fact that the woes of lower-middle income whites who favor Trump has anything to do with Obama.)
Apparently you weren't paying attention to politics from 2000-2008...
I was flabbergasted when I read that.
Quoting Hanover
You did actually say [i]any[/I] Democrat; not just Sanders - which is even more shocking. And that is precisely what BC addressed in his comment to which you replied with the quote above.
I don't agree with your reasoning, either. I think that even just a few of Trump's comments, given their extremity, unreasonableness, and discriminatory nature - in spite of the rest of his views - make him much worse than most Democrats, including Sanders.
How so? Because there are a few more Hispanics in the country? What of it? (The demographics weren't "very different", whatever it is you're referring to.)
Again, not totally sure what you're referring to. "Across the board"? In what demographics? There are more Hispanics, but even that factor may be overblown, as there has lately been net negative immigration from Mexico in the last few years.
It's not hard to comprehend. The older, white, middle class Republican vote is slowly shrinking and the vote of basically everyone else is increasing or staying steady (women, LGBT, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Arabs, young people, etc).
And by the way, all those Hispanics who have immigrated to the US have children once they come here (shocking I know), and they have far more children than the US average.
To be fair to @Hanover, completely selfish relatively rich people interested in nothing but how much tax they have to pay have plenty to gain from a Trump presidency and plenty to lose from a Sanders one. ;)
.
First the demographics were "very different," and now you cite an article saying that the Republican group is "slowly-shrinking." I'm well aware that the demographics of the country are not the same as they were in 2000, but they're not that different. Obama and McCain were mostly neck-and-neck until the financial collapse, so Obama's win may have had as much to do with incumbent party fatigue and Main Street's anger against Wall Street than anything to do with diversity, especially given that Republican-controlled state legislatures have thrown up roadblocks to voting in some minority communities.
I'm also aware that Hispanic people have larger families, but the fact remains that immigration from Mexico has been negative in recent years.
Well, ok, not any Democrat. I suppose if you found me a conservative southern Democrat (like Zell Miller), then I'd vote for Zell even though he's really old now. At his finest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSQ5BX6YXg.
But to the question of Trump vs. Sanders, it'd be Trump without question. Mr. Magoo or Sanders, it'd be Mr. Magoo.
And yet many of his supporters are blue collar Democrats (and Republicans). This old "everyone just votes for self interest" just isn't true. If it were, no wealthy people would vote for Sanders, but they do. People are driven by ideology more than you suggest.
So, does that mean that you think that Trump can be trusted to govern the U.S.A. better than Sanders? Because unless Sanders has said crazier and/or more morally repugnant things than Trump, I trust Sanders over Trump.
Clinton's a man, and he isn't running for president. So, yes.
Or was that a joke? Forgive me for being dense if it was.
Yes, and don't call me Hilary.
I trust that Trump will make better decisions than Sanders, not because either are truly crazy. I just disagree with Sanders on just about everything.
Trump is a genius of sorts. He can say "I'll make the Mexicans build their own wall" and then he'll get billions of dollars in free advertising from CNN and MSNBC when they express their outrage. Meanwhile, the average guy thinks to himself, "yeah, they should pay for their own damn wall" and then he gets more votes. How a real estate investor becomes a celebrity and is able to appeal to the common man is an amazing feat.
Great risks with completely unpredictable results is what makes America great I tell you! Come on over and spin the wheel, see what happens.
Like the goal of creating a fairer society by, for example, targeting the super rich? Trump is a fat cat that will prioritise the interests of other fat cats if he can get away with it, and he will hinder progress towards such a goal. He is also someone who takes advantage of prejudice, and if that were reflected in policy, then it would have serious detrimental consequences.
Quoting Hanover
The evil sort.
Quoting Hanover
I'd rather not gamble with such high stakes, given the odds. Over here, at the last general election, the pollsters predicated that it was pretty much neck-and-neck, and that the likely result would be a hung parliament. What happened? Unfortunately, a Conservative landslide, with David 'pig fucker' Cameron securing another term as Prime Minister.
I don't like Hillary, don't like this business of little dynasties like the Bush and Clinton one, and if Hillary was as good a candidate as Obama in 2008, her shelf life hasn't aged well. Still, she has enough progressivity to be an effective plug in the bowels of bad legislation.
I like Bernie Sanders most. Sanders, as a socialist Jew in the White House, might be even scarier to conservatives than a progressive black Muslim born in Kenya serving as POTUS. Sanders might drive Republicans mad. They might all go crazy and run into the Potomac River and drown. At any rate, Sanders would be as effective a plug in the rectum of Republican Policy as Clinton. The conservatives would need a collective colostomy.
It is likely that with either Democrat--or if Jesus Christ were elected for that matter--that gridlock will continue -- which is better than the Republicans having a plug free rectum and dumping their whole program on us.
We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it.
They're all fat cats, every last one of them, Dem or Republican. Ordinary folks do ordinary things, which doesn't include running for president.
Race baiting is hardly a Republican idea. Both sides play that card, and it's close kin, class warfare, gets played when people start vilifying the rich.Quoting SapientiaIf one can get elected with such an unfortunate middle name, then I suppose anyone can.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
In need of a good gastroenterologist?
So, the super rich and the working class have merit proportional to their status and contribution to society? I don't think so. The super rich are overprivileged, and something ought to be done about that, e.g. redistribution of wealth, higher wages for those at the lower end of the scale, higher taxes for big businesses.
Hilary is a man, and nobody called you Putnam.
No, I'm not arguing for equality; I'm arguing for greater proportionality. The super wealthy have too high a proportion, and the working class have too low a proportion. I don't believe that any amount of merit warrants such vast and disproportionate wealth. There certainly aren't equal contributions. For example, some big names in business could contribute a fairer share of tax and pay their employees a living wage, rather than the legal minimum. Banks could stop paying out ridiculous bonuses to those at the very top - especially the ones which were bailed out with taxpayers money, and could do more to help small businesses and those in need of a loan. The big six energy companies could do more for their customers, as could Network Rail.
Right. The way that Trump "merited" the money inherited from daddy. I'm sure you've heard the analysis that Trump, for all of his bluster about being a great "dealmaker," would have been better served financially to invest in an index fund than to have engaged in all of his wheelings and dealings.
I'm all for a meritocracy, but Trump's greatest asset is his own ego and self-promotion, not in making "deals." Only on those bases does he "merit" anything.
http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/
He merits being brought down a peg or two, I'd say.
I was going to say that "the question is a matter of how terms are defined", but then, no. It isn't a matter of how terms are defined. Fairness, merit, and equality are cover stories. The real story is about which economic class has enough power to impose its will on other classes, and secondarily, with which class does one identify? It has been said that "Most Americans expect to be rich someday, even if at the moment they find themselves in a rather embarrassing financial situation--flat broke."
Those who are better off also identify with the most exclusive class -- the 1 percenters. The are relatively much better off that most of the people in the country, and even if they are not rich relative to the top 1%, they are comfortable. Together this group represents around 5% - 10% of the population. The top 11% have the wherewithal to impose their will on the remaining 89%.
Quoting Hanover
This is true, for the most part. Some fat cats are more loaded than others. I suspect that Trump or Bush have rather a lot more money than Sanders, but Sanders no doubt has a lot more money than I do. (If he doesn't, then there is probably something seriously wrong with him.) The Clintons have been working on their Original Accumulation for quite some time. They're not poor.
The residents of this amazing city no longer feel safe. I know people are frustrated about gentrification happening in the city, but the reality is, we live in a free market society. The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city. They went out, got an education, work hard, and earned it. I shouldn’t have to worry about being accosted. I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle, and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day. I want my parents when they come visit to have a great experience, and enjoy this special place.
The poor dear! After doing whatever he does in well-lit, air conditioned, clean, comfortable surroundings, he get's off the bus after work and what does he see? Suffering humanity! The fucking nerve of these people, displaying their wretchedness where he might see it. maybe smell it.
OK, here it goes...My mom is a Republican.
This reply has been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!
Are we on the track to enlightenment? Ba-dum-ch!
It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that his position has been accepted by any meaningful group, so have at it in defeating it. You're not going to get any push back from me.
I will say, though, that sweeping the homeless from public spaces is a general tactic used in large cities, many of which are run by Democrats. We don't argue that it's being done because we're disgusted by them, but we instead make arguments related to crime and the annoyance of panhandling. It's also pretty clear that the homeless problem is more related to addiction and psychological issues than it is to a failed economic system.
It seems fairly irrelevant to me whether one group wants the homeless out because they stink and another because they hurt business and another because they think they're annoying. It also seems irrelevant to me whether some see the homeless as regular folks who have stumbled and others as failures. It's not what you think in your heart; it's what you do with your hands. So, if you care, go feed the homeless, assist in a shelter, donate money, do whatever. Telling folks how much you care and condemning those who you think don't care doesn't matter a whole lot to a homeless guy. I'd imagine you're both the same in his eyes.
Sure, put the burden on ordinary folks who care enough, when there are those with stupidly vast sums of money. How about we take it from them and give it to those who really need it? Just think about what could be done with all that money, rather than let it be horded and spent on top-of-the-range luxuries by and for an incredibly small percentage of the population.
My comment was pretty simple, and it didn't even suggest the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. I simply said that you have little standing arguing about what other people do if you're just sitting in your chair complaining. Get out and help the homeless if they are your concern. Sign up at your local charity. There is a way to help out others other than by complaining that other people don't help out enough. All this wonderful talk about how we should serve others sounds somewhat hollow when it is followed by a rationalization for why we personally have no obligation to serve others.
If all the complainers would get out and help resolve the problem instead of demanding that others resolve the problems they find so important, then the problems would go a long towards being resolved. I get that you're tired of an unkempt house. Clean it.
You're attacking a straw man. My point was just that the burden is better placed on those with stupidly vast sums of money than on ordinary folks. I do think that the former ought to to pay more, and that if they do not, then they ought to be made to.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, I understood your pretty simple comment. I don't think you actually needed to elaborate. I know that you didn't suggest, specifically, that the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. But your point is misguided nonetheless, because the burden then ends up, for the most part, in the hands of the vast majority: ordinary folks. But I am saying that the burden would be better placed on the small minority of super rich and powerful. Rather than buy an expensive yacht, donate that money to charity. Still left with billions of dollars in the bank and a large collection of extremely valuable assets? Then sacrificing the addition of a new yacht to your collection was not enough. Don't want to do more? Ok then, I guess that's your prerogative. On second thought, that's rubbish. If you won't do more, then that superfluous wealth should be forcibly taken from you and redistributed.
The greater the wealth, the greater the burden. The complacent aspect is unimportant, but taking action is important. Acknowledging the problem, and the best way in which it can be resolved is what matters.
Sure, and we can have a committee that oversees his bank account and governs all the money that he earns to determine what is and isn't a frivolous expenditure. I'm sure that wouldn't disincentivize anyone from making money and we'd see an explosion in productivity.
You continue to ignore that the rich already are paying disproportionately and it already is their contributions that are building public housing, education, welfare, health care, etc. You're just demanding that they pay more and for some reason you think folks shouldn't own yachts. Do you suppose someone might lose their job if they shut down the shipyards after you outlaw yachts?
And you also ignore my plea that you go out into your community and make it a better place as opposed to complaining about the rich bastards out there. Let's assume the world is unfair and that the rich are being relieved of their duty to make the world a better place all as the result of their ability to manipulate the law. It would seem if that were the case then your ethical duty to compensate for the rich's inadequacy would be increased. It's not like you can turn to the poor and tell them you can't help them because that is the job of the rich, and so sorry if they are failing.
I just find the moralizing a bit hypocritical. The rich need to do more, but I am justified in doing next to nothing? I daresay that if you actually committed your free time to resolving these problems, you wouldn't waste your time complaining and you might even see corporations and wealthy people as partners in your efforts. And if you were pulling your weight in regard to solving the problems, you would at least stand on the firm ground of your example when you demanded more from others. And by "others," I mean everyone, rich and poor.
Quoting Hanover
No, my primarily ethical duty would be to put right the wrong, rather than maintain it, and compensating for the inadequacy of the rich would maintain that wrong. So I would instead advocate revolutionary action.
I view any corporations and wealthy people as partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty who I believe are genuinely attempting to resolve the problem. But that, in itself, is not sufficient. They might have the wrong idea about the best way in which to resolve the problem.
Well that sure is the laziest solution. You can't help the poor because if you do then your government representatives won't force the rich to help the poor, but the rich won't be forced because they control the whole enterprise, so the poor will remain poor, even though you could have done something to help them. I'm sure the poor appreciate your integrity in not helping them and they admire your philosophizing from your armchair.
Should I encourage others not to help the poor so that I can create such a horrible situation that my government might finally act? Suppose my representatives don't act, but they instead interpret everyone's refusal to help the poor as evidence that their constituency doesn't care about the poor? That might be a logical conclusion, as opposed to their thinking that the reason their constituency doesn't help the poor is actually because they care so much they refuse to help in the hopes the poor end up getting help. While it's physically lazy, the mental gymnastics are strenuous.
Quoting Sapientia
And yet another reason not to help out. Nothing like throwing down the moral gauntlet and refusing to do anything that is beneath you, all the while when there's someone suffering.
So here's how it works: Wells Fargo Bank decides to team up with the American Cancer Society to raise funds to help treat cancer. As you might know, Wells Fargo really isn't in the cancer treating business, but they're in the banking business. What they really want is to profit from selling banking products, and they're using the ACS as a vehicle to make more money. Shocking, I know.
So, you have 2 choices, work with Wells Fargo and see to it that more people are treated for cancer or sit back in your chair and bitch about it. I suppose you'll take option 2, considering that requires no effort on your part.
Edit: From their website: "The American Cancer Society gratefully acknowledges those many corporations who actively support its mission to save more lives from cancer and create a world with more birthdays. In 2014 corporate contributions accounted for approximately $85,173,147.00."
Sorry, I didn't realise quite how unrealistic your hypothetical scenario was: so unrealistic that the wealth of those who are wealthy and uncooperative could not be forcibly taken - even if the rest of the world were to revolt against them.
Remind me, what was your hypothetical scenario supposed to show?
Quoting Hanover
You're reading all of that into my comment.
I take your point about companies which inadvertently help a good cause in their effort to increase profit, but they are hardly partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty - at least not in the way that I would interpret that phrase - since, if they could lose the middle man without losing profit, or if they'd make an even greater profit, then why wouldn't they simply cut the Charity out of the equation and cease all contributions? Is that what a partner in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty would do, or is that just what a self-interested profiteer would do?
Quoting Hanover
False dilemma. I'll go with option 3: aim to change things for the better, so that the power isn't in the hands of Wells Fargo and others like them.
Who cares as long as poverty is reduced? Would a homeless person really care if his bagged meal was in generic paper or in one with a Nike swoosh?Quoting Sapientia
By "aim" I suppose you mean "want," because as I've pointed out, you've done nothing. How does wanting change trump going out and helping others?
I reckon that those who are genuinely interested in reducing poverty, and not just taking advantage of the situation as a means to a greedy end, would probably care. There is a wider issue at stake here. If you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, then you have questionable morals; and again, the more wealthy and powerful you are, the more questionable your morals become. Is it good for society for those with questionable morals to have the most wealth and power?
Quoting Hanover
No, by "aim" I mean [i]aim[/I], and not simply [i]want[/I]. I would have said "want" if that was what I meant. An aim, like a desire, doesn't necessitate action, but it doesn't have the same meaning as the latter, so you can't reduce the former to the latter.
How, may I ask, do you know that I've done nothing? Or is that just an assumption? Do you know what they say about those who assume?
Even if I have done nothing, I would just accept your charge of hypocrisy. It's an irrelevant [i]ad hominem[/I].
Quoting SapientiaAlright, you meant aim, not want, but I think we're using it the same way here, which is just to want things to change, but not necessarily to do anything about it.
Quoting SapientiaYou may be a philanthropist as far as I know. My point is very different from yours despite that I may have engaged in an irrelevant attack on your integrity. My point is that there is nothing moral about wanting things to be good if you do nothing good and there is something moral about wanting things to be bad as long as you make things good. This dispensing of the requirement that you actually try to make things better is what I'm objecting to.
I'd also point out that your argument was in fact that you objected to certain good deeds because you felt it would result in the rich being absolved of their duty to help the poor. That is, you were actually arguing that it was bad to do what appeared to be good, so if you do in fact do good deeds for the poor, you're not just a hypocrite, you're a bad person under your definition of what it is to be good.
Yes, I agree. It's more complex than what I said, but I stand by the principle behind what I'm trying to say. It's about getting the right balance. It would be better put as follows: if you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, without a good enough reason, then you have questionable morals.
Quoting Hanover
The last part is correct, but an aim can be an intention or goal - presumably one that is desired, and which one plans to pursue. So, no, it is not acceptable to replace "aim" with "want", because that changes the meaning, and doesn't fully convey what I mean to convey.
Quoting Hanover
I get where you're coming from, although I don't quite agree. But I don't think that that really matters, because what you're objecting to (as per the following quote) is a straw man.
Quoting Hanover
I have not advocated the stance that one is justified in dismissing the responsibility to try to make things better. Quite the contrary. (I think that we have disagreed over what making things better would consist in in certain situations, and which course of action is paramount).
For your information, I don't think that I have done enough to support the cause-in-question, which I do believe in, in order to justify my lack of action in that regard. But, as I pointed out, that is not relevant to my argument.
Quoting Hanover
No, no, no. I don't agree with your analysis of my argument. There is good in doing good deeds, but there is something bad about doing good deeds for the wrong reasons. Furthermore, doing a good deed results in (some) good, but can also result in bad consequences in terms of the bigger picture, or later down the line.
It's good if more people are treated for cancer, and if poverty is reduced, but my point was more complex than that, and the context must be taken into consideration. If the moral cost outweighs the moral benefit of a "good deed", then that should be taken into consideration.
I'm in favour of more people being treated for cancer - even as the result of dubious intentions, although that would not be ideal - but not at any cost.
I favor another set of moral standards: You either did it or you didn't. The standard for the final judgement (Matthew 25:31-46 is "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." You either did or you didn't. Thinking about it doesn't count.
We should not worry about other people's motivations (within the context of morality). What are they actually doing? Are they being generous for tax purposes? What do you care--the food shelf is able to buy all the food they need. Were they being generous to the hospital because the new wing would bear their name? What do you care -- the expanded mental health unit is now open and helping people. Did they give you money to go to college just so you would get the hell out of town and leave their daughter alone? What do you care? You now have a BA in English Literature--ring a ding ding. Did the rich woman give a hand full of jewelry she would no longer care to be seen dead wearing? What do you care? The homeless shelter now has a new furnace, new roof, and beds for everybody to sleep in.
By the same standard (Jesus' preaching) rich people have a major problem: their wealth.
- [i]The rich young man knelt down, and asked, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus asked. “Only God is truly good. 19 But to answer your question, you know the commandments: ‘You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal. You must not testify falsely. You must not cheat anyone. Honor your father and mother.’[a]”20 “Teacher,” the man replied, “I’ve obeyed all these commandments since I was young.”21 Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”22 At this the man’s face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.
[/i]By this standard, the rich can not get into heaven unless they part with their wealth. ("A rich man can no sooner get into heaven than a camel can get through the eye of a needle.") Jesus takes this position because salvation and wealth are incompatible: "Where your treasure is, there also is your heart." Of course, one doesn't have to be in the top 1% to have moral problems with wealth. One can be a small-practice lawyer, for instance, or a used car dealer or a burger flipper and fall into the sin of avarice (the love of money).
Nobody is under any obligation to concern themselves with Jesus' views unless they are baptized Christians, of course -- and many baptized Christians don't spend too much time concerning themselves with Jesus' views either. Nonetheless, What Jesus taught is the principle foundation for viewing wealth getting and wealth having as a moral problem.
I think you have to make a leap, though, to suggest that Christianity suggests that the government is properly empowered by God to seize assets of the rich and to redistribute them. I'm generally opposed to any attempt to equate political positions to religious positions. Your post hints at "God is on the Democrats' side," which is as dangerous as saying God favors the Republicans (which is no doubt preached in certain churches). That seemed to be what was intimated in your post, but I could have over-read it.
I also am aware that Protestantism rejects the notion that good acts are necessary for salvation, which was a response to the Catholic Church's prior rules requiring payment of money to the church in order to be saved. There was a certain enlightenment associated with this reformation, as it eliminated the Church's control over who might get into heaven and thus put such matters solely in the power of the faithful. I find that change enlightened because it did exactly what it was intended, it kept folks from demanding things or acts in order to be right before God, and to some extent it puts an end to your suggestion that proper Christians must favor a particular political view. That is, it is not required that the rich help the poor for them to be good people as long as they keep the faith.
Where I might add to the Protestant view is that I can accept that salvation might be achieved through faith alone, but I am going to be highly suspect of anyone's declaration of faith if there is no corresponding good behavior that accompanies it. If you care so deeply for the poor, it would be an odd way of showing it if you never did anything caring for them.
That is a problem I can fix.
Quoting Hanover
I wasn't trying to weasel government-managed redistribution of wealth out of Christian theology. The very early church shared everything in common -- supposedly -- a communism of consumption. They could afford to do this because they thought the Kingdom of God was about to arrive, so their earthly goods were of no concern. My guess is that this happy party came to a screeching halt as soon as they figured out that the world wasn't becoming heaven.
No, the idea of government redistribution of wealth (as opposed to a charitable distribution) seems to be a contemporary secular concept. As far as I know, the idea doesn't come directly from Marx either. Marx's writings don't seem to back up reforms like a government managed redistribution of some wealth from the capitalist to the working class. Marx was interested in the complete reorganization of society. Marx didn't wish capitalists to be more generous, he wished for their disappearance (as a class and as a function).
Social amelioration through wealth redistribution is an idea that comes from reform minded marxists--a group that hard core marxists are forever deploring and castigating. This kind of social democratic reform is much more common in European countries, and has not been firmly established in the United States. That is why single payer health insurance is such a horror here, and Obamacare is nigh unto the end of the Republic, in some quarters. Roosevelt's new deal reforms, enacted partly to forestall potential uprisings and partly as humanitarian programs, were challenged in the courts, and are still under attack (like transferring Social Security to the stock market). Medicare and Medicaid were also fiercely resisted after their enactment.
Wealth, concentrated or as evenly distributed as frosting on a cake, is a social product. The rich can not generate wealth alone. It is the activity of the 99% that creates the wealth of the 1%. The social production of wealth is what justifies the social redistribution of wealth through high rates of taxation.
Distribution of wealth is a reform, not a revolution. It's practical: the only way enough resources can be obtained to make significant improvements in society is by taxation, and it is appropriate that very wealthy people should pay taxes at a much higher rate than poor people. It is appropriate that the government should take a substantial share of deceased rich people's wealth (like the richest 1%) to compensate the producing class for the wealth they created but did not proportionately benefit from.
High rates of taxation do not cause rich people suffering (they remain rich after they pay their higher rate of taxation) and it benefits the entire society -- everyone from the lumpen proletariat to the haute bourgeoisie. How does high taxation benefit the haute bourgeoisie? Simple: Idle money redistributed from the enormous stores of the rich and given to working people stimulates economic activity--immediately, which ultimately (and fairly quickly) benefits the rich. Economic stagnation is hell for poor people and means a poor growth rate for the rich.
The rich do not have an absolute right to the socially created wealth which they would like to have under their exclusive control, free of any tax obligation.
This is a complicated question that might be the subject of a dissertation.
The earliest forms of government redistribution were referred to as a palace economy, which dates back to the Bronze Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy. The absolute ruler would receive wealth from the people and would then redistribute it out based upon special privilege or in order to invest for more wealth for the ruler. The notion of "each according to need" came a long time later obviously, but I'd assume was an outgrowth of modern democracy, where the needs of the people generally predominated over a particular ruler's needs. Generally rulers do seize money, but they keep it for themselves, although I'm sure Kings and Queens have from time to time distributed their wealth for some benevolent purpose, however sporadic it might have been.
In looking to ancient Jewish culture, charity was required by God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah), but not by any person with secular power to enforce the rule. You gave charity to avoid the harsh judgment imposed by God. Deut 11:22-32. It was also considered a social norm. https://books.google.com/books?id=s3VnyvPlVb4C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=how+was+charity+required+in+ancient+israel&source=bl&ots=0c8mYP1wUO&sig=1DSi-v5lPblxjb_bayO40acF1f0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT7seUtYTLAhXDMyYKHR_LCIgQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=how%20was%20charity%20required%20in%20ancient%20israel&f=false.
There was also the requirement to tithe, which is today understood as a requirement to give 10% of your income to charity. This is a bit of a corruption of the actual rule, which was actually that farmers were required to give 10% of their annual crops and livestock to the Levites (the priests) because the Levites had no land and no way to produce their own food. The rule really wasn't meant to feed the poor, but was required to sustain the structure of the society. With the destruction of the second temple, that rule was abolished, as were all laws related to sacrifice and priestly rites.
My point here is only to say that there have been many instances in history where money was provided to some central entity and that entity then gave that money back to the rank and file. How it was seized (whether by force, fear of God, or by social expectations) varied, and how it was redistributed varied (by special privilege, through investment concerns, or to assist the most needy) also varied.
My position therefore isn't that charity or taxation or redistribution is a bad thing per se, but it is to say that there are all sorts of forms, with me favoring a more voluntary system imposed by social norms and a distribution to those truly in need. It's for that reason that I keep asking "what have you done to correct the problem"? That is, there should be a social expectation that everyone fix this problem, not just a demand that those who have enough extra stuff to just give it up. Such a demand is especially difficult to accept from those who refuse to accept the social norm that they get out and help those in need. As I see it, we're an army of millions of people fully capable of resolving this problem, but instead we turn on each other and point to others and ask why they're not doing enough.
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that anything I might say in response is likely to be seized upon and deliberately misconstrued by devious agents who are known to be operating in these parts..."
Quoting Hanover
Right! "Hanover: Here's your volunteer activities for the week -- only 1 hour each day! What a deal!"
Monday -- patch potholes on Broadway. Bring a shovel. Be there 15 minutes early.
Tuesday -- feeding hospice patients - bring a clean spoon this time. There were complaints.
Wednesday -- bailing out a backed up sewer -- bring a bucket and some hand sanitizer (about a gallon)
Thursday -- police duty at a riot -- bring an assault rifle.
Friday -- cooking at a shelter -- bring a pot.
Saturday -- more patching potholes -- no rest for the wicked. Bring some asphalt.
Sunday -- janitorial duty at the food poisoning clinic - bring a mop.
If it was just the homeless or just food insufficiency, voluntary efforts could conceivably solve the problem. But it isn't. Governments and NGOs at all levels provide an array of essential services which make life reasonably pleasant and secure and which cost more than workers could conceivably pay for collectively--since they don't keep much of the value they create in their work. We have to reach into the assets of those who accumulate wealth without working--that 1% again. Karl Marx, Value, Price, and Profit
Well, I've not argued for the Randian wet dream of complete government elimination of all services with the expectation of private enterprise replacement of those services. The spectrum runs from radical rightest Libertarianism to absolute communism with no retention of private capital, with me obviously fading toward the right and you being more left than I am right (as you are a self-avowed Marxist).
The point being that I favor some taxation (which is already progressive in nature) and government services, and I believe that what we currently have adequately provides the basic services. The concern that I'm hearing in this thread is that those dreaded 1 percenters have too much money and should do more to help their fellow citizens (1) out of a sense of general fairness, and (2) because there are many who need more help than the government is currently willing or able to provide. My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money, and (2) private supplementation can better address many of the problems related to poverty.
I then went on to say that since private donations of money and time do make a real difference to the problems facing us, it might make sense for all you bleeding hearts to contribute (if you aren't already) instead of just griping about how the rich should be forced to come down from their penthouses to save us.
Absolutely, voluntary contributions above and beyond non-voluntary contributions help. Bleeding hearts of all makes and models should definitely contribute and get beyond bitching and carping. I give, but I haven't gotten beyond bitching and carping, but my b. and c. is much calmer now than it used to be.
Quoting Hanover
Shifting ground here a bit, from social and economic justice to long range estimates of economic activity...
Robert J. Gordon argues in his book, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War (Princeton University Press, 2016) that the disproportionate wealth controlled by the 1% "is a headwind which will lessen the benefits of innovations..." This is so, he thinks, because this pool of wealth is not circulating, not investing in new products and services in the manufacturing sector, not buying new products and services in the domestic sector. The wealth is not entirely idle, but it is not working productively, either.
If you like economic and social history, Gordon's book has some good stuff in it. Aside from various headwinds, he is the opinion that the major, non-reproducible, great inventions have been made, and new, great inventions are unlikely to be made in the next 25 years, at least. Why?
Because the great inventions of the 19th and 20th centuries transformed life in such fundamental ways. Once people ride in machines and not on their own feet or on the feet of horses, that transformation is finished. Even if future cars rest on anti-gravity devices instead of wheels, it's a refinement, not a revolution. Once houses are connected to the network of gas, electricity, telecoms, water, and sewer, the transformation of shelter is largely over. Putting satellite dishes and solar panels on the roof is a refinement, not a revolution. Once you have developed effective sanitation, antibiotics, cancer treatments, and other effective medical procedures, the rest is, again, refinement.
Boosting economic activity for the billions of people in the world, or the millions in the developed world, requires not innovation but a greater volume of money moving through the economy, and that means loosening up a substantial portion of the wealth locked up by the 1%. (BTW, "loosening up" doesn't require "us" taking it away from "them"; it could mean inducing them to invest in manufacturing and consumption rather than financial instruments.)
I would rate the likelihood of loosening up a few hundred billion or a trillion dollars as unlikely.
There's no distinction between revolution and refinement. I'd say it was as much a refinement when the first guy was able to tame a horse enough to ride it as it was a refinement to move to a horse driven buggy and then another refinement to the horseless carriage. You could also call each of those revolutions.
I also question anyone who says that human ingenuity has largely run its course. When I was a kid, we had a complex network of cans and kite strings to communicate and now we have rotary phones hanging from our walls that enable us to contact our friends from across the country (but be sure to call at night when the rates are lower).
Semantics.
Quoting Hanover
Nobody said anything about human ingenuity having run it's course. What I said was there have been revolutions in human activities that can't be repeated, simply because they were done and were successful. There is no point in extending electricity to 99.9% of households in the USA because they have been hooked up to the electric grid for 50 to 100 years, already. There is nothing unhappy about the successful technical revolutions like we have seen in communications, sanitation, and transportation, etc. Those revolutions are over, and that's great.
Even someone with a rotary phone can understand that. At least, people with rotary phones used to be able to understand. Apparently there is something about the old rotary phone that is unhealthy -- sort of like lead poisoning.
What do you know about fields of innovations that are needed that would be revolutionary and haven't already seen a great deal of progress?
This is where the meeting turned into bullshit, where they tried to encourage us to innovate the next best thing. I figured if I was that smart, why would I be sitting in this meeting?
At any rate, I think we're see innovations every day. I don't know which to call revolutions though.
But motivations motivate action, and bad motivations can lead to bad actions, and are more likely to do so. That was basically my point in the discussion with Hanover. If you're being generous soley as a means for self-advancement, and you're unscrupulous, then the means only matters in terms of efficiency; and therefore, if you were to find a more efficient means, then it would be reasonable for you to replace the means of being generous with this newly found alternative - even if it's morally reprehensible.
Why do I care? That is why. And you should too. Actions are important, morally speaking; perhaps more so than other considerations. But they are not the be-all and end-all of morality. Motivation, intention, principles and character are also important. It would often be too little too late if we only cared about actions. What about guidance? Don't wait until the immoral act has already been committed. Try to prevent it. Look for the warning signs.
Right, because that has worked so well thus far. A big part of the problem is that your appeal to voluntary action falls on deaf ears for so many people, and, importantly, for a number of those who are exceptionally rich; yet just a single one of them could quite easily make a massive difference.
I take a more cynical view, and advocate a more practical solution.
It boils down to what amount of their money has been earnt. Ownership of the means of production doesn't mean that you've earnt a grossly disproportionate amount of the wealth created by the workers.
Quoting Hanover
But this is already the case, and yet we seem to agree that what's being done isn't enough. So, how do you propose increasing private supplementation to the required level on a voluntary basis? Are you going to go door-to-door asking "What are [i]you[/I] doing to correct this problem?"?
You are right. Good motivation tends to lead to good action and bad motivations tends to lead to bad action.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes. My construction was sloppy. What I should have said was, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." The food shelf that is the recipient of a large gift need not concern itself with motivation to a great degree. They could, of course, dither over the giver's motivation but they don't need to. "Beggars can't be choosers."
A political campaign treasurer, however, does need to look gift horses in the mouth, and are not so beggarly that they can't choose what to accept. A contribution from a hostile party might be a poisoned gift. A college might reject money from a known criminal, for the same reason. Not only the motivation is suspect, but the money itself is suspect.
Quoting Sapientia
You are right again, and I do care.
Strict behaviorists (like B. F. Skinner) were uninterested in motivation because, they said, the brain is a black box. We don't know that much about what goes on between sensory input and behavioral output. The output is what we are interested in. One could imagine a good society by following this view, which Skinner did in his utopian novel, Walden Two. It is a nice, orderly, well-behaved society, but monochromatic and morally flat.
I never liked behaviorism, but it has it's virtues. Sometimes motivation is less important than setting up a reward schedule so that people behave well despite themselves.
Most of the time, though, we ought to think in terms of motivations and consequent behaviors. One could say that Donald Trump emits absurd statements because he has been rewarded with excellent polling results. That behavioral model doesn't explain why the other candidates are emitting equally absurd statements and not getting good polling results. Something more complicated is going on.
The motivations of all politicians, all ambitious bureaucrats and churchmen, all aggressive business people, all social climbers, to pick on a large and annoying group, can be examined. One's motivation in doing so is, of course, above reproach (cynical jokey statement). John Henry Cardinal Newman (recently beatified) experienced a rather meteoric rise from evangelical Anglican cleric to Roman Catholic prince. He was, evidently, a very capable fellow and quite ambitious, one supposes. (An American evangelical choir director friend divined that there is a seed of megalomania in the heart of every priest, pastor, and minister of the church. Seems to be true from my experience.)
Motivations matter, certainly, but sorting out motivations and behavior is sometimes a bit like sorting out entrails in a slaughter house. It's a messy smelly business.
Well, I do think the rich already make a massive difference, not only from the fact that they already contribute disproportionately to the tax base, but because they also contribute disproportionately to charity. Take a look at the donors to the next charitable event you attend. A single Platinum sponsor (usually a corporation, a trust fund, or a single very rich person) likely contributes more than all the regular donors like you and me combined.
It's for this reason that I just don't follow the argument that the rich suck, which seems to be the pervasive argument. If the problem is poverty, the solution is wealth, making those who have figured out this whole wealth collection thing a bit important.Quoting Sapientia
The value of the service you provide isn't set by committee. It's set by the market. If you have the ability to organize labor and produce a product and that results in great wealth to you, then that's how much you have earned. Every grunt in the field is important, but not as important as the person coordinating their efforts. Quoting Sapientia
Having recognized your abilities, I'm trying desperately to elicit action on your part. I think if I can motivate you to serve your fellow man, then we'll have come a long way to resolving the problem of poverty and hunger.
They make a difference, as they ought to, but not big enough. You seem to be judging proportionality based soley on the amount contributed, rather than on the amount contributed in relation to wealth. If the donor is still stinking rich after donating, then it is disproportionate in that they aren't donating enough.
Quoting Hanover
The argument is that they can do so much more, but choose not to for unjust reasons, and that they are allowed to get away with it, and that this situation should be rectified.
Quoting Hanover
It results in great personal wealth because the system allows it to. Differences in wealth and merit are not at the heart of the issue. It's about proportionality. If the system allows the accumulation of grossly disproportionate wealth, then the system is corrupt, and such a system should be reformed or replaced with a better alternative. Wealth should be limited, so that you can't legally amass more than you've truly earnt.
Quoting Hanover
A long way? That is incredibly naïve. I am only one person, and I work part-time on minimum wage. The problem of poverty and hunger is a vast global problem, and it would require far, far, more than what I could achieve - even if I dedicated my life to it - to have come a long way to resolving it. If I were a million people, or if I had a million pounds, then I could do a lot more. I am no Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., nor am I a president or magnate. I don't have the power to bring about change on the scale required in order to rightly proclaim that we've come a long way.
You can be annoyed that you work very hard for little money when the owner of your company perhaps makes far more working what seems to you to be far less hard, which means you should go get your boss' job and open your own company as should all your co-workers. Obviously that isn't going to happen, largely because you wouldn't know where to begin and you'd likely fail, yet there are people who do know where to begin and who don't fail, and those people are therefore due their reward.
And sure, there are those who inherited their wealth and did not start from scratch, but there are many who did. It can be done, so either do it yourself, or respect the fact that there are those whose extraordinary talents deserve far greater compensation. Instead of vilifying the rich, respect the fact that they are an integral part of society and need to be encouraged to continue to create wealth.
You are trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg because you think it's unfair that you aren't that goose.
In less inflammatory terms, I was speaking of excess wealth. They will be rewarded with proportional wealth. They aren't entitled to more than that in a just society.
Quoting Hanover
They don't earn their money. Not all of it. Money gained through corruption and exploitation has not truly been earnt. It isn't rightfully theirs to spend. And do you seriously think that those at the top are irreplaceable? The wealth producers would not be eliminated; only the uncooperative ones, and of their own accord.
Quoting Hanover
Except that I advocate merit-based proportionality, as do you, I think. This cannot be equated with equality. I just reject your assessment of merit. You think that some people merit what I consider to be excessive and disproportionate wealth.
Quoting Hanover
I'm not trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg at all, nor am I suggesting that jobs should be taken over by unqualified people. I am saying that things can be done differently, in a more just and fair manner. Will it be an easy task and without loss? Probably not, but it's certainly worth looking into. You, on the other hand, seem to want to conserve this injust and unfair status quo, rather than aim for progress and reform. I don't have all the answers, but I at least have the right approach. Your approach won't even get us off the ground.
You have to explain how this works then. I go out and organize people and secure the capital to build a building. I build it and then start renting out space and I secure all the personnel I need to market, collect rent, do upkeep, etc. I then begin noticing profit after everyone else has been paid. Who decides how much of this profit I am to keep? If my investment fails and I begin to take losses, do the workers have to contribute to eliminate the losses and provide me some salary for all my hard work? Will the fairness committee indemnify me against unfair losses since it's penalizing me for unfair gains?
Can I be on the fairness committee? That seems like the best job.Quoting SapientiaRight, and money stolen by the clerk from the drawer hasn't been earned. I stand opposed to theft regardless of who's stealing.Quoting Sapientia
They are replaceable, but nearly as much as the common worker, which explains why they get paid so much. It's like anything else. A top football player gets paid millions, not because there aren't thousands of others who would love to have his job, but because he is better than the thousands of others. If an entrepreneur sucks, he doesn't get paid. If he knows what he's doing, he gets paid what he earns.Quoting Sapientia
The distinction between our positions is that you believe that merit is an artificial measure calculated by people who have such concerns as fairness and equality. It's some sort of philosophical committee that makes these determinations. My position is that the market forces determine what you earn. If I sell a banana for $2 and it cost me $1 to grow, I get $1 per banana. I figured out how to profitably sell bananas, and I get to reap that reward for my ingenuity. No one gets to come behind me and tell me that $0.50 would be a more fair profit and then take that excess from me. Quoting Sapientia
I just don't think it's unfair and unjust, so I don't see the need to change.
How can you be penalised for something that you were not entitled to in the first place? The profit that you can gain will be in proportion to the work that you've put in. That is your entitlement. It will not be a limitless sum, but will be capped in order to prevent excess. Where exactly the line is drawn is more complex and is debatable. But there are clear cases of excessive wealth: the top 1%, for example. That'd be a good place to start.
Quoting Hanover
There should be a hierarchy of pay based on merit, skills, the importance of the job, how difficult it is, how essential it is, and so on, and so forth, but within reason. The ins and outs are up for debate, but I don't think that it's right to pay footballers millions. Especially given the amount that, say, nurses get paid. Is the job of a top football player worth more than that of building a hospital or staffing it with nurses. Was the $1,700,000 that Christiano Ronaldo spent on a Bugatti Veyron the best way to spend that money? Did he really do enough to earn that amount of money to spend as he wished? Wouldn't it have been better spent on pressing societal needs? If this is a reflection of the values of modern society, then a reevaluation is needed.
Quoting Hanover
I am in favour of regulation, yes. Even if it's just a cap on the more obvious cases of excessive wealth. There shouldn't even [i]be[/I] multi-billionaires. No one can do enough to earn that sort of money. If you come up with a cure for cancer, perhaps then you can come closer to earning such a sum.
Quoting Hanover
And that's the problem. People like you just don't see it, or choose not to - and there are so many of you it's depressing.
Decisions need not be made irrespective of what the market demands. That can be taken into consideration. But they don't get the final say. There could still be freedom to set prices within a certain range. Regulation doesn't mean no freedom; it just means freedom within a set of regulations. We already have regulations, so it shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend. I think that we need more regulations, and regulations that are more effective.
Quoting Hanover
If that's what you think, then I think you need to get your priorities straight.
Quoting Hanover
I wouldn't pay any of them that much. Problem solved.
Quoting Hanover
Which seems entirely laudable if considered in isolation. Yet that would be very misleading. Given that he has obtained such a vast amount of money - an amount which I don't think he could have possibly done enough to have earnt - it is only right that he donate such large sums. But that he has done so doesn't mean that he deserved to receive such a vast amount of money in the first place, nor does it mean that he is therefore justified in keeping all of what's left - a whopping $300 million as of 2015, according to one source! Like I said earlier, the greater the wealth, the greater the burden - and the greater the proportion due for redistribution.
If he had not have received such a vast amount of money, then an even larger portion of it could have gone to charity.
You have to look at the bigger picture in order to gain a more balanced view.
Quoting Hanover
I suspect that that's a bit of a myth. If everyone already has great wealth, then what are we arguing about? I could have sworn you mentioned something about the problem of poverty and hunger. The UK is the fifth richest country in the world, yet a record number of people recieved aid from UK food banks last year: three days worth of food was given out over a million times in the 2014 - 2015 financial year - an increase of 19% compared to the previous 12 months.
A Marxist analysis of history would agree with you. Capitalism has produced a great deal of wealth, not all of which has been hoarded up in boxes of gold. Workers create all wealth to start with***, and many of the "capital" improvements in society--which working people built and payed for, add to the collective wealth.
Collective wealth includes roads, parks, canals, dams, factories, skyscrapers, airplanes, railroads, ships, books, plays, films, music, and so on. Through capitalism a tremendous amount of productive capacity has been created and expressed. One upshot among several is that some people have hoarded up a lot of gold. We'll distribute all that at some convenient time.
The important question is "where do we go from here?" Do the rich just keep accumulating more and more wealth while the workers gradually become poorer and finally reach destitution? OR do we reorganize society and eliminate the rich?
We can do without the rich. The rich provide no useful services. Coordination of production? Coordination of production is now done by technically trained workers -- aka "managers". Trump didn't sit down and figure out how many tons of steel a new hotel needed; what kind of concrete should be poured for the footings, pylons, or floors; where to order large window glass from, what kind of sheets to put on what size of bed, etc. All that was done by workers. Did Trump design his hotels? Most likely (99%) he didn't. What did he do? He met with bankers (other rich men) and they decided to hire workers to build the hotel (from mining and farming activities all the way up to staffing the front desk and providing bell hops. Speaking of which, there's a job I think Trump would be good at -- a bellhop in a hotel which once belonged to him and the banks before their wealth was liquidated.
*** When you read "Workers, or labor, creates all wealth" you probably dismiss that as marxist cant.
But... where does wealth come from?
Wealth comes from the ground. It either grows in the ground or it is mined. There isn't any other source of wealth. Plant matter and minerals are the only stuff we have to work with. (OK, there's the fish in the sea and kelp.) Who extracts minerals and grows crops? The rich? No. Laboring people do all that. Do wealthy people make it possible to grow crops and dig up jewels from the dirt? Not really. Workers have, can, and will grow it and mine it without the interference of expropriating rich owners.
The only contribution rich people make to the creation of wealth is to establish a system by which they expropriate the wealth of labor. In a nut shell, the Marxist idea is to expropriate the expropriators. Strip them of their ill-gained wealth and join them to the rest of laboring people.
They can work as menials, like bellhops, if they have few useful skills. "Hey Trump, carry the man's bags!." "Marco Rubio: Clean up in Aisle 5." "Hillary, make 15 copies of this, and staple them together--neatly, this time." "Cruz: Get back in your cell."
[b][i]"Dear Mr. Hanover: The People's Press has decided to publish your book of clever philosophy comments. You will be allotted a small bonus of credits, but your basic support payment will stay the same regardless of how many people read your digital book (sorry, no paper copies) since your needs are not greater now than they were 30 years ago. Should you require space to hold court with the fans who probably won't be showing up to shower you with praise, please contact your local commissar of meeting spaces. The People's Press will graciously provide two 2.75" Satisfactory Cookies (any flavor) per fan and 10 ounces of Quite Good Fair Labor Coffee (grown by formerly wealthy former land owners) per fan for your quota of two post-publishing celebratory events that you may wish to schedule."
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
Terry Eagleton on Marx regarding equality:
[quote='Why Marx Was Right']Neither is it possible to have a social order in which everyone is equal. The complaint that “socialism would make us all the same” is baseless. Marx had no such intention. He was a sworn enemy of uniformity. In fact, he regarded equality as a [i]bourgeois[/I] value. He saw it as a reflection in the political sphere of what he called exchange-value, in which one commodity is levelled in value with another. The commodity, he once commented, is "realised equality". He speaks at one point of a communism which involves a general levelling, and denounces it in the [I]Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts[/I] as " an abstract negation of the entire world of culture and civilisation".
...
In the [I]Critique of the Gotha Program[/I], he also rejected the idea of an equality of income, since people have uniquely different needs: some do more dirty or dangerous work than others, some have more children to feed, and so on.
...
Equality for socialism does not mean that everyone is just the same - an absurd proposition if ever there was one. Nor does it mean that everyone will be granted exactly the same amount of wealth or resources.[/quote]
The POTUS is a progressive activist.
The current US Senate is led by conservative strict constructionists.
Until the Senate changes hands and/or the office of POTUS changes hands, I cannot imagine a new SCOTUS justice being ratified.
None of that can happen before November 2016 anyway. And it may not even happen after that until the elections of 2020. I would not be surprised if the SCOTUS runs short of headcount for the next 4 years even.
I was fully expecting Ginsberg to be the next one to croak however she keeps on ticking while still taking a licking. She is probably the worst justice ever appointed to the Court.
Shorthand:
POTUS = President Of The USA
SCOTUS = Supreme Court Of The USA