The News Thread

[arg]

I do believe in the redistribution of wealth. Billionaires shouldn't exist while children are starving and 15% of the population lives in poverty, and a system that fosters that is in my eyes, fundamentally corrupt. The existence of the super-elite is fundamentally unethical.

If they acquired the wealth illegally they should be prosecuted and the wealth taken away from them. If they acquired it legally they deserve to keep it. Redistribution should be voluntary, through charity. Anything other than that is theft. Taxation is theft. The absolute minimum is permissible and necessary for roads and law enforcement but that's it.

 

[Internally Deformed]

How dare they make all that money!
They don't need all that!

People don't "make" money. Currency is a construct we use to stake claims to a limited number of resources and commodities. When 62 people own half the sum total of global currency, something is obivously a little fucked up. It would be pretty difficult to argue that those 62 people were single-handedly responsible for "making" half the world's wealth.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...naires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined

 

[Internally Deformed]

I really can't say if I think Donald is ignorant, or of what. I simply have nothing to measure any such judgment with.

He makes comments that suggest a Mexican plane is flying overhead getting ready to bomb us. At first glance, this is sarcasm - right? But not to the people supporting him. Or, let me rephrase: even if it is sarcasm, it only flies (bad pun) with his crowd because they actually harbor a nationalistic resentment and skepticism toward Mexico. That's the way a "joke" like that functions.

So again, I have no idea what he means when he says things.

True, a lot of the time it's difficult to gauge just how serious or how genuine he is. But when he makes basic geographical errors, misnames government departments or fluffs his vocabulary, it's pretty obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

This just in..
Rich people are evil
Black people aren't people
Muslims are terrorists

 

[SentinelSlain]

Capitalism may well be a shitty system in all kinds of ways, but humans are in no way "equal" anyway. That isn't in itself a reason to support a particular economic system, partially because a system that ideologically took the case of human equality may happen to be efficient for some obscure reason. Nobody values all human lives equally, intelligence levels vary, not everyone understands or is capable of understanding the concepts behind vital aspects of society and technology. Certain individuals have accomplished things that massively benefited or advanced mankind whilst the masses generally do nothing beyond their economic product as consumers and workers.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Capitalism may well be a shitty system in all kinds of ways, but humans are in no way "equal" anyway. That isn't in itself a reason to support a particular economic system, partially because a system that ideologically took the case of human equality may happen to be efficient for some obscure reason. Nobody values all human lives equally, intelligence levels vary, not everyone understands or is capable of understanding the concepts behind vital aspects of society and technology. Certain individuals have accomplished things that massively benefited or advanced mankind whilst the masses generally do nothing beyond their economic product as consumers and workers.

It's not a case of either everyone is exactly equal / what we have now.

Almost everyone except on the extremest fringe of the left believes that people should be the rewarded for the fruit of their labours. Most conservatives and liberals hold this in common. The difference is their perception of how well suited capitalism is to achieve that end.

The problem with capitalism it doesn't only reward you for the fruit of your own labours, but for those of your employees too. As one can afford to hire a larger number of people with greater wealth, it therefore becomes easier and easier to increase one's share of the pie the richer one is, which leads to increasing concentrations of wealth irrespective of the personal contributions of the beneficiaries. It's pretty obvious that the richest people in the world aren't usually those who "have accomplished things that massively benefited or advanced mankind".

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Capitalism may well be a shitty system in all kinds of ways, but humans are in no way "equal" anyway.

Actually, there are ways in which they are equal, i.e. equally being members of the species homo sapiens. They can have equal protection and rights under the law, if that is enacted by a state.

That isn't in itself a reason to support a particular economic system, partially because a system that ideologically took the case of human equality may happen to be efficient for some obscure reason. Nobody values all human lives equally, intelligence levels vary, not everyone understands or is capable of understanding the concepts behind vital aspects of society and technology.

This part is incoherent and all over the place. What's your point? Are you arguing intelligence is what matters? Technological skill?

Certain individuals have accomplished things that massively benefited or advanced mankind whilst the masses generally do nothing beyond their economic product as consumers and workers.

Your average billionaire has done far more to hurt humanity than he or she has done to advance it. Clear-cutting a forest, or blowing up a mountain and spreading toxins into the air, or drilling oil from the ocean and poisoning an entire sea, or developing nuclear power that poisons an entire ocean or destroys an entire region sets humanity back while making a small cluster of individuals absurdly rich. That's regression for the majority.

 

[Internally Deformed]

This part is incoherent and all over the place. What's your point? Are you arguing intelligence is what matters? Technological skill?

The contention seems to be that we live in a perfect meritocracy.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

If they acquired the wealth illegally they should be prosecuted and the wealth taken away from them. If they acquired it legally they deserve to keep it. Redistribution should be voluntary, through charity. Anything other than that is theft. Taxation is theft. The absolute minimum is permissible and necessary for roads and law enforcement but that's it.

If the laws are unethical then it doesn't matter if they gained the money legally. If they are legally allowed to exploit thousands of workers by giving them choiceless choices and are legally allowed to commit acts that are destructive to the environment and therefore, threaten the welfare of the world and humanity, then legality doesn't mean all that much. Furthermore, when people use their absurd wealth dollars to lobby politicians to shape the laws so that they can get away with as much corruption as possible within the limits of those laws, then the laws are not some bastion of justice. Moreover, their ability to lobby creates a system that reinforces their power through a symbiosis of the upwards flow of wealth and the law. The wealthy have the money to lobby politicians to enact laws that help further the conditions that put them in wealth and power in the first place. It's a rigged and corrupt system.

 

[Dak]

It's a rigged and corrupt system.

Something most of us can agree on. Also something that Trump and Sanders have repeated ad nauseum. Of course Hillary is the current posterperson for corruption.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Something most of us can agree on. Also something that Trump and Sanders have repeated ad nauseum. Of course Hillary is the current posterperson for corruption.

Trump is no less corrupt and has a laundry list of business scandals. There's every reason to assume he'll continue in that vein as president.

 

[Einherjar86]

Something most of us can agree on. Also something that Trump and Sanders have repeated ad nauseum. Of course Hillary is the current posterperson for corruption.

And here's a crucial nuance that is often elided, and why I never supported Sanders:

"THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!"

...but corruption is most likely a logically constitutive component of any system. I say "most likely" because there's probably no way to prove it; but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Dak]

And here's a crucial nuance that is often elided, and why I never supported Sanders:

"THE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT!"

...but corruption is most likely a logically constitutive component of any system. I say "most likely" because there's probably no way to prove it; but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well there will always be some level of corruption. But successful countries keep it to some minimum level. As corruption increases, all other sorts of measures show decline.

 

[Internally Deformed]

Well there will always be some level of corruption. But successful countries keep it to some minimum level. As corruption increases, all other sorts of measures show decline.

It's reasonable to infer from that that had Sanders been successful in minimising corruption the country would have been better off. Einjerhar, what beneficial role do you perceive corruption in the US to be performing?

 

[arg]

If the laws are unethical then it doesn't matter if they gained the money legally. If they are legally allowed to exploit thousands of workers by giving them choiceless choices and are legally allowed to commit acts that are destructive to the environment and therefore, threaten the welfare of the world and humanity, then legality doesn't mean all that much. Furthermore, when people use their absurd wealth dollars to lobby politicians to shape the laws so that they can get away with as much corruption as possible within the limits of those laws, then the laws are not some bastion of justice. Moreover, their ability to lobby creates a system that reinforces their power through a symbiosis of the upwards flow of wealth and the law. The wealthy have the money to lobby politicians to enact laws that help further the conditions that put them in wealth and power in the first place. It's a rigged and corrupt system.

Corporations and businesses of all sizes provide jobs, goods and services that people need. If they are exploitative yes they should be penalized or shut down. But overtaxation and over-regulation affects honest ones too.

I can get behind incentives for voluntary redistribution of wealth within a company like profit sharing and stock options. Those are great.

I agree politicians should not be allowed to accept bribes. THAT'S HILLARY and her $200,000 speeches and the Clinton Foundation and the bribes it accepts masked as "donations" to line their pockets and those of their buddies or vote for legislation or grant a contract.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's reasonable to infer from that that had Sanders been successful in minimising corruption the country would have been better off. Einjerhar, what beneficial role do you perceive corruption in the US to be performing?

It isn't that I see corruption as positive in any evaluative sense, which Dak's response may give the impression of (although I think he knows how I feel). Obviously corruption on local levels, meaning various individuals intending to exploit loopholes or other oversights, creates serious problems that have impacts on others. This is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.

When I say that corruption is a constitutive component of complex systems, I mean it in a neutral and technical sense - corruption is noise, interference, disruption, etc. In informatics and systems theory, this kind of corruption has a productive effect; that is, it forces systematic reorganization, increasing complexity. There's nothing inherently positive or negative about this, but I tend to see it as evolutionary.

Local corruption can overlap with complex, systematic corruption; but the latter isn't necessarily directly responsible for the disenfranchisement of individuals. It is, however, a productive structural quality of complex systems.

I could go more into this and cite sources, but that would probably be better suited for the Batshit thread.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Alex Jones is the best troll

 

[arg]

Haha TYT are fucking garbage, so funny to see them pissed

 

[Dak]

Your average billionaire has done far more to hurt humanity than he or she has done to advance it. Clear-cutting a forest, or blowing up a mountain and spreading toxins into the air, or drilling oil from the ocean and poisoning an entire sea, or developing nuclear power that poisons an entire ocean or destroys an entire region sets humanity back while making a small cluster of individuals absurdly rich. That's regression for the majority.

I missed this. Objection. You're tarring a fairly large group of people by listing mostly a handful of incidents - and at least one which isn't attributable to "billionaires".

 

[CiG]

I do believe in the redistribution of wealth. Billionaires shouldn't exist while children are starving and 15% of the population lives in poverty, and a system that fosters that is in my eyes, fundamentally corrupt. The existence of the super-elite is fundamentally unethical.

This I could get behind.

This is why I wanted Bernie to win, so retard wealth redistribution loving socialists would stop holding water among the people once the pathetic ideology went up in smoke via a failed socialist presidency.

If you two dickheads care so much about the poor, how much are you going to donate from your own pocket before you enforce your own hypocritical ethics onto the rest of society?

Know how I fight poverty? By having a job.