Rand Paul Dismisses Concerns About Income Inequality, Says Some People Just ‘Work Harder’

[DEAD7]

all lives matter

Don't they?

 

[Tate]

when is that not the case? Sounds like nature is oppressive
how this is a product of capitalism.?

Which system is laboring for basic needs not part of?
I think you are taking for granted the ability to decide what work you will and will not do(voluntarily labor), a choice that did exist for much of human history...




... anywho, libertarianism centers around non aggression as a core principle, to make a voluntary exchange and do no harm can never be aggression. Even if a person suffers harm from "nature"(starves) or becomes sick due to insufficient resources this cannot be blamed on some third party's non-action.

Well in a way nature is oppressive. That's why we as a species built towns and cities, and harnessed fire and water and electricity.

I guessed I should have refined that point, work itself isn't oppressive. Doing something in return for another thing is fair. What isn't fair is exploitation. In a world where labor has no protection in the form of hours limits, workplace conditions, wage minimums, or hiring/firing practices, exploitation is inherent.

Are you saying the choice of what labor you did existed or hasn't existed in most of human history?

I don't believe that the ideology and non-aggression fit together tho. What's to stop strong arm tactics in a libertarian world? Won't there be new Pinkertons? What's the free market solution to private militaries breaking strikes? Are all those laborers supposed to quit and become uber drivers? I assume you're not an actual anarcho-capitalist so you still favor some kind of small scale state. But even with a state and its reduced resources, under a libertarian system it would be more in thrall to capital interests. Where's the liberty for those laborers here?

If a man comes to your door bleeding out asking for help, you don't think your responsibility to help him in what way you can? Neutral in the the face of injustice and all that...?

Most people are not even surprised any more when they hear about someone who came here from Korea or Vietnam with very little money, and very little knowledge of English, who nevertheless persevered and rose in American society. Nor are we surprised when their children excel in school and go on to professional careers.
Yet the 'economic mobility is dead' argument remains alive and well... go figure.

Interesting story though, most of those hypothetical Koreans(Vietnamese much more rarely) come here with enough capital to invest in their own business. Or they use ethnic community ties to establish an economic foothold.

But I'd like to see some stats backing up your claim here.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Your arguments contradict each other. If age is the primary factor in how much wealth you have then obviously a large amount of the top 1% is gonna die off in a decade.

The key factor is skills and experience, which so happen to correlate with age, most of the time. I'm working off the premise that a economy with good mobility(compared to) must display that it is true when one raises his value(skills/experience), he can raise his input, and a higher input equals to a higher output. The best way to test this is with age, and any data I can find show this to hold. I wouldn't use inter-generational earnings because that opens up other factors which could skew the conclusion.

As for the top 1%, it's a group with unique properties(src). Basically, for the most part, the top 1% get into that bracket do to some unique spike in their income for the year. Like selling a house or corporate CEOs cashing in on their stock option. After the spike passes their out of the bracket. So when you take that into account, my argument doesn't contradict anything since the 1% function differently. Also, I think I need to clarify a couple of things because I feel the discussion is moving somewhere else.

I made the argument that the data cited in the article is misleading because it doesn't acknowledged the fact that "Rich" and "Poor" are not in a static state to combat this notion that as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. When you actually follow human beings threw out their life you get a different conclusion. That's why I referenced the 1%. You then responded(implied) with that's only unique to the 1%, so I posted evidence on the contrary, now your response is -- it's only unique to that time frame of 75-1991 because of "assumptions". Which is signal to me that our discussion is over.

Also, use statistics from 25 years ago measuring events from 40 years ago to discuss current economic matters brehs

Yeah, dumb of me. I should of used 1990-2015. I am sure seeing the 5 or so years of progress made by millennials in the workforce is much more complete and all around better evidence to draw conclusion from than the 16 years I get from 75-1991.

karl marx shills in 2015 brehs

 

[Tate]

The key factor is skills and experience, which so happen to correlate with age, most of the time. I'm working off the premise that a economy with good mobility(compared to) must display that it is true when one raises his value(skills/experience), he can raise his input, and a higher input equals to a higher output. The best way to test this is with age, and any data I can find show this to hold. I wouldn't use inter-generational earnings because that opens up other factors which could skew the conclusion.

As for the top 1%, it's a group with unique properties(src). Basically, for the most part, the top 1% get into that bracket do to some unique spike in their income for the year. Like selling a house or corporate CEOs cashing in on their stock option. After the spike passes their out of the bracket. So when you take that into account, my argument doesn't contradict anything since the 1% function differently. Also, I think I need to clarify a couple of things because I feel the discussion is moving somewhere else.

I made the argument that the data cited in the article is misleading because it doesn't acknowledged the fact that "Rich" and "Poor" are not in a static state to combat this notion that as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. When you actually follow human beings threw out their life you get a different conclusion. That's why I referenced the 1%. You then responded(implied) with that's only unique to the 1%, so I posted evidence on the contrary, now your response is -- it's only unique to that time frame of 75-1991 because of "assumptions". Which is signal to me that our discussion is over.


Yeah, dumb of me. I should of used 1990-2015. I am sure seeing the 5 or so years of progress made by millennials in the workforce is much more complete and all around better evidence to draw conclusion from than the 16 years I get from 75-1991.

karl marx shills in 2015 brehs

We have a basic miscommunication here. You're speaking strictly on income, I'm talking about income and wealth. They're related but not the same thing. Considering that chart shows the huge correlation between fathers income and Childs income I'd say the classes are pretty static. The income might not be, a CEO's son might work in the mailroom for 6 months, but his economic class never really changed.

Measuring from 1990-2015 would have actually been statistics on Gen X. Millienals weren't working out their cradles breh

 

[DEAD7]

I guessed I should have refined that point, work itself isn't oppressive. Doing something in return for another thing is fair. What isn't fair is exploitation. In a world where labor has no protection in the form of hours limits, workplace conditions, wage minimums, or hiring/firing practices, exploitation is inherent.

Might save us some time if I throw out there that I believe this "exploitation" to be an acceptable cost for a wealthy society. Whats occurring with that wealth being a separate issue altogether.

If a man comes to your door bleeding out asking for help, you don't think your responsibility to help him in what way you can? Neutral in the the face of injustice and all that...?

me personally? yes. But I dont think anyone should be forced(directly or indirectly) to help if they don't want to. Which is the only way govt. operates.

Are you saying the choice of what labor you did existed or hasn't existed in most of human history?

For much of human history(and by much i mean the overwhelming majority, slavery was the rule not the exception... and after the a system fell into place where if your father was a shoemaker, you became a shoemaker etc.
But the point is voluntary labor is a thing.

I don't believe that the ideology and non-aggression fit together tho. What's to stop strong arm tactics in a libertarian world? Won't there be new Pinkertons? What's the free market solution to private militaries breaking strikes? Are all those laborers supposed to quit and become uber drivers? I assume you're not an actual anarcho-capitalist so you still favor some kind of small scale state. But even with a state and its reduced resources, under a libertarian system it would be more in thrall to capital interests. Where's the liberty for those laborers here?

I believe in small govt. that protects individual liberty and defends the nation(the military shouldnt be privatized).

I also see the folding to capital interest as inevitable as long as the human component remains(regardless of the system in place), with the best we can hope of being a limiting of the harm govt. can do.

I believe the constitution was written in this same vein.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

 

[Billy Hoyle]

when is that not the case? Sounds like nature is oppressive
how this is a product of capitalism.?

Which system is laboring for basic needs not part of?
I think you are taking for granted the ability to decide what work you will and will not do(voluntarily labor), a choice that did exist for much of human history...




... anywho, libertarianism centers around non aggression as a core principle, to make a voluntary exchange and do no harm can never be aggression. Even if a person suffers harm from "nature"(starves) or becomes sick due to insufficient resources this cannot be blamed on some third party's non-action.

Nature is cruel as fukk and is ridiculously based on the circumstance in which you were born.

I'd like to think that society and humanity itself are based in overcoming nature by tipping the scales in our favor. i.e. Air conditioning, pest control, using wood to create shelter, etc.

Libertarianism counteracts the agreements that we've all made to progress as a species. Third parties do matter whether you want them to or not. The weather, disease, and even other humans i.e. you might make the best and cheapest product on earth but no one will buy it because there's a fukking war going on in your neighborhood or the roads make your factory inaccessible.

 

[DEAD7]

Nature is cruel as fukk and is ridiculously based on the circumstance in which you were born.

I'd like to think that society and humanity itself are based in overcoming nature by tipping the scales in our favor. i.e. Air conditioning, pest control, using wood to create shelter, etc.

Libertarianism counteracts the agreements that we've all made to progress as a species. Third parties do matter whether you want them to or not. The weather, disease, and even other humans i.e. you might make the best and cheapest product on earth but no one will buy it because there's a fukking war going on in your neighborhood.

I'd argue that these things are overcome quicker in a free market or competitive(libertarian) market, but we have no real socialist model to compare it too.

I'd also argue that the wealth generated by capitalism puts us in a position to do more good, but there again, compared to what?

 

[Tate]

Might save us some time if I throw out there that I believe this "exploitation" to be an acceptable cost for a wealthy society. Whats occurring with that wealth being a separate issue altogether.


me personally? yes. But I dont think anyone should be forced(directly or indirectly) to help if they don't want to. Which is the only way govt. operates.


For much of human history(and by much i mean the overwhelming majority, slavery was the rule not the exception... and after the a system fell into place where if your father was a shoemaker, you became a shoemaker etc.
But the point is voluntary labor is a thing.


I believe in small govt. that protects individual liberty and defends the nation(the military shouldnt be privatized).

I also see the folding to capital interest as inevitable as long as the human component remains(regardless of the system in place), with the best we can hope of being a limiting of the harm govt. can do.

I believe the constitution was written in this same vein.

I disagree, at least philosophically, I only think any form of socialism or left anarchism is only possible in a post scarcity society. Which we are nearing if we aren't already there,

Basic philosophic difference between us then. Society is more perfect the better the lesser are treated. We all have a responsibility to each other.

This is true. The supreme access to information and ability to travel are unprecedented in human history, I don't know how much that will hold if a society completely dominated by capital is given free range to control avenues of information. Regardless the Internet and other new technologies are complete game changers. No one can realistically claim to know where itll lead us economically.

In a capitalistic society, even a social democratic 'nice' capitalism, capital probably will usually win out, but in the extreme unencumbered capitalism you advocate there'd be no virtually no opposition at all. At least peaceful, traditional democratic opposition. Giving capital everything would grind people into dust,

I'd also agree that the constitution was written in a very similar vein(the differences due the change from land based economy to a capital based). I don't think that makes it a just philosophy though,

 

[88m3]

Don't they?

Not according to Rand

 

[DEAD7]

Not according to Rand

who listens to her?

 

[DEAD7]

Society is more perfect the better the lesser are treated. We all have a responsibility to each other.

I truly believe the poor fair better(in the long term) when they are not subsidized by the state.


Not stating it as a fact, just my belief.

 

[88m3]

who listens to her?

You seem uncomfortable with the evils you're in favor of. No need to deflect, friend.

 

[Tate]

I truly believe the poor fair better(in the long term) when they are not subsidized by the state.


Not stating it as a fact, just my belief.

I can see the arguement, I just disagree with it philosophically

 

[Mook]

I truly believe the poor fair better(in the long term) when they are not subsidized by the state.


Not stating it as a fact, just my belief.

You people are fukking morons, none of the gpd damn bullshyt you fukking spew has any fukking basis on anything. No one tries your shyt cause its shyt. Meanwhile socialism has like 20 countries right now at the top.