Are all men created equal? When will they be treated equally? | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

Are all men created equal? When will they be treated equally?

I don't know what your problem is, but get back to me when you have it worked out.

Matthew 6:1-30

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

This, then, is how you should pray:

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation
but deliver us from the evil one.

For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?

And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you–you of little faith?

I'm just helping remind you of what your own professed beliefs are supposed to be.

Back on topic, please.

All people are created equal in essence. Our differences and inequalities are temporal.

How about some comment on the role that customs/laws/mores balance individual good with collective good; and how this influences issues of equality/inequality?

Could you be more specific? In what manner?

If you want my opinion regarding how politics regards this balancing act, I'd say it generally goes that the wealthy set the rules by which wealth is garnered and distributed and hence can either be more benevolent and magnanimous depending on the cultural and historical values of the setting in question or can slant the rules in their favor setting up for more disparity and conflict between classes as a kind of Robin Hood versus the Sheriff of Nottingham sort of conflict.

The wealthy are inclined by the overwhelming masses to curry favor through charitable work and philanthropy either idealistically or through threat of violence such as during the French Revolution when Marie Antoinette (beheaded by guillotine) was said (falsely) to have remarked that the starving peasants should 'eat cake'.

"Let them eat cake" is the traditional translation of the French phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", supposedly spoken by "a great princess" upon learning that the peasants had no bread. Since brioche was a luxury bread enriched with butter and eggs, the quote would reflect the princess's disregard for peasants.

While it is commonly attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette, there is no record of this phrase ever having been said by her. It appears in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Confessions, his autobiography (whose first six books were written in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was nine years of age, and published in 1782).

The causes of the French Revolution are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the Seven Years' War and the American Revolutionary War, the French government was deeply in debt and attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes. Years of bad harvests leading up to the Revolution also inflamed popular resentment of the privileges enjoyed by the clergy and the aristocracy. Demands for change were formulated in terms of Enlightenment ideals and contributed to the convocation of the Estates-General in May 1789. The first year of the Revolution saw members of the Third Estate taking control, the assault on the Bastille in July, the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, and a women's march on Versailles that forced the royal court back to Paris in October. A central event of the first stage, in August 1789, was the abolition of feudalism and the old rules and privileges left over from the Ancien Régime. The next few years featured political struggles between various liberal assemblies and right-wing supporters of the monarchy intent on thwarting major reforms. The Republic was proclaimed in September 1792 after the French victory at Valmy. In a momentous event that led to international condemnation, Louis XVI was executed in January 1793.

Those in power are very often, idealistically, referred to as public servants. The President and First Lady are first among equals.

Primus inter pares (Ancient Greek: Πρῶτος μεταξὺ ἴσων, prōtos metaxỳ ísōn) is a Latin phrase meaning first among equals. It is typically used as an honorary title for those who are formally equal to other members of their group but are accorded unofficial respect, traditionally owing to their seniority in office. The princeps senatus of the Roman Senate was such a figure and initially only bore the distinction that he was allowed to speak first during debate. However, the term is also often used ironically or self-deprecatingly by leaders with much higher status as a form of respect, camaraderie, or propaganda. After the fall of the Republic, Roman emperors initially referred to themselves only as princeps despite having power of life and death over their "fellow citizens". Various modern figures such as the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the Prime Minister of parliamentary regimes, the Federal President of Switzerland, the Chief Justice of the United States, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church fall under both senses: bearing higher status and various additional powers while remaining still merely equal to their peers in important senses.

They are upheld by the lower classes to, in turn, serve the lower classes. When this balance becomes unstable and unequal then turmoil ensues.
 
Besides, the government doing things poorly is just the government doing things poorly. It has less to do with ideals of equality and more to do with cheating bastards making false promises for their own interests.
 
During a Roman triumph, a victorious military commander would be held to near divinity, but also was reminded of his own mortality:

The Roman triumph (triumphus) was a civil ceremony and religious rite of ancient Rome, held to publicly celebrate and sanctify the success of a military commander who had led Roman forces to victory in the service of the state, or originally and traditionally, one who had successfully completed a foreign war.

On the day of his triumph, the general wore a crown of laurel and the all-purple, gold-embroidered triumphal toga picta ("painted" toga), regalia that identified him as near-divine or near-kingly. He rode in a four-horse chariot through the streets of Rome in unarmed procession with his army, captives and the spoils of his war. At Jupiter's temple on the Capitoline Hill he offered sacrifice and the tokens of his victory to the god. Republican morality required that despite these extraordinary honours, the general conduct himself with dignified humility, as a mortal citizen who triumphed on behalf of Rome's Senate, people and gods. Inevitably, besides its religious and military dimensions, the triumph offered extraordinary opportunities for self-publicity. While most Roman festivals were calendar fixtures, the tradition and law that reserved a triumph to extraordinary victory ensured that its celebration, procession, attendant feasting and public games promoted the general's status and achievement. By the Late Republican era, increasing competition among the military-political adventurers who ran Rome's nascent empire ensured that triumphs became more frequent, drawn out and extravagant, prolonged in some cases by several days of public games and entertainments. From the Principate onwards, the triumph reflected the Imperial order, and the pre-eminence of the Imperial family.

The triumph was consciously imitated by medieval and later states in the royal entry and other ceremonial events.

Religious dimensions aside, the focus of the triumph was the general himself. The ceremony promoted him — however temporarily — above every mortal Roman. This was an opportunity granted to very few. From the time of Scipio Africanus, the triumphal general was linked — at least for historians during the Principate — to Alexander and the demi-god Hercules, who had laboured selflessly for the benefit of all mankind. His sumptuous triumphal chariot was bedecked with charms against the possible envy (invidia) and malice of onlookers. In some accounts, a companion or public slave would, from time to time, remind him of his own mortality (a memento mori).

Memento mori (Latin: "remember that you can die") is the medieval Latin theory and practice of reflection on mortality, especially as a means of considering the vanity of earthly life and the transient nature of all earthly goods and pursuits. It is related to the ars moriendi ("The Art of Dying") and related literature. Memento mori has been an important part of ascetic disciplines as a means of perfecting the character, by cultivating detachment and other virtues, and turning the attention towards the immortality of the soul and the afterlife.

This servant who was to remind the triumphant commander of his mortality bears echoes to the later medieval court jester who was oftentimes the only person allowed to criticize the royal personage.

In ancient times, courts employed fools and by the Middle Ages the jester was a familiar figure. In Renaissance times, aristocratic households in Britain employed licensed fools or jesters, who sometimes dressed as other servants were dressed, but generally wore a motley (i.e. parti-coloured) coat, hood with ass's (i.e. donkey) ears or a red-flannel coxcomb and bells. Regarded as pets or mascots, they served not simply to amuse but to criticise their master or mistress and their guests. Queen Elizabeth (reigned 1558—1603) is said to have rebuked one of her fools for being insufficiently severe with her. Excessive behaviour, however, could lead to a fool being whipped, as Lear threatens to whip his fool.

This is a long history of sacred clowns in many diverse cultures and time periods.

Among the Lakota people, the heyoka (heyókȟa, also spelled "haokah," "heyokha") is a contrarian, jester, satirist or sacred clown. The heyoka speaks, moves and reacts in an opposite fashion to the people around them. Only those having visions of the thunder beings of the west, the Wakinyan, and who are recognized as such by the community, can take on the ceremonial role of the heyoka.

The Lakota holy man and medicine man, Black Elk, became heyoka after being visited by the Thunder- beings, the Wakinyan (Thunderbirds).

They are meant to challenge and test our boundaries and our perceptions of the natural order of things that we may adapt, change, and grow.

The heyókȟa symbolize and portray many aspects of the sacred, the Wakȟáŋ. Their satire presents important questions by fooling around. They ask difficult questions, and say things others are too afraid to say. By reading between the lines, the audience is able to think about things not usually thought about, or to look at things in a different way.

Principally, the heyókȟa functions both as a mirror and a teacher, using extreme behaviors to mirror others, thereby forcing them to examine their own doubts, fears, hatreds, and weaknesses. heyókȟa also have the power to heal emotional pain; such power comes from the experience of shame – they sing of shameful events in their lives, beg for food, and live as clowns. They provoke laughter in distressing situations of despair and provoke fear and chaos when people feel complacent and overly secure, to keep them from taking themselves too seriously or believing they are more powerful than they are.

In addition, sacred clowns serve an important role in shaping tribal codes. Unbound by societal constraints, heyókȟa are able to freely violate cultural taboos and critique established customs. Paradoxically, however, it is by violating these norms and taboos that they help to define the accepted boundaries, rules, and societal guidelines for ethical and moral behavior. This is because they are the only ones who can ask "Why?" about sensitive topics and employ satire to question the specialists and carriers of sacred knowledge or those in positions of power and authority.

For people who are as poor as us, who have lost everything, who had to endure so much death and sadness, laughter is a precious gift. When we were dying like flies from white man's disease, when we were driven into reservations, when the government rations did not arrive and we were starving, watching the pranks and capers of Heyókȟa were a blessing. – John Fire Lame Deer
 
I was born looking slightly different, we don't look the same, we don't think the same so no we are not born equal.

When will all men that were created equal start being treated equally?
Never.

Simply by treating people equally you are creating a paradox. How am I being treated equally when: I am not your friend and do not get exactly the same amount of attention from you and the same treatment as your friends then we are not equal. It also does not cover people living on the other side of the world, for how can you be equal when one of you is experiencing rain and the other a drought. How can we be equal when we have a different number of hairs on our heads? How can we be equal when we're born on different days, have different zodiacs and individuality ?

I guess you see my point ;p

By being P.C. you create inequality. Now a days if you are not P.C. you are treated like an oppressed minority, your words are dismissed and your rights. So no one will ever be truly be treated equally. Equality is a double edged sword its the end of individuality. You can only respect people for whom and what they are, so what if you don't agree with them.


[video=youtube;XM-HJT8_esM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM[/video]​
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elegant Winter
I was born looking slightly different, we don't look the same, we don't think the same so no we are not born equal.


Never.

Simply by treating people equally you are creating a paradox. How am I being treated equally when: I am not your friend and do not get exactly the same amount of attention from you and the same treatment as your friends then we are not equal. It also does not cover people living on the other side of the world, for how can you be equal when one of you is experiencing rain and the other a drought. How can we be equal when we have a different number of hairs on our heads? How can we be equal when we're born on different days, have different zodiacs and individuality ?

I guess you see my point ;p

By being P.C. you create inequality. Now a days if you are not P.C. you are treated like an oppressed minority, your words are dismissed and your rights. So no one will ever be truly be treated equally. Equality is a double edged sword its the end of individuality. You can only respect people for whom and what they are, so what if you don't agree with them.


[video=youtube;XM-HJT8_esM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM[/video]​


Equality is not identical treatment. It's fair and equal treatment, but not identical. If you and I play a game of chess, we've both agreed to a set of rules that are to be applied equally and fairly upon each of us by which one of us will win and the other will lose. We're different people with different results, but that result only comes because the framework was consistent. If the rules are not consistent then the results are not. A cheater may win, but they weren't a better player.

I get the anti-PC concern though, because oftentimes I find myself strongly disagreeing with what they're saying. I would never identify myself as being PC or a SJW. I've argued with them on many occasions, but that doesn't dismiss the larger issues.

Equality is not about being identical with one another. It's simply about society's rules being applied fairly and equally. Do I think that's possible? I don't think it's possible in an objective sense, but I certainly think that American society is currently out of balance and needs reassessment. People will always complain about the rules because the rules don't always favor you (nobody likes to lose), but the majority of people can find the rules to be favoring the upper classes so disproportionately that they are seen to be unfair.

That is where we are now. The statistics on wealth distribution are inarguably beyond disparity. The wealthy are making the rules to favor themselves and not for everyone. That is inequality.

Wealth inequality in the United States (also known as the wealth gap) refers to the unequal distribution of assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments. Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more additional income than the bottom 90 percent". The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour." Although different from income inequality, the two are related. In Inequality for All–a 2013 documentary with Robert Reich in which he argued that income inequality is the defining issue for the United States–Reich states that 95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since 2009 when the recovery allegedly started.

A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] posted this video in the TED talks thread in which a self-professed plutocrat is arguing similar points that I previously mentioned regarding wealth inequality and threats of violence. I disagree with his ideology regarding how to fix it though as it's only a temporary fix and doesn't address the sources of the problems:

[video=youtube;q2gO4DKVpa8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8[/video]
 
Equality is not identical treatment. It's fair and equal treatment, but not identical. If you and I play a game of chess, we've both agreed to a set of rules that are to be applied equally and fairly upon each of us by which one of us will win and the other will lose. We're different people with different results, but that result only comes because the framework was consistent. If the rules are not consistent then the results are not. A cheater may win, but they weren't a better player.

I get the anti-PC concern though, because oftentimes I find myself strongly disagreeing with what they're saying. I would never identify myself as being PC or a SJW. I've argued with them on many occasions, but that doesn't dismiss the larger issues.

Equality is not about being identical with one another. It's simply about society's rules being applied fairly and equally. Do I think that's possible? I don't think it's possible in an objective sense, but I certainly think that American society is currently out of balance and needs reassessment. People will always complain about the rules because the rules don't always favor you (nobody likes to lose), but the majority of people can find the rules to be favoring the upper classes so disproportionately that they are seen to be unfair.

That is where we are now. The statistics on wealth distribution are inarguably beyond disparity. The wealthy are making the rules to favor themselves and not for everyone. That is inequality.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

@Skarekrow posted this video in the TED talks thread in which a self-professed plutocrat is arguing similar points that I previously mentioned regarding wealth inequality and threats of violence. I disagree with his ideology regarding how to fix it though as it's only a temporary fix and doesn't address the sources of the problems:

[video=youtube;q2gO4DKVpa8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8[/video]

Still, it’s a start that someone of his wealth is even speaking out about it.
We DO need to raise the minimum wage in the US…this is no longer a debatable question.
Not to sound like a talking point but there really is no good excuse for someone working full-time to have to rely on SNAP and other government benefits to achieve the basic necessities to live. Rent, food, electricity, water, etc.
Places like Wal-Mart actually benefit in many ways by paying their employees shit.
The most obvious are the SNAP benefits (food stamps) that their own employees are on because Wal-mart refuses to pay a living wage.
Where do you think those SNAP benefits get spent? At the employee’s place of work. Wal-mart takes around 18% of total SNAP benefits or around $13 billion dollars by last estimate in 2014.
You know, for Thanksgiving Wal-Mart even puts out bins in it’s break rooms for the employees to donate food to the other employees who cannot afford it.
Isn’t that sick? Why not give every employee a frozen turkey if you care so much to put out bins?
One study did an estimate that if every employee in WM were given a 50% raise (which is more than what we are talking about here) it would come out to like 80 extra cents, if their pay were just increased to $12 an hour it would work out to 1.1% extra per consumer checkout price.
It’s greed, pure and simple.
IMO, it’s gonna backfire on them dramatically.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dogman6126
Side note:

Many opinions seem to see a problem in how wealthy, the super-wealthy are.

What's the issue with some people being super super wealthy?
 
Side note:

Many opinions seem to see a problem in how wealthy, the super-wealthy are.

What's the issue with some people being super super wealthy?

It isn’t a problem with them being wealthy or even super wealthy.
It’s the fact that just in the US alone there is a an estimated $21 Trillion dollars that have been stashed in tax havens.
It’s the fact that people here work hard and have their taxes taken out of each paycheck and do our part, when we have companies like big pharma, oil, etc. who not only pay ZERO taxes, but then actually get money (the working American’s tax money) back to the tune of millions.
It’s the idea that we bailed out Wall Street and not a single asshat has gone to jail, meanwhile, 1 in 4 Americans is in prison, many for drug possession like marijauna which is now legal in several states.
It’s the idea that those super-rich are the ones who are essentially deciding for the rest of us who win the nomination for President.
That’s not democracy.

[video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video]


It’s about playing by the same set of rules regardless of your wealth.
 
Still, it’s a start that someone of his wealth is even speaking out about it.
We DO need to raise the minimum wage in the US…this is no longer a debatable question.
Not to sound like a talking point but there really is no good excuse for someone working full-time to have to rely on SNAP and other government benefits to achieve the basic necessities to live. Rent, food, electricity, water, etc.
Places like Wal-Mart actually benefit in many ways by paying their employees shit.
The most obvious are the SNAP benefits (food stamps) that their own employees are on because Wal-mart refuses to pay a living wage.
Where do you think those SNAP benefits get spent? At the employee’s place of work. Wal-mart takes around 18% of total SNAP benefits or around $13 billion dollars by last estimate in 2014.
You know, for Thanksgiving Wal-Mart even puts out bins in it’s break rooms for the employees to donate food to the other employees who cannot afford it.
Isn’t that sick? Why not give every employee a frozen turkey if you care so much to put out bins?
One study did an estimate that if every employee in WM were given a 50% raise (which is more than what we are talking about here) it would come out to like 80 extra cents, if their pay were just increased to $12 an hour it would work out to 1.1% extra per consumer checkout price.
It’s greed, pure and simple.
IMO, it’s gonna backfire on them dramatically.

It is nice to see someone acknowledge the problem. I disagree that increasing the minimum wage will help. It's a temporary fix at best. All it will accomplish is inflation. The only reason his example works currently is because it's isolated and not nationally implemented.

The wealthy need to be taxed fairly where that money is used to help the destitute in America.

Side note:

Many opinions seem to see a problem in how wealthy, the super-wealthy are.

What's the issue with some people being super super wealthy?

It's not about their wealth, but the costs associated with acquiring that wealth and the consequences for vulnerable parts of the population.

America as a capitalist society encourages competition and aggression and isn't very accommodating of public welfare. Social services that should be for the benefit of society are being monetized, such as the criminal justice, judicial, and education systems.

Schools are designed to encourage competition amongst its students. Family courts in America are monetarily encouraged to promote conflict in divorces. Police are encouraged to allow drugs to be sold and to seize the money for themselves in asset forfeiture. The judicial system is encouraged to incarcerate people and elicit harsher penalties and sentences by the prison industrial complex. Ideological differences are encouraged and exaggerated to drum up political spending. News programs are sensationalistic for monetary reasons. Pharmaceutical companies are monetarily rewarded to push more drugs at the expense of health and well-being.

Not all public institutions should be subject to monetary incentives or capitalistic drives. A national mint or central bank doesn't simply print money for itself.

Societal greed is good in one regard. A currency, like water, electricity, or blood, has to circulate to be effective. A prolonged blood clot is going to lead to a disastrous result though. It causes attrition to those cut off from the circulation. The consequence that encouraging greed drives circulation is that it also encourages a desire to clot. People want to receive more of it, but then can't give enough of it away fast enough or worse yet they don't want to. The drive to aggression and competition dehumanizes opponents where a spirit of welfare and good sportsmanship is no longer in place to keep some semblance of balance. We become so engrained into this mindset of value that we begin to scapegoat certain segments of the population in which we desire to domestically besiege.
 
It isn’t a problem with them being wealthy or even super wealthy.
It’s the fact that just in the US alone there is a an estimated $21 Trillion dollars that have been stashed in tax havens.
It’s the fact that people here work hard and have their taxes taken out of each paycheck and do our part, when we have companies like big pharma, oil, etc. who not only pay ZERO taxes, but then actually get money (the working American’s tax money) back to the tune of millions.
It’s the idea that we bailed out Wall Street and not a single asshat has gone to jail, meanwhile, 1 in 4 Americans is in prison, many for drug possession like marijauna which is now legal in several states.
It’s the idea that those super-rich are the ones who are essentially deciding for the rest of us who win the nomination for President.
That’s not democracy.

It’s about playing by the same set of rules regardless of your wealth.
Perhaps complete democracy can't exist in the US. The way it works, it is also likely that it cannot realistically be reformed democratically.
My experience of US citizens, while having worked there on and off for many years is that a deeply entrenched nationalism seems to preclude a more global sense of personal options. Admittedly, most of the circles I worked in would be termed affluent, and these people would not have issue with the status quo, but I got the impression that many people would rather struggle and rage against the system, than relocate to a better situation.

Without wanting to sound critical of critical views, I don't see that having issues with the system has any positive effect - either in terms of personal quality of life, or in terms of ever actually reforming the system. If a revolution were to take place, it would make things much worse till they could even start to get better. Such a situation probably couldn't result in a better situation, because in times of revolt either the powerful always manage to grab more power, or enemies manage to take the opportunity to overcome weakened nations. Sounds defeatist, but in real terms I think the US is irreformable, and personal angst is wasted in worrying about it.

It's not about their wealth, but the costs associated with acquiring that wealth and the consequences for vulnerable parts of the population.

America as a capitalist society encourages competition and aggression and isn't very accommodating of public welfare. Social services that should be for the benefit of society are being monetized, such as the criminal justice, judicial, and education systems.

Schools are designed to encourage competition amongst its students. Family courts in America are monetarily encouraged to promote conflict in divorces. Police are encouraged to allow drugs to be sold and to seize the money for themselves in asset forfeiture. The judicial system is encouraged to incarcerate people and elicit harsher penalties and sentences by the prison industrial complex. Ideological differences are encouraged and exaggerated to drum up political spending. News programs are sensationalistic for monetary reasons. Pharmaceutical companies are monetarily rewarded to push more drugs at the expense of health and well-being.

Not all public institutions should be subject to monetary incentives or capitalistic drives. A national mint or central bank doesn't simply print money for itself.

Societal greed is good in one regard. A currency, like water, electricity, or blood, has to circulate to be effective. A prolonged blood clot is going to lead to a disastrous result though. It causes attrition to those cut off from the circulation. The consequence that encouraging greed drives circulation is that it also encourages a desire to clot. People want to receive more of it, but then can't give enough of it away fast enough or worse yet they don't want to. The drive to aggression and competition dehumanizes opponents where a spirit of welfare and good sportsmanship is no longer in place to keep some semblance of balance. We become so engrained into this mindset of value that we begin to scapegoat certain segments of the population in which we desire to domestically besiege.
The only reason money has any value is because so much of it is outside common circulation.

On a different note, the question has to be asked: is it preferable to struggle to make ends meet in an advanced society/city, or to live comfortably in a poor society without as many services?
 
The only reason money has any value is because so much of it is outside common circulation.

It affects rates of inflation, but it isn't the main factor. Money is a legally sanctioned form of exchange, or an I.O.U. if you will. Its value is relative and negotiable and is subject to the fluctuations of interest and inflation through time. As a form of exchange, or in regards to itself, its value is absolute. What I mean by this is that 5 dollars is always and forever 5 times the value of a 1 dollar bill. While different currencies can have relative values in regards to each other, the value of any denomination of banknote is absolute with regards to itself.

This absolute consistency is what gives a currency so much potency to serve as a relative measure of value as well as being legally enforced (you cannot refuse legal tender as a form of payment unless otherwise agreed to beforehand in a binding contract). The amount in circulation can affect levels of inflation if demand rises without a corresponding rise in supply. This devalues the currency relative to commodities. Inflation inevitably occurs in tandem with interest rates.

I think we have enough poor people looking to supply labor that we need to be increasing the rate of circulation (not amount in circulation). The more people a society has; the more jobs it needs; and the more circulation it requires.

As to your other question, I can't say I've given it much thought. I think a question like that has a lot more considerations implicit in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dogman6126
It affects rates of inflation, but it isn't the main factor. Money is a legally sanctioned form of exchange, or an I.O.U. if you will. Its value is relative and negotiable and is subject to the fluctuations of interest and inflation through time. As a form of exchange, or in regards to itself, its value is absolute. What I mean by this is that 5 dollars is always and forever 5 times the value of a 1 dollar bill. While different currencies can have relative values in regards to each other, the value of any denomination of banknote is absolute with regards to itself.

This absolute consistency is what gives a currency so much potency to serve as a relative measure of value as well as being legally enforced (you cannot refuse legal tender as a form of payment unless otherwise agreed to beforehand in a binding contract). The amount in circulation can affect levels of inflation if demand rises without a corresponding rise in supply. This devalues the currency relative to commodities. Inflation inevitably occurs in tandem with interest rates.

I think we have enough poor people looking to supply labor that we need to be increasing the rate of circulation (not amount in circulation). The more people a society has; the more jobs it needs; and the more circulation it requires.

As to your other question, I can't say I've given it much thought. I think a question like that has a lot more considerations implicit in it.
The rich being super-rich gives money its buying power.

If the top tier of wealth was redistributed, so that the average citizen had double the money, prices would simply double and effective wealth would remain the unchanged, except that the top tier would no long be able to fund big projects, nor employ lots of employees.
 
There are no Robin Hood examples in today's society.
 
Yes there is: the government. It steals from the wealthy (tax) and gives to the poor (welfare).

It does not give welfare to the homeless, thus it gives only welfare to those who can still help themselves. (robin hood also gave to the homeless)
 
Mat. 25

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to etenal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
 
The rich being super-rich gives money its buying power.

If the top tier of wealth was redistributed, so that the average citizen had double the money, prices would simply double and effective wealth would remain the unchanged, except that the top tier would no long be able to fund big projects, nor employ lots of employees.

That's not quite true as far as hypotheticals go. The difference between being rich and being wealthy might best be described as the difference between a great amount of money and a great rate of income. A large income produces money continually. Redistributing money would simply end up being spent towards those who own the rights to such monetary streams and it would not increase prices because there is no change in overhead costs nor a weakening of competitive interests. It'd go right back to the wealthy to be redistributed.

Chris Rock explains it like so:

For Chris Rock, being wealthy means having financial holdings so immense that they can be passed down through generations. "Shaq is rich," he said, referring to the Los Angeles Lakers' Shaquille O'Neal, "but the white man who signs his check is wealthy. Oprah is rich, but Bill Gates is wealthy. If Bill Gates suddenly woke up with Oprah's money, he'd slit his throat."

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...between-rich-and-wealthy/stories/200405210167

I think Oprah can be considered wealthy though. This isn't based on how much money she has, but how she acquires it. The thing with property ownership is that nobody truly possess or owns anything. What they possess is what's called a 'bundle of rights':

The bundle of rights is a common way to explain the complexities of property ownership. Teachers often use this concept as a way to organize confusing and sometimes contradictory data about real estate.

The bundle of rights is commonly taught in US first-year law school property classes to explain how a property can simultaneously be "owned" by multiple parties. The term, "bundle of rights," likely came into use during the late 19th century and continued to gain ground thereafter. Prior to that, the idea of property entailed more the owner's dominion over a thing, placing restrictions on others from "messing" with the owner's property. "Bundle of rights," however, implies rules specifying, proscribing, or authorizing actions on the part of the owner.

Ownership of land is a much more complex proposition than simply acquiring all the rights to it. It is useful to imagine a bundle of rights that can be separated and reassembled. A "bundle of sticks" - in which each stick represents an individual right - is a common analogy made for the bundle of rights. Any property owner possesses a set of "sticks" related directly to the land.

Owning a business or property means you have certain legal rights and obligations, but the state also owns your property. A redistribution of money would not alter in any way the legal rights and ownership of such methods of income. Wealthy people have acquired the rights to certain manners of income generation that generally dwarfs the most basic form of selling one's own labor, but this is distinct from the whatever amount of money they may have at any point in time.

For instance, if someone owned the rights to distributing all potable water then they'd be automatically wealthy. Why? Because you immediately sense how indispensably valuable that would be. They could literally burn all their money one day and still be wealthy because everyone is automatically indebted to them through their rights of ownership.

[MENTION=11455]dogman6126[/MENTION] You asked me a question by rep. When I say 'rate of circulation,' this is basically synonymous with the general health of the economy, hence a recession is simply a reduction in the rate of circulation. When I say we need to increase the rate of circulation, I'm simply stating we need to improve the economy. It's just a different, hopefully more apt, description of what that means or entails. To be more specific, I mean that there is a great deal of money (technically already in circulation), but not being properly redistributed.

Here's an article reaffirming some of these points:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bergstein/what-determines-a-healthy_b_4675024.html

There are countless ways to explain and decipher the inner-workings of the US and world economies. But little is actually discussed about the underpinnings of what truly defines a healthy economy. It's not complicated.

A human body, be it alive, unhealthy or dead, has the same volume of blood. The difference lies in circulation. We are healthy when our circulation is maximized, and our body begins to fail when our circulation is inhibited. The same is true for economies. All entities -- individuals, companies or countries -- are healthy to the extent that they have circulation. For a country, money is the equivalent to the body's blood. And if the money is not flowing properly, the nation's economy suffers.

He makes a fundamental mistake right here:

The government, specifically our current federal government, is equivalent to a blood clot within the economy. It stops the flow of money by removing it from the system and distributing it to largely ineffective government programs, causing the system to work harder in order to compensate. The extent to which we have increasing government correlates to the amount of money being pulled out of the country's bloodstream. One such example is income tax.

This is not correct because government spending is still circulating money. It is irrelevant what it is spending it towards because it still goes to other people who have families to also spend that money on.

Let's say I give you a 5 dollar bill in exchange for your services and then you give it back in exchange for 5 units of my services (for however much 5 dollars would be worth regardless of relative values). Let's then say we do this 2, 3, 4, or 5 more times within the same day. The amount of money hasn't changed, but we essentially indebted ourselves a greater number of times in exchange for the same each time. The number of times we exchanged the currency is what increased rather than an increase in the amount of money. I produce a great deal more and receive a great deal more as well.
 
The term 'wealth redistribution' is a bit of a misnomer because what we really mean is the redistribution of commodities rather than income rights.

A great example of redistribution (mostly money, but some rights) in the Pacific Northwest would be the potlatch.

A potlatch is a gift-giving feast practiced by indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast of Canada and the United States, among whom it is traditionally the primary economic system. This includes the Heiltsuk, Haida, Nuxalk, Tlingit, Makah, Tsimshian, Nuu-chah-nulth, Kwakwaka'wakw, and Coast Salish cultures. Potlatches are also a common feature of the peoples of the Interior and of the Subarctic adjoining the Northwest Coast, though mostly without the elaborate ritual and gift-giving economy of the coastal peoples (see Athabaskan potlatch).

A potlatch was held on the occasion of births, deaths, adoptions, weddings, and other major events. Typically the potlatch was practiced more in the winter seasons as historically the warmer months were for procuring wealth for the family, clan, or village, then coming home and sharing that with neighbors and friends. The event was hosted by a numaym, or 'House', in Kwakwaka'wakw culture. A numaym was a complex cognatic kin group usually headed by aristocrats, but including commoners and occasional slaves. It had about one hundred members and several would be grouped together into a tribe. The House drew its identity from its ancestral founder, usually a mythical animal who descended to earth and removed his animal mask, thus becoming human. The mask became a family heirloom passed from father to son along with the name of the ancestor himself. This made him the leader of the numaym, considered the living incarnation of the founder.

Only aristocrats could host a potlatch. The potlatch was the occasion on which titles associated with masks and other objects were "fastened on" to a new office holder. Two kinds of titles were transferred on these occasions. Firstly, each numaym had a number of named positions of ranked "seats" (which gave them a seat at potlatches) transferred within itself. These ranked titles granted rights to hunting, fishing and berrying territories. Secondly, there were a number of titles that would be passed between numayma, usually to in-laws, which included feast names that gave one a role in the Winter Ceremonial. Aristocrats felt safe giving these titles to their out-marrying daughter's children because this daughter and her children would later be rejoined with her natal numaym and the titles returned with them. Any one individual might have several "seats" which allowed them to sit, in rank order, according to their title, as the host displayed and distributed wealth and made speeches. Besides the transfer of titles at a potlatch, the event was given "weight" by the distribution of other less important objects such as Chilkat blankets, animal skins (later Hudson Bay blankets) and coppers. It is the distribution of large numbers of Hudson Bay blankets, and the destruction of valued coppers that first drew government attention (and censure) to the potlatch.

Dorothy Johansen describes the dynamic: "In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished." Hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, were observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

Philanthropy works a bit similarly in America in that typically it's used for marketing purposes.
 
Perhaps complete democracy can't exist in the US. The way it works, it is also likely that it cannot realistically be reformed democratically.
My experience of US citizens, while having worked there on and off for many years is that a deeply entrenched nationalism seems to preclude a more global sense of personal options. Admittedly, most of the circles I worked in would be termed affluent, and these people would not have issue with the status quo, but I got the impression that many people would rather struggle and rage against the system, than relocate to a better situation.

Without wanting to sound critical of critical views, I don't see that having issues with the system has any positive effect - either in terms of personal quality of life, or in terms of ever actually reforming the system. If a revolution were to take place, it would make things much worse till they could even start to get better. Such a situation probably couldn't result in a better situation, because in times of revolt either the powerful always manage to grab more power, or enemies manage to take the opportunity to overcome weakened nations. Sounds defeatist, but in real terms I think the US is irreformable, and personal angst is wasted in worrying about it.

There is an entrenched Nationalism which is probably more regularly espoused by those considered “affluent”.
I have to strongly disagree with the bolded area above - if the status quo is continued then we see even more negative issues arise than if we make smart, conscientious, and humanly moral choices.
No one said it wouldn’t be difficult as all hell, and I’m sorry you don’t feel that you would benefit enough to care.

Yes there is: the government. It steals from the wealthy (tax) and gives to the poor (welfare).

Srsly?

Steve Jobs final words -

"I reached the pinnacle of success in the business world.
In others’ eyes, my life is an epitome of success.

However, aside from work, I have little joy. In the end, wealth is only a fact of life that I am accustomed to.
At this moment, lying on the sick bed and recalling my whole life, I realize that all the recognition and wealth that I took so much pride in, have paled and become meaningless in the face of impending death.
In the darkness, I look at the green lights from the life supporting machines and hear the humming mechanical sounds, I can feel the breath of god of death drawing closer…
Now I know, when we have accumulated sufficient wealth to last our lifetime, we should pursue other matters that are unrelated to wealth…
Should be something that is more important:

Perhaps relationships, perhaps art, perhaps a dream from younger days ...
Non-stop pursuing of wealth will only turn a person into a twisted being, just like me.

God gave us the senses to let us feel the love in everyone’s heart, not the illusions brought about by wealth.
The wealth I have won in my life I cannot bring with me.
What I can bring is only the memories precipitated by love.
That’s the true riches which will follow you, accompany you, giving you strength and light to go on.

Love can travel a thousand miles. Life has no limit. Go where you want to go. Reach the height you want to reach. It is all in your heart and in your hands.
What is the most expensive bed in the world? - "Sick bed" …

You can employ someone to drive the car for you, make money for you but you cannot have someone to bear the sickness for you.
Material things lost can be found. But there is one thing that can never be found when it is lost — "Life".

When a person goes into the operating room, he will realize that there is one book that he has yet to finish reading — "Book of Healthy Life".
Whichever stage in life we are at right now, with time, we will face the day when the curtain comes down.
Treasure Love for your family, love for your spouse, love for your friends...
Treat yourself well.
Cherish others."

- Steve Jobs
 
There is an entrenched Nationalism which is probably more regularly espoused by those considered “affluent”.
I have to strongly disagree with the bolded area above - if the status quo is continued then we see even more negative issues arise than if we make smart, conscientious, and humanly moral choices.
No one said it wouldn’t be difficult as all hell, and I’m sorry you don’t feel that you would benefit enough to care.
It's not that I don't care, I just don't think there's anything any individual can do; the kind of reform in question requires not an elevated personal mentality, but an elevated hive mentality (the complex mentality formed between political parties, their benefactors, industry chiefs, allies, commerce, the media, and perhaps the voting public). Such a large and complex broad agreement/implicit understanding has a tremendous inertia. If one influential segment of society starts to sway, it's connected segments buffer the situation, preventing it becoming anything but localised and irrelevant motion. Nothing local matters and only becomes a conversation piece for the big picture. I visited Detroit at the tail end of its heyday, when I was a child, back in the 80's. I could not have believed what has happened to that city, except that I have seen it. But Detroit doesn't matter, nor does any other city. Only the status quo of the big picture matters, to those who decide what the big picture is.

In terms of my own benefit, I don't feel especially tied down to try and make the best of a bad situation; I just try and find the best situation and relocate. I'll probably never spend any real time in the US again, except to visit friends once in a blue moon. Somewhere in the back of my mind I want to do something constructive/transformative, but I have no illusion that it could ever change the big picture, but perhaps that's just what is needed. I suspect that "local" and "people" don't actually form any part of the big-picture, so that's where any individual effort can actually make a difference. If the system doesn't care about people, or communities, it doesn't matter because people and communities can care.