• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • Not a problem at all.

    Votes: 32 29.4%

  • A problem, but not a serious one.

    Votes: 8 7.3%

  • A fairly serious problem.

    Votes: 34 31.2%

  • It's not just a "problem." It's a catastrophe that is only getting worse.

    Votes: 35 32.1%

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    109
Northern Light said:
Yes, it would have to start living within its means and conserving.
Click to expand...

Sort of. Our options are: 1. Global Fiscal Collapse and/or 2. Let Old People Die En Masse.


Neither strike me as a terribly desirable option.


The idea of constant "progress" and productive expansion would have to be tossed out in favor of more manageable resources; which is something the whole human species has to do anyway if we want to have a hope of getting out of the current era in one piece.
Click to expand...

Nah. Human ingenuity seems to be (thus far) fairly infinite in its' ability to find new ways to put resources to more productive uses. The Malthusian error was, is, and will probably continue to be precisely that.

The debt system is destroying this planet. Forget the economy for a second. The economy is a human invention, it ultimately does not matter. I'm talking about the real, physical, quantifiable annual bounty of this planet.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The Planet is fine. She's a tough ole bird, is Mother Earth.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
I don't think you get it.

Hobbes was writing in quite a different context from today, however you have his ideas about the state completely out of context anyway.

you should read up on hobbes, and you should read up on the period he was writing in.
Click to expand...

:) I have my Bachelors in History and my Masters in Poli Sci. ;) I'm aware. That reduces the fact that he was correct on the issue under discussion not at all. As demonstrated not least by the fact that you are unable to offer up an alternative.

I don't condone the use of violence, although I recognize that there may be some extreme cases which pose a serious threat which the government has to have the power to protect its citizens from. but these are relatively rare.
Click to expand...

So you oppose the enforcement of laws you support?

quite possibly, the fact that in the US individuals who subscribe to extremist anti government conspiracy propaganda have access to arsenals of military style weapons makes it more likely that your government needs to have access to the use of force.
Click to expand...

:shrug: possibly. Some of us value our freedom, here in the US, and desire to retain the ability to defend it. :( Not so common across the Western World, which largely seems to value more their benefits. That being said, the fundamental nature of governance (that it is the use of force to coerce behavior) remains.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:) I have my Bachelors in History and my Masters in Poli Sci. ;) I'm aware. That reduces the fact that he was correct on the issue under discussion not at all. As demonstrated not least by the fact that you are unable to offer up an alternative.
Click to expand...

nevertheless, you stated:

Hobbes was right - the single greatest repository of violence - of terror - in a country is the government itself.

in stating this, you are not demonstrating that you are that familiar with Hobbes. And I am not sure why it is all that relevant to anything I have said.

So you oppose the enforcement of laws you support?
Click to expand...

no.

:shrug: possibly. Some of us value our freedom, here in the US, and desire to retain the ability to defend it. :( Not so common across the Western World, which largely seems to value more their benefits. That being said, the fundamental nature of governance (that it is the use of force to coerce behavior) remains.
Click to expand...

your understanding of "governance" is different from mine, or indeed, from that of anyone I know
 
marywollstonecraft said:
your understanding of "governance" is different from mine, or indeed, from that of anyone I know
Click to expand...

To many people, "governance" simply means the issuance of edicts backed by the threat of force. In some cases this can be just, such as when the edict is, "Don't harm other people." But in many cases this can be unjust, such as when the edit is, "If you grow this particular plant, we will throw you in a cage."
 
cpwill said:
Sort of. Our options are: 1. Global Fiscal Collapse and/or 2. Let Old People Die En Masse.


Neither strike me as a terribly desirable option.




Nah. Human ingenuity seems to be (thus far) fairly infinite in its' ability to find new ways to put resources to more productive uses. The Malthusian error was, is, and will probably continue to be precisely that.



Yeah. The Planet is fine. She's a tough ole bird, is Mother Earth.
Click to expand...

All evidence contradicts what you're saying, but I guess continue to blindly believe what you want. :shrug:
 
cpwill said:
Sort of. Our options are: 1. Global Fiscal Collapse and/or 2. Let Old People Die En Masse.
Click to expand...

Doesn't (1) beget (2)?

Nah. Human ingenuity seems to be (thus far) fairly infinite in its' ability to find new ways to put resources to more productive uses. The Malthusian error was, is, and will probably continue to be precisely that.
Click to expand...

We need to discover a fairly infinite new energy source then. Malthus didn't predict oil's impact, and we haven't stumbled on anything to replace it. It has allowed our population to flourish, but just as it has given, it will take away. There is nothing very promising on the horizon. People can survive without oil, but nowhere near 7 billion of them.
 
Northern Light said:
All evidence contradicts what you're saying, but I guess continue to blindly believe what you want. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I would love to see you balance the budget immediately without massive cuts to either entitlements or defense. :)

As for Malthusianism being supported by evidence? :lol:
 
Neomalthusian said:
Doesn't (1) beget (2)?
Click to expand...

Fair point. Though at least (2) would be somewhat delayed.

We need to discover a fairly infinite new energy source then. Malthus didn't predict oil's impact, and we haven't stumbled on anything to replace it. It has allowed our population to flourish, but just as it has given, it will take away. There is nothing very promising on the horizon. People can survive without oil, but nowhere near 7 billion of them.
Click to expand...

1. Accessible Oil Reserves keep increasing along with technology.

2. A crushed tube the size of a thread spool has brought the United States one step closer to harnessing nuclear fusion as a clean, almost limitless power source.


;) you may one day have to change your name.
 
cpwill said:
Fair point. Though at least (2) would be somewhat delayed.

1. Accessible Oil Reserves keep increasing along with technology.
Click to expand...

What about EROEI?

2. A crushed tube the size of a thread spool has brought the United States one step closer to harnessing nuclear fusion as a clean, almost limitless power source.

;) you may one day have to change your name.
Click to expand...

The day fusion becomes a reality, I will both change my names as well as shift all my investments to long/aggressive as quickly as possible.
 
Federalist said:
To many people, "governance" simply means the issuance of edicts backed by the threat of force. In some cases this can be just, such as when the edict is, "Don't harm other people." But in many cases this can be unjust, such as when the edit is, "If you grow this particular plant, we will throw you in a cage."
Click to expand...

to me, governance is not about force. It is about recognizing that some people don't seem to have an understanding of appropriate boundaries, so their actions have an overall negative impact in some way.

putting governance measures in place is about ensuring that we have a common understanding of what we need to do for the organization/society to function effectively, and there is guidance so that we can achieve better outcomes.

WRT growing plants .... I think the drug laws in the US are harsher than in most places, but if you are growing with intent to sell or supply, then there are pretty clear reasons why this will be regarded as a criminal activity.

the research shows that overall, marijuana is harmful to health, and if it is to be supplied, there need to be controls in place.

That said, I am not convinced that all laws relating to the cultivation of marijuana are really about health - and there should be some honest discussion about that.
 
cpwill said:
I would love to see you balance the budget immediately without massive cuts to either entitlements or defense. :)

As for Malthusianism being supported by evidence? :lol:
Click to expand...

Malthusianism is about overpopulation and tragedy of the commons, and that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the top 10% destroying the planet.

When you make a proper rebuttal to my original post in this thread I'd be happy to reason it out with you.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
in my nanny state country, growing 1 - 2 plants for personal use is decriminalized in some states, and attracts a fine, but no conviction. Growers are required to attend an education program however, so that they are aware of the risks associated with cannabis use.

seems the heavy handed republicans in the US have contributed to quite a different environment, which I guess is one of the main reasons why the US has the highest incarceration rate globally.
Click to expand...
There are a few states where growing isn't illegal and I know open use and possession is legal in some states even though the Fed still has it listed as criminal. At one time, possession of less than an ounce was not a Fed crime but that may have changed, IDK.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
to me, governance is not about force. It is about recognizing that some people don't seem to have an understanding of appropriate boundaries, so their actions have an overall negative impact in some way.
Click to expand...

Ah. And so making sure that those people obey those appropriate boundaries, do you think government uses:

1. The threat of force without it's follow-up
2. Force and the threat of force
3. Pretty-Please's with Sugars-on-top

?

So, for example, if I decide to cease respecting others' right to property, will the State A) arrest me, unless I threaten them with force B) use force against me if I resist arrest and then arrest me, or C) ask me nicely to stop stealing.

putting governance measures in place is about ensuring that we have a common understanding of what we need to do for the organization/society to function effectively, and there is guidance so that we can achieve better outcomes.
Click to expand...

You are mistaking the intent with the means. The hope is that we are able to organize ourselves in order to achieve better outcomes. The means is to use force or the threat of force to make people organize in the manners that we hope will achieve them. We do not pass "our general belief that people should come together to support the elderly", we pass laws which state that you will give X% of the money you make to the state so that it can give that money to the elderly or else there will be punishment.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Do you think they are "stealing"? or whatever other derogatory/criminal term you'd like to use?
Click to expand...

There are many libertarians who consider taxes to be stealing, although many (typically minarchist libertarians) do not.
 
Northern Light said:
Malthusianism is about overpopulation and tragedy of the commons, and that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the top 10% destroying the planet.

When you make a proper rebuttal to my original post in this thread I'd be happy to reason it out with you.
Click to expand...

Still waiting on that plan to balance the budget overnight without deep cuts to old-age care or defense. :)
 
this post has white privilege written all over it Neo ... no sense of urgency for whites, is there? with time all these things would've worked work ... just be patient, right? there's a lot I like about Libertarians, but when it comes to race and racism, you come up pathetically short my friend ... BTW, have you had the opportunity to read some of Rand's daddy's racist newsletters from way back? and please, don't give me "He didn't know they contained that racist garbage. Just because the newsletter had his name at the top in BIG bold letters doesn't mean anything." Out of context? Nice try Trip.
 
Northern Light said:
Malthusianism is about overpopulation and tragedy of the commons, and that's not really what I'm talking about. I'm referring to the top 10% destroying the planet.

When you make a proper rebuttal to my original post in this thread I'd be happy to reason it out with you.
Click to expand...

Well if the other 98% provided for their own food instead of depending on 2% to provide it for them maybe our planet will be in better shape. Get plowing......
 
Federalist said:
There are many libertarians who consider taxes to be stealing, although many (typically minarchist libertarians) do not.
Click to expand...
The problem you've noted is that some think it's stealing and some don't, meaning there is no real consensus among Libertarians. What about you, personally? You've been defending the turf, so to speak, what do you think?
 
cpwill said:
Still waiting on that plan to balance the budget overnight without deep cuts to old-age care or defense. :)
Click to expand...
FICA was never meant to be part of the general budget, so as long as the SSA is in the black, which will be for a long time, I don't see the issue.

But, hey, if the Federal Reserve wants to quit honoring it's obligations then everyone is pretty much SOL.
 
Boo Radley said:
Is overnight a prerequisite?
Click to expand...
It's funny, a little over a decade ago they managed to balance the budget without cutting into SSA or welfare. Now it's impossible, according to some. Seems like a scam to me.
 
MoSurveyor said:
As I said before, even if we all had degrees or were skilled there would still be a need for janitors and file clerks.
Click to expand...

There will be landscapers, waitresses, parking attendants, and toll booth collectors too.

I'm not really sure what your point is though.
 
Dapper Andy said:
There will be landscapers, waitresses, parking attendants, and toll booth collectors too.

I'm not really sure what your point is though.
Click to expand...
Like I said, even if everyone had the education and skill levels you think are required for better pay there will still be people, with higher education and/or good skills, that will be sweeping floors and waiting tables. Those jobs you so haphazardly dismiss as "unskilled labor" are no less vital to society than the computer programmers or the loan officers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom