Wealth Stratification

#102
#102
kptvol said:
No he isn't. Just ask him. He takes everyone to the woodshed constantly and is the more in tune with the real world than any human on the planet.
Click to expand...

Like GS, the only thing he does is argue from authority; most of the time his authorities have little to no expertise and/or credibility and, even then, he manages to misinterpret what they say to fit his agenda. Never once have I seen him even try to assemble a logical argument based upon accepted premises and validly moving towards a conclusion.
 
#103
#103
therealUT said:
Like GS, the only thing he does is argue from authority; most of the time his authorities have little to no expertise and/or credibility and, even then, he manages to misinterpret what they say to fit his agenda. Never once have I seen him even try to assemble a logical argument based upon accepted premises and validly moving towards a conclusion.
Click to expand...

This is because he views the world through an absolute prism in which accepted premises are corrupted and or false. Only the views he shares are acceptable and legitimate.

He's the anti-GS, not that he is any diferent he is just the flip side of the coin, if GS was in deep right field Gibbs is hugging the wall in deep left. Meanwhile the rest of us on the actual playing field itself struggle to grapple with their nonsenical ramblings and distorted realities.
 
#104
#104
utgibbs said:
Peyton playing football doesn't lead to "equivalency." In fact, I was making the opposite point. We would want Peyton to play football because he is so exceptional at it. We want to "bestow honors" upon him. Just like, as a society, we bestow honors upon the institution of marriage with the obvious asterisk.

HOWEVER, in a just society (this is based on Rawls) the rewards Peyton receives for football cannot come at the expense of the lowest in society. In other words, those rewards must all be at the service of the least among us.

That has many mechanisms which could be implemented in our own historic time. We need not dwell on those mechanisms here.

This leads to substantive equality or another way of saying it would be most everybody would have a fighting shot to compete with Peyton for those honors. He would still win, which is what we want - the best receiving those honors, but everyone having a shot at the title.
Click to expand...

therealUT said:
You answer that A was better off on Day Y than on Day W means, strictly speaking, that the premise that stratification is wrong/bad/evil has been defeated by you.

Your inconsistency and lack of any intellectual standing is both frustrating and astounding at the same time. You are easily one of the dumbest persons I have ever encountered.
Click to expand...

Says the man with the purile and infantile options W - Z and demands monosyllable responses to his purile philosophies he is desperately trying to pawn as deep thinking. :eek:lol:

I include the latest of my answers to your question thoroughly demonstrating your lack of intellectual standing. It raises other questions too, like your skills at reading comprehension or your exposure to Phil 101 even.

In your OP - which you backed off from - you were describing option Zed Prime:

A gets 1500 (the "food poor" point for the FDA - just to be generous)
B gets 10000

an option both evil and one in which A is far, far, far worse off (as is society). Just as I said.

And you have been unable to even generate a monosyllable on the much more challenging question I posed to you. A question which, if answered truthfully, undermines the entire thrust of your OP.

Wipe your nose, junior. You have been played. I will say, I have rarely found an individual trying so desperately to prove how smart they are....
 
Last edited:
#105
#105
utgibbs said:
Peyton playing football doesn't lead to "equivalency." In fact, I was making the opposite point. We would want Peyton to play football because he is so exceptional at it. We want to "bestow honors" upon him. Just like, as a society, we bestow honors upon the institution of marriage with the obvious asterisk.

How do we determine what we want people to do? Is there a "determine your talent committee" that assigns people to their various skill zones?

HOWEVER, in a just society (this is based on Rawls) the rewards Peyton receives for football cannot come at the expense of the lowest in society. In other words, those rewards must all be at the service of the least among us.

Are the rewards for Peyton now coming at the expense of the lowest in society? If I understand this, a just society occurs when Peyton can earn no more "rewards" than any other person in that society regardless of differences between the two. Sounds peachy

That has many mechanisms which could be implemented in our own historic time. We need not dwell on those mechanisms here.

Class A copout.

This leads to substantive equality or another way of saying it would be most everybody would have a fighting shot to compete with Peyton for those honors. He would still win, which is what we want - the best receiving those honors, but everyone having a shot at the title.
Click to expand...

Huh? No one skill, ability can command more rewards than another? Double peachy.
 
#106
#106
utgibbs said:
Then stop moaning already! The world is as it is. Stop whinging there is nothing for you to do. You have the consolations of philosophy.

By the way, to complete your epic wrongness in this thread - I'm the one who would like to see the masses have authentic control of their own destinies. You are the one who thinks they need looking after a la Vladamir Illich Ulyanov by the vanguard of the intellectual, managerial class.
Click to expand...
I'm the one whinging(sic)? Are you effing kidding me?
 
#107
#107
volinbham said:
Huh? No one skill, ability can command more rewards than another? Double peachy.
Click to expand...

negative. Ability to watch ants mate is worth just as much as anything else. That's fair. That's what substantive equality, masses with authentic opportunities and such drivel means.
 
#110
#110
volinbham said:
Huh? No one skill, ability can command more rewards than another? Double peachy.
Click to expand...

No, you are misunderstanding.

The rewards Peyton accrues for his exceptional abilities will be more than those not blessed with his genetics, family, and work ethic. And they should be more.

HOWEVER, he still cannot accrue those rewards at the expense of say the several million Americans without 2000 cals (and they are legion despite your protests - and puts a big wrench in realUT's OP) or adequate health care. He can have more rewards than Joe Schmo, but not at the expense of Joe's health care / food security / livelihood, etc. This would be the Rawlsian view of a just society, and one the vast majority of us would choose as well if we were to do so behind a "veil of ignorance". The gamblers, provocateurs, and malcontents might not, but the overwhelming vast majority would. And this is reflected, I think, in the history of Homo sapien culture throughout time.

The Class A copout is infantile though. You know many of the mechanisms I would favor. The post was long enough, and I was being very genuine in my explanations.
 
Last edited:
#112
#112
utgibbs said:
No, you are misunderstanding.

The rewards Peyton accrues for his exceptional abilities will be more than those not blessed with his genetics, family, and work ethic.

HOWEVER, he still cannot accrue those rewards at the expense of say the several million Americans without 2000 cals (and they are legion despite your protests - and puts a big wrench in realUT's OP) or adequate health care. He can have more rewards than Joe Schmo, but not at the expense of Joe's health care / food security / livelihood, etc. This would be the Rawlsian view of a just society, and one the vast majority of us would choose as well if we were to do so behind a "veil of ignorance". The gamblers, provocateurs, and malcontents might not, but the overwhelming vast majority would. And this is reflected, I think, in the history of Homo sapien culture throughout time.

The Class A copout is infantile though. You know many of the mechanisms I would favor. The post was long enough, and I was being very genuine in my explanations.
Click to expand...

just has nothing to do with equal financial outcomes. Nothing whatsoever, regardless how many times you say it. Justice would dictate people accruing what they're worth based upon what the world decides they're worth. Injustice would be dictating that everyone and everything is equal.
 
#115
#115
BigPapaVol said:
just has nothing to do with equal financial outcomes. Nothing whatsoever, regardless how many times you say it. Justice would dictate people accruing what they're worth based upon what the world decides they're worth. Injustice would be dictating that everyone and everything is equal.
Click to expand...

Of course financial matter to justice. Even Reinhold Niebuhr thought that!

We have been describing a world which is not equal - one in which we are trying to bestow honors based upon performance. We want Peyton to play football and bestow honors on him. We want Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay to run. We want Einstein sitting in his office thinking about the universe. We want the Buena Vista Social Club playing music at night. We want to bestow honors on them for their exceptional gifts.

But what we cannot do (in the just society) is bestow honors upon them at the expense of Joe Schmo.

However, you are fine with me taking all your stuff because I can, because I am stronger, faster, smarter, and a better aim. You have admitted to not even wanting justice, not even acknowledging justice is a goal worth the endeavor. You believe we are fit only for the jungle.

So NO MORE WHINGING.
 
#116
#116
utgibbs said:
Of course financial matter to justice. Even Reinhold Niebuhr thought that!

We have been describing a world which is not equal - one in which we are trying to bestow honors based upon performance. We want Peyton to play football and bestow honors on him. We want Usain Bolt and Tyson Gay to run. We want Einstein sitting in his office thinking about the universe. We want the Buena Vista Social Club playing music at night. We want to bestow honors on them for their exceptional gifts.

But what we cannot do (in the just society) is bestow honors upon them at the expense of Joe Schmo.

However, you are fine with me taking all your stuff because I can, because I am stronger, faster, smarter, and a better aim. You have admitted to not even wanting justice, not even acknowledging justice is a goal worth the endeavor. You believe we are fit only for the jungle.

Sweet use of old school British highbrow lingo. I can't imagine you looking like a bigger douchebag. Maybe we should revisit the silliness about the awesome walkable New Urban spots all over Europe and just how awesome that makes them.

So NO MORE WHINGING.
Click to expand...

"at the expense of Joe Schmo." You keep using it as if someone is going to take it as fact and it's utterly senseless. Again, the pile of money in the world is anything but finite.
 
Last edited:
#117
#117
MG1968 said:
I believe BPV understands the word, he's just incredulous that you think he's whining.

btw, are you European? That would explain a lot.
Click to expand...

He gets on here angry about the world he believes we should leave alone and let the jungle sort it out. So, of course he is whinging.

Born and bred West Tennessean. :good!:
 
#119
#119
BigPapaVol said:
"at the expense of Joe Schmo." You keep using it as if someone is going to take it as fact and it's utterly senseless. Again, the pile of money in the world is anything but finite.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why justice matters. Which is why stratification, like excess water, can kill.

I know it doesn't matter to you, which is why when I take all your stuff, I know you will grin and bear it. You are now beholden to your philosophy. There is no injustice, and I will take what I desire from you, because, believe me, I can.
 
#120
#120
NEOCON said:
last I checked jungles we actually leave alone seem to do fine.
Click to expand...

Touche.

Although, of course, not in the sense I mean.

Also, the "I'm coming for Casa de BPV, homie" was hyperbole demonstrating the foolishness of BPV's position.

However, if he PM's me with his location, I may just help myself to his castle. But it wouldn't be for greed. It would be to see if he is philosophically consistent. He after all would be whinging if he called the police or demanded "justice."
 
Last edited:
#121
#121
utgibbs said:
Exactly. Which is why justice matters. Which is why stratification, like excess water, can kill.

I know it doesn't matter to you, which is why when I take all your stuff, I know you will grin and bear it. You are now beholden to your philosophy. There is no injustice, and I will take what I desire from you, because, believe me, I can.
Click to expand...

Clearly you can and I absolutely believe that you believe what you say. Hell, you clearly have a superhuman / supermajority ability to make yourself believe fantasyland tales, regardless how absurd they might be. Impressive skill, and probably very expensive in the socialist markets of the world. Beware, however, because you'll probably only make what everyone else does so Joe Schmo has 2,000 wholesome calories.
 
#122
#122
I sometimes think you are a right wing TP member Gibbs who comes on here and chooses such a leftist stance just for sheer joy.

Am i right?
 
#123
#123
BigPapaVol said:
Clearly you can and I absolutely believe that you believe what you say. Hell, you clearly have a superhuman / supermajority ability to make yourself believe fantasyland tales, regardless how absurd they might be. Impressive skill, and probably very expensive in the socialist markets of the world. Beware, however, because you'll probably only make what everyone else does so Joe Schmo has 2,000 wholesome calories.
Click to expand...

For me now, BPV, it would be all about your philsophical consistency. I wouldn't take your stuff for spite or greed or to demonstrate my power. Justice, after all, has nothing to do with economic outcomes.

:hi:
 
#124
#124
Once again, so that someone who happens upon this thread does not get caught up in Gibbs's BS argument:

Let:
a = real wealth
x = time

TRUT possesses 1a at x, 2a at x+10, and 3a at x+100. TRUT has more real wealth at x+100.

Gibbs possesses 1a at x, 5a at x+10, and 20a at x+100. Gibbs has more real wealth at x+100.

At x+100, both TRUT and Gibbs possess more real wealth than they did at x; the stratification has no affect on this.

Now, TRUT might feel as though the situation is unfair; however, that does not change the fact that he has more real wealth. Gibbs might feel he has an advantage and might feel as though he wants to make rules to keep and increase the stratification; however, that does not change the fact that TRUT has more real wealth at x+100 than he did at x. These facts are undeniable; this undeniable truth poves that stratification in itself cannot be wrong/evil/bad.

Gibbs will go on to argue that Gibbs is making his wealth at the expense of TRUT; if this is true, it still does not make stratification inherently evil nor does it make TRUT any worse off in a real sense, only in an imagined sense.

The problem with Gibbs anti-bourgeouis outlook is that he fails to see that it is the envy of the lower class that is causing this imagined suffering in a situation in which TRUT does indeed possess more real wealth at x+100 than at x.

Gibbs continually blasts the top for their greed, which has yet to be proven even exists. In doing so, Gibbs stands on the proposition that the possibility of greed is a greater evil than the reality of envy. It is up to the reader of this post to decide whether such a proposition is true or false, and then whether or not one sould continue to listen to any argument advanced by Gibbs on said proposition.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#125
#125
NEOCON said:
I sometimes think you are a right wing TP member Gibbs who comes on here and chooses such a leftist stance just for sheer joy.

Am i right?
Click to expand...

No, I'm afraid you aren't.

I think it is telling that we associate the Rawlsian view of justice with a "leftist stance" actually. Very telling.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top