01 Feb 16
Originally posted by normbenignYes, the Randian Supermen theory of humanity.
The accomplishments of mankind over centuries may be credited to "society", but by and large these were individual accomplishments, even when groups of men got together to write a Constitution, or Declaration of Independence. Minus strong individuals, these things never would have been done.
Those who wrote the Constitution and DOI may have been talented individuals, but absence of the support of the People for the ideas expressed in them, they would have never endured. There are many, many, many strong individuals; that is not the sole province of an elite that must rule over us as right wingers have always insisted.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderTake away the so called Randian supermen, and what would you have? The founders of the American Auto industry, started something that it is doubtful that UAW leaders would have stumbled on in another millennium.
Yes, the Randian Supermen theory of humanity.
Those who wrote the Constitution and DOI may have been talented individuals, but absence of the support of the People for the ideas expressed in them, they would have never endured. There are many, many, many strong individuals; that is not the sole province of an elite that must rule over us as right wingers have always insisted.
Of course, worker bees are necessary to every hive, but so is a queen. It is humorous to argue with a parasitic barrister over the creation of wealth and industry. You live based on the disagreements of individuals, or hopefully in crafting contracts to avoid those disagreements. What is clear is that society is driven by leaders and not followers. The guy that invents a product or service is more important than the dozens of people he employs to produce the results. Each has their place, but the inventor and creator is responsible for the places of multiple workers.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by SoothfastIt doesn't except that it would involve devolving our own quite successful government model, with no guarantee that the new model would work as well as it does in a much smaller and more culturally insulated nation. Is it worth the risk?
How exactly does that preclude adopting a form of government resembling the Scandinavian model?
Originally posted by normbenignI understand that is the entire basis of your elite driven view of society. But humans are not bees or ants and we are not evolutionarily designed to be servants of the few. Those who produce the wealth should be entitled to the lion's share of it and that production is not done by a few Randian Supermen but by the bulk of the People. That 62 people have more wealth than the combined total of 1/2 the world's population (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/01/widening-wealth-gap/424695/) is a scandal by no means determined by Man's nature or capabilities.
Take away the so called Randian supermen, and what would you have? The founders of the American Auto industry, started something that it is doubtful that UAW leaders would have stumbled on in another millennium.
Of course, worker bees are necessary to every hive, but so is a queen. It is humorous to argue with a parasitic barrister over the creation ...[text shortened]... has their place, but the inventor and creator is responsible for the places of multiple workers.
Your personal attacks are amusing esp. from someone living off the government dole. I don't find my occupation any more glorious than a plumber; people come to me with problems and I try to fix them. "Parasitic"? Don't see how.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderFinding a numeric set that you don't approve of is far different from devising a fair method of better distribution. I am far from elite, and haven't done anything to warrant an expectation of a share of the wealth generated by those among the elite. Jealousy is one of the deadly sins, and only harms its advocate.
I understand that is the entire basis of your elite driven view of society. But humans are not bees or ants and we are not evolutionarily designed to be servants of the few. Those who produce the wealth should be entitled to the lion's share of it and that production is not done by a few Randian Supermen but by the bulk of the People. That 62 people have ...[text shortened]... an a plumber; people come to me with problems and I try to fix them. "Parasitic"? Don't see how.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by normbenignIt's absurd to think that 62 people have "generated more wealth" than more than 1/2 of the world's population combined. What that have done is expropriate it from the actual producers using force or threat of force.
Finding a numeric set that you don't approve of is far different from devising a fair method of better distribution. I am far from elite, and haven't done anything to warrant an expectation of a share of the wealth generated by those among the elite. Jealousy is one of the deadly sins, and only harms its advocate.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by SoothfastI happen to disagree, and I suspect that most Americans would not wish to abandon our own quite successful political system for the Scandinavian model. Ours has worked through more than two centuries, World Wars where we saved those Scandinavians from European predators. Perhaps observing, and borrowing some features from them could work, but I'd hardly be in favor of devolving our whole system in favor of theirs.
Given the realities, yes.
01 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are the lawyer. Bring legal action against the thieves.
It's absurd to think that 62 people have "generated more wealth" than more than 1/2 of the world's population combined. What that have done is expropriate it from the actual producers using force or threat of force.