Text 13878, 463 rader
Skriven 2007-04-23 20:03:48 av Carl (241.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: OT: Finesse contest finalists - thanks to all!
==========================================================

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ufbo235v2v2tm3bqpefp7cv5mgbnt8cdfk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 08:40:13 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:76nl23h27d4jgf39df1nb18n1b0042j1il@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:50:46 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"AaronJB" <aaronjb@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1177193001.479865.152860@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On Apr 21, 6:48 pm, "Carl" <cengm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The most disturbing part of that is that people like to get vile and
>>>>>>> demeaning at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps I'm just jaded and cynical beyond my years, but to me that
>>>>>> just sums up most of human nature - and certainly a large section of
>>>>>> the population as a whole.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are, after all, little but violent aggressive apes who've learned
>>>>>> how to use tools - and just look at the multitude of weapons we've
>>>>>> invented to use with our opposable thumbs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmmm.
>>>>>
>>>>>Technological advances are often mistaken as a measure of how our
>>>>>species has advanced.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there any reason to believ that people have gotten better over time?
>>>>>Are people better now than they were ... 100 years ago?
>>>>>1000 years ago?
>>>>>
>>>>>Is there any reason to believe that people will get better over time?
>>>>
>>>> By what criteria? If we're talking a Christian or golden rule one, I
>>>> like to think we have.
>>>
>>>Why do you think that we have?
>>
>> When I look back only a century or two, I see slavery, colonialism,
>> and a form of capitalism so callous that people were literally worked
>> to death. Less than ten years before my birth, Hitler and the Final
>> Solution. One doesn't have to aim very high to do better than that! We
>> and the other industrial powers are anything but perfect, but at
>> least, on some level, we try.
>
>Given Saddam Heissein, Bin Laden, the Taliban, and others, I see
>no reason to believe that given favorable circumstances the same
>conditions would not exist today.
>
>Consider North Korea.  I think technology has allowed sufficient worldwide
>communication to make it much harder to maintain such a condition.  I don't
>think that people are inherently better and would we wouldn't have 
>dictators
>just as bad today.

North Korea is certainly vile, as are any number of countries, but I
like to think that they make up a smaller percentage of mankind than
they once did. I may be wrong, of course, given the population
explosion in the third world, where most of the vileness is
concentrated these days.

But -- I don't know about you, but I haven't been entirely consistent
in the criteria I've applied to your original question. At some points
I've been thinking about us -- that is, America or the advanced
nations -- while at others I've been thinking about the world as a
whole. And in part because I've been short on time (past my bedtime
responses) I haven't taken sufficient pains to draw the distinction.

***** Note, my newsreader isn't adding '>'s  this time. ******

I tend to think that the percentage of @$$holes in the world is
probably constant throughout history.   These days countries have
a stronger legal infrastructure than ever before to restrict the @$$holes.

**************************************

>As to people working themselves to death, until sufficent technology was
>available people in every system worked themselves to death.  Technology 
>changed the
>standards by which we live and allows us to be more generous.

That last is certainly true, but the first isn't. People in primitive
societies apparently worked far less than we do -- I believe the
average figure is one day out of three. They certainly didn't work
themselves to death. That, to the extent it happened, came with
civilization. The plight of the blue collar worker in 19th century
capitalism was as I understand it far worse than the late feudal
system of mutual obligation that had come before.

>Take away those conditions and would we be more generous than our 
>ancestors?

But don't those conditions influence our morality? We become what
circumstance allows, and I believe that the prosperity of the middle
class has led in the advanced countries to a significant change in
outlook, one that emphasizes opportunity and reward rather than
punishment.


******

That would imply that with diminished conditions, a diminshed morality
is acceptable.

******

<skip>

>>>> But moral criteria change with time and place,
>>>> and it's not always easy to establish a basis for comparison. Forex, I
>>>> read somewhere that the distribution of wealth in this country is now
>>>> as lopsided as it was in the 1920's.
>>>
>>>I've read to the contrary, with more people becoming millionaires
>>>and more people moving to upper income brackets in the last 10
>>>years than ever before.
>>>
>>>Home ownership is at an all time high, and even those defined as "poor"
>>>can in no way be equated with what was poor in the 1920's.
>>
>> That last is true, as I think I implied. The rest sounds to me like
>> right wing spin -- numbers that sound good but have no economic or
>> social significance. It's logical, for example, that there would be
>> more millionaires, thanks to population growth and inflation; it's a
>> cherry-picked "statistic" that has no actual bearing on income
>> distribution, which according to every source I've seen has been
>> widening.
>
>Actually, it's my understanding that the percentage of people that are
>considered wealthy is actually increasing.

I don't know where you're getting this information. I'm too tired to
do a thorough search, but this quote is representative of what
surfaces when one does one --

<skip>

The figures I saw considered all assets, not just income.


>>>Income inequality is not inherently good or bad either.
>>
>> Well, nothing is inherently good or bad, but if the reality is a
>> country in which virtually all the gains of the growing economy have
>> been going to the top 10% while regular people struggle to maintain
>> the same standard of living, and in which some /working people/ are
>> forced to live in cars, I vote for bad.
>
>All of the gains have not been going to the upper 10%, and those top
>10% are paying over 50% of the taxes, providing services to those
>that pay no or little taxes.

It's actually worse than that:

'A new research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of
Northwestern University, "Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?,"
gives the details. Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of
Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only
34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10
percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate,
wasn't a ticket to big income gains.

'But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the
99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th
percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint.

****
One presumes much of that increase in wealth comes from investing
in new companies and ideas, which creates jobs, provides health care, etc.

Such investment is a good thing.  If it's rewarded, all the better.

****

>As to living in cars, etc, let's look at the statistics of how those that
>are defined as poor actually live:
>
>a.. Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
>The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau 
>is
>a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
>patio.
>a.. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By
>contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population
>enjoyed air conditioning.
>a.. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds
>have more than two rooms per person.
>a.. The average poor American has more living space than the average
>individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities
>throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in 
>foreign
>countries, not to those classified as poor.)
>a.. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two
>or more cars.
>a.. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over
>half own two or more color televisions.
>a.. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable 
>or
>satellite TV reception.
>a.. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a 
>stereo,
>and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
>
>The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the
>same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above
>recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do
>higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above
>recommended levels.
>
>Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car,
>air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and 
>a
>microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a
>VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His 
>home
>is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is
>not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his 
>family's
>essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally
>far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal
>activists, and politicians.
>
>In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is
>supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours
>of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per
>year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the
>year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official
>poverty.
>Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds 
>of
>poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3
>million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the
>fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be 
>lifted
>out of poverty.
>
>There are very few cases of people living out of cars, and with 81 federal
>social programs and most states having equivalent programs, the need for 
>one
>to actually live in a car is suspect.
>
>Also, even in terms of health insurance, the figure given out most often is
>that there are 45 million uninsured people in the US, however if you break
>that down, 15 million of those are eligable for some form of health care
>under a federal program right now but do not take advantage of it, and
>another 13 million make over 50K a year (MN classifies someone making 67K
>wealthy and in the top tax bracket) but choose not to buy it.    If one
>considered the illegal alien/undocumented worker population as being the 12
>million that are usually reported, that leaves a *much* smaller portion of
>the population that are actually  about 5 million.

Wow, I have to run off and get poor.

***
Let's not get silly
***

Seriously, this Marie Antoinette stuff makes my blood boil. It's not
just that transparent spin like "81 federal social programs" is an
insult to my intelligence.-- do they really think the American public
is so dumb that we can't tell the difference between 81 pennies and 81
dollars? -- but that it's an intentional attack by some unknown
prosperous people on the weakest and most unfortunate members of our
society.

***********
Exactly where is the attack?  There are many federal social programs
and many state programs.  Between the two, there are a lot of resources out 
there to prevent people from living in cars and starving to death.  There 
are programs that let entire generations of people to live off of them.

Please point out exactly where there was any attack on thepoor?

***********

Does a hungry child's belly hurt any less because he has a
deadbeat Dad? I don't know about you, but I've lived in urban areas
for much of my life, and I've seen the effects of poverty. It's real
and it sucks and brushing it under the carpet doesn't make it go away.

************
My youth was not exactly one of comfort.   I am at least as aware of the 
conditions you refer to as you are and I'm not brushing anything away.  My 
comment elsewhere was that I have no problem with social programs.   I do 
think we're continuing to throw more money on programs that aren't working 
long term.  At best they're keeping the same rate of poverty year after 
year, generation after generation, yet they're held up as some shining 
achievement.  No one should dare question them or else you're a heartless 
bastard and you'll have emaciated children dropping at the side of every 
road.

On top of that, a *lot* of money is lost to fraud and redundancy with state 
programs.

************

>>>Wealth is a poor standard for judging good and evil.
>>
>> I consider discrepancies in wealth /wrong/ to the extent that I can
>> find no social purpose or social harm in them. In that, they're no
>> different than the likes of killing, in that right (a just war) or
>> wrong (a murder) depends on context.
>
>You assume that there has to be a social purpose for such things; there
>doesn't.  If you're proposing that all aspects of life must be classified 
>in
>terms of a social purpose and controlled to obtain that outcome (which I
>would consider a lack of freedom), then we completely disagree on the
>purpose of government (which is fine).

I don't see it as a matter of something that I want or not. Rather, I
see it as a matter of what is, because cultures compete, and those
which are less successful either change with time or are dominated or
destroyed by others. A social evolutionary process, in other words.

******
Perhaps.  Sweden is moving away from the nanny state mentality that it had, 
and
France is in for tough times.
******

>Some people inherit money...that's called luck.  Some people make more 
>money
>than others through hard work, investing in themselves (an education), and
>taking risks (starting a business).  That's called earning their money.
>Some people aren't willing to work that hard because they have other
>priorities in their lives, don't have the talent, aren't willing to go to
>college, risk their savings, etc.  That's fine and *no* judgment should be
>made in either case.

I see them as radically different. Setting aside for the moment my
bourgeois values, I believe that the societies in which merit and
initiative predominate over hereditary privilege are the most
prosperous, the most powerful, the happiest. Which is why capitalism
has proven so much more successful than the old aristocratic system.

******
I'd much rather see the government focus on providing incentives to
the wealthy to invest in new businesses and technologies rather than
a feel-good attempt to drag the wealthy down as much as possible.

Incentives for the wealthy to spend  work much better than something
like the absurd luxury tax on yachts that almost destroyed the iundustry
and didn't gnerate any money.

Also, money spent by the government tends to be spent on a much
narrower portion of the economy.
******

>At some point, if the wealthy are paying their taxes, giving to charity,
>living their lives without trying to harm others... what they make is none
>of our business.  If  it's more than I make, good for them...I don't hold 
>it
>against them for a second.  I don't envy them, resent them, want to take
>anything away from them in the slightest.  It's simply none of my business.

I grew up in fairly privileged circumstances, so I've seldom if ever
had cause to envy or hate the wealthy.

******
You seem to express a healthy resentment
*******

But, as I said, I don't much believe in hereditary wealth (I've no time
to go into some minor exceptions to that statement).

It is not as you seem to be implying innocent: hereditary wealth is
in some measure a tax on the productive members of society,
a tax that is not repaid by the small percentage of income that
goes to the government or charitable causes.

**********
The initial creation of the wealth was taxed.  Once the wealth was aquired 
and taxed, whatever is left should be considered the property of the person 
that made it.  He or she should be free to give it to a son or daughter, the 
next door neighbor, the local charity, or bury it in the back yard. You or I 
don't have an inherent claim to it simply because it would otherwise go to 
someone as a happy accident of birth.  So what?  I don't care if someone 
else is wealthy.  That doesn't change how hard I work, or what I expect as a 
reward for my efforts.   I have a job.  I do my best at it and I make a 
reasonable living.  The quality of my life is not diminished if someone else 
is wealthy. Someone else's luck is none of my business.

You seem to see wealth as something that should be lent by the government to 
people as an incentive, but only short term and only for as short a period 
as possible (taking it back as much as possible in any tax possible).
**********

>You could move towards the old argument Aren't all people equal? Shouldn't
>everyone make the same amount of money?  That's a discussion by itself and
>not a workable plan.

I agree. As things now stand, the benefits of incentive outweigh the
drawbacks of inequality, particularly insofar as mechanisms exist to
reduce the inequality.

>> Anyway, morals are very variable: we think the Pashtun are creepy
>> because they practice pederasty and harbor the likes of Bin Laden,
>> they think we're creepy because our women run around half-naked and
>> we're greedy and we ignore the principles of hospitality. So we have
>> either to assert that a single moral system is favored over the others
>> -- a moral system which just happens to be the one our own society
>> holds up as an ideal, naturally -- or we have to think of morality as
>> involving a varied response to a deeper purpose, and ultimately accept
>> the possibility that morality evolves much as our genome does.
>> (Caveat: I've skipped for want of time a lot of useful philosophical
>> dialectic, e.g., Kant's categorical imperative.)
>
>I suppose it depends on how large a set or morals one is defining.  If one
>suggests a small set of morals (don't kill, don't steal, etc) it should be
>shared.  Unfortunately that's not even the case, given that women in other
>countries are casually killed with no legal ramification.

Exactly. Even something as seemingly basic as the incest taboo has
been ignored in some societies -- pharaonic Egypt, forex, at least
among the country's rulers -- and takes varying forms in different
societies.

********
It wasn't just the rulers.  I seem to recall that someone in the time
of Caesar wrote back to Rome suggesting that there wasn't a virgin in
the entire country.
********

Our own morals have evolved significantly even within my
lifetime, e.g., homosexuality was widely looked upon as a sin when I
was young. I imagine that the Americans of 200 years from now will
look back on our behavior in much the same way that we look back on
that of our slave-holding, male chauvinist, Indian-land-stealing
ancestors.

And there are things that the people of 2207 will take for
granted that we find horrifying, just as the people of 1807 would have
been morally outraged at some of our behavior -- revealing dress, say.

********
They might consider morals an outdated concept.
Future generations will always look back at their ancestors as
primative.
********

I've spent some idle moments over the years trying to sense the steps
in this moral minuet that we play, and I've concluded that we are
exquisitely sensitive to social needs, even when we don't know it,
because society -- the nexus of us all -- forms a metamind of sorts,
and as members of the group, we react to its decisions. The death by
pecking of Imus is an example of that. We may not know exactly why
we're pecking -- or at least why we're pecking so much harder than we
peck at Anne Coulter or others who say things we may also find
offensive -- but society does, the social metamind does. It makes a
decision and we're left to analyze it.

-- 
Josh

"Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." - Rossini
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)