These people are our future

[CoccoBill]

When you want to take money from the rich and give it to the poor it is the same as trying to take intelligence from geniuses and give it to the mentally handicapped. If technology allowed this would you not support it?

There is no difference between supporting Robin Hood activities and supporting brain surgery to make intelligent people dumber and dumb people smarter.

What you don't understand is that taking money from the rich makes them less productive and less able to produce things we value in the same way as IQ reducing surgery lowers a genius's ability to help society.

Do you think one person with $1bn is more productive than 1000 people with $1M? Please explain why.

You seem to see the wealthy as Paris Hilton; someone who has wealth but does not generate it. I see the wealthy as Bill Gates, who generates wealth and value for society, and I am unwilling to give them both IQ reducing brain surgery; I think it is best to leave them both alone and allow Bill to be productive and allow Paris to fuck strangers in public. The brain surgery for the rich does more harm than good, and does not help the mentally handicapped poor even if it intends to do so.

Most government programs have backfired and or caused collateral damage. Building a network of roads is only one example that wreaked havoc on our transport systems. Public education is another disaster. All government "help" programs designed to aid the low IQ members of society end up making the mentally handicapped dumber (poorer), less able to contribute to society, and lower their quality of life in the long run.

You're getting awfully close to eugenics in your comments, are you suggesting that people are poor because they are dumb? Either way, could you give some examples of these problems and why they are the government's fault?

Everything that is publicly run now would be cheaper and higher quality if it were released from gov't monopoly. Fedex and UPS are great examples of this, and were only allowed to exist after the laws banning competing with the post office were lifted. Before them the gov't said overnight was "impossible."

Imagine what is possible with schooling and transport if they were released from gov't control. Even private schools are under gov't control via accreditation board approval (controlled by existing private schools).

Finland has topped the lists of best educational systems in the world for years, and all of the schools are public. How is that possible?

[WillburForce]

we're not talking about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

We're talking about taxing richer people more than poor people to help society as a whole.

With regards Paris Hilton/celebs etc they are just a small % of what is really going on in terms of how unfair money is.

And handing over control of countries to the people with the most money WTF???????? Are you seriously suggesting this??????

[Lyric]

Do you think one person with $1bn is more productive than 1000 people with $1M? Please explain why.

No, ownership doesn't equal productivity; I want to encourage wealth (wealth=something valued by humans) creation as much as possible. I don't purport to be able to control how people produce shit any better than the next guy, and I think anyone who does is a charlatan.

Forcing the billionaire to move his wealth to people with less has been talked about 50 times in this thread already, please read the history.

[CoccoBill]

No, ownership doesn't equal productivity; I want to encourage wealth (wealth=something valued by humans) creation as much as possible. I don't purport to be able to control how people produce shit any better than the next guy, and I think anyone who does is a charlatan.

Forcing the billionaire to move his wealth to people with less has been talked about 50 times in this thread already, please read the history.

It has, and you seem to still not grasp what we are trying to say. All you are creating is this strawman about taking hard-earned money away from self-built billionaire philanthropists and giving it to poor stupid lazy bums, as if that would be the only consequence of income taxation. I'm saying that having the 400 or so billionaires that currently exist in America gain more and more wealth at the expense of the less fortunate is not something that would be allowed in CoccoBillLand, and I'm stunned that some people actually defend those practices. Do you think those 400 are the only intelligent hard-working people in the US?

[IowaSkinsFan]

It has, and you seem to still not grasp what we are trying to say. All you are creating is this strawman about taking hard-earned money away from self-built billionaire philanthropists and giving it to poor stupid lazy bums, as if that would be the only consequence of income taxation. I'm saying that having the 400 or so billionaires that currently exist in America gain more and more wealth at the expense of the less fortunate is not something that would be allowed in CoccoBillLand, and I'm stunned that some people actually defend those practices. Do you think those 400 are the only intelligent hard-working people in the US?

How do billionaires gain wealth at the expense of the less fortunate?

What do you consider hard work? Is what Bill Gates oes hard? Is what a coal miner does hard? Is there a difference between the hard and hardship? Should people be paid based on how physically demanding their job is? Should people be paid based on how mentally demanding their job is?

[CoccoBill]

How do billionaires gain wealth at the expense of the less fortunate?

Lobbying and pressure to ensure legislation that benefits them passes (Bush tax cuts), cronyism, abusive business practices etc.

"Small capitalists go bankrupt, and their production means are absorbed by large capitalists. During the process of bankruptcy and absorption, capital is gradually centralized by a few large capitalists, and the entire middle class declines. Thus, two major classes, a small minority of large capitalists, and a large proletarian majority are formed."

Wealth Redistribution? Wealthy Americans Are Taxed Less Now Than When Reagan Was President | Progress In Action

What do you consider hard work? Is what Bill Gates oes hard? Is what a coal miner does hard? Is there a difference between the hard and hardship? Should people be paid based on how physically demanding their job is? Should people be paid based on how mentally demanding their job is?

All labor should be rewarded based both on their physical and mental "hardness". Both are hard, valuable and should be rewarded. I do not, however, think that rewarding one a billion times more than the other is either fair, beneficial or sustainable.

I'd add to this: Do you think a company that did not make safe and reliable cars would succeed?

You mean like Toyota? I do actually think the whole industry did for something close to a 100 years, and I'm not sure they're all still there yet. Obviously I'm not saying technological advances haven't played a role in this, but how long has the industry been in any way interested in safety, 20-30 years? A much better example though might be a new drug and the safety testing performed during its development, as noted earlier. After the drug has been selling a few million orders a day for a year until the effects come known, it's a bit late to start voting with your wallet.

[Tileromix]

Hello people! My name is Tileromix. I from in Russia.

[Lyric]

You're getting awfully close to eugenics in your comments, are you suggesting that people are poor because they are dumb? Either way, could you give some examples of these problems and why they are the government's fault?

Eugenics is a terrible idea, but was very popular, even in the US, when Hilter gained power.

Dumb people can easily become wealthy via hard work.

Most problems that exist today are because of gov't intervention. Pick one and I'll elaborate.

[AvatarKava]

Finland has topped the lists of best educational systems in the world for years, and all of the schools are public. How is that possible?

Small, homogeneous society. Finland's entire population is smaller than that of NY City alone. Further, Finland (like a bunch of other highly-ranked European countries) funnels students into vocational/technical schools around the point that most of our students are hitting middle school.

They take education seriously - it's not bogged down by the football team or by coddling every student into believing that performance doesn't matter, as long as they try hard. If students aren't performing well, they learn trade skills instead of waiting until their 20s to find out they might not be cut out to be a lawyer. From what I've read, teachers are both well compensated and accountable.

Which is not to say that public schools themselves are the problem here in the US - the problem in my opinion is the mismanagement of public schools and the "one size fits all" approach that is currently promoted.

[Lyric]

Finland has topped the lists of best educational systems in the world for years, and all of the schools are public. How is that possible?

Finlanders (my immediate ancestors) are doing well both in their home country and abroad. There are no poor people in Finland or in the US, in general. You decide why this is the case; we don't know.

Asking me why their public education system works is like asking me why homeopathy works. We just don't know, and it certainly isn't because the schools are public or the homeopathic pills have active ingredients.

[CoccoBill]

Finlanders (my immediate ancestors) are doing well both in their home country and abroad. There are no poor people in Finland or in the US, in general. You decide why this is the case; we don't know.

Asking me why their public education system works is like asking me why homeopathy works. We just don't know, and it certainly isn't because the schools are public or the homeopathic pills have active ingredients.[/QUOTE]

So you think they are good despite of being public and they would benefit from being privatized?

BBC News - World News America - Why do Finland's schools get the best results?
Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland

[Lyric]

Asking me why their public education system works is like asking me why homeopathy works. We just don't know, and it certainly isn't because the schools are public or the homeopathic pills have active ingredients.

So you think they are good despite of being public and they would benefit from being privatized?

BBC News - World News America - Why do Finland's schools get the best results?
Privatisation and Public Ownership in Finland[/QUOTE]

Yes, they are good in spite of being socialized. Trying to analyze them to find the reason they are best is like looking at basketball coaches and trying to figure out exactly what they are doing right, but ignoring the quality of the players on the coach's team. It isn't necessarily that the players are best, but we can't ignore that possibility and assume all players are the same.