thuc: "So, what I'm hearing is that some people are better than others," Well, yes. The bell curve is real. Some people are smarter, work harder, or sometimes just lucky. They have more talent, and if they apply that talent, they succeed.

" the people who are worse deserve to live with poverty and the suffering it entails." This is full of misleading statements. I don't consider people 'worse' than others. All are created equal. Some have more talent in some areas. Bill Gates and Ronaldo. Completely different talents. Both successful. Neither can do what the other does.

Those living in 'poverty' in the U.S. live better than most in the world. They have cell phones, Big Screen TV, Food, Free education, access to medical care. The biggest problem most of those in poverty face is obesity, because of poor choices, and crime and drugs. Again poor choices.

Yes, suffering exists, but mainly from mental problems or poor choices. People flock to the US for opportunity, not to suffer.


and the people who are worse deserve to live with poverty and the suffering it entails.

Correct?

If social mobility and equal opportunity were truly at hand, don't you think they could find a job in unskilled labor and at least meet the minimum requirements for survival in this society?

TrP "If social mobility and equal opportunity were truly at hand, don't you think they could find a job in unskilled labor and at least meet the minimum requirements for survival in this society?"

With freedom, we are free to fail. Look at the Ben Carson story. He went from poverty, the bottom of his class at school, to a brain surgeon and now running for president. He could easily have turned to a life of drugs and gang violence. He tried to kill his best friend with a knife, but got lucky when the knife broke.

A big problem is drugs. There is so much money in drugs. The money leads to corruption in government and violence. I really believe we could reduce that scourge on society by giving drugs away free. Take the money out.

But big government programs need problems to solve. People on welfare or unemployment vote for those who continue the benefits. Paying people not to work kills the spirit to work, and destroys families, and creates more problems to solve by government programs.

Anybody who wants to work can find a job in america. Start at the bottom and work your way up.

The demand for labour doesn't really meet the supply these days. This is why I strive not to be employed: in almost all situations, someone else would have gotten that job if you didn't. You're not actually adding something to the economy or anything if you add something that someone else would've added if you didn't.

Personally, I think the best solution is to fix this gap between supply and demand. With females working too, humans work way more on average. I would reduce the amount of hours in a working week, effectively creating jobs. It's not democrat or republican, it just fixes a broken balance in favour of employees directly and employers indirectly.

Plus the government saves a shitload of money on handouts, something to fix any problems that may arise.

Where I live, in the rural Midwest, there aren't enough workers for the jobs (I'm talking mostly about agricultural jobs). Most Americans just don't want to do that. The farmers have to rely on migrant workers and high schoolers to pick fruit, detassle corn, etc.

"Paying people not to work kills the spirit to work" Correct, which is why almost all unemployment programs in the world require that they have to be looking for a job and have time limits.
I agree that rags to riches stories are touching, but in a laissez-faire society this becomes increasingly less possible, because monopolies will form and land themselves as an aristocracy. Monopolies seize and enslave the invisible hand of the market, making it visible for them that they may slap down any competition that tries to rear its head. Now, the laissez-faire system is marked by its lack of government regulations or involvement in economic endeavors, and so it is government that must reestablish this social mobility, by logic. The problem is when it is a government that is controlled by such aristocracies, when those who govern don't take aim at truly involving themselves to guarantee true equal opportunity. For example, neither Democrats nor Republicans care much beyond keeping their parties landed as political elites. Welfare perpetuates poverty, and Democratic politicians don't worry too much about that because those on welfare are part of their voter demographic. Republicans are the equal but opposites to that, also not really worried about ending the cycle of poverty, simply removing any safety net that might get them on their feet so that they could get on their feet and make it on their own again. The best way to end welfare is to make it irrelevant. Without government intervention, anyone can start at the bottom, but not everyone can work their way up, but government isn't always understanding of how that might work, while at the same time seeking personal advancement. Makes me sad that there are no major centrist movements in the U.S.

TrP "I agree that rags to riches stories are touching, but in a laissez-faire society this becomes increasingly less possible, because monopolies will form and land themselves as an aristocracy. Monopolies seize and enslave the invisible hand of the market, making it visible for them that they may slap down any competition that tries to rear its head. " Respectfully, this is BS. Total BS. Blackberry was a 'monopoly' but quickly replaced. Talk to the folks at My Space how their market domination helped them. There are few 'natural' monopolies, where the monopoly actually results in lower costs - we don't need 3 different sewer lines , water pipes or natural gas lines.

But I challenge you to give examples of your claims that support your position. Most of the problems occur when government tries to replace the market and picks winners and losers.

Step - "Personally, I think the best solution is to fix this gap between supply and demand. " That is called the free market. Unless you want the government to force people to work. Use technology to replace labor. Pay workers more to attract more workers. Simple.

of course, you truely believe in pure individualism








right?

@BOG: You're misinterpreting me. The problem is people are forced* to work while there's not enough work. If everyone simply works less hours per week, more jobs are needed to get the same amount of work done, thus more people find a job. There's no structural unemployment and the issue of what to do with the unemployed is a non-issue because there are almost no unemployed people. You could give them decent handouts and it would still cost the government next to nothing by comparison.

*Technically they have other options including death.

The supply isn't too little, it's too much. That's what I was saying and you got that the other way around.

princ - "of course, you truely believe in pure individualism" of course not. Don't be silly. We are a society and need government for certain, limited activities. I believe government should maintain public roads, defend the country against our enemies, mint currency - all those things outlined in the U.S. Constitution. State and city governments should provide for civil order.

You clearly don't understand the real definition of monopoly.

Also, market laws dictate that monopolies would lead to higher costs because they have the whole supply, so as long as there is demand then they can set whatever price, higher and higher.

Oh, sorry, sometimes feel there are language barriers between us. Not that wikipedia the most reliable source, but I think its definition is sensible enough:

"Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual.[1][2] Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires and so value independence and self-reliance[3] and advocate that interests of the individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group,[3] while opposing external interference upon one's own interests by society or institutions such as the government.[3] Individualism is often contrasted with totalitarianism or collectivism.[4]"

^^^that was for BOG

by 'pure individualism' I was not meaning total abscense of government, again, that would be anarchism

Position A
==========
thucydides: "So, what I'm hearing is that some people are better than others?"
BOG: "Well, yes."

Position B
==========
BOG: "I don't consider people 'worse' than others. All are created equal."

B is not logically consistent with A. Either some people are better, in which, comparatively, those who are not better are worse, OR no-one is better than another. You can't claim both.

Jamie - You are completely missing the point. Who is better, Bill Gates or Ronaldo? Who is worse? Well, Bill Gates is the guy I would invest in if I wanted to start a software company. I would choose Ronaldo if I was forming a soccer team.

So, if your mind can comprehend the concept and the logic, Ronaldo and Gates are both better than each other, and both 'worse' than each. It really isn't that difficult. It is logically consistent. But they are both equal in God's eye. Not worse.

Comprede?

Princ - "Oh, sorry, sometimes feel there are language barriers between us. " That happens. Types words also cause difficulties. There is no give and take, clarification, and confusion results. I appreciate your attempts at clarification and dialogue.

Yes. I agree with your definition. Individuals are endowed with inalienable rights granted by God, not governments. Government rights can always be changed.

Princ -"Also, market laws dictate that monopolies would lead to higher costs because they have the whole supply, so as long as there is demand then they can set whatever price, higher and higher."

You don't understand economics and economic realities.

A 'natural' monopoly results in lower costs. Let's look at natural gas distribution. Natural gas can be distributed to homes with a single pipeline, instead of 5 companies each having 5 pipelines running through neighborhoods. The costs of competition would raise costs. Maintaining one pipeline - a monopoly - costs x. Maintaining 5 pipelines costs 5x. There are very few natural monopolies. Government granting monopolies will usually raise costs and stifle competition and innovation.

Wait, so you support monopolization?

Competition drives prices down. Monopoly is tied to lack of competition. Are you incredibly stoned?

"A 'natural' monopoly results in lower costs. Let's look at natural gas distribution….."

Which is why privatisation of power and rail companies often separates the distribution network (cables, pipelines, rail-tracks) from what travels along them.

@ BOG: So you do *not* believe that some people are better than others *in totality* ? Thus your initial response to Thucy was at least misleading, if it was not illogical.

? BOG? you misquoted me, I didn't write that

It was TrPrado. BOG is so old his eyesight is failing him.

TrP "Competition drives prices down. Monopoly is tied to lack of competition. Are you incredibly stoned?" Not stoned. Are you incredibly ignorant? I said NATURAL monopolies drive down costs. I said there are very few natural monopolies. Why would you want 5 sewer systems or 7 gas pipelines running through your neighborhood? The average cost would be higher than a single system.

Sewage is a fixed amount. Handling the same amount of sewage with multiple systems will drive up costs. This is different than a car factory. Demand for cars is not fixed. Better or cheaper provides an opportunity.

When you get to college, you should study economics from a professor who is not a Marxist.