In America, it is possible to have ambition, make all the right life choices, and still fail. Viewing poor Americans, as simply deserving of their hardship is wrong. Social Darwinism is wrong.
A supreme and constant adherence to and obsession with your work and your intelligence will take you anywhere.
Anything less and you will be less likely to be anywhere, with increased weight to circumstance.
In my opinion the first part of the statement is wrong, but the second part is right.
It is true though, that the load of regulations on business, in addition to holding down the # of people employed in productive labor, prevents much competition, which serves to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.
Anyone can fail. In America, starting off disadvantaged is a massive set back in of itself. I, as a child, had to work double time over all of my classnates just to get ahead and prepare for college starting in 1st grade. It is hard, but possible.
Also, there are enough people out there with chronic diseases that are so so so expensive that they will struggle to get out of debt. That, and the fact that they may not be able to go to college or maintain a job are also major setbacks.
Such nonsense. The tiny number of people so badly disadvantaged can easily be cared for through charities. It is idiotic to use those few as a cause for putting in place immense govt bureaucracies wasting $billions, taking govt workers out of...
...the productive work they could otherwise engage in. Leftists wind up making the world poorer both of those ways, hurting the poor the most.
Good god, your entire worldview is based on a fantasy. Tiny number? Charities? We disproved that during the Great Depression.
No, we did not. What we proved in the great depression is that government interference takes what usually recovered from in a one to three year period and makes it last for decades.
Charities are so much better at discerning who needs help. Been there, done that.
You truly live in an alternate reality. FDRs policies were working but an activist Supreme Court kept shutting them down, ultimately WW2 proved that government spending is indeed a useful fiscal tool for pulling a nation out of a depression.
And no, charities could not handle the responsibilities that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc have. Voluntary charity is not sufficient. These are national issues that require national participation, and they work.
Well, let's just try out your theory of WWII. The way to create wealth is to produce things, pay for them with with counterfeit money, and then blow those thing up. Brilliant!
And I'm sure you aren't a fan of an activist court, but you'll see FDR got nearly everything he asked for, more's the pity because what he did did prolong the pain from the customary one to three years to neatly two decades.
As for charities not being able to handle true need, A well run charity operates at an efficiency ratio of 7 to 1 versus govt.
On top of that a vast number of people getting my tax money do so under fraudulent circumstances. I know that from working in charities. But govt has every reason to ignore the frauds and expand the number of frauds, and does so.
The very fact that govt programs cover people everyone knows aren't needy tells us very clearly the programs are run for the benefit of their administrators.
On top of that all charity money is donated on top of what govt steals for its horribly inefficient programs.
Figure in the # of people who do not donate because the govt steals and redistributes from them already.
It's amazing how much harm lefties do without getting called on it. Just given how much money is wasted by govt rather than being distributed through the private economy, leftists have condemned the poor to their condition and dragged the...
...rest of us closer to the poor.
But that doesn't matter, does it. To hell with wealth, lets hobble everyone to the lowest common denominator in the name of faaaiirrrness.
In the long term if you made the right choices you will be able to stand up after a fall. It is all about character.
Liberals love to make these ridiculous hardship statements to justify sweeping policies. This is exactly like saying abortion must be legal because of rape, when a tiny portion of abortions are actually the result of rape.
A guy can lose all his family and at the same time get a disease that would prevent him to work. Therefore, it's ok to put half the population on welfare.
Columbus, Ohio analogy here: Try imagining attending school in Whitehall. Now imagine it in New Albany... Often it can be set up from the beginning
Actually get your reference ;)
"Social Darwinism" is simply code for, "I got mine, good luck getting yours!"
Should we just hand people everything they might ever want or need? What would be the value of hard work then?
Of course not Justin, you know better. We should provide people an opportunity to go as far as their intellect & ambition will take them without being held back by their circumstances.
Haha, yes, I agree, but I don't believe the range of opportunity provided by our nation is that great. Even still, I don't believe the solution to that range of opportunity is increasing minimum wage to $15.
Conceptually I don't support a $15/hr min wage. Personally however, it would be amazing. I sell business automation software. The higher wages go, the more software I sell.
Oh, that's awesome, I didn't realize that's what you did. A product I might know? I'm a programmer in health insurance claims processing. The higher wages go the more I get paid to automate those positions, so it works to my benefit too.
Possibly, we did over a billion last year and we are experiencing record growth. Government compliance has been good to us.
Haha, us too. Setting up these exchanges has meant all sorts of great programming work. Still, our goal is to get from 300 claims processors down to 200 or less within two years, even as the number of claims continues to grow at 5-10% a year.
It's the way society is going; in a few keystrokes I can do the work of a hundred claims processors. Why pay them $30k each when they can pay me $70k? This automation will likely have serious economic ramifications, especially for low-skill workers
If you think social Darwinists feel anyone deserves anything then you are badly uninformed
Is it possible? Sure but you don't walk through a trailer park and think "Man, look at all these ambitious people who made good choices. The world is harsh place for keeping them down."
In any case, I have no qualm with people bearing the consequences of their life choices. Rewarding them by saying "It's okay, life isn't fair." and paying them more money does nothing to solve the problem.
Giving them hi-speed Internet and more money isn't helping them either. If they want extra money or hi-speed internet then should have to work for it
Agree, and the opposite is also true. I know an individual who was born into wealth, has no ambition, and has made numerous poor life choices. The family money has kept him out of jail so far.
So what? If his family chooses to squander their money paying for his poor choices, what's that to anyone else?
It's possible to do everything right and just have bad luck. But even if you're down on your luck, like had to spend all their money on health care, people with those qualities get back up and do well again. Stop using excuses for being a low life.
I agree. And let's not even call it Social Darwinism. It has nothing to do with Darwin.
Hardworking & ambitious poor people are far more common but much less visible than someone who works and studies himself out of poverty.
People are born into wealth while others are deprived of any means to innovate. How can anyone believe that myth anymore?
There are plenty of poor that were born into wealth. They f'd it up. Drugs and poor life choices are the leading cause.
Sure even if you aren't born into it, you still aren't necessarily guaranteed it, that is also true.
LeftLib ... first, really? You must have horrible arguments with yourself!
Anyway, who cares what others have, what they deserved, etc? This life is a time for each of us to forge our own way, make it or not, it's on you! Stop the envy!
I can't really tell where you were going with most of that, as for the last bit, I'm not "envious", it is just the case that the "work hard be successful" mentality is delusional when you apply it to the world, in multiple ways.
Think. I don't think lib is that far off of your ideals. They are pretty fair. I don't really think he's that far left. Lib. Have you thought about changing your name to moderate libertarian?
I have to say I am quite far to the left, by this I mean I fully support worker control over production and participatory decision making over the economy. I'm not moderate at all economically or socially, I'm a quite radical libertarian socialist.
Oh. Well you don't think that being born wealthy guarantees you a wealthy life easily. That's pretty moderate.
Libertarian and socialist are diametrically opposed. Aren't they?
The common US definition of libertarian is quite new, the first people to call themselves libertarians were socialists, they predate right wing libertarianism by about a century and are in greater numbers than right libertarians as well.
Just because I understand that being rich won't give you everything doesn't mean I'm not still radical, although I don't see being radical in a negative light, as revolutionary socialists have been significant in establishing needed social change.
I like this view; As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
That's why I'm a libertarian.
I'm not fond the libertarian party personally, not only do I oppose capitalism because it is a direct barrier of workplace democracy, I oppose using reformist tactics or taking state power.
Open your own business and you'll see how workplace democracy works. Not very well if you want to keep the doors open.
Of course it won't it is extremely difficult to create a labor co op in a capitalist society. Many wouldn't even sell you the capital to do so in the fear of a long term competitor. The few ones that do well often get bought out as well.
Although there is some hope, the "factories without bosses" in Argentina are expanding, and I think are an excellent example of an alternative that prevent economic corruption and allow greater control of one's own work.
Interesting. I'll check it out
Well of course. It's the myth of meritocracy. Lots of powerful people depend on the masses to believe it.
So very much agree!