[quote]knewsom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If that’s how you want to live you life - knock yourself out. But don’t sit there and feign some sort of moral superiority because others may believe in private property, and capitalism.
First, don’t diss Buddhism - it’s the most peaceful religion on the planet, and filled with incredible wisdom. Most people would do well to read the Dhammapadda.
[/quote]
Buddhism itself is not to blame, but doesn’t it encourage people to accept things as they are, to stand around like cattle and starve? I mean, the history India and China is usually one of starvation and privation.
HH
BTW: In China, you often greet others by saying “Did you eat today?”. Response: “Yes, today is a good day — I had something to eat.”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BTW: In China, you often greet others by saying “Did you eat today?”. Response: “Yes, today is a good day — I had something to eat.”
[/quote]
What else matters if the sky is blue and the grass is green?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
…
The rich will always be privileged. That is what being rich is about. If you try to equalize tax dollars, middle class people will move out of higher-tax, higher-cost areas, which will further stratify the districts.
If you try to equalize the allocated tax dollars, you won’t see a whole lot of benefit to the poorer schools (since there are a lot of them, and the extra money spreads thin), but what are now richer schools will suffer. Or, wealthy donors will make sure the school gets what it needs, and it will still be privileged over the poorer ones.
Lift, try to understand this. It is a key concept.[/quote]
What it REALLY is is a reflection on the shoddy condition of our schools as a WHOLE. If equal distribution would mean that all of our schools would become crap, then we’ve obviously got a bigger problem… that problem being that MOST of our schools are UTTER crap.
another note,
Obviously the schools in richer neighborhoods would recieve more donations etc - all the more reason that they should NOT be shown favoritism when it comes to funding.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Once you start saying that people aren’t entitled to what they earn, that’s socialism. I don’t care how specific the application of the socialist principle might be; it’s still socialism. Once we accept the premise, all policy would have to bow to it.
I never called lifticus a socialist; I said that he was advocating socialism. I don’t think that he thinks he is a socialist, but his arguments are tending in that direction.
[/quote]
Would not one who advocates socialism therefore be a socialist? Note that I also said that you ESSENTIALLY called him a socialist, not DIRECTLY.
“not entitled to what you earn”… by your definition of Socialism, we already live in a socialist country, simply because we are forced to pay taxes. I guess rich people deserve protection from Terrorists more than poor people, eh? And poor people don’t deserve to drive on the roads paid for with public funds, right?
rediculous!
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lift, try to understand this. It is a key concept.
[/quote]
Understood. I am not advocating people be deprived of their property or earnings. I am simply trying to point out that in a democratic nation it would be prudent to have all people on equal footing when it comes to education. This is the most basic requirement to fulfil one’s needs as an idividual.
Without a proper education (I am not even talking about a college education) the poor and middle classes will be subjugated by their ignorance. The rich without a proper education will still be rich.
We call this a democratic nation but it isn’t because the poor are voiceless–voiceless people can not be heard. People who can not be heard can not affect change. People who cannot affect change will be left to suffer needlessly without a fight in times when it may be necessary to do so. These people are slaves. Education is their only salvation.
NOTE: I hope you read this in the metaphorical and not in the literal sense.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Would not one who advocates socialism therefore be a socialist?[/quote]
Not necessarily.
[quote]
“not entitled to what you earn”… by your definition of Socialism, we already live in a socialist country, simply because we are forced to pay taxes. I guess rich people deserve protection from Terrorists more than poor people, eh? And poor people don’t deserve to drive on the roads paid for with public funds, right?
rediculous![/quote]
I am not a fan of the current state of the tax system.
If local communities had militias and were responsible for their own defense, within reason, I think this would be beneficial.
There is a difference between basic taxation and wholesale wealth redistribution.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
BTW: In China, you often greet others by saying “Did you eat today?”. Response: “Yes, today is a good day — I had something to eat.”
[/quote]
Plenty of people have starved in Europe you know… the Chinese expression of “have you eaten” is more figurative than literal. it’s like asking “how’s it goin’?” or “what’s up?” It’s just a way to ask people if they’re doing alright.
There are also lots of Buddhist nations that have tons of well fed people… The Japanese REVERE farmers - they’re the second highest class next to the warrior class, and for a period of time the Samurai class were actually OPPRESSED by the farmer class.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
There is a difference between basic taxation and wholesale wealth redistribution. [/quote]
There’s also a huge difference between equal educational opportunities despite socio-economic status and wholesale wealth redistribution.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
There’s also a huge difference between equal educational opportunities despite socio-economic status and wholesale wealth redistribution.[/quote]
Yes. But when you start from the premise that a person is not entitled to what they earn…
oh, forget it.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
knewsom wrote:
There’s also a huge difference between equal educational opportunities despite socio-economic status and wholesale wealth redistribution.
Yes. But when you start from the premise that a person is not entitled to what they earn…
oh, forget it.[/quote]
Dude. just admit that either A. we live in a socialist country. or B. what I’m talking about is not socialism, but a requirement of a free and equal society.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
nephorm wrote:
knewsom wrote:
There’s also a huge difference between equal educational opportunities despite socio-economic status and wholesale wealth redistribution.
Yes. But when you start from the premise that a person is not entitled to what they earn…
oh, forget it.
Dude. just admit that either A. we live in a socialist country. or B. what I’m talking about is not socialism, but a requirement of a free and equal society.[/quote]
We live in a mish-mash of a society that has many quasi-socialist institutions.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Dude. just admit that either A. we live in a socialist country. or B. what I’m talking about is not socialism, but a requirement of a free and equal society.[/quote]
I never said that equal education provisions as you or lifticus envisioned them were wholesale socialism.
I did say that I could smell what lifticus was cooking, by reading his post that did not limit itself to the school system.
When did I ever call you a socialist?
We do have some socialist aspects (welfare) but not as many as, for example, Canada or England.
It disturbs me that you think A and B are somehow mutually exclusive and the only options…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’m just saying that with the way we all argue, everyone else probably considers us “moonbats” (by the way, I hate that term).[/quote]
Would a picture make it more palatable?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Lift, try to understand this. It is a key concept.
Understood. I am not advocating people be deprived of their property or earnings. I am simply trying to point out that in a democratic nation it would be prudent to have all people on equal footing when it comes to education. This is the most basic requirement to fulfil one’s needs as an idividual.
Without a proper education (I am not even talking about a college education) the poor and middle classes will be subjugated by their ignorance. The rich without a proper education will still be rich.
We call this a democratic nation but it isn’t because the poor are voiceless–voiceless people can not be heard. People who can not be heard can not affect change. People who cannot affect change will be left to suffer needlessly without a fight in times when it may be necessary to do so. These people are slaves. Education is their only salvation.
NOTE: I hope you read this in the metaphorical and not in the literal sense.[/quote]
While I agree poor school districts should get funding from a general fund (state or federal) to bring them to a minimum level in no way do I think all school districts should get equal funding.
If you say everyone should get the same for education because it is so important you could extend that logic to food. There is really nothing more important than food. Perhaps we should all share our food and everyone gets the same.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you say everyone should get the same for education because it is so important you could extend that logic to food. There is really nothing more important than food. Perhaps we should all share our food and everyone gets the same.
[/quote]
Not everyone needs to eat the same amount of food. Poor people in this country still eat better (higher caloric diet not necessarily nutritonal) than other poor people around the world.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you say everyone should get the same for education because it is so important you could extend that logic to food. There is really nothing more important than food. Perhaps we should all share our food and everyone gets the same.
Not everyone needs to eat the same amount of food. Poor people in this country still eat better (higher caloric diet not necessarily nutritonal) than other poor people around the world. [/quote]
We can mix a big batch of gruel and you can be fed your apportioned based on height, weight and assigned job duties.
We also spend more educating poor students than other countries spend on their students.
Zap, you’re just being silly.
you can’t seriously think that food and education are comparable??
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Zap, you’re just being silly.
you can’t seriously think that food and education are comparable??[/quote]
Which is more important in your world?
