Posted on 05/15/2014 12:59:04 PM PDT by econjack
Talking about income inequality is almost like talking about height inequality.
Unless we are installing communism, of course experts, managers, scientists, professionals, CEO’s etc are going to make “more” because their services are valued higher.
Even discussing this is discussing communism pure and simple. Obama is a Marxist. As is almost all of the democrat party.
And their revolution to destroy America, fragment society and install communism is reaching the tipping point. Free Speech is just about gone, Freedom of Religion, etc.
Paragraphs are you friend.
We really need to talk about paragraph break inequality.
Collectivist/egalitarianism is the ultimate mischief maker in human society over recent centuries. (See The Greatest Mischief Ever Wrought.) It is a common mistake to consider it to be idealistic. It is anything but.
William Flax
In this example, all sentences are equal. None get the favored place at the start of a paragraph due to privilege or heredity or whatever. None are consigned to the “back of the bus (paragraph)”. What could be more equal.
Two biggest typos I’m subject to -
leaving the “r” off of “your”
and the “y” off of “they”
good anal ysis
What Obama is offering is pure Communism,
Not at all, “pure communism” is, according to it’s inventor is Stateless and seems to be pure drug induced folly.
Socialism has a State and the State owns the means of production. This seems not to be El-Presidente’s goal.
Rather his goal seems to be private “semi” ownership of the means of production with the State awarding ownership and controlling the production. This is also known as either crony capitalism or fascism.
And the kicker is that the “wards of society” will never, EVER, move past being wards of society.
The Democratic Party has a vested interest in the poor. The poor tend to vote for the Democratic Party, so that party has no interest in helping the poor move into the middle class.
A comment I read right here on FreeRepublic sums it up, “Obama loves the poor, look at how many he’s created since taking office.”
Well stated, plus it doesn’t work.
That isn't quite correct. Even under communism inequality is inevitable due to Pareto's Law. Over any appreciable amount of time, wealth will arrange itself in accordance with the 80/20 power rule. The same is true for about anything that can be said about any biological systems. 20% of the pea pods in your garden will produce 80% of the peas. That's it. This is a corollary to the laws of thermodynamics. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that can be done about stark inequality.
We conservatives have to get this point. Whatever else can be said about the progressive agenda, trying to achieve equality of income or wealth distribution is truly tilting at windmills. They might as well try to repeal the Law of Gravity by legislative decree. It ain't gonna work.
And we conservatives fall into this trap that progressives set for us over and over and over again because - well, I don't really know. Why is it that conservatives don't know or maybe don't care about Pareto's Law?
Good things don’t come to those who wait with their hand held out; Good things come to those who work their butts off, make reasonably good choices and never quit.
The dems demand equality in outcome - the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality. Offering “Equality in Opportunity” is viscerally insulting to those societal leeches.
There’s the America that uses paragraphs and the America that doesn’t.
Well, you can only buy votes with equality in outcome. Offering equality in opportunity is a visceral insult to your standard issue politislut or societal leech.
Good piece of writing. Too bad it will only bounce off the impenetrable shield of “gimme” that clouds the good common sense of half the voters out there.
Thanks for this excellent post.
I enjoyed your clever analogy, jim. You brought it home.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
communism is a subjective moral system. the whims of men determine right and wrong, what too much or too little is, what a need is, what a want is, what you should have, what you shouldn’t, where you live, what job you have, what medical treatment you can or can’t have.
i go for objective moral systems. we may have to interpret them in certain fringe situations but the golden rule pretty much is easy enough for everyone to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.