Equality?

[steelish]

One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible? How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Your thoughts/opinions????

[oww-that-hurt]

We are all "equal" in regards to rights and how laws should apply to us. But, that is basically where it ends. Now, if we could only get all of these "bad" laws removed from the books.

My good old dictionary brings up things like being the same measure, quantity, value, quality, number, degree or status as another. That is where the discussion gets opened up wide for so many interpretations and applications that none of us are truly "equal" to one another in every sense of the word.

"Spreading the wealth" is a crock, too. You work for it, you get paid for it. If a person drives themselves to get an advance education, then applies that education in a GOOD way, that person should be expected to be compensated for that. If that person uses their education in a BAD way (tax fraud) they should be compensated with prison time.

[Thorne]

If anyone wants to spread some of their "wealth" in my direction, I'll be more than happy to take some of it off their hands. That's what charity is for, isn't it? Sharing the wealth?

If someone wants to spread some of MY wealth around, on the other hand, that's robbery! That's what prisons are for.

And you'll notice that those who are most eager to "share the wealth" are those who either don't have any to share or those who will, in all likelihood, exempt themselves from having to actually share anything.

No, equality does not mean that you can have everything that I've worked hard to acquire. It only means that you can have the same opportunity to work just as hard to acquire your own.

And I don't share.

[Lion]

Isn't public education a form of equality?

[oww-that-hurt]

Isn't public education a form of equality?

In the U.S. at this time, the sad answer is no. There isn't even any equality between the dozen school districts in my COUNTY. Take a location, such as Montana, that has local school districts being ran by local school boards with the local taxpayers voting on issues and if approved then the property owners pay taxes for those issues. The more affluent school districts have more educational and sports choices, by voter approval, than the less affluent. Some school districts have swim teams, some school districts don't even have a pool within 100 miles.

The environment for the public schools are very far from any equal footing, as well. Urban, suburban, rural and remote public schools are so unequal in many facets that they really can't be in the same conversation. That is one reason 'nickle-be' will never work; one formula for such a diverse group of circumstances is unreasonable, as noble as some people may feel it might be.

Many school districts are too small to reasonably be required to have a Chemistry teacher, for example. But many times those kids are too far from a school district that has a Chemistry teacher to be bused to. And, since the school district that has the Chemistry teacher isn't supported by taxes for those other school district kids to attend their school, if they decide to accept a limited (key word) number of out-of district kids, they charge tuition. They must. Their budgets aren't built around other school district's kids. I know I sure don't want MY property taxes to pay for school kids from another district. I didn't vote for that. Like Thorne said previously, and I feel the same way concerning this issue "And I don't share." Thanks, Thorne!

So, as it stands now, public education isn't a form of equality. Yeah, we all have the equal opportunity to attend, but that is the end of it.

Damn husbands (me) of long-time school teachers are opinionated!

[steelish]

Isn't public education a form of equality?

All Americans have the equal right to pursue an education and we have free public schools. Unfortunately, the Department of Education is so top heavy and has drained educational funding. Not only that but the federal government keeps cutting back on education, yet I don't see them cutting back on their own spending.

Obama speaks specifically of spreading the wealth economically. I have never seen evidence that it is possible for a country to contain people who are "equal" in terms of economic wealth. It is impossible to bring poverty level or "poor" people up to the middle class or upper/middle class level and have everyone at that level. In doing so you would have to also bring upper class and rich down to middle or upper/middle class level.

In doing this, what we will end up with is a nation of bitter, unhappy people looking to overthrow their government because in essence, what the government will be doing is "forcing" charity, which doesn't really make it charity. Charity comes from the heart and is given freely. I know many countries frown upon America and even hate us. We are one of the most charitable nations on earth so I find it quite ironic that we are being viewed as "hating the poor". In my opinion, the people from other countries who feel this way see sensationalized stories on mainstream media and think they know the "real" America.

[Ozme52]

It would never work... and the best way to quash the attempt is to enact it serially.

Determine what an "equal" share is... and start by reducing the income (and holdings) of the legislators, judges, and executives of our government to those levels.

Thorne sums it up... including the intent of the founding fathers (who were so bloody rich, they could foment and support a revolution.)

No, equality does not mean that you can have everything that I've worked hard to acquire. It only means that you can have the same opportunity to work just as hard to acquire your own.

btw... another aspect to consider. Removing wealth eliminates the potential to organize dissent. It's a totalitarian truism.

[VaAugusta]

And you'll notice that those who are most eager to "share the wealth" are those who either don't have any to share or those who will, in all likelihood, exempt themselves from having to actually share anything.

Actually, those who are in most need of wealth redistribution have little to no say in government affairs. I've been in the capitol building and I didn't see any homeless children speaking in front of Congress.

[Thorne]

Actually, those who are in most need of wealth redistribution have little to no say in government affairs. I've been in the capitol building and I didn't see any homeless children speaking in front of Congress.

That's primarily because Congress doesn't want to see homeless children. It might make them rethink those exorbitant salaries and perks they get. For about 5 seconds.

But if you actually talk to poor people, and listen to what they are saying, many of them parrot the talk of socialism and even communism. "Those people are too rich. They should share some of their money with the poor."

I worked with someone like that. A reliable worker, bright and able. Not well educated, and didn't want to do the work necessary to improve himself. Yet always complaining about how other people were making too much money. And when I tried to explain to him that those people went to school to learn what they needed, that those people kept learning after school, that those people constantly tried improving their skills, he would claim they were oppressing him. He wasn't interested in sharing what he made with those worse off than himself, but he was very interested in taking money and property away from those better off than himself.

I'm with Oz on this one. Any "sharing" has to come from our political leaders, first and foremost.

[TantricSoul]

One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible?

Yes I think it is possible. On a small scale, Ive seen the concept succeed in the form of co-ops and communes. However I do not think such a change is likely to "materialize" on a national level anytime soon. Ridding ourselves of the concept of social or economic classes would be a fantastic occurrence for our species. However the changes in thought process' required would be numerous, drastic, and highly contested, after all, many are not ready to give up on the logical fallacy that "he who dies with the most toys wins."

How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Equal in the same sense as 1 = 1? true equality?
I would say that only occurs two times in each of our lives. The moment of birth and the moment of death. Equality between those two moments is highly subjective.

Your thoughts/opinions????

It seems clear to me that there is no equality in the material sense between we humans. I disagree that we even all have equal opportunity, or are equaly protected and represented in our legal system.
It sounds nice. It looks good on paper, but is not what i witness happening.

Regarding sharing of material assets; I do hope the time comes where we can "share" what resources are available so that all humans have food, shelter and medical care. That we can fashion modalities so that as everyone benefits, so also does everyone contribute, similar to a co-op or commune, or tribal system.

The Human Tribe.

Because my brothers and sisters, on a far larger scale, we are not only equal, but connected, one and the same. Einstein, Buddha, Jesus and many, many others have said (using different words) that we are all interconnected, everything, everyone.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein

Yes it will be a glorious time when we interact with ourselves compassionately instead of selfishly.


Respectfully,
TS

[Thorne]

many are not ready to give up on the logical fallacy that "he who dies with the most toys wins."

That quote is wrong on so many levels. But basically it should read, "He who lives with the best toys wins!"

I have no qualms about buying trinkets and toys if I can afford them. I've worked my whole life to be able to afford them. And I don't believe that everyone has an equal right to own those same trinkets and toys unless they've earned them and can afford them as well.

Regarding sharing of material assets; I do hope the time comes where we can "share" what resources are available so that all humans have food, shelter and medical care. That we can fashion modalities so that as everyone benefits, so also does everyone contribute, similar to a co-op or commune, or tribal system.

And yet this concept has failed miserably all over the world. Oh, sure, on a small scale it can work: families, small groups, perhaps even tribes. But once a group reaches a certain density (and I have no idea how to determine what that density may be) you develop classes. Someone who is good at one thing trades his work for someone else's work. If you're good enough at what you do your work is in demand, and you can trade at more advantageous rates. Why, for example, should a spear-maker trade his spears to a lazy hunter who only brings him scavenged, half-rotten meat, when he can trade them to the good hunter who brings him fresh-killed, prime meat? And once he has that meat, assuming he doesn't waste it, why should he be forced to share it with the bum who doesn't bother to hunt or scavenge but only begs from others?

Similar rules apply to modern scenarios. Why should someone bother to do all the hard work, spend all that time in education and training, to become a doctor if, without lifting a finger, he will be supplied with the same compensation as everyone else? Without the stimulus of a better lifestyle, there is no reason to try to succeed.

Every truly socialist state in history (to my admittedly uncertain knowledge) has only been able to survive through fear and the utter degradation of the populace, while the hierarchy reaped all the benefits. And each of those states evolved either into self-destroying dictatorships (Soviet Union & North Korea) or more capitalist societies (China). Just ask the North Korean people if they enjoy being so "equal."

Basic food, basic shelter, basic medicine, yes these should be available to all citizens. Should everyone be supplied with a million dollar home just because some people can afford them? No! Should everyone be allowed to eat at the finest restaurants just because some people can? No again! Should everyone be provided the best quality medical care just because some can afford it? A third NO!

[Thorne]

Because my brothers and sisters, on a far larger scale, we are not only equal, but connected, one and the same. Einstein, Buddha, Jesus and many, many others have said (using different words) that we are all interconnected, everything, everyone.

This is, if you'll pardon the expression, horseshit! It implies a supernatural/metaphysical/undefinable/magical thread linking us one to another, without providing any evidence for such a thread. We must take it on faith, just because someone says so? I think not!

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein

While we may all be a part of the whole, it does not necessarily follow that we are all an equal or integral part. The universe has a way of tossing parts aside haphazardly, to the benefit of some and the detriment of most. Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck.

Yes it will be a glorious time when we interact with ourselves compassionately instead of selfishly.

I am always compassionate when interacting with myself. And selfish, too. It's a lot less messy than interacting with anyone else.

[SadisticNature]

One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible? How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Your thoughts/opinions????

I think there is a pretty big difference between having Tax brackets and spreading the wealth. At the levels proposed it is also pretty ridiculous to claim what is wanted is equality of economic classes, at best the goal is slightly reducing disparity.

As for the possibility, absolutely it is possible, taxes were around 70% on the top bracket from post-world war II up until Reagan, and those were pretty good years for USA.

As for outright equality in the communist sense, it is absolutely without a doubt impossible in the US. Despite some portrayals to the contrary, the vast majority of the left is vehemently opposed to communism.

I think the framing of the question is a big issue here you seem to be presenting it as we have two options:

(i) Enforce absolute equality (is this even possible)

(ii) Do nothing whatsoever to towards any form of egalitarianism.

And whenever someone attempts to oppose (ii), they get accused of supporting (i), even despite a long track record to the contrary.

[denuseri]

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

[Thorne]

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

That would depend on how they got it, don't you think? If they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, then yes. If they stole it, then no.

[SadisticNature]

That would depend on how they got it, don't you think? If they worked for it, or their parents worked for it, then yes. If they stole it, then no.

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?

In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

[denuseri]

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.

Not so surprising when you realize that the vast majority of the lobbiests who woo the lawmakers do so at the bequest of the super rich super minority's beck and call.

How else do you think the super elite keep we in the mob in check, 300 million of us droning on along here in the USA represented by only two main parties in a this or that chant with our propaganda (news) supplied to us by 5 majior multi national super corperations who are all owned by that same oligarchy of the rich.

[DuncanONeil]

In a manner of speaking, yes it is. However it is not an equality of outcome but of opportunity.
That is the problem with "share the wealth" equality. It is equality of outcome.
We have, what some 16 football teams in the US, with a little over 22 on the roster, paid exhorbitent salaries in my estimation. This is also equality of opportunity, since those that want to play can try for the job. Equality of outcome would mean that these guys get to play only one season or game so everyone else can also be a "football hero".

Isn't public education a form of equality?

[DuncanONeil]

Some, repeat "some", of you examples are not germane. Yes it is an opinion but the high school I attended did not have a pool either, nor a football team. Baseball and track we had but they competed for the same athletes, I surmise that the best went to Baseball as Track only had one meet. Our Basketball team was best in conference, Track second best, baseball I never heard.
But having said all of that these are not necessary for education, and yes I was involved in sports. Even lettered.
Education is what goes on in the classroom. Of course the population of an area is going to have a direct result on how much is available for the schools and their spending. Something else that needs to be reformed!

In the U.S. at this time, the sad answer is no. There isn't even any equality between the dozen school districts in my COUNTY. Take a location, such as Montana, that has local school districts being ran by local school boards with the local taxpayers voting on issues and if approved then the property owners pay taxes for those issues. The more affluent school districts have more educational and sports choices, by voter approval, than the less affluent. Some school districts have swim teams, some school districts don't even have a pool within 100 miles.

The environment for the public schools are very far from any equal footing, as well. Urban, suburban, rural and remote public schools are so unequal in many facets that they really can't be in the same conversation. That is one reason 'nickle-be' will never work; one formula for such a diverse group of circumstances is unreasonable, as noble as some people may feel it might be.

Many school districts are too small to reasonably be required to have a Chemistry teacher, for example. But many times those kids are too far from a school district that has a Chemistry teacher to be bused to. And, since the school district that has the Chemistry teacher isn't supported by taxes for those other school district kids to attend their school, if they decide to accept a limited (key word) number of out-of district kids, they charge tuition. They must. Their budgets aren't built around other school district's kids. I know I sure don't want MY property taxes to pay for school kids from another district. I didn't vote for that. Like Thorne said previously, and I feel the same way concerning this issue "And I don't share." Thanks, Thorne!

So, as it stands now, public education isn't a form of equality. Yeah, we all have the equal opportunity to attend, but that is the end of it.

Damn husbands (me) of long-time school teachers are opinionated!

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with your "hating the poor" comment.
Ever notice how there is never a concrete definition of what constitutes "poor"

All Americans have the equal right to pursue an education and we have free public schools. Unfortunately, the Department of Education is so top heavy and has drained educational funding. Not only that but the federal government keeps cutting back on education, yet I don't see them cutting back on their own spending.

Obama speaks specifically of spreading the wealth economically. I have never seen evidence that it is possible for a country to contain people who are "equal" in terms of economic wealth. It is impossible to bring poverty level or "poor" people up to the middle class or upper/middle class level and have everyone at that level. In doing so you would have to also bring upper class and rich down to middle or upper/middle class level.

In doing this, what we will end up with is a nation of bitter, unhappy people looking to overthrow their government because in essence, what the government will be doing is "forcing" charity, which doesn't really make it charity. Charity comes from the heart and is given freely. I know many countries frown upon America and even hate us. We are one of the most charitable nations on earth so I find it quite ironic that we are being viewed as "hating the poor". In my opinion, the people from other countries who feel this way see sensationalized stories on mainstream media and think they know the "real" America.

[DuncanONeil]

Okay! You put it out there. Just who is it that is "in most need of wealth redistribution".

Actually, those who are in most need of wealth redistribution have little to no say in government affairs. I've been in the capitol building and I didn't see any homeless children speaking in front of Congress.

[DuncanONeil]

Originally Posted by steelish View Post
One of the things Obama wants to do is "spread the wealth", which, in my eyes, equates to equality of the economic classes.

Is such a thing possible?

Yes I think it is possible. On a small scale, Ive seen the concept succeed in the form of co-ops and communes. However I do not think such a change is likely to "materialize" on a national level anytime soon. Ridding ourselves of the concept of social or economic classes would be a fantastic occurrence for our species. However the changes in thought process' required would be numerous, drastic, and highly contested, after all, many are not ready to give up on the logical fallacy that "he who dies with the most toys wins."

I don't think it truly an issue of "who dies with the most toys wins". I think what the vast majority wants is to do better than their parents. I make more money than they ever did, but I am not so convinced I am a lot better off.

As for the Co-ops and communes. Did not somebody try that already? How well did that work out?

How can a nation of so many people, who are spread across such a large country and are so diverse (by diverse I mean in education, skill sets, etc.) ever be "equal"?

Equal in the same sense as 1 = 1? true equality?
I would say that only occurs two times in each of our lives. The moment of birth and the moment of death. Equality between those two moments is highly subjective.

Your thoughts/opinions????

It seems clear to me that there is no equality in the material sense between we humans. I disagree that we even all have equal opportunity, or are equaly protected and represented in our legal system.
It sounds nice. It looks good on paper, but is not what i witness happening.
Does that not depend on the definition of opportunity? The fact of high school graduation rates may give the appearance of supporting the position you state. But did not every Freshman that entered high school have the same "opportunity" to graduate?

Regarding sharing of material assets; I do hope the time comes where we can "share" what resources are available so that all humans have food, shelter and medical care. That we can fashion modalities so that as everyone benefits, so also does everyone contribute, similar to a co-op or commune, or tribal system.
Like "Star Trek"?

The Human Tribe.

Because my brothers and sisters, on a far larger scale, we are not only equal, but connected, one and the same. Einstein, Buddha, Jesus and many, many others have said (using different words) that we are all interconnected, everything, everyone.

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." ~ Albert Einstein

Yes it will be a glorious time when we interact with ourselves compassionately instead of selfishly.


Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

Getting as close as I can, 2007, I find the following.
1/10 of 1% of the population would be 330,000.
Tax data I can only get close with some 391,432. Okay?
These people have 20% of the income, about $1.25 billion.
They pay 36% of the taxes collected, about $416.6 million.
Which is about 33% of their income!

On the other side of that is it a good thing that nearly 50% pay no tax?

So let me get this straight...some people think it's a good thing that less than 1/10 of 1% of a population is allowed to control 95% of the wealth in it?

[DuncanONeil]

I think "allowed to control" is kind of awkward. It seems to suggest society should basically forcibly take away this money at the point of a gun.

I think from a societal perspective such a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few is very bad. For instance, it has been shown to radically increase crime and cause other problems.

I think the question is more: How can one justify decreasing taxes on the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class when the income disparity is so extreme?

When taxes are decrease how is that you see this only as taxes decreased for the "rich" at the "expense" of the "poor & middle class"?

In my parents generation the major corporate CEO's earned 20 times what the average worker did. There are CEO's now that earn more in a minute than a minimum wage job holder earns in a year. And if that's what their skills justify than fine. But keep that in mind when you suggest cutting that guys taxes and paying for it by raising taxes on that minimum wage earner.

Show me a time when taxes were cut for the "rich" and raised on the minimum wage earner?

Also from the earned perspective, why does it make sense to slash inheritance taxes, it seems to me inheritance is by definition unearned wealth.

Inheritance comes from three sources; wages, investment, or prior inheritance. In all of these instances these funds have already been taxed. Why then should it be taxed again?? In many cases there is a family business involved that suddenly becomes the property of someone else!

Lastly, why have we chosen to tax investment income at a lesser rate than income earned through labor. A long line of those who are claimed to be champions of conservative economics was strongly opposed to this, the likes of which include Adam Smith and Andrew Mellon. The liberal economists have always been against it. Warren Buffet ripped the US government because he paid a lower % on his income than his secretary did, despite earning way more, because investment income is taxed so lightly.[/QUOTE]

[denuseri]

Lets not confuse income, wealth and power here ok.

I misquoted the "wealth" ratio it was 85% not 95, but still that is really high imho.

I highly reccomend giving the following eye opening work a read as well:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Actually read it too, don't just skim it looking for your sides talking points please.

[DuncanONeil]

I read about half way through.
I did expect a knock on my reference to income. But that was the IRS definition of income, which covers everything!

Looking over the numbers in the reference I see a remarkable consitancy across the years.

Lets not confuse income, wealth and power here ok.

I misquoted the "wealth" ratio it was 85% not 95, but still that is really high imho.

I highly reccomend giving the following eye opening work a read as well:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

Actually read it too, don't just skim it looking for your sides talking points please.

[TantricSoul]

I have no qualms about buying trinkets and toys if I can afford them. I've worked my whole life to be able to afford them. And I don't believe that everyone has an equal right to own those same trinkets and toys unless they've earned them and can afford them as well.

If you want to work your whole life to acquire trinkets and toys then by all means you should get what you deserve. And I agree with you about others and their ability to collect trinkets and toys.

Where my heart grows heavy in this debate, is the obvious "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality at work in our society. While others go without food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This is the inequality that is sickening.

Basic food, basic shelter, basic medicine, yes these should be available to all citizens. Should everyone be supplied with a million dollar home just because some people can afford them? No! Should everyone be allowed to eat at the finest restaurants just because some people can? No again! Should everyone be provided the best quality medical care just because some can afford it? A third NO!

Ludicrous generalizations of million dollar homes and eating from the finest of restaurants for all, aside... no one is suggesting this after all.
I can agree with this paragraph right down to the last line. The quality or extent of medical care should not be limited to what you can afford. Unless we are talking elective procedures. Those that can afford plastic surgery (and other non necessary treatments) should be able to buy it from whomever they wish at whatever cost. Yes there should be freedom to choose your doctor or treatment, and yes there should be high quality care (especially preventative) for everyone.

Respectfully,
TS

[Thorne]

Where my heart grows heavy in this debate, is the obvious "MINE, MINE, MINE" mentality at work in our society. While others go without food, water, clothing, shelter, and medical care. This is the inequality that is sickening.

What sickens me is the willingness of some people to give away that which doesn't belong to them, simply because they think it is "fair" or "equitable." I have no problem if someone wants to give their own things away. I can guarantee that there will be plenty of people there to take it off your hands, and then ask for more, and more, and more. But forcing people to give away what they have, whether by legislation or by force of arms, is robbery, pure and simple.

I can agree with this paragraph right down to the last line. The quality or extent of medical care should not be limited to what you can afford. Unless we are talking elective procedures. Those that can afford plastic surgery (and other non necessary treatments) should be able to buy it from whomever they wish at whatever cost. Yes there should be freedom to choose your doctor or treatment, and yes there should be high quality care (especially preventative) for everyone.

And who should pay for that care? Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing? Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care? Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?

I'm sure the answer, as usual, will involve some form of, "steal from (excuse me, tax) those who have, and throw it away (I mean, donate) to those who want."

[TantricSoul]

This is, if you'll pardon the expression, horseshit! It implies a supernatural/metaphysical/undefinable/magical thread linking us one to another, without providing any evidence for such a thread. We must take it on faith, just because someone says so? I think not!

Thorne, my friend, of course I will pardon the expression. After all, you saying my thoughts and opinions are horseshit is simply reaffirming what I've known for such a long time… that I have a fertile mind.

While we may all be a part of the whole, it does not necessarily follow that we are all an equal or integral part. The universe has a way of tossing parts aside haphazardly, to the benefit of some and the detriment of most. Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck.

So what I get from your post is that you agree we are all part of a whole, yet you see / feel no connection between us. An interesting viewpoint.

"Which side of the equation you end up on is mostly a matter of luck."

Yes i agree... the material inequalities between us human beings is rarely really about hard work, equal opportunities, or laziness. Far more influential upon our lives is luck. I would like to believe, that while life is not fair, that we as a race have enough humanness within us to seek and create that fairness.

Yet instead what I witness most prevalently is the ridiculous concept of self importance. As if, somehow, being luckier than someone else equates to being "better" or more deserving.

Respecfully,
TS

[TantricSoul]

Does that not depend on the definition of opportunity?

Well here is one definition: From online Merriam Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: op·por·tu·ni·ty
Pronunciation: \ˌä-pər-ˈtü-nə-tē, -ˈtyü-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural op·por·tu·ni·ties
Date: 14th century

1 : a favorable juncture of circumstances <the halt provided an opportunity for rest and refreshment>
2 : a good chance for advancement or progress

The fact of high school graduation rates may give the appearance of supporting the position you state. But did not every Freshman that entered high school have the same "opportunity" to graduate?
Based on the above definition, and what I was asserting prior, I would still have to say no, every freshman does not have the same opportunity to graduate.

Like "Star Trek"?

Well not exactly like "Star Trek," , on the other hand, maybe ... if the Klingons and Romulans were part of the "Federation" too...

Respectfully,
TS