Equality?

[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!

[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]

And who should pay for that care?
The same people that pay for any service, the consumers.
Should we imprison the doctors in their hospitals and force them to work for nothing?
No I am quite certain the doctors wouldn't like that, not even sure why you would suggest it.
Should we randomly break into people's homes and strip them of their belongings so we can sell it to pay for that care?
Again ... No

Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?
A realignment of tax brackets & codes, along with a severe realignment in prioritizing how tax dollars are spent.


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."
As I am sure you will see only what you are expecting to.

Respectfully,
TS

[DuncanONeil]

Where is the money to provide such excellent care supposed to come from?
A realignment of tax brackets & codes, along with a severe realignment in prioritizing how tax dollars are spent. Respectfully,
TS

The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!

[SadisticNature]

The FairTax woul;d be better than what we have now!!!!

Fair Tax is a system that is even easier to defraud than the current IRS. How many contractors do you think are going to under report or fail to report work under this system? If they do now they risk having their client claim any deductible work on their taxes and if the IRS tracks it they can show the unclaimed income. The IRS isn't great at it, but it does provide some disincentive. FairTax actually encourages people to be dishonest because from the perspective of the above board guy whose prices are 30% higher, how many sales do you think you get against the guy who cuts corners and claims a much lower bid, adds on the 30% sales tax and doesn't report it.

Also the switch from a largely income tax based approach to a largely sales tax based approach is double taxation on anyone who has already taxed income in investments, this can be a huge issue for retired individuals and will probably result in increased social security expenditures as more individuals become vulnerable in retirement.

Some industries are entirely killed by a high sales tax as well. For instance professional poker would move almost entirely outside the US if there was a X% tax for all entry fees with X around 30%. In this environment there are no poker pros, the edge of the best players in the world at the game is around 25% so they couldn't pay the rake + the tax and still make a living.

Lastly while the tax deduction rules are complicated and need simplification, removing the ability to make deductions entirely would eliminate the governments ability to encourage certain actions. Lack of deductions for charity would result in fewer donations, hurting many charities. Inability to provide financial incentives for marriage and children would result in lower birth rates and the need for more immigration to keep a population level that supports economic growth and funds existing programs. The inability to provide tax deductions for making choices with fewer external costs would result in a lot of individuals externalizing costs to the detriment of society.

High sales taxes would force increased welfare payments and drive up the minimum wage as well. When you shift more of the tax burden onto the poor, the programs that they need to get by will need more money.

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

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.


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."

[DuncanONeil]

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.

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

[Lion]

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.

But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.


A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.


Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.

Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.


Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.

Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.



Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic

[DuncanONeil]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.

• http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
• http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Not to stray too far of topic, but I beg to differ. It is no secret that there are people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who donate massive amounts of money to help others. And I'm greatful for their work.

But I don't think anyone can easily justify your statement. If you're talking in dollars and cents, I doubt anyone could disprove your statement, but if you're talking about how many lives have been affected, then it's an entirely different matter.

Ghandi and Mother Teresa lived through humble means. Mother Teresa helped the poorest of the poor, and became world renowned for her work. Her selfless deeds inspired so many around her and around the world to follow suit. How many lives did Ghandi save through his message of peace. That war was not a way to independence. Countless of British and Indian lives I'd imagine if one were to take the events of the 1850s into consideration.


A man by the name of Ehdi, started and still runs today Karachi's largest charities. This man comes from a modest background, lives under spartan conditions, donating all his time and energy to helping others around him with even the most basic tasks. Stuff that the government takes care of, but no one in the west even considers. Things like hospitals, morgues, women's homes, child adoption agencies, ambulances. It is his organization that handles all of these. His ambulance service is the only one in Karachi, a city of over 10 million. To list all his contributions to humanity would take a while so I'll stop here.


Greg Mortenson spent years of his life fulfilling a promise he gave to a remote village in Pakistan. A mountain climber who was so poor that he at times lived in his car, had promised the residents of a poor village that he'd build a school for them. In order to build the school, he had to build a bridge first. His profession is a nurse practisioner. Yet he managed to do both for $20 000. With that money, he was able to staff the school with a full time teacher, provide materials like books, tables and chairs.

Here's the kicker, this village was in the remote regions of Pakistan where the Taliban love to hide. Word of his achievement spread, and village elders from around invited him to build schools, so that their children, notably daughters could get an education. This man was kidnapped, shot at, faced fatwas against his life, and today, he has been successful in building over 100 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Areas where even the military won't touch because it's too dangerous. And he does it with the full participation of the community.


Like I said in the beginning of this post, the rich have contributed a lot. It is increadibly noble of them, and I hope that trend only continues to grow. But the statement that the greatest charity comes from the rich, in my humble opinion wrong. You can sign a check at any time, but unless there are people willing to risk their lives in the face of danger, sacrifice their personal interests so that they have more time to take care of others, those checks mean nothing.

Dare I say it, even the rich look to these utterly selfless people as inspiration to do good.



Yikes...this went on longer then I thought. My apologies for straying a lot of topic

[Lion]

Seems it a two edged sword. There are some studies but they seem to focus on income as the greatest indicator of giving. Results, in graph terms, create a "U" shape. But even that is "adjusted".
With the rich giving a lot, and the "poor" giving a large percentage. But the folks in the middle create the bottom of the "U".
These are old but seem to give the clearest picture. Personally I favor the second, because of the author, but it is consistent with the first.

• http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/arc...conservatives/
• http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

I'm a little confused with your response.

I had initially responded to your assertion of:

And yet the greatest contribution to charity comes from those that have accumulated the most!

With the fact that many, non-rich people are helping out as well, in their own manner.

So what do you mean by the double edge sword in this regard?

[SadisticNature]

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.

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!

Some would argue that basic food and basic shelter are human rights because without this one would die. The next two are not complicated, the answer is obviously no. The third question is not like the previous two however, it is far more complicated, and touches on the question of dying.

How do we define/measure quality of care? Should a person have a right to be treated at the closest hospital when they are picked up by ambulance in time sensitive situations? Should insurance plans be able to force someone all the way across the city resulting in them dying before getting to the hospital? This has happened in the current American system.

It also seems like tilting at straw men to compare a health system that is less public than those of U.K., Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy and many other countries which are justifiably considered incredibly capitalist, and argue that the best comparison for this bill is to the Soviet Union, China or North Korea.

[Thorne]

Some would argue that basic food and basic shelter are human rights because without this one would die. The next two are not complicated, the answer is obviously no. The third question is not like the previous two however, it is far more complicated, and touches on the question of dying.

All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.

How do we define/measure quality of care? Should a person have a right to be treated at the closest hospital when they are picked up by ambulance in time sensitive situations? Should insurance plans be able to force someone all the way across the city resulting in them dying before getting to the hospital? This has happened in the current American system.

I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

[SadisticNature]

All three questions are matters of life and death. I see no difference between them.


I agree these are complicated questions. Yes, a person should be treated for any life-threatening injuries at the nearest hospital. That does not mean he should be given a private room, or given every test known to man just for the sake of running them. Basic care, yes. Save their lives. Treat their broken bones. Help people, without question.

Have you ever been in an emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night? Count the number of people there with minor problems, such as colds or sore feet or just headaches. Count the numbers of real emergencies, and compare the two. You'll find the freeloaders generally far outweigh the critical patients, almost every time.

You don't run to the emergency room every time you get the sniffles, or bruise a finger. Yet we are building a culture in this country that does just that, and people will sue anyone who won't provide them with the best care someone else's money can buy.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[Thorne]

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

So are you proposing that all accused people should be provided the very best lawyer someone else's money can buy?

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

That's not what I said! I have stated clearly that we are all entitled to basic rights. The problem seems to be in defining just what is basic and what is extravagant.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

The problem is that the ways to fix this problem could be viewed by some as denying those people their basic human rights. The system we have now requires publicly funded hospitals to treat the indigent and the poor. It is the privately owned hospitals which turn them away. That won't change regardless of what kind of health care reform gets passed.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

[SadisticNature]

That depends on the person. There are some who don't deserve the 40% chance. Who decides? What you're proposing, along with our illustrious representatives in Congress, is to have political appointees decide for us! Want to guess who gets the 40% and who gets the 80%? I can picture the debate in Congress now!
"Gentlemen, the new procedure the doctors want us to pay for costs three times as much as the old procedure while only doubling the chances of survival. This is not cost effective. I propose that we only fund the old procedure, to keep our costs down. And now, since we've saved the people so much money, let's legislate raises for ourselves."

Just think of how much we are helping our poor, deprived Congress critters.

Sounds like the solution is not having government at all!

[DuncanONeil]

Health care is not a basic right. Life is! That is why US hospitals are not permitted to turn people in need of life sustaining care away. No one in the US is denied ESSENTIAL medical care.
The larger issue of treatment is not always of cost, or efficacy, but youth. Don't want to pay for a treatment that is new on the scene. Have to prove it works first!
Aside from that hospitals deny care all the time based on triage.

It is better that one hundred guilty men be set free than one innocent man go to jail. Such is the standard of proof and obligation of government to uphold its citizens rights.

Yet when it comes to the right to emergency care, you feel just because some people abuse the system it is acceptable to deny people basic rights.

Propose ways to crack down on abuses that fix this problem, the fact is the cure here is not worse than the disease. The system you have now actively denies people essential medical care.

As for the earlier questions, quality of medical care is quite different from the clear questions about luxuries you proposed earlier. If there are two procedures for curing a life threatening condition one with a 40% chance of survival that is cheap, and one with an 80% chance of survival that is expensive, does a human being have a right to the 80% chance of survival?

[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.

[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

[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

[DuncanONeil]

View Post

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

Explain to me how every freshman does not have an equal opportunity to graduate?
Neither the Klingons, well they did change their mind, nor the Romulans desired to be in the Federation. I never saw any Klingon put money up for anything. And we did not spend much time in their society either.
The only "greedy" people I saw in the Star trek universe were the Ferengi. They also did not support universal suffrage!