73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[GenSeneca]

That may be because a "social contract" far preceed any "manly contract."

A social contract is what people who choose to live in a community "pay" in exchange for living in that community.

As Americans, because we are so "exceptional," we have decided long ago that letting a person die because he is not provided care, food, or support against ennemies is WRONG. AS "civilized" society (I'm not even getting into the "as Christians!") we KNOW we have a "social contract" that may or may not be supervised by a government or an institution, but is basically a condition of LIVING in that society, of receiving the advantages that come with living in that society.

In America (and in ALL developped countries) parts of that "social contract" are subsidized with a sort of "tithe," but we call it "taxes!"

Obviously, those who have nothing to provide in terms of monetary contribution (the poor, many of the disabled, the sick) may contribute in other ways. . .One may look at those people who devote themselves to "serving" others (i.e., teachers, social workers, nurses, even trash collectors and county dump attendants) are foregoing higher salaries to do those chores. . . whether it is because they cannot access to higher education or more lucrative career, or. . .(and believe it or not, it does happen) because their vocation IS to serve people as "contributing withing their means, to society.

Those who choose or "are born" into wealth, and reep huge income and even greater wealth from their choice (or their birth rights), should also contribute to society. . .within their means!

Obviously, this is an opinion statement . . . and I'm pretty sure many of you will laugh at it. That's okay, it is something I truly believe, and I do not mind being laughed at for following MY social conscience. . .and fulfilling MY social contract.

Let's see if I can sum up your view of the American 'Social Contract':

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

 

[Openmind]

Let's see if I can sum up your view of the American 'Social Contract':

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

I think you said that before, and I believe I already said that that pretty much sums it up for me.

The NEEDS of people are a lot more important than the WANTS of others, at least when we are talking about basic needs (for food, health care, shelter, education) and superficious wants (like 12000 sf mansions, leisures yachts, 10 carats diamonds, and a good doses of cocaine).

And if one works or participates in society's well being to the best of his/her ability, whether it be a developmentally disabled person working in a shelter workshop stuffing marketing envelops with coupons, or the brain surgeon operating on a child to relieve the pressure of a tumor on his brain. . .they are all worthy of respect and of receiving at the least the minimum reward for their work.

 

[A0220R]

What social contract? The founders created our Constitution with the "vision" of restricting the power of the federal government. People like you have destroyed that vision and, in the process, have caused what our founders had hoped to prevent.

The founders created the Constitution to strengthen the federal government. That's not to say they wanted an overly expansive government, but they recognized that they had failed their first attempt to create government by failing to make the federal government strong enough.

It also isn't true that the founders gave precedence to individual rights over collective welfare. Ultimately, the founders held opinions as diverse as we do today. Some would be rolling in their graves because of how far this country has progressed, and some would be rolling in their graves that so many are still trying to push anti-government libertarian ideals that they had been fighting back then.

And the historical record suggests that the founders didn't want us to consider their opinions when deciding constitutional issues. For that very reason, they refused to release any records of the Constitutional convention (they were released, though not in great shape, after they had died). Instead, they said that we should turn to the state conventions if we wanted insight into how to interpret the Constitution. That's because this Constitution was meant to serve the people, not the states nor the federal government.

Now, the founders were wary of populism (like the Tea Party and Occupy movements). They were also wary of democracy. They were careful to ensure that the only direct representation was through the lower house in congress. It was only later that we allowed the people to elect senators, and we still are forced to vote for the President indirectly and undemocratically through an electoral college system. They made sure people reading the constitution that they were establishing a representative republic, not a democracy.

In that sense, they had a bit of a 'father knows best' view of the role of governments. But this could stretch on for days - I've been researching this stuff for quite some time.

Anyway, this isn't entirely related to the issue at hand, but I think it's important to point out, given the tendency for individuals (apparently such as yourself) to use the framers as a scapegoat so they can avoid having a serious discussion of these modern issues and their merits or lack thereof.

In regards to the Occupy movement, and the Tea Party movement, I think that both of them fail to appreciate the complexity of the roles both government and businesses play in our economy and beyond the scope of our economy. These movements have reduced political dialogue to sound-bytes and catchphrases, making it permissible for a candidate to rally a crowd like a modern day Chairman Mao.
Bring up some nice Go America talking points, and sprinkle it with some vague appeal to "freedom" and "individual rights" and people are sticking your poster on their wall. And Occupy is giving the liberals permission to do the same. Now all you have to shout it "I represent the 99%" and "Corporate Greed" and people are groveling.

So lets get back to basics. If the rule will benefit our economy, than why shouldn't we prefer it to a tax on the needy, that is, increasing their burdens by decreasing programs they rely on like medicare or food stamps? You say it is unfair, and yet it seems significantly more unfair to ask those who have nothing to make meaningful quality-of-life altering sacrifices while asking millionaires to sacrifice less than their middle-class secretaries.

And think of it in another context. Let's say we were on a sinking ship (lets call it the America ). This ship holds people from the top 1% SES as well as the 99% SES, and they have each brought along the entirety of their life's possessions. In accordance with recent statistics (proportionally), the 4 wealthiest individuals on the boat account (in possessions) for more weight than 50% of the other 3 million people (1.5 mil) combined.

To slow the sinking of the ship, all individuals have chipped in, the poor giving what they can spare and the wealthy 4 giving much less than they can share (but slightly more proportionally), by throwing heavy possessions off the boat.

As this sink ships, it becomes clear that, in order to survive long enough to ensure rescue, much more cargo will have to be thrown overboard to lighten the ship and slow the sinking of the ship. The captain and his congress (it's a peculiar ship) have proposed two different solutions.

In one solution, the poor have to begin tossing off possessions they depend on, like their blankets to avoid hypothermia, their scraps of food they depend on, their first aid kits, etc. None of these are very heavy, and they don't really add much extra weight to the boat, but because the America has so many poor people, it would be enough to make a dent.

In the other solution, the 4 wealthy men throw a couple of the cars in their collections overboard, maybe a few marble statues of themselves, and perhaps the watermelon from each daily brunch buffet.

You can see why people might be less than sympathetic to that wealthy 1% when they feign outrage. Especially because a good portion of those poor people helped to build the ship, or work in the kitchens, or spend their days cleaning the decks and maintaining the machinery.

So why don't you switch that Marx quote for an American one: "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

 

[A0220R]

I think you said that before, and I believe I already said that that pretty much sums it up for me.

The NEEDS of people are a lot more important than the WANTS of others, at least when we are talking about basic needs (for food, health care, shelter, education) and superficious wants (like 12000 sf mansions, leisures yachts, 10 carats diamonds, and a good doses of cocaine).

And if one works or participates in society's well being to the best of his/her ability, whether it be a developmentally disabled person working in a shelter workshop stuffing marketing envelops with coupons, or the brain surgeon operating on a child to relieve the pressure of a tumor on his brain. . .they are all worthy of respect and of receiving at the least the minimum reward for their work.

It is actually an admirable quote. It espouses values of charity, of respect for your fellow man, of responsibility to your 'brother' for you are his keeper (as the Bible might say).
But in this case, he's using it to call you a Marxist - and I don't think he is doing it because he agrees that we should all do what we can for one another.

 

[Openmind]

I can change my mind so it is theoretically possible that some day I would think like you. I would even expect that in some ways I would grow to think more like you all the time - I already have a concept of "the commons" that is new and helped my to better understand an article I read today about the commons.

Do you still think you will never see eye to eye with me in any way?


Individuality is important but I do see other things that are more important at times. The const does dictate that at times the will of an individual be overridden in favor of the lal of the land - and it spells out when that happens.



You are free to think that they SHOULD be, but that simply is not the way it IS. If you want what IS to become what you think should be then you need to make amendments to the constitution.




Not good to discuss that here but I would love to discuss that in a thread on the right part of this board. Start one and I will follow.


As soon as God tells us to abandon the const we should. Until then we need to follow it.



I do not have more value than you because all of us are humans and have value. But right ideas do indeed have more value than wrong ideas and many of your ideas are so clearly wrong that they do indeed have no value.



You too try not to insult and I respect that.


Maybe you know you are wrong and that is why you feel that. looking up the definition of arrogant I see that it means a person feels they have more self-worth than another. Do no confuse confidence in ideas with high self worth. I value myself as highly as one who is loved by God should but not as one who thinks he is better for being right or wrong.



48, several degrees, not a professional clergy in any way, "retired" shrink, i do not have the only reasonable words - but I do take the time to fact check much of what I post before posting and I am confident that in many exchanges with you I am right more than you are. And that is NOT because I am so very right...


Right here on this forum there are huge mixtures of people and ideas, clearly not just two categories. All have value one way or another. I seek a dialectic not a conversion.



That is a cardboard caricature of the principles of free markets. Since you have such a poor understanding of it it is no wonder that you dislike it.



Why DO you state your philosophy at all?


I understand English is not your first language, not that there is anything wrong with that. I must not be wise enough to figure out what you are saying there. It seems like you are asking that I ignore your posts. If so I am sorry but this is a public forum and I have every intention of making a mention of everything you say that is wrong and applauding much of what you say that is right. If you will not learn then others who watch may.

A shrink? Well, I guess I'm not that surprised. . .From the many contacts I did have with psychiatrists before. But I would not have pictured as one.

I do not wish to end our conversations (or whichever term you wish to define our exchanges), because you are an interesting and intelligent person.

And so am I, although that may seem arrogant to many!
You have several degrees... so do I. NOT a Ph.D. nor an M.D, though, which I assume you have.

But. . .retired at 48? When there is so much need for psychiatric care? Or do you call a psychologist a "shrink?" which is much more in line with what they do. . .because most psychiatrists actually spend most of their time prescribing medication, rather than using talk therapy.

So. .this is the way you worked with developmentally disabled people. . .I'm sorry that you are retired, as I remember how difficult it was to find psychiatrists or psychologists (although we needed psychiatrists a lot more, since "talk therapy" doesn't work that well with people with very low IQ).

No, I am not determined to keep ALL of my opinions and ideologies intact. I am certainly open to learning and to adjust my thoughts if/when faced with a REAL reason to do so. . .and as long as it doesn't created a conflict of conscience for me.

I am also very secure in the person I am, and in the journey I took to get here, to build up my concepts of "good" and "bad," and everything in between.

I strongly believe in cross polination of ideas among intelligent people of good will. and also that people of intelligence AND good will (and never should) not agree on EVERYTHING, as this would be surrendering their own personality and nature, but that the more open the discussion is, the more likely it is that some fraction of understanding and communality will occur.

However, as I stated before. . ."it is hard to soar with the eagle when surrounded by turkeys!"

And I hope you realize that. . .I do not see you as a turkey.

 

[clarkatticus]

Perhaps you don't understand, governments are social contracts.

 

[Openmind]

It is actually an admirable quote. It espouses values of charity, of respect for your fellow man, of responsibility to your 'brother' for you are his keeper (as the Bible might say).
But in this case, he's using it to call you a Marxist - and I don't think he is doing it because he agrees that we should all do what we can for one another.

Thank you, but I KNOW what he is doing. . .as he has done it before.

And, to tell you the truth, I don't care! I do not see Marxism as the "evil" that most Americans have been taught it was. Although I do not like Communism, Marxism was based on sound ideologies, that were bastardized and USED to create Communism and to oppress people.

Having been raised in in a social democracy, I have experienced the good and the less good of "socialism," not the evil socialism that is being painted by so many who don't know anything about it, but a democracy that has a social conscience, that provides a good safety net for its people, where private enterprise is encouraged, but where labor laws and universal health care protect the workers from the excess of the owners.

So, when some people attempt to "insult" me by calling me a "socialist," or a "Marxist," it doesn't touch me, because, to tell you the truth, the ideology of social democracies are more in line with my concern for people than the run away capitalism and the MANIPULATED market that so many people consider as "goldly!"

 

[Dr.Who]

Let's see if I can sum up your view of the American 'Social Contract':

To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.

Did you know that that phrase was originally used by Marx to make fun of the competing socialist party? He was actually asserting that workers should be paid based on how well they worked. Go figure, Marx was a capitalist in the here and now and a dreamer when he thought that in a utopia that common sense principle could be abandoned. Marxism can ONLY work after there are unlimited resources. Until then, he recognized that people had to be rewarded for their labor and they had to be rewarded based on how well they worked.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think you said that before, and I believe I already said that that pretty much sums it up for me.

The NEEDS of people are a lot more important than the WANTS of others, at least when we are talking about basic needs (for food, health care, shelter, education) and superficious wants (like 12000 sf mansions, leisures yachts, 10 carats diamonds, and a good doses of cocaine).

And if one works or participates in society's well being to the best of his/her ability, whether it be a developmentally disabled person working in a shelter workshop stuffing marketing envelops with coupons, or the brain surgeon operating on a child to relieve the pressure of a tumor on his brain. . .they are all worthy of respect and of receiving at the least the minimum reward for their work.

Should the brain surgeon earn more than the piece worker? (Please answer)

What is the best mechanism for distributing resources to wants and needs? We all agree that resources need to be distributed among wants and needs. It is just that you want the gov to take money from one group and give it to another when there is a perfectly viable alternative that has been in place for a long time, works just as well, and respects freedom and rule of law.

 

[Dr.Who]

A shrink? Well, I guess I'm not that surprised. . .From the many contacts I did have with [] ot see you as a turkey.

I put retired in quotes because it is not my plan to never return to work. I was first laid off when my entire department was closed. Then I went to work for a couple of years as a loan officer. At that time my wife and I decided that I was the best person to raise our young kids rather than putting them in day care or having her quit her job. The sacrifices of psychology in the social services field burned me out and I do not plan to return to the same field. It is time to make a different set of contributions when I go back to work.

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps you don't understand, governments are social contracts.

The legal contract that we call rule of law is nothing like the social contract that people refer to when they use those words.

But if you want to point to the constitutional law that says rich people should have their money taken from them and given to poorer people I would like to see it. Because there are several places where the principles of the constitution are opposed to such an idea.

An appeal to a social contract if that contract is defined as the const is really an appeal to the cont and the left will always lose on that one. But if the appleal is to a social contract that is not the constitution then I will again say it does not exist while the const does.

 

[Openmind]

Should the brain surgeon earn more than the piece worker? (Please answer)

What is the best mechanism for distributing resources to wants and needs? We all agree that resources need to be distributed among wants and needs. It is just that you want the gov to take money from one group and give it to another when there is a perfectly viable alternative that has been in place for a long time, works just as well, and respects freedom and rule of law.

Yes, he should be paid more because of the additional skills and education rquired to do the job, but mosly because of the responsibility and risks involved in trying to save a human life.

However, if you ask me if a zoo keeper should be paid more than a child care worker (which they are!), my answer would be NO, andfor the same reason.

Andif you ask me if a stock trader should be paid more than an emergency room nurse or a teacher, i would also say no. . . . For the same reason.

But, if we compare two professions that do not have that direct "human life" criteria involved . . . I would say that a software engineer should be paid more than the janitor or a secretary, and less than the CEO of that company..... BUT, the scale of pay shouldn't be as extreme as it is. 10 years ago, the gap between the lowesr and highest compensations in an average corporation was about 1 to 250, today it is about 1 to 450.

That is unwarranted in any case, and that huge widening of the gap is unsustainable in the not so long term

 

[Dr.Who]

Thank you, but I KNOW what he is doing. . .as he has done it before.

And, to tell you the truth, I don't care! I do not see Marxism as the "evil" that most Americans have been taught it was. Although I do not like Communism, Marxism was based on sound ideologies, that were bastardized and USED to create Communism and to oppress people.
"

Socialims and marxism have been evil every time they were implemented. People are not capable of running either system without it becoming a totalitarian monster. Capitalism is the only system that checks the greed and evil in men.

But what did Marx teach?

He said that there needed to be a revolution before communist principles could work - that they could not work otherwise. Prior to his utopian state he believed in capitalist principles. He created an intentionally oppressive regime to quicken that revolution.

The revolution never materialized and never will. We still have limited resources and always will. The only way to fairly distribute those resources is to let people make free choices about trading their time and treasure with a rule of law to assure that violations of rights do not occur. The role of gov is to stop people from hurting each other and to let them trade, or give as they see fit. If, as has been disproven, people were to trade ONLY in greedy ways and never gave to their fellow man, then this system of free trade would result in much suffering. But IF people really were that callous, and they are not, then all systems would result in great suffering, if not greater suffering. Free markets are the best shot we have at achieving the most good for the most.

 

[Dr.Who]

Yes, he should be paid more because of the additional skills and education rquired to do the job, but mosly because of the responsibility and risks involved in trying to save a human life.

However, if you ask me if a zoo keeper should be paid more than a child care worker (which they are!), my answer would be NO, andfor the same reason.

Andif you ask me if a stock trader should be paid more than an emergency room nurse or a teacher, i would also say no. . . . For the same reason.

But, if we compare two professions that do not have that direct "human life" criteria involved . . . I would say that a software engineer should be paid more than the janitor or a secretary, and less than the CEO of that company..... BUT, the scale of pay shouldn't be as extreme as it is. 10 years ago, the gap between the lowesr and highest compensations in an average corporation was about 1 to 250, today it is about 1 to 450.

That is unwarranted in any case, and that huge widening of the gap is unsustainable in the not so long term

Is there any one person on earth or any group of people who are capable of sitting down and determining how much each person should be paid?

 

[A0220R]

Thank you, but I KNOW what he is doing. . .as he has done it before"!"

I'm sorry, I realize how condescending that must have sounded. I didn't mean to come across like that.



In response to whether we are capable of sitting down and determining how much people in certain professions ought to earn, I think you're missing the point. It's really just a matter of recognizing when someone is being paid in excess. It's not about creating an entirely new system; it's simply correcting the flaws of the existing one - like we do for externalities and providing public goods.
This occurs in both capitalist and social democratic countries.