|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
The meaning of SOCIAL relates to individuals or groups. JUSTICE relates to fair treatment, correct treatment or judgment.
Simple words that have so many interpretations in our world today. The world today has not changed, the poor, the middle class and the rich continue to inhabit the earth as it has from the beginning of time. In a free society the poor are given opportunities to improve their social status and so for the middle class. The question as to who is going to provide the impetus to help the classes attain a higher standard in life remains to be answered.
Governments make a choice as to socialism, communism or a capitalism style of government. Many in government believe that taking from the rich to give to the poor is justified and acceptable. Social justice is â��â��fair treatment â��â�� â��â�� to groupsâ��â�� , to take from one to give to another is not fair treatment and should be condemned by free governments in the world.
So allowing one small segment of society to have all the money is fair!
Money isn't infinite is it Evan? I'm sure I've read you talking against quantative easing and speaking in favour of the gold standard!
And yet here you are taking the opposite tack.
But it isn't spin is it? Unless I'm mistaken about Evan's views.
It is spin, no Conservative I know likes or agrees with QE I or II. And to place that as in opposition to Social Justice, is just spin. You earn it, is yours. The rest is just dis-information, as the American Left and progressive devalue our dollar through QE I and II, and inflating our makets to keep them from crashing out and correcting, just to push us further into the world currency, which exists as we speak. It is digital.
If our country had not spent the last 5 decades out-sourcing our industries, manufacturing, tech, agrculture etc, at the same time crushing bussiness with the worlds 2nd highest Capital Gains and Coporate taxes, then maybe some of those wealthy people would re-invest in American industry and bussiness.
But the Democrats and Progressives have spent a half a century making us one of the most unfriendly to bussiness countries in the world. And that is to say nothing of EPA regs and financial regs which have decimated the American bussiness and industrial complex.
"But the Democrats and Progressives have spent a half a century making us one of the most unfriendly to bussiness countries in the world." As opposed to those low-tax utopias like Norway and Germany, who have managed to weather the economic collapse fairly well, and whose economies are growing slowly and steadily?
(I was being sarcastic about Norway and Germany being low-tax utopias, of course.)
Actually, it isn't spin.
It's just a failure to apply supply and demand to money as well.
I wrote about this elsewhere, so I won't reiterate it.
Then government is involved.
Don't believe me? Give me an example.
My uncle Bob dies and leaves me a thousand dollars. I did nothing to earn that thousand dollars. I only get it because Uncle Bob is dead and has no further use for it. If I'd earned that thousand dollars in some way, I wouldn't have had to wait for Uncle Bob to kick off, would I?
Inheritance = unearned wealth. Taken to the extreme, unearned inherited wealth is the functional equivalent of noble title.
He earned the money and chose to give it to you.
Thus, he chooses to spend his money by giving it to you.
If you're against "me getting money from people who wish to give it to me", then you're against charity.
WHY DO YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE, JEFF?!!?
It's charity if Uncle Bob were alive. It's an inheritance after Uncle Bob dies.
Surely you see the difference between a live person giving someone money (when the live person could use the money for anything at all) and a dead person's money being distributed (seeing as how the dead dude no longer needs money or anything else for that matter).
Why do you hate live people, Evan?
That would seem to make the welfare class in the US to be noble. It may not be inherited, but it is surely unearned.
Somehow I don't think so...
I think maybe we should have a discussion about what actually earning it means? Do all of the bankers that thrive off of fractional reserve banking count?What about all of the CEO's of the failed banks that we bailed out? Technically those companies under free market capitalism should be selling the office furniture to pay off creditors.This is where the water gets really muddy.Fund managers?They use other peoples money to gamble.If I do that I will end up in jail
means nothing, the courts are trampling it to death in all countries it seems
3rd world goverments care nothing for it, thats partialy why the up risings are occuring.
Justice is just in the hand of those who have money and power. Who cares about the justic of the poor.
Well said.. Rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.. So there should be more opportunities for poor and middle class...
In America, 400 people have more than half the rest combined.
This has not "just happened". It was by design.
Hmmmm, what would that be called???
On planet Zoid. Here on Earth, we call that Highway Robbery.
The Barons have run rip-shod, with the blessing of the pleibs!
Time to even it up. Make it Fair and Balanced...you know, like they always preach!
Social Justice, also known as economic justice, is a term describing the "redistribution of wealth" -ie Socialism- for the common good of all. However, this comes at the expense of wage earners and liberty by demanding a society to conform. Those who work and have must give to those who don't work and don't have. This is the fundamental basis of Marxism and championed by liberal progressives. Everyone shall have equal advantages and everyone will have equal disadvantages. In reality it creates two classes, those with power and everyone else.
Many Christian churches and organizations strongly support social justice. However, this is a trap promoted by liberal Christianity claiming Jesus was a socialist. We are to help the less fortunate but we are not to become the less fortunate in the process. We are to give according to our abilities but social justice violates "thou shall not steal" and takes what is yours. The National Council of Churches, the group that translates the Bible to the New Revised Standard Version, is an advocate of Social Justice.
Yeah, this "social justice" stuff was crammed down our throats in my education classes.
It really is just a new name for welfare and socialism.
I was the only person in my cadre of 75+ students to speak out against it. I mainly argued that people earn what they get; that most people who were born "privileged" had parents who worked hard and saved money (e.g., things to be valued in society); that only individuals can act, not groups of people (e.g., "White people" don't do anything, "A white PERSON" does something); and that, finally, taxes are theft.
One professor wrote in my papers that I was "overgeneralizing" (this coming from someone arguing for SOCIAL justice), and that not everyone is born equal (yeah, I know that - I was born with allergies and a screwed up nasal passage. It costs resources to 'fix' these things. And we can't just steal money to help others - theft is wrong).
Another professor thought that I might have to be kicked out of Grad School because she thought I was racist. Apparently "earning your own way in life without stealing money from other people" can be considered racism.
Anyway, I learned to "just shut up to get the degree", and things went swimmingly after the second quarter.
Exactly Evan, just parrot back what they say, and complete your education on your own. And yes, anything in opposition to their agenda and beliefs, is racist and bigoted by definition to them.
close your eyes, spend 50,000 to 125,00 and just get a paper. Yea that makes real sense from a person screaming capitolism works, does it not?
I made this mistake also.
All for a 29,000 a year job and a debt of 250 to 500 a month for a long time. With no thought of the amount or the problem you are taking on. Fanny-May cannot wait to hire you guys!
If your going to do that at least demand and instill some quality in the education your getting.
Instead of just closing your mind, and just teaching yourself and paying some one else., do do it.
Thats great Business sense! you should apply for the Director position immediately! Oh, and please ask for the Bigger Exec.office, just like I did! See. that way there is enough room for both. That framed mockery of a paper, you learned nothing to earn, and the big head! I was this way also out of school.
and this I have, myself included here, seen before.
It takes a lot of self center ego, and talk, for a bunch of guys living in a basic and way over in flated, 3 br. house. With bills out the butt, and a GOP voter card! To say to themselves; Yea this is livin boys!
Look around man! Unless you were were born into it, or married it, you do not have it!
Capitalism does work.
Colleges are funded tremendously by the state, directed by the state, and pushed around by the state.
Only in a government funded educational building would you be expected to take a 10 week course, 5 credit hours, that could be summed up ENTIRELY with the phrase "discrimination's bad, mmmkay".
No joke. Had to put up with that for ten weeks. The entire course was LITERALLY nothing but "discrimination's bad, mmmkay".
"Unless you were were born into it, or married it, you do not have it!"
Explain that to Paul Allen and Bill Gates. I'm sure they will agree that their fortunes are illusion only and they are in fact dirt poor.
It is really nothing to do with Marxism or equality, it is about governments not having to print more and more money.
Think about it, the natural movement of money is to money, those with plenty get more. Sure, they spend some of it but without redistribution eventually the rich would hold so much of the money there would be not enough left for the rest to function on without governments printing more.
That does not give you ,or the Govt., the right to steal what they have to redistribute it. And I don't buy that as you put it, it takes spending money, to make money. ie; investments etc.
Good morning, John, or afternoon. Hope your day is going well, friend.
Well, governments don't steal do they, they're voted in,you don't like taxes, elect somebody who shares your hatred.
The unemployed don't gain any benefit from speculation on oil prices.
Just afternoon here, a normal day
So it is hatred now... that is BS John. Anything that doesn't agree with the views you all spout is hatred and racist... what a laugh. And we wouldn't have to print any more money if the Markets were allowed to crash and correct, Say's Law. But to keep pumping money into them is a false correction, and that will only continue to add up to more money printed, and a bigger crash in the end. And those doing this know this, and it is what they want.
Well,I'm sure that I have, but I don't recall spouting "racist" or come to that, that must be one of the very few times I've suggested hatred either.
Say you'd allowed the car industry to collapse, what do you reckon of your chances to ever get back on board? You'd have ended up like the UK, an assembly shop for foreign produced cars, no real skills, just minimum wage labour.
May be you should lower tax rates, but bring more of the wealthy into the tax system.
I'm disheartened when I see the level of taxes that the working man is expected to pay in the US and glad that I live in the good old socialist UK.
But getting rid of taxes would require more, not less, QE.
I would allow it all to collapse and correct itself. Yes.
And I am confident my country could pull itself up by it's boot-straps and reclaim our standing in the world.
Absolutely, positively, certain of it! It would require some hard times and "shared", since your all into sharing so much, sacrafice. But I am certain of the outcome.
I agree that a handout can teach a person to expect it, but if it is changed and understood, that the handout is ony a short fix and they must show progress and make it so they must, would that not be better? Stand a person up out of the poverty cycle and let , or make, the person flourish and be productive?
it seems to me we do not want poverty and such fixed. So Capitalist thinking must apply here, if it is big business and it is not broke, so do not fix it, right?
Poverty means big business in the USA. Not for Profit Directors and organizations. As well as a flood of Goverment Jobs, so why fix it?
Get a person a Gov. job get a voter! Get Non Profit Directors real hidden, tax break dollars in thier pockets, get a group of donations! That is the mentality I believe?
Give people a chance at dignity and space and equal chance to get started, is what I mean here, not a handout? Fix the problem not prolong it. And yes it takes Goverment to assist in it!
I would not mind some extended weeks of unemployment, if they worked at least 3 days, 8 hours a day, out of the week doing some sort of job around their town or city to make up for the loss of funds to pay real workers. Real work, not sitting by the hole shooting the shit like a Union worker, get in the hole and dig, or whatever else needs to be done. Why just hand it to them? They are capable of earning it... but many do not want to. And that applies to all handouts, if you want a hand earn it.
If somebody is capable of finding holes to dig they should be capable of paying for those holes to be dug.
Free labour solves nothing but makes the problem worse.
It is not free, they get money in the form of assistance is the same as a pay check. No need to sit on your ass for 99 weeks, which should not be to begin with, when you are capable of working. The State is paying you, so go dig.
Well forgive me, I assumed that the unemployed in the US would get an allowance that was a fraction of the working wage!
That then will do nothing to make unemployment worse than it is.
Are you really sure that the unemployed get as much as a working man?
They get 2/3rds 66%, plus insurance and training if they want it, food stamps also... that is well worth 24 hours a week. We could even say 16 hours a week for those getting under a certain amount because of the % of pay issue.
Do you really see that as so unfair? I thought you liked fair... our takes are paying them that unemployment. What you pay in for it is nowhere near what you get paid back on it.
Well in this country one's pay does very, less for part time, and more for full time, so I do not see the issue. And they are not permanent employees so the COs, or the state agencies DPW, etc, doesn't have to pay for all that either, it is already in the unemployment.
I agree the idea is not perfect, but we cannot just continue to hand out free money to everyone. Our nation needs help, and if you want help from your fellow taxpayers, then you need to help us help you.
And no forgiveness needed, John. You have the right to speak as you feel, have at it.
the example you state I am not sure would work, but the point you make I do agree with. It needs to be earned, and some real training needs to accompany that learning. Apprentice at a trade, or skill etc...earn and learn how to be self sufficent, yes
Governments do steal. They do so with taxation and monetary inflation.
And, also, in 1933, FDR literally made it illegal to own gold. That's called theft.
That makes no sense.
You act like rich people have giant money magnets attached to them and money just flows towards them.
The richest people in the world change VERY frequently as businesses crash and burn.
The rich only get money if they can sell the poor something they want (unless government is involved).
ALSO - your argument that "if there's a limited amount of money, the rich will end up owning it all" shows a dramatic lack of understanding of supply and demand.
If I have 1 dollar, then that dollar is worth a lot to me. If I have $50 billion, then I could not care less if I lost one.
Thus, in order to get that last dollar out of the hand of the poor, the rich would REALLY have to sell something that s/he wanted.
I'm disgusted that you think that printing money out of thin air is a good thing. This also shows a lack of understanding of supply and demand for the same reasons.
Anyway, your argument is deeply flawed.
Printing money is theft. This is because it steals value from those who are holding the money.
But Evan,it is you that supports the system that requires the printing of money!
I don't know if I've got the stomach to try to explain something so patently obvious to one so patently blind, but I'll try.
You say;- "The rich only get money if they can sell the poor something they want" And where do the poor get their money from, yes the rich who buy all tat the poor have to sell, that's their labour and you can be sure in the normal course of events they make a profit out of that.
You have the poor dependent on the rich to buy their labour and you also have the rich selling the poor the necessities!
Where in that lot is the balance, sure the poor spend every penny they get but the rich don't. How can that not insure a one way movement of money?
Then you say;- "If I have 1 dollar, then that dollar is worth a lot to me. If I have $50 billion, then I could not care less if I lost one."
And that's another reason why the movement of money is one way, $50 billion and what difference does $1 make,but if all you have is a $1, you'll quickly spend that, giving a large chunk of it to the rich man who already has $50 billion.
We even had a very practical example of the whole thing in the early 80s when Thatcher decided that trickle down would save us all. What actually happened was that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
Any way, bored with trying to show the blind for now.
"But Evan,it is you that supports the system that requires the printing of money!"
No, John. Socialists print money.
Our money is only printable through government decree. That's why it's called "fiat money".
This entire paper-based economy works only because we would be thrown in jail for using anything else.
That's government. That's socialism.
Deal with it.
Free-market capitalism demands competing currencies.
John, if you think that "the poor" and "the rich" are at war, then you're mistaken.
The mistake stems from socialism - "but the rich will just pay for everything through government!"
My uncle started a business and is making upwards of 6 figures sharpening knives, building homes, and other odds'n'ends.
My grandpa started a company called Diagnostic Instruments (http://www.diaginc.com/) ------ FROM HIS GARAGE!!
Another uncle is a doctor - he was able to go to school because government hadn't perverted the cost of entering college yet.
All of these people are "rich", but they started dirt poor. My mom had to cook dinner for everyone since she was 6 because my grandma was busy working as a nurse and my grandpa was busy making the company work.
My dad grew up in a one story house with barely enough money to go to college. He's now a professor.
The poor can become rich. There are no "the rich" nor are there any "the poor".
Quit selling snake oil and move to another city.
Evan, I don't think that the poor are at war with the rich, as you demonstrate they are the willing foot soldiers.
The fact that you think somebody earning upwards of six figures is rich is further proof of that, how do they compare with somebody who gets a seven figure bonus, not earnings, but bonus? They aren't even the rich though.
Stop being an apologist,wake up and see the light.
It's funny, they only call it class warfare when the poor fight back.
You mean "me", the person who's trying to find a job being a teacher?! Y'know, a profession where I'll be lucky if i'm making over $60k after 20 years?
Oh yeah. "THEY" are such "EVIL" people calling things "class warfare".
No. I chose to become a teacher because I wanted to do this instead of starting a business, or all the countless other options I had.
I made my decisions, and "being a rich man" was not my decision.
I also made the decision to not demand to steal from "THE RICH".
Anyway, this entire "the rich vs. the poor" crap will never be solved because both terms are relative to one another.
I'm gonna be done with this discussion.
"this entire "the rich vs. the poor" crap will never be solved because both terms are relative to one another."
That's absolutely true. In dark ages Britain, if you had your own cow, you were probably king of something.
The problem isn't with people who work hard and build wealth. I hope to get some wealth after some work. The problem is when some hardworking guy's wealth gets given to someone else who had to do no work to accumulate it, and then they use their unearned wealth to gain power, and they use the combination of unearned wealth and bought power to arrange the world as they wish, at the expense of those who have to earn our livings. Some of us are clever enough to build our own wealth in a big way (like Bill Gates). Others of us get what looks like the beginnings of a stake, only to have an illness, a car crash, a natural disaster, etc. knock us back down to nothing. If it were only such natural disasters that could stop a guy from building his wealth, that'd just be the world. But alas, it's not just natural occurrences. It's the already wealthy who don't want you to compete. They use their unearned capital to undercut your startup, and use their bought power to ensure that you have obstacles that you can't afford to overcome.
The problem with pure capitalism is the same as the problem with pure communism: both assume that man is always virtuous and rational, when reality demonstrates that man is not always virtuous, not always rational, and is more often selfish and status-seeking.
There's nothing wrong with self-interest, except when it says "Screw the fact that my chemical factory is poisoning the Saginaw river with Dioxin, I can get away with it. And if I do get caught, I'll use my wealth to make sure the people whose property and health I have damaged won't be able to claim restitution."
actually, capitalism assumes that people are people, and greed forces them to work together.
In your example above, you claim that people who do no work are the people who get rewarded off the backs of the poor.
This is nonsense. Let's take the management of some sort of mass-speculator business. (Every liberal hates speculators, mass-anything, and they also hate management -- so this is like a tri-whammy.)
With countless people running around trying to make sure to buy random commodities when they're low, and then sell them when they're high, the jerk who started the business gets to sit back and skim the fat off the top! The person on top actually cares not at all for those below him. He could care less if Suzy's child has food in her belly.
(see, I'm ALSO assuming that the person is evil... so that's like a quadro-whammy).
So, let's ask a few questions.
1- who risked their own capital to start the business? The people doing the trading? or the people who started the company.
DING! The people who "did nothing" saw a gap in the market, and risked their livelihood to start a company.
So, at this point, I could easily end my argument. But let's continue.
2- Why in the hell would the evil man on top even bother paying money to some low life loser whom he hates with every drop of his blood?
DING! Because he realizes that he can make more money if he pays some low-life loser money to do some work! He realizes that his company could generate $50/hour if he can find someone to do some work. So he asks around "hey, anyone wanna do this for $35/hour?"... and if no one agrees, he'll keep raising the price until it's somewhere around $45/hour (at which point the extra $5/hour is likely not worth it).
3- Aren't speculators evil?
DING! No! Actually they provide a valuable service to the market! They keep prices at a level rate, and help ensure that people who REALLY need something are able to get it (if they're willing to pay). For example, after Katrina, people needed ice. Speculators bought ice in Northern states, drove all the way down to Louisiana and then started selling it for massive profits. The people got ice, and they got a profit.
But then the police arrested them, and no one got any ice. HA!
Ta-da! I assumed that the management was evil, that the work was evil, and that the work was done en masse.
Yet we came to the conclusion that "wow, everyone ended up better off".
Next you'll say that the rich buy votes in Congress - but that's government's fault.
Nice fantasy Evan, but that's all it is.
Lets look at the reality. Commodity brokers tend to be extremely wealthy to begin with which means that they don't use their own money. They use yours which you willing lend to them for a few percent.
But they exercise a high degree of skill though?
Well, not really, they are spread betting, you can learn that skill in an hour or two. They don't suffer from the restriction that usually brings spread betting ventures to an end and that's lack of funds, you have an unlimited amount to lend them!
As for speculators stabilising prices, well they do, high prices, after all, they do need to make a profit don't they and nobody ever made a profit buying high and selling low.
You're demanding that I'M living in a fantasy? Let's take a look at some of the gems in this post you made:
"Commodity brokers tend to be extremely wealthy to begin with which means that they don't use their own money."
... umm... no it doesn't?
"They don't suffer from the restriction that usually brings spread betting ventures to an end and that's lack of funds, "
... how do speculators not run out of money? That sounds like complete nonsense.
"As for speculators stabilising prices, well they do, high prices..."
... so you agree that they stabilize prices? Good! Competition and consumer's subjective valuation prevents them from their raising it to infinity, as you seem to suggest.
"In your example above, you claim that people who do no work are the people who get rewarded off the backs of the poor."
Wait, did I? Clearly, I was being less than clear. While certainly there are those who benefit from unearned wealth, and use the power that said unearned wealth buys them to ensure that they get to keep their unearned wealth, I don't think that a person who starts a business--or even runs one that someone else started--does no work.
Let's talk about this claim for a second:
"Every liberal hates speculators, mass-anything, and they also hate management -- so this is like a tri-whammy."
No, 'every' liberal doesn't hate 'speculators.' Buying low and selling high is fine. When speculators buy low, and then collaborate to artificially drive up prices and then gouge the consumers is the problem.
In your Katrina example, well, 'the people' didn't get ice. 'The people who could afford the massively inflated price that the speculators were charging' got ice. And it wasn't just 'the people who were willing to pay.' It was 'the people who happened to have enough cash on them and were willing pay.'
When a guy is dying of thirst, and you've got a glass of water, he'll probably agree to any price you name for that glass of water. But isn't the alternative to buying that water (at that massively inflated price) death by dehydration? Isn't that a bit coercive? Isn't coercion bad? Sure, the speculator isn't saying, "I'll kill you if you don't buy my water," but he is saying, "I've got the only water, and you'll die without it, so pay up or I let you die."
But all of this is to the side of what I had hoped to make my main point, and which got lost in the shuffle because I was not clear enough.
The problem with capitalism is inherited wealth.
When wealth gets inherited (that is, passed on to people who didn't earn it because they happen to be the offspring of those who earned it) it gives those people an unearned advantage over those who did not inherit unearned wealth. If people were rational and not status-seeking, this wouldn't really be a problem. But people do tend to be status-seeking, and the folks who get the unearned wealth will use it not only to grow their own wealth (which is fine! I want to be clear that I don't have a problem with people getting wealthy or wealthier!) but also to protect the wealth from legitimate claims by those whom they may have wronged in the creation of greater wealth.
They will work to get laws passed that makes it hard for the average consumer to claim damages against a company that makes a faulty product, or makes it hard for someone whose health has been damaged or whose property has been devalued by the company's activities. Oh, it's very easy to just say, "Oh, but that's the fault of government, not the fault of the people who used their wealth to get the government to do what they wanted," but without those massive concentrations of unearned wealth, it would be harder to make government dance to any particular tune. What's more, the folks with the massive concentrations of unearned wealth are absolutely using it to make it easier for them to influence government without it being noticed. It that government's fault? Or is it the fault of the actual bad acters?
"Government," like "the rich" or "the poor" can't do anything. People do things.
What it really comes down to is this: inherited wealth has become a de-facto title of nobility. And titles of nobility are bad, right?
I'll just skip everything and comment on the "titles and nobility" thing.
Look at the Hilton family - if it weren't for "sluttiness being a valued in our society" Paris would burn through her family's wealth in her own lifetime.
Sure, they're rich now, but give it a generation of improper management and thing will return.
Poor people will always exist due to the fact that it's a relative term.
Enjoy complaining about how you have access to things that 100 years ago, even the richest of the rich could not comprehend.
I'm done with this argument.
Oh wow, the poor have always existed, well that convinced me!
Slavery has always existed, murder too.
Exploitation in all it's forms has always existed so let it continue.
Blow trying to make a fairer and more equitable society, we don't need it, we enjoy seeing people suffer!
Tell me Evan, why are you so against taxes but so pro private individuals "taxing" their workers?
Do you really think that the likes of Bill Gates need to earn more than the gross income of some countries and do you really think that they do this without "taxing" their workers and customers?
You are rather inclined to throw in the towel, I wonder why?
Slavery isn't a relative term. You can't be "more of a slave" than someone else.
I don't understand what you're talking about - I've never been taxed by a private entity.
No, I don't think that Bill Gates "NEEDS" to earn money at all. But he does so by delivering a product people are willing to pay more than it costs to develop.
I still don't understand this "private companies taxing their workers" argument that you're making. That... doesn't... happen....
Anyway, throwing in the towel? Nonsense.
I would have called it quits, but you just keep refreshing me with nonsensical arguments based off of false assumptions.
See, I was going to quit, but now you're talking about "businesses taxing their employees"... what the heck are you talking about?
And did I say that slavery was a relative term? Where did I suggest that one was more of a slave than another?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/mod … rn_1.shtml
Of course you've been taxed by a private entity only they don't call it tax, they call it profit or any other such term but you pay it.
Think of your worker, he earns a $100 an hour, but is paid $10 an hour, where has the $90 gone?
Guess, it's gone to buy the equipment he uses but the factory owner "owns", it's gone to buy the factory owner food that the worker can't afford.
I think it is you who is making nonsensical arguments based on false assumptions.
I think the perception of social justice is an individual thing. To me it means equity, equality and fairness. For example, Is it fair to allow large corps to continue evading their taxes whilst men and women who do not have large sums of money are hounded until they do pay. It's just not an equitable system full stop.
For me a more recent example of social injustice was the tory backbench proposal to pay individuals with a disability less than minimum wage.
Is it fair? No. Who does redistribution help more? Probably the rich.
What did Robert Nozick mean?
Capitalism thrives on social and environmental injustice. How can you get rich if you don't exploit someone or something?
Paying someone a fair wage to work FOR YOU at YOUR BUSSINESS is not expliotation. Unions forcing a bussiness into practices and extreme pay amounts and beni packages, at the threat of a walk-out, is exploitation.
People love to call socialism capitalism.
BTW, they did try getting prisoners to empty garbage bins in the UK. The private companies responded by laying off full time workers!
And that should not have been allowed by the Govt., thats where they could have said something, and I bet didn't.
Unfortunately it's the kind of trick our conservative government delights in.
But what's the difference, they are all unemployed.
ZOMG! Firing people!?!?!
That's nothing but evil!!!
I DEMAND WE RE-HIRE EVERY HORSE-EXCREMENT CLEANER THERE EVER WAS!! THOSE DAMNED CAR COMPANIES PUT THEM OUT OF WORK!!
Bull Evan,these people were not put out of work because their jobs were no longer needed,they were put out of work because somebody else was doing the job for no pay.
Oh, right - the government implemented slave labor to do the jobs of privately employed workers...
GOD DAMMIT I HATE CAPITALISM
I am not sure. I think you have to look to the individuals and groups demanding it for an answer. Still, I am not sure their answer is the correct one. For example, the gay movement may demand social justice in terms of gaining the legal right to marriage but in the end is that truly what the uproar is about or it that just what the argument is cloaked in? PETA demands social justice for dogs/cats and takes in billions of dollars in donations along the way yet the organization destroyed over 2,000 animals in the past year. Those in the civil rights movement will point to the evils of slavery and all it brought to a people but williingly hold out their hand for financial compensation as a means to heal the deeds done. The argument does not always fit the the actions or the agenda but it plays well with folks who don't look beyond the surface. Social justice has a certain ring of importance to it when it rolls off the tongue...a seriousness not to be denied. I think we all want and need social justice at one time or other...at least in the true sense of the word. In today's world, I am skeptical that the term is ever applied in its true sense. WB
Unemployment benefits can vary some from state to state but the basics are the same. Unemployment pays a percentage of the wage you were earning up to a maximum. My unemployment was nearly as much as what I was making weekly but no allowance for health insurance, no 401k matching but also no outlay for gasoline, parking or lunch.
It was nearly a wash but, being the only time I have drawn unemployment, quite uncomfortable. I can see how long periods on the dole can dehumanize someone.
I also agree with that statement. The political elite use the term social justice when it suits them, often for political point scoring. Just like when Israel quotes international law, when it's useful to justify their actions. Although other times when it's not useful, they flagrantly disrespect international law.
There are members of Congress presently serving that belong to the Congressional Caucus that have views in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States. See http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm … ntree=2,63
THE PROGRESSIVE PROMISE ‘’ FAIRNESS TO ALL’’
Their pledge to fight 1. For economic JUSTICE right to universal access ……….healthcare for all ,guaranteed SOCIAL security benefits……require corporate accountability, ensure working families…can live above the poverty line…..
2. Protecting and preserving civil RIGHTS and CIVIL liberties.
3.Promoting global peace and security.
4.Advancing environmental protection & energy independence
To free ourselves and our economy from dependence upon imported oil and shift to growing reliance upon renewable energy supplies and technologies, thus creating at least THREE MILLION NEW JOBS , cleansing our environment, and enhancing our nation’s security. To promote environmental JUSTICE…,B. Convert domestic assembly lines to manufacture highly efficient vehicles……C .Increase investment in construction of “green buildings” and more energy-efficient homes and workplaces; D.Link higher energy efficiency standards……that increase demand for new durable goods
A RESULT of the progressive plans are that they are succeeding at the expense of the poor, middle class and the TAXPAYERS . Yet in order to accomplish their plans they need the resources of the so-called rich, $250,000 and up by higher taxation.
Note, that in our Constitution Social Justice and a RIGHT to healthcare cannot be found.
There is a right and there is a wrong. There is good and there is bad. Today in Washington, President Barak Obama and our Representatives have switched things around.
It all appears to be a take over of the private sector, by regulations and legislation.
Explains the modern American Liberal Socialist Democrat to a T.
http://www.battlefield315.com/2011/03/s … ained.html
A FEW YEARS AGO, a Democrat Senator spoke out at the Democrat convention. Apparently no one was listening. his words of warning that the DEMOCRAT PARTY was being taken over by radicals. Today it is evident that those radicals were progressives, socialists and maybe some communists. DEMOCRATS were always considered as LIBERALS. THE YOUTH of our nation has been indoctrinated that big business and the wealthy are enemies of the people and the government. Sad to say that the country has been taken over by radicals that do not believe in the CONSTITUTION.
GOD HELP SAVE OUR COUNTRY!
I remember hearing that... and I was very disappointed that no true Democrats, like my grandfather and grandmother, did not stand to take back their party. But we Americans need to re-claim one party at least, or we are all done. Too many of the Dems simply voted party lines back then. Regardless of what they saw happening if a Dem was running or if that issue was a Dem issue, they would vote for them or it.
"The problem with pure capitalism is the same as the problem with pure communism: both assume that man is always virtuous and rational, when reality demonstrates that man is not always virtuous, not always rational, and is more often selfish and status-seeking."
Jeff hits the nail on the head again!
Taking it further, the consequences would be similar, also. Elimination of differing thoughts through force, lest it fail. Elimination of democracy, lest it fail. Totalitarianism, lest it fail. And, when all of it occurs, it fails anyway.
The presumption that those who do not earn enough will simply go home and starve to death is as crazy as the presumption that each will produce to the maximum while watching lesser producers get more because they need more.
The silliest of the arguments, though, is that it can be simply done by interpreting the Constitution as the forefathers intended, while ignoring that the forefathers disagreed on its interpretation since before its ratification.
What does social justice mean in the world today?
Well, let's start off with the language you used in your sentence. Social justice? You're kidding right?
Justice is social already. How can social justice exist when justice already exist and is based on social interaction with others.
So your question should be..."What does justice mean in the world today?"
And, if you want to address "justice", then you're in for a long battle, because it is based on social interaction and each action that takes place is based on the perceptional usage of knowledge and supposed wisdom discerned truth.
Some say "justice" is just revenge being taken out. Since humankind isn't civilized to the point where everyone is their own authority, responsible about that authority and aware of their complete surroundings, justice will always be controlled by a higher authority, so as to bestow consequences for any individual's actions against society(others/social interaction).
Therefore, it cannot be revenge. Revenge comes from the individual themselves and their actions. The higher authority that presently exists, government, will do what is necessary to continue to exist. Have no doubt about it.
On a side note- the only reason government exists to begin with is because people cannot be trusted to do what is right, just for sake of doing it, because it's right. And, since people cannot handle that responsibility, then Laws are required.
How where we to know ? That the shredded paper on the floor. Had two words scribbled on it. It read "OUR DIGNITY"
"Too many of the Dems simply voted party lines back then." What other choice did they have. 'Winner take all': it means one party more than a dictatorship.
My Uncles, Aunts, Father, Mother, grand-parents on both sides, and the entire rest of my family, and all the people I ever new growing up, were dyed in the wool Democrats. And they would vote Democrat regardless of it was in their best interest, or not. And that is not the way anyone should vote. That is the reason I have been an independent all my voting life. I saw it and new it was a BS way to look at politics.
I grew up in Lynn MA., in the belly of the Liberal beast. I have seen more people cut their own throats and say, "oh well I am a Democrat and I vote as such", and that is not the way one should vote.
And most of my family and friends today have become independents and vote as such. It isn't the party that I support, it is the policies.
If by social justice you are referring to equality, then it is unlikely that this will ever be fully achieved. Even when governments create laws to make things more equal, it will always be the case that some will be more equal than others. There will always be people who attract money to them, whilst others for whom it falls through their fingers. Human nature seems to be a case of dog eat dog, and the weak go to the wall. Whilst I can understand that this was necessary from an evolutionary standpoint, I would have hoped that modern democratic man could have risen above the base instincts and learned to share more evenly with everyone in society.
We have a government in the UK, who is in the process of dismantling the welfare state. They have even decided in their wisdom to reduce drastically the benefits to terminally ill people. Yet, the scandal of MPs expenses continues to go unchecked. Last year there was much in the news about MPs claiming expenses for the moats of their castles to be cleaned, or porn films, as if these are necessary for them to do their jobs.
Injustice will always be with us. No political system, whether left or right will ever be able to change human nature, although this doesn't mean that there should not be an expectation of social justice, and it is always something any civilised peoples should aim for.
I was just wondering why you are eliberately misrepresenting the issue of MP's expenses, several MP's have been sent to prison for the very issues you mention over the last few months, so it is clearly not GOING UNCHECKED.
Shame, it spoils your otherwise good comment on British politics and the welfare system.
Please leave me alone now. You have pursued me over several forum posts. It is preventing me from enjoying HubPages. I shall have to delete my profile if it continues, and I really don't want to do that. Please turn your attention to someone else.
If you do not like rational argument or me pointing out when you are clearly exaggerating to make points - then stop posting untrue and over-exaggerated statements.
Nobody is pursuing you anywhere, if you post in threads where I am posting then you will have to get used to comments that disagree with you. If you are so precious that not getting your way upsets you so, then have no objection to you removing your profile, totally your choice.
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, but from the first day I have been on here, you make constant comments to the effect that I am lying. You can't see that this is unfair. You have done this several times now, and I really can't take any more of it. It is your black and white thinking that I cannot comprehend. The fact that you are the judge of what is right and true, and that everyone who has different views to you are liars. And I am sick and tired now of you calling me a liar. Perhaps you are intending to be intimidating. It has reached the point, where I am now very anxious about posting anything on a forum, because I know that more than likely, yours will be the next response, telling me what a liar I am. This is not doing my health problems any good. So, I will tell the HubPages team to delete my profile. Then you will have no choice other than to turn your anger onto someone else. I pity whoever this turns out to be. By the way, it is not rational argument to state that I am lying, as you have done over a few forums now. You obviously will continue to seek out my comments and attack me. So, I have to go and look for some other site. I am so glad that you have no objection to me removing my profile. It is a shame, because I was enjoying it so much, but I am not the sort of person who enjoys arguments and would never seek one out, as you have done with me. Perhaps you are genuinely unaware you are doing this, maybe you are just so sure that only your view of the world is correct, that it is your duty to put down anyone who does not share your views. I wish you well, and hope you are a little kinder with other hubbers you disagree with in the future.
I don't think you'd get much agreement on that point from the ex-MPs who are now languishing in gaol!
John, how is Thatcher viewed now generally in the UK?
I don't actually think she's viewed very much at all these days. The love affair certainly seems to be over, even to the extent that Thatcherites are suggesting that she was right for the time, but not now.
Cameron seems to be trying to outdo her though, that isn't doing much for his popularity.
Certainly the hate for her is holding on much better than the love.
My first inclination was to answer your question with "who?"
Thugs, hooligans, vandals.
What do you think of those Muslims rioting in your streets, and when they spat upon your returning soildiers? Just asking, John.
What Muslims rioting in our streets?
Muslims defiling returning soldiers, despicable but that's freedom for you.
I feel pretty much the same as you lot feel about the Westboro (?) protests against returning soldiers - oh sorry, that's not the same is it, they aren't Muslim.
No that is a great anology, I cannot stand those people. But as you say, that is freedom. It is the speech we all destest which needs the most protection.
As in - I despise what you say sir, but I will defend onto death your right to say it?
Yes as in that Voltiare? quote...
And these riots in England...
http://www.theblogofrecord.com/2009/01/ … ood-chase/
What is it about three MPs now in gaol, out of a parliament consisting of hundreds of members, who are still claiming expenses for third homes, at which they don't even live. The news reported a few weeks ago that in the past year the expenses claimed has actually gone up. But I realise the news lies, just as I do, I can't help myself.
MPs can legitimately claim expenses.
Where have you been in the past few years. Has all of the news about this matter passed you by?
"MPs' Expenses: The Telegraph's investigation, The Expenses Files, into how politicians - from the Cabinet to backbenchers of all parties - exploited the system of parliamentary allowances to subsidise their lifestyles and multiple homes."
Note - exploited, that is past not present tense.
I've been here in the UK, where I've heard nothing about loads of MPs claiming for third homes, where I have heard of MPs being imprisoned for false claims but where they seem to be getting their act together and not making frivolous claims.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 30107.html
As you haven't heard anything about the third homes scandal, have a look at this. I'm sorry it is from the Daily Mail, which you will consider a right-wing rag.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … -ploy.html
Then after you've read it, you can dismiss it as another lie.
Valeman wrote "hundreds of members, who are still claiming expenses for third homes"
And you show me five as evidence of hundreds!
How about this from the Telegraph?
The politicians – one in ten of all MPs – have between them claimed almost £6 million since records on expenses began in 2001, an average of £85,000 each.
The findings will raise fresh concerns over the use of the controversial additional costs allowance (ACA) scheme, which last year allowed each MP to claim up to £23,083 towards the cost of staying away from their main home on parliamentary business.
Many of the 65 MPs have only become multiple property owners, and begun to earn rental income, since entering parliament – a finding which will fuel suspicion that the combination of salary and allowance is funding MPs to become buy-to-let landlords at the taxpayers' expense.
Critics have claimed that the use of the ACA to cover living costs, including groceries and household items, leaves little for MPs to spend their salary on.
While most of the 65 MPs own only three properties, some own many more.
I give up. I could go on offering examples from the news, but if you don't want to believe it, then you are perfectly entitled not to. Have a good day.
An article of interest related to social justice
GRANT AIDS HIRING FOR GREEN JOBS
US Labor Secretary Solis announced that the Opportunities Industrialized Centers of America was one of six organizations tapped to get $38 million in GREEN JOBS Innovation fund GRANTS to train workers for various green jobs. As a result of a previous similar $ 4.9 million GRANT, OIC has placed 50 Arizonian workers in green jobs since march 2010.
The organization was founded as a NATIONAL NON- PROFIT NETWORK of employment and training programs aimed to help people who have a HARDER time finding jobs because they LACK SKILLS OR BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN IN PRISON.
Grants are hand outs by the Government that need not to be paid back.
by Brian7 years ago
I was talking with a group of friends the other day. and I suggested that there should be a national tax, where the money collected should be distributed evenly among every U.S. citizen, and I was labled as a...
by Cas Merchant4 years ago
Do you see any way to balance the financial inequality in our world today?The rich people seem to be getting greedier by the day, while the poor are struggling to make it THROUGH the day. It is so blatently unfair! Do...
by Daniel J. Neumann7 years ago
What does social justice mean to you?Feel free to state your opinion on it.
by jlastevens7 years ago
If you could change one thing about the world we live in today, what would that be?Would you want the world to have world peace, take care of the forest or would you just like the neighbor to turn down his music at...
by Deforest3 years ago
poor" by Gore Vidal. He added that the rich are living off the federal government (contracts and tax breaks...).I definitively agree with him. Your opinion?
by beadreamer2475 years ago
What is socialism?What means socialism to you and are you for it, partially for it or totally against it?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.