Rucifer wrote:
Prove to me the richest people take the most risks. What is your reasoning behind this? So someone born into a family fortune took such a huge risk being born? Someone who invested in stock (the original topic of this thread) and strikes it rich takes a bigger risk than the electrician working on an electric tower? He is nothing more than a gambler (the investor), just one who isn't gambling on a game. No matter how educated he becomes with stocks and whatnot, he is gambling, and this will not cause him bodily harm. The CEO who works his way to the top? How is that risky? If anything, it is the epitome of not being risky at all, seeing as how they are supposed to get good grades, go onto college, start off in an entry level position at their job and work their way up. I can agree with the fact that it is either luck or the fact they are hard working as to the reason the have money though.
The best people to do the best work...? Have you ever heard of all men being created equal? That means when someone is born, the slate is supposed to be wiped clean on past ancestors (well, in theory). Necessary work does need to be performed, but you have the wrong mentality. It's not just so the "best" people can prosper. So how do you define these best people? Just because they are rich? Becoming rich isn't necessarily good for anyone but the person becoming rich. It doesn't prove "bestness". Believe it or not, if someone who became rich by real estate, stocks, business owner, etc choose not to do what he did and didn't become rich, they would be a bunch more lined up to take his place, just like with a common janitor. They aren't anything special.
The next couple paragraphs just seemed to say the same thing over and over again- keep this 1% where they are at and this other 80% where they are at (and what about the other 19%?). Yes, let's lock in positions in society. Let's tell this other 80% that there is a boundary they will never break. Let's diminish anyone's hope of doing great things simply because where they place in society. Is that what you are saying? How about we give everyone the same chance to do the best they can do, and go from there? If you think everyone has this chance...like I said, you are as idealistic as me.
I have something things to say before I answer your question
Darwin never meant his theory to be applied to human society. Your social Darwinist attitude has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities in history. No race or culture is superior to another. No class is better than another. They just happened to have the dice roll in their way. And if history proves anything it proves that the best 1% don't always have the greatest ideas. If that were the case the world wouldn't be in the state it is now, and looking at the last 100 years can prove that the top 1% isn't above petty squabbling. Pleasing the 1% at the sake of the rest of society just because they come up with ideas is just...heartless.
Which to answer your question- First off, children are born innocent and with a clean slate, so if the state does what a parent cannot do you might just have a productive member of society, which is more beneficial even in your grand scheme of ideas. You wouldn't want one of these children to grow up and harm one of the precious 1%? If you have a position for them the necessary work is getting done and that leaves other better people to move on to better things. And I for one think our society advancing forward is more than just technological advances. Your attitude of not caring would just go to show that we display the same barbarism of the cruel in the past, or even the enemies we fight today.
I never said anything about being born into richness. I am talking about the complete lack of security top CEO's have at the top if they falter just the slightest bit, they are gone. As Jebus has said, investing is not gambling.
Men are not equal, period. Almost all recent evidence suggests this is the case. Check out "The Blank Slate: The modern denial of human nature" by Steven Pinker for a discussion by a psychologist.
Bestness means meaningful contributions to society. If someone invents some new hyper modern plaza that changes the way we think about living in confined space and as a result people flock to live in such efficient areas and suburbia diminishes, then yes, I consider this very important. Maybe there are only a handful of people in the world that could have this vision.
As to the 1% and 80%. I am talking about at current time. I said nothing about a lack of dynamical flow between the "classes". the leftover 19% is just a rough estimate of people who dont really do cheap labor but don't really create things. Perhaps engineers who slave away writing code that someone told them to write with no idea of what they are doing. They would probably fit into the 19% and be in a position to someday move into the 1%.
I agree that the misinterpreation of darwinism has been responsible for many bad things. Just because someone got it wrong in the past, does not mean it can not be done right in the future. I am not talking about classes, or races, or cultures (although to me, people who believe in hocus pocus are not good for society). I am talking about the innate distinction in a group of organisms according to the current theory of genetics.
Perhaps I have understated some of my socialist ideas you probably agree with. I think the state should strive to give children the best education, best healthcare, and best security possible (in the form of protection, heating, clothing, food etc) and then as they become older, they are left to use whatever talents they have to function in society. I would suggest that socialism is appropriate for younger people who have no protection and that adults should be governed by capitalism, perhaps with occasional chances to re-educate themselves. People make great decisions if they have the right information, so if they are educated, in my opinion, the state does not need to do much else.
There is an interested article on nytimes by steven pinker that I find instructive about "morality". It asks who is a better person, Mother Theresa, Bill Gates , or Norman Borlag. perhaps you can indulge me by answering that question?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
