Originally Posted by tinytim
Sounds absurd so show me a couple specific cases in history that point this out.
I gave you two broad examples above. In equality of education, and inequality in tax law. A family of 4, two full time incomes making enough to cover the bills and order a pizza once in awhile pays a far far higher percentage of their income in taxes then a multimillionaire or a billionaire. That has twice the impact as the lower income family “needs” the extra percentage of their income far more then a multimillionaire or billionaire.
Quote
It looks like there is some confusion in terms here.
I was making a point about a specific socio/economic philosophy that is prevalent in a certain segment of the political spectrum.
To them redistribution is the central theme.
No, you were making a point about your interpretation of a specific socioeconomic philosophy that you have decided is prevalent in a certain segment of the political spectrum. If this philosophy is specific and prevalent by the definition you offer it shouldn’t be hard to point me to specific proposed policy that directly redistributes wealth. While a tenuous case can be made for the welfare system, that in my opinion is somewhat outside of the scope of the broad philosophy you offer, and we probably agree on the huge pressing need for overhaul of the system and eradication of life long recipients and gaming of the system. Just to be clear, I’m looking for sources from the horses mouth, not the interpretation of anything by an outlet with opposing views. And please no left wing nut job blogs published from a basement apartment.
Quote
Now you and Trips is telling me that is not what equality is about. Well in their case IT IS! And that was my point.
It doesn’t bode well for the conversation when you come from a position where you have started by redefining a base term to fit your preexisting world view, but I try not to make assumptions about anyone’s ability to keep an open mind or assume I know exactly what their views are until they are revealed to me.
“Economic equality refers to an economy in that all of the inhabitants the same opportunity to acquire wealth and have the same status in the economy, because they have had the same opportunities, non discriminant on race, gender, skill, culture, or wealth condensation.” - nothing more, nothing less.
I do not believe everyone has the same innate ability. I am a huge proponent of a meritocracy assuming we have economic equality (which includes equal access to a similar high level education for all citizens). Unfortunately we have a very limited meritocracy in place where who you know and what your last name is has far to large an influence on the path to individual wealth.[/quote]
Quote
What you are describing is equality in liberty, not economic equality. I agree. Everyone should have equal liberty. Thats it. What they do with it is their problem. And the results of what they do with it is also their problem. Success is not guaranteed.
No, not even close.
“Liberty - 1: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice”
You’ll notice there is not a single reference or statement referring specifically to equal access to the things required to acquire personal wealth. While personal liberty is a requirement for economic equality, economic equality in not a requirement for personal liberty.
While I do agree with you that success in not guaranteed, it is not what is being discussed. You can try to reframe the argument into it being about everyone getting a chicken in their pot, but as I’ve stated that has nothing to do with economic equality. That is communism.
Quote
But this is really off topic. Sorry to sidetrack the thread. Go back to talking about big dicks.
Speaking of big dicks, you never explained to me where the 5” disappeared to. If you need a mathematical example, here you go:
dick sizes of 10 men in a population in inches:
3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, 6, 6, 6, 6.5, 7, 8.
average of those 10 men: 3.5 + 4 + 4.5 + 5 + 5.5 + 6 + 6 + 6 + 6.5 + 7 + 8 = 62 / 10 = 6.2”
So if we “redistributed” penile length, everyone would have 6.2”, not 1” as you offered.