I agree to a large extent. Class isn't ever going away, and I wouldn't get rid of it if I could--not only is it as natural as breathing, it's a necessary result of a system that allows success.
But the role class plays in future success can and should be limited. If we're not going to limit it, then we ought to quit pussyfooting around and go back to absolute monarchy. The purpose of a capitalist economy, as opposed to an economic free-for-all, is to keep the pot stirred. When the top goes up, part of that good result should be used to bring the bottom up a few points. Not up to the top, not so much that the top goes down to the bottom, but enough to keep circulation happening.
Because what's happening now is the exact opposite. The top is going up, which is fine, but it's doing do in large part by lowering the bottom. That is natural, too--as natural as the strong caveman barging in and taking the weaker caveman's wife.
I agree. I've often thought that most laws and government programs ought to come with an expiration date rather than automatically being perpetual. Even that can stagnate, of course, and result in a government that spends most of its time voting to renew aging laws, but that's a procedural issue rather than a matter of principle.
Sure, that's fair.
Hyberbole on my part, and some conflation with those who actually do argue that result is the sole indicator of ability and worth. Buuuuut...
I don't deny that there's over reliance on government, but I don't think that over reliance is on the part of people who have to worry about whether or not there's a cop around when they need one. Most of the reliance seems to be on the top end, rather than the bottom end--it's on the part of the guys who are able to afford personal security. Gosh darn those poor and middle class people, why can't they go get their own multi-billion-dollar bailout instead of trying to steal what the financial industry rightfully obtained as ransom!
Not really. The US isn't a turnip, it's a... tick. You can get a lot of blood from a tick if you squeeze it hard enough! Gross analogy, but it's hard to buy the turnip argument when Wall Street is posting record profits.
I don't see equalizing--movement towards equalizing, not to be confused with absolute imposition of equality--as separate from equal opportunity.
Mmmmm okay. There's bloat. My concern is that in getting rid of the bloat, we'll end up skewing things even more to favor those who already well-positioned.
I think that's true. Mainly, I think that our current situation comes as close to fulfilling the phrase "fox guarding the henhouse" as one can get without involving actual poultry, and I think the most effective solutions are going to be those that remedy that.
I think we're heading towards danger, but I agree that we're not really in danger right now. We're a lot closer than is comfortable, though, and I think a lot of current violence that is attributed to other causes--mainly race--is more accurately the result of financial distress.
(I've cut out a lot, trying to keep my responses to the main points--starting to run into the text length limit.)
Bookmarks