http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=25FNm8lRv0M
Thoughts or Opinions?
Wealth Inequality
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15581
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
÷ I really love the cat meowing underwater that pops up as another video on the side.
÷ Although I think I've seen enough 1-percenter videos or occupy wall st related films for a lifetime, this one is is watchable enough, and doesn't make me want to lock all my windows and doors like the last Batman movie did.
÷ I don't know what the solution is, and neither does the presenter. I agree with him that socialism is not the answer. Even if we did redistribute, we'd eventually work our way (so to speak) to the same chart. It would just be a matter of time.
÷ A CEO is always more likely to be chosen as "the rich guy" in this type of video than an actor, reality star, baseball player, musician, professional wrestler, professional gambler, or lottery winner. Why is that? Because many of us see CEOs as being more evil than baseball players? Maybe that's the case. It seems like they're both overpaid, overcompensated. And, they may both have money stashed away in the Cayman Islands. But, I guess the baseball player doesn't have a disgruntled employee emptying his trash can or working his way up from the mailroom.
As for the question, does the CEO really work 380 times as the bottom guy? Well no, almost certainly not. But since when does hard work alone equal high pay? Maybe once upon a time the value of a Dutch guilder was a full day's work, but there are more ways to amass those coins than mere sweat.
It is often said that if the low-wage folks stop doing their jobs, things will grind to a halt. Garbage isn't collected, children don't get an education, everyone's hair grows out of control... Still, someone else might step in and do those jobs. On the other hand, if someone comes along an invents a fad -- not a lifesaving medical device, mind you, but just a rubber octopus that sticks to the wall for a few seconds -- and enough people want it, that person may find himself with quite a lot of guilders. That's the way it works.
I would like to think that if I were a one-percenter, I would do something great to help the impoverished. Those without money are very good at spending and allocating other people's money and listing the noble things they'd do with it. But you know what? I am very comfortable financially, perhaps even what some people would call rich, and I'm not ready to tithe. I give to charity, but not nearly enough to get a tax credit. (What is the amount, like $12,000 if you're married? I'm not sure, as I've gotten two different answers when I last asked).
I would like to leave money to charity when I die, and I plan to, but the bulk of it will almost certainly go to my family members. So, I guess I'm perpetuating the chart. I certainly don't want to give it to some bum on the street, because statistics show that he'll blow it all and end up on the street again.
Sometimes I daydream about setting up a charity for the working poor. Back rubs and days off for house cleaners. I'm not trying to be flippant here. I really do think about this all the time. But, I'm not sure how to realistically implement it. i'm still thinking about it.
÷ Although I think I've seen enough 1-percenter videos or occupy wall st related films for a lifetime, this one is is watchable enough, and doesn't make me want to lock all my windows and doors like the last Batman movie did.
÷ I don't know what the solution is, and neither does the presenter. I agree with him that socialism is not the answer. Even if we did redistribute, we'd eventually work our way (so to speak) to the same chart. It would just be a matter of time.
÷ A CEO is always more likely to be chosen as "the rich guy" in this type of video than an actor, reality star, baseball player, musician, professional wrestler, professional gambler, or lottery winner. Why is that? Because many of us see CEOs as being more evil than baseball players? Maybe that's the case. It seems like they're both overpaid, overcompensated. And, they may both have money stashed away in the Cayman Islands. But, I guess the baseball player doesn't have a disgruntled employee emptying his trash can or working his way up from the mailroom.
As for the question, does the CEO really work 380 times as the bottom guy? Well no, almost certainly not. But since when does hard work alone equal high pay? Maybe once upon a time the value of a Dutch guilder was a full day's work, but there are more ways to amass those coins than mere sweat.
It is often said that if the low-wage folks stop doing their jobs, things will grind to a halt. Garbage isn't collected, children don't get an education, everyone's hair grows out of control... Still, someone else might step in and do those jobs. On the other hand, if someone comes along an invents a fad -- not a lifesaving medical device, mind you, but just a rubber octopus that sticks to the wall for a few seconds -- and enough people want it, that person may find himself with quite a lot of guilders. That's the way it works.
I would like to think that if I were a one-percenter, I would do something great to help the impoverished. Those without money are very good at spending and allocating other people's money and listing the noble things they'd do with it. But you know what? I am very comfortable financially, perhaps even what some people would call rich, and I'm not ready to tithe. I give to charity, but not nearly enough to get a tax credit. (What is the amount, like $12,000 if you're married? I'm not sure, as I've gotten two different answers when I last asked).
I would like to leave money to charity when I die, and I plan to, but the bulk of it will almost certainly go to my family members. So, I guess I'm perpetuating the chart. I certainly don't want to give it to some bum on the street, because statistics show that he'll blow it all and end up on the street again.
Sometimes I daydream about setting up a charity for the working poor. Back rubs and days off for house cleaners. I'm not trying to be flippant here. I really do think about this all the time. But, I'm not sure how to realistically implement it. i'm still thinking about it.
Last edited by dualstow on Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No money in our jackets and our jeans are torn/
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
Re: Wealth Inequality
I'm more left-leaning than most people on this forum, and I'm definitely sympathetic to these statistics, but I think it's an incomplete picture.
The definition of an asset, roughly, is an economic resource that can provide some level of future benefit. There are economic benefits redirected to citizens based on their lack of personal resources that I think it's a mistake to completely ignore. If we have welfare, Medicare, SS, unemployment, Medicaid, free education for all children, etc, we can't look at these people as having nothing in the same way some starving kid in Africa has nothing.
Does that mean ignore these numbers? Not at all. However, if we have a sufficient safety net, they have very different meanings.
The definition of an asset, roughly, is an economic resource that can provide some level of future benefit. There are economic benefits redirected to citizens based on their lack of personal resources that I think it's a mistake to completely ignore. If we have welfare, Medicare, SS, unemployment, Medicaid, free education for all children, etc, we can't look at these people as having nothing in the same way some starving kid in Africa has nothing.
Does that mean ignore these numbers? Not at all. However, if we have a sufficient safety net, they have very different meanings.
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15581
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
I agree with you to an extent, but without the infrastructure I guess it would just be a bunch of athletic guys having a pick-up game somewhere that no one would know to watch. Maybe they could record it and put it on youtube. (It's easier for musicians to put themselves out there without the infrastructure, I suppose, although the public gets gouged by Ticketmaster).TennPaGa wrote: I don't see anything wrong with sports stars' high salaries. After all, he IS the end product. The player and the game are what people pay to see. A player's salary, in the end, is based on his own performance, not that of anyone else under him.
In the end, I'm not pushing for a salary cap on athletes either. But I don't think CEOs are necessarily worse people, and they are invariably portrayed as such.
Maybe they could take some of that out of players' salaries.Other illustrations of sports ownerships attitudes of entitlement:
Extorting the public into footing the bill for their new stadiums/arenas.
No money in our jackets and our jeans are torn/
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15581
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
So, it's a case of might makes right? (I'm asking seriously, not sarcastically). Or rather, they do it because they can?
No money in our jackets and our jeans are torn/
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15581
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
Not much, I just decided the latter was a better way to say it.
"Might makes right" is more about victors (re)writing history.
It was a yes-or-no question, not an Or question.
"Might makes right" is more about victors (re)writing history.
It was a yes-or-no question, not an Or question.
No money in our jackets and our jeans are torn/
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
Re: Wealth Inequality
Class mobilty in the United States is among the lowest of the OECD countries. While rags to riches make great hollywood stories, it rarely ever happens. People are generally a product of their genes combined with their environment. Not everyone is capable of providing something that our increibly complex society wants to purchase. With the decreasing demand for manual labor, the left side of the human bell curve has fewer realistic opportunities to make ends meet.Simonjester wrote: i see three problems with this chart
1 the chart is static and doesn't give a picture of movement up and down the wealth scale, in any given year people move from one category to another, how easily those movements happen is an important measure of inequality, the easier it is to move up (due to success) and down (due to failure) the less inequality there would seem to be, and i would guess the US has fairly good statistics for being a place you can change your economic status.
2 there is a diminishing rate of return on wealth accumulation when measured in human happiness, the 70 to 100 thousand a year range seems to be the sweet spot, and psychology and human nature play a roll in how happy you are with what you have no matter how much that is, someone making 70 thousand may be miserable living in a neighborhood that has a average income of 120 thousand but very content living elsewhere. the idea that people who have large amounts of wealth are holding other peoples happiness captive is a false one, appeals to envy or zero sum game thinking should make you wary.
3 the chart would imply that the 1% at the top are hoarding all the money, and doesn't make any distinction between those that are 1%rs by hard work and value creation and those who accumulate wealth by crony connections, corruption and gaming the system at the expense of the little guys mobility mentioned in #1, to truly deal with wealth inequality i think it is a distinction that must be made, the former should be heroic figures and the latter vilified and punished for there crimes. to "big to jail" is a problem, having super wealthy individuals is not..
On the positive side of this tragedy, if the entire planet were living and consuming like the wealthiest 10% of americans do, we would have long ago cut down every tree and burned every drop of oil in the ground.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8885
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
But how do you define rags and riches? Is a college grad with $100,000 in debt who over the course of a decade pays off the debt and accumulates $200,000 in liquid assets a "rags to riches" story? What about the 18 year-old who becomes a plumber and goes from zero net worth to $100,000 in 5 years? The poor kid from a broken home in the projects who studies hard, gets a PhD, and starts a business, but whose net worth remains low because his large pile of assets are counterbalanced by high debts incurred in school and when starting up the business?doodle wrote: Class mobilty in the United States is among the lowest of the OECD countries. While rags to riches make great hollywood stories, it rarely ever happens.
It also depends on how you define "class", really. For example, you could easily say that the college grad has not moved from one class to another because she was always in the upper class by virtue of her college degree and career trajectory despite starting out 100 grand in the hole and quadrupling her net worth. That's why I don't find class to be a very useful term; it's so non-descriptive that it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15581
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
My parents didn't exactly go from rags to riches, but from somewhere between a burlap sack and barrel-as-clothing to riches. Ok, a little higher than that, but close enough to the poverty line to count.
No money in our jackets and our jeans are torn/
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
Re: Wealth Inequality
Call it socio-economic mobility. The studies are pretty clear...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-econ ... ted_States
Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found that the US among the lowest in mobility.[4][8] One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[8][9][12] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (
Several large studies of mobility in developed countries in recent years have found that the US among the lowest in mobility.[4][8] One study (“Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?")[8][9][12] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation. The four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children. (
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Wealth Inequality
Dualstow,
Change their genetics and their environment (parents, experiences growing up etc) and do you think it would be the same story? What other variable is there that could account for their success?
Change their genetics and their environment (parents, experiences growing up etc) and do you think it would be the same story? What other variable is there that could account for their success?
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8885
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
When these kinds of discussions enter the "locus of control" phase, I think it's important for the two sides not to talk past each other. In many ways, this mirrors our micro-macro debates where it's easy for proponents of each side tend to ignore the salient points that the others are making. Let's see if we can agree on these two statements:
1) In principle, it's indeed possible for anyone to achieve great financial or material success through their own drive.
2) In practice, many people, due to bad role models, bad environments, bad genes, past traumas, loss of hope etc, do not take advantage of the choices available to them, adopt an external locus of control or a victim mentality, and generally fail to succeed despite the plethora of options available to them.
What we need to do is reconcile the fact that anyone could make it with the fact that many do not.
1) In principle, it's indeed possible for anyone to achieve great financial or material success through their own drive.
2) In practice, many people, due to bad role models, bad environments, bad genes, past traumas, loss of hope etc, do not take advantage of the choices available to them, adopt an external locus of control or a victim mentality, and generally fail to succeed despite the plethora of options available to them.
What we need to do is reconcile the fact that anyone could make it with the fact that many do not.
Simonjester wrote:
this nails in on the head. ..
so how do you increase the opportunity for mobility? better education, less entitlement mentality and the promotion of entitlement mentality, and less cronyism and corruption limiting opportunity would be some of the first things i would consider.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: Wealth Inequality
The choices you made were the result of your genetics and environment. Therefore, can you really say that you had a choice at all? Im just making an argument that we humans think we operate with complete free will, but that our decisions are largely programmed. Can you really be anyone other than who you are?Simonjester wrote: i don't blame where i am on some other guy being rich, i am at the economic level i am at because of the choices i made, i will end up where i end up because of the choices i am making now, birth and connections are not the prime factor in mobility, drive and choices are. that isn't to say that birth and connection don't play a part, and the more education fails to educate, the more corruption limits the country's ability to generate opportunity for mobility the bigger part they play.. the fact that some people are super rich or manage to produce the ultimate widget and become rich, doesn't make the fact that most people "by doing some hard work and making some wise choices" can improve there economic situation any less valuable
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Wealth Inequality
The solution that I would propose therefore to wealth inequality is that we either need to change the environment / system or we need to change our genetics. Other than that, there is no way to address this problem. The whole, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps is as absurd and impossible as it sounds.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8885
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
There's no point in really having a discussion like this if you don't believe in free will.doodle wrote: The choices you made were the result of your genetics and environment. Therefore, can you really say that you had a choice at all? Im just making an argument that we humans think we operate with complete free will, but that our decisions are largely programmed. Can you really be anyone other than who you are?
Moreover, there's a logical fallacy in your reasoning behind wanting to change the environment: if we don't have free will, doesn't that imply that our current environment--which after all was made by men and women with no free will--is the only way it could possibly be? How then can we "change the environment" if our nature and destiny is to not have already changed it?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
rhymenocerous
- Executive Member
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 2:47 pm
Re: Wealth Inequality
This is BRILLIANT! I want one.dualstow wrote: ...but just a rubber octopus that sticks to the wall for a few seconds...
Re: Wealth Inequality
There does seem to be a paradox, but I would argue that through intelligent design we can create a better system. In other words, we know that certain stimuli in our environments bring out the best in people, and other stimuli bring out the worst. We are also beginning to uncover the way in which the human brain works. For example, we know in general which areas of the brain are responsible more or less for destructive behavior....addiction, violence etc.Pointedstick wrote:There's no point in really having a discussion like this if you don't believe in free will.doodle wrote: The choices you made were the result of your genetics and environment. Therefore, can you really say that you had a choice at all? Im just making an argument that we humans think we operate with complete free will, but that our decisions are largely programmed. Can you really be anyone other than who you are?
Moreover, there's a logical fallacy in your reasoning behind wanting to change the environment: if we don't have free will, doesn't that imply that our current environment--which after all was made by men and women with no free will--is the only way it could possibly be? How then can we "change the environment" if our nature and destiny is to not have already changed it?
In terms of changing the environment, I would look to social engineering. In other words how can we create an environment that fosters those outcomes that we as a society deem to be important. I dont believe in general that humans can overcome (en masse) their environmental programming, but I do think that we can setup the environmental programming to lead individuals to make better decisions. There are abundantly clear examples of how our choices are largely irrational...many of which are directly counter to our interests based on the way that our system is setup at present. Our society presents individuals with a picture of reality that is tuned by forces that are designed to maximize profit. Does the maximization of economic activity and profit lead us on a path to the promised land as a species? I think that is a really valid question that merits some consideration.
I really recommend this short TED talk By behavioral economist Dan Ariely on the illusion of choice http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI
Last edited by doodle on Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8885
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
Your personal choices seem to be pretty sane and rational to me. Do you believe you are a product of these factors? Or have you overcome them? If so, how? And wouldn't that be a stark refutation of your argument?doodle wrote: In terms of changing the environment, I would look to social engineering. In other words how can we create an environment that fosters those outcomes that we as a society deem to be important. I dont believe in general that humans can overcome (en masse) their environmental programming, but I do yhink that we can setup the environment programming to lead individuals to make better decisions. There are abundantly clear examples of how our choices are largely irrational and many of which counter to our interests based on the way that our system is setup at present. Our society presents with a picture of reality that is tuned by forces that are designed to maximize profit. Does the maximization of economic activity and profit lead us on a path to the promised land as a species? I think that is a really valid question that merits some consideration.
I really recommend this short TED talk on the illusion of choice http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9X68dm92HVI
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Libertarian666
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Wealth Inequality
There is no point in arguing about anything with someone who doesn't believe in free will. After all, he has to believe what he believes.
Of course, if you don't believe in free will either, go ahead and do what you have to do.
Of course, if you don't believe in free will either, go ahead and do what you have to do.
Re: Wealth Inequality
My personal choices are the product of my eccentric genetics and upbringing. I was lucky to be exposed to more diversity in the first 20 years of my life than some people experience in their entire lifetime.
Let me ask you a question...do you think most Americans would prefer to live in a geodesic dome or a traditional house? If you say traditional house, I would ask you how do you think that these people came to prefer to live in a house that is inherntly weaker, more expensive, and more material and labor intensive?
Certainly, we cant argue that one is somehow more aesthetically pleasing than the other...therefore their illogical preference for the inferior living structure is decided purely by social programming. This type of illogical decision making is pervasive in myriad daily decisions that people make. These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...
Let me ask you a question...do you think most Americans would prefer to live in a geodesic dome or a traditional house? If you say traditional house, I would ask you how do you think that these people came to prefer to live in a house that is inherntly weaker, more expensive, and more material and labor intensive?
Certainly, we cant argue that one is somehow more aesthetically pleasing than the other...therefore their illogical preference for the inferior living structure is decided purely by social programming. This type of illogical decision making is pervasive in myriad daily decisions that people make. These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...
Last edited by doodle on Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: Wealth Inequality
That depends on what you mean by free will. What other than my genetics and my environment determine my choices? Did I choose my genetics? Did I choose my environment?Libertarian666 wrote: There is no point in arguing about anything with someone who doesn't believe in free will. After all, he has to believe what he believes.
Of course, if you don't believe in free will either, go ahead and do what you have to do.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
dualstow
- Executive Member
- Posts: 15581
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
- Location: searching for the lost Xanadu
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
sold out. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacky_Wall_Walkerrhymenocerous wrote:This is BRILLIANT! I want one.dualstow wrote: ...but just a rubber octopus that sticks to the wall for a few seconds...
No money in our jackets and our jeans are torn/
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
your hands are cold but your lips are warm _ . /
Re: Wealth Inequality
Here is another question that gets at the root of free will...do people ever make decisions that they know will be bad for them? In other words, when confronted with a choice do people knowingly choose the decision which they think will lead to the worst outcome? If we can agree that people generally try to make decisions that will lead to the happiest or most pleasurable life possible, then the primary issue is not that people dont know what they want....they just dont know how to get what they want.
The question then becomes how can the environment on spaceship earth be designed so as to facilitate a happy and comfortable voyage....whatever that may happen to look like? Does our present free market system based on the "illusion of choice" provide us with the best possible means of navigation?
Again, I think that TED video above provides a good springboard for discussion.
As far as social engineering and intelligent design I would really recommend checking out Buckminster Fuller. He is an awe inspiring individual I think.
The question then becomes how can the environment on spaceship earth be designed so as to facilitate a happy and comfortable voyage....whatever that may happen to look like? Does our present free market system based on the "illusion of choice" provide us with the best possible means of navigation?
Again, I think that TED video above provides a good springboard for discussion.
As far as social engineering and intelligent design I would really recommend checking out Buckminster Fuller. He is an awe inspiring individual I think.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
-
Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8885
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: Wealth Inequality
I see where you're coming from. You believe that imperfect information eliminates free will. Why is that?doodle wrote: Certainly, we cant argue that one is somehow more aesthetically pleasing than the other...therefore their illogical preference for the inferior living structure is decided purely by social programming. This type of illogical decision making is pervasive in myriad daily decisions that people make. These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...
Or perhaps I'm wrong and you believe cultural structures destroy it? Let's say I want to build a geodesic dome house (I would very much like to) but my local codes prohibit it. Have I lost my free will?
Last edited by Pointedstick on Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
-
Libertarian666
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: Wealth Inequality
Because he has to, of course.Pointedstick wrote:I see where you're coming from. You believe that imperfect information eliminates free will. Why is that?doodle wrote: Certainly, we cant argue that one is somehow more aesthetically pleasing than the other...therefore their illogical preference for the inferior living structure is decided purely by social programming. This type of illogical decision making is pervasive in myriad daily decisions that people make. These decisions are not made based upon free will....their choices have been largely preordained for them by society. Only a few eccentrics choose to fight against the stream...
