by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .439440441442443444445. . .814815»

Dead men walking wrote:They might as well

lmao sooooooooooo true XD

The belacian states and Dead men walking

Dead men walking

Aussandries wrote:lmao sooooooooooo true XD

When your dad votes for a party which believes you shouldn't exist!

The belacian states

Preamble

I.
a. The single greatest injustice in the world is that the situation of a person’s birth determines, in the vast majority of cases, the position the individual will fulfil in society.
b. The perpetuation of a system that actively discriminates against those individuals who are born into a disadvantaged group, be that due to economic or societal circumstance, should be ceased.
c. The optimum method to eradicate this inherent inequality is to outline indisputable rights of members of society and to institutionalise these rights to afford every individual as equal as possible an opportunity to improve themselves and society as a whole.
d. This agreed-upon set of rights must be based on acceptance of all reasonable points of view and the different interpretations thereof; therefore, these rights must appeal to any reasonable and empathetic member of society.
e. It must be acknowledged that different people may interpret information in different ways, and that multiple strains of thought on a single issue could be considered “reasonable”. Thus, this set of rights must be non-partisan.

The necessity for change within society is exemplified by John Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance” argument. In short: If we were in a conscious state before our births, and aware of the happenings of the Earth, but did not know the circumstances of our birth on the planet, we, in all likelihood, would not risk being born due to both the incredible difference of circumstance that exists between people, and the sheer multitude of those who live in worse conditions than we would deem acceptable. Even in the UK, a comparatively rich and prosperous nation and a modern democracy, the difference between the lives of those born into lower-income backgrounds and higher-income backgrounds is irrefutable.
It is reasonable to assume that any reader of this document would likewise not choose to take a gamble with the circumstance of their birth. The difference between the reactions to this information, however, are remarkably interesting. There are some who encounter the argument, are shocked into realisation that this is not an acceptable way of running a society, and think “how can we change this”. But there are also those who accept the argument and yet return “changing this state of affairs is too difficult”. It is difficult to reconcile these contradictive standpoints: how can one see injustice in the world and yet choose not to attempt to combat it?
It may be that an individual who sees the inequality yet not the need to act currently benefits from the system, and simply does not fully understand the issue. It is likewise possible that they do understand the issue, and yet lack the empathy to grasp the gravity of the situation. The question then becomes can these people be considered “reasonable” in view? Is taking the viewpoint that the accident of birth somehow should determine the course of one’s life truly reasonable? If a negative response is returned to this question, then the rational continuation is that those who hold this view should not be included in the demographic that decides on what rights all people should enjoy, and yet this seems somewhat unfair in itself and creates an air of unpleasantness that doesn’t belong in the creation of a charter that strives for true equality of opportunity.
For the sake of this document, we will be assuming that all reasonable people see injustice in society as something that is unfair and would wish to combat it given the chance, if not due to the moral issues but to the economic ones also. As Rutger Bregman states in an interview with The Guardian, “Poverty is hugely expensive”.

A proposed society wherein equality of opportunity is championed

These are proposed with the caveat that societal change would be necessary to assure equality of opportunity for oppressed groups, such as ethnic minorities or women, along with genuine reform within law. The depth of this has not been included below, as the focus is on wealth equality.

I. The General Economy
a. There are some areas of the economy that are better off in the hands of private companies due to the increased rate of development driven by desires for profit. There are, however, areas of the economy that are better off in the hands of the State, either due to the lack of development needed in that industry (e.g. water distribution), the betterment of the consumer due to lower prices (state-owned company need not profit), or the lack of motive for a private company to provide the service (e.g. streetlights).
b. To this end, the economy should be appropriately mixed between private and state ownership, in a Keynsian-Style economy.

II. Taxation
a. Acknowledging the necessity of potentially highly expensive schemes of affording citizens an equal chance in life, through comprehensive welfare, education, healthcare and pensions, the introduction of high taxes to pay for these schemes is inevitable.
b. Taxation on individuals must be high1, with those in society who are richer paying higher taxes. The major drawback to this traditionally is that it discriminates in itself against professionals like doctors. To combat this, there must be reduced or cancelled university fees for those entering careers like this to offset the cost to these citizens.
c. Taxation on business must be high2, creating a far more lucrative revenue stream for the government.

III. Environment
a. A future cause of extensive inequality will come from a climate damaged irreparably. The struggle for resources that will follow drastic shifts in the climate will be counterproductive for the betterment of society. To this end, environmental measures must be taken at the earliest opportunity to halt this.
b. This would include gradually phasing out non-electric cars, in favour of an efficient, extensive, electric bus (and train) system connecting villages, towns and cities.
c. Likewise, travel inside cities should favour cycling and other environmentally sustainable forms of travel.

IV. Democracy
a. The necessity of a functioning democracy can not be overstated when it comes to a state that favours equality. The right to vote and to have one’s views represented is essential. However, as of the time of writing, only sixteen nations (acc. The Economist) are considered “True Democracies”.
b. Would use a form of PR voting, namely Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), to better create representative and fair governance.

V. National Investment Fund (NIV)
a. Would set up a National Investment Fund to protect society, and crucially equality within society, in times of hardship.
b. All money in this fund would be invested outside of the nation, in ethical sources, as the time that the money would be required would be at a time where any investments within the nation would be low value.
c. The Fund would be comprised of government investment, optional private investment and a designated charity.

Through these reforms and policies, it is the belief of this author, that all citizens of the nation would be born with a significantly more equal chance in life, and that those who are unfortunate enough to fall out of work would be afforded the help and funds they require to bounce back. Likewise, the poorer members of society must be afforded opportunities to better their lots, through schemes to help fund education and basic needs. Without these such reforms, the inequality within society is perpetuated, and those who find themselves at the receiving end find that life does not improve.

The Need for Equality of Opportunity

It must be noted at this point that there do exist some advantages for a society with inherent inequality. The most significant is that when extremely rich people have significant amounts of “spare money”, they tend to invest it, or begin expensive projects that better society as a whole. An example of this would be the railway: only due to incredible wealth inequality was a scheme like this ever put into practice. Likewise, there exist arguments against equality of opportunity on the grounds that it discriminates against those born into wealthy families, namely “why shouldn’t a successful family be able to provide better standard of living for their children?”
The answer to the second question is relatively simple to comprehend, from a mathematical perspective. Take schools as an example. While it seems logical that people with more money should be able to spend this money to afford their children a higher standard of education, the damage this allowance does to other members of society is more notable. The moment a more expensive “better” option exists, that school will be able to afford better staff and better resources. This is great for those at the private school, but these are then teachers and resources that will not be afforded to those remaining students who can’t afford to pay to go to private schools. Considering far more children go to state schools than private, it is logical that to offer the greatest many students a good standard of education, there can not exist a better alternative for richer families.
The primary point is more interesting, and more or less undeniable. The question we must ask ourselves, however, is: does this potential benefit of inequality outweigh the drawbacks of inequality? This is open for interpretation, and, as mentioned previously, different reasonable people can look at the same information and come to separate reasonable views. It is the opinion of this writer that this issue is actually irrelevant to the conversation. Equality of opportunity in no way guarantees equality of outcome, and, indeed, enforcing equality of outcome has major drawbacks. Equality of opportunity simply provides a fair starting point for members of society and allows for a true meritocracy. In nations that embrace this form of equality, there are still many levels of wealth inequality as entrepreneurs are successful (e.g. Sweden). This shows that it is possible to embrace reforms that ensure equal footing at the beginnings of one’s life, while not demanding that all people earn the same salary. Providing everyone in society is wealthy enough to have a decent standard of living through a comprehensive welfare scheme, there is no reason why some people can’t be incredibly rich.
This is a distinction that is crucial to the thinking behind true Socio-Democracy. The only reasons that many people have for their anger at wealthy members of society today are that these people either had a head start in life (and therefore better opportunities), or because there are still those in society who do not have a high enough standard of living to justify having, for example, multi (or even centi-) billionaires. When, however, there are no members of society who are living in a form of poverty, or are simply exceptionally poor, there is no reason why someone can’t be extraordinarily wealthy.
The need for equality of opportunity, then, is simple:
I. It provides all members of society with a far fairer chance at improving their lot in society
II. It provides a larger pool of citizens who have a chance to better society
III. There is little to no true drawbacks to embracing this kind of running of society
The other major point, of course, is what to do about inherited wealth. Again, this is quite simple, as providing this money can’t be used to give people an unfair advantage (e.g. through private schools etc.) then the existence of inheritance is absolutely acceptable. Yes, it does perpetuate some levels of inequality within society, but as previously mentioned providing all members of society are adequately funded for good lifestyles and have chances themselves to become wealthy then it shouldn’t matter that some people are born wealthy. Indeed, it is the goal of a true Socio-Democracy to ensure that society gets wealthier, and this must include the members of society as well.

(footnotes)1 It should be noted that many nations with high taxation are among the happiest in the world, and likewise the most equal.
2 Again noting that the traditional argument against high corporation taxes makes little practical sense: no potential entrepreneur with a “million-dollar-idea” will choose not to pursue it because of high corporation tax. Indeed, it is far more likely to be due to risk of failure, which is neutralised by a comprehensive welfare state3 that affords its recipients a good standard of living.
3 The argument against comprehensive welfare is likewise incoherent: the number of people “leaching” off of welfare payments in nations with high welfare payments are minute and need not be considered a severe problem

Read factbook


on my way to gym

The belacian states and Dead men walking

Dead men walking

Aussandries wrote:
Preamble

I.
a. The single greatest injustice in the world is that the situation of a person’s birth determines, in the vast majority of cases, the position the individual will fulfil in society.
b. The perpetuation of a system that actively discriminates against those individuals who are born into a disadvantaged group, be that due to economic or societal circumstance, should be ceased.
c. The optimum method to eradicate this inherent inequality is to outline indisputable rights of members of society and to institutionalise these rights to afford every individual as equal as possible an opportunity to improve themselves and society as a whole.
d. This agreed-upon set of rights must be based on acceptance of all reasonable points of view and the different interpretations thereof; therefore, these rights must appeal to any reasonable and empathetic member of society.
e. It must be acknowledged that different people may interpret information in different ways, and that multiple strains of thought on a single issue could be considered “reasonable”. Thus, this set of rights must be non-partisan.

The necessity for change within society is exemplified by John Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance” argument. In short: If we were in a conscious state before our births, and aware of the happenings of the Earth, but did not know the circumstances of our birth on the planet, we, in all likelihood, would not risk being born due to both the incredible difference of circumstance that exists between people, and the sheer multitude of those who live in worse conditions than we would deem acceptable. Even in the UK, a comparatively rich and prosperous nation and a modern democracy, the difference between the lives of those born into lower-income backgrounds and higher-income backgrounds is irrefutable.
It is reasonable to assume that any reader of this document would likewise not choose to take a gamble with the circumstance of their birth. The difference between the reactions to this information, however, are remarkably interesting. There are some who encounter the argument, are shocked into realisation that this is not an acceptable way of running a society, and think “how can we change this”. But there are also those who accept the argument and yet return “changing this state of affairs is too difficult”. It is difficult to reconcile these contradictive standpoints: how can one see injustice in the world and yet choose not to attempt to combat it?
It may be that an individual who sees the inequality yet not the need to act currently benefits from the system, and simply does not fully understand the issue. It is likewise possible that they do understand the issue, and yet lack the empathy to grasp the gravity of the situation. The question then becomes can these people be considered “reasonable” in view? Is taking the viewpoint that the accident of birth somehow should determine the course of one’s life truly reasonable? If a negative response is returned to this question, then the rational continuation is that those who hold this view should not be included in the demographic that decides on what rights all people should enjoy, and yet this seems somewhat unfair in itself and creates an air of unpleasantness that doesn’t belong in the creation of a charter that strives for true equality of opportunity.
For the sake of this document, we will be assuming that all reasonable people see injustice in society as something that is unfair and would wish to combat it given the chance, if not due to the moral issues but to the economic ones also. As Rutger Bregman states in an interview with The Guardian, “Poverty is hugely expensive”.

A proposed society wherein equality of opportunity is championed

These are proposed with the caveat that societal change would be necessary to assure equality of opportunity for oppressed groups, such as ethnic minorities or women, along with genuine reform within law. The depth of this has not been included below, as the focus is on wealth equality.

I. The General Economy
a. There are some areas of the economy that are better off in the hands of private companies due to the increased rate of development driven by desires for profit. There are, however, areas of the economy that are better off in the hands of the State, either due to the lack of development needed in that industry (e.g. water distribution), the betterment of the consumer due to lower prices (state-owned company need not profit), or the lack of motive for a private company to provide the service (e.g. streetlights).
b. To this end, the economy should be appropriately mixed between private and state ownership, in a Keynsian-Style economy.

II. Taxation
a. Acknowledging the necessity of potentially highly expensive schemes of affording citizens an equal chance in life, through comprehensive welfare, education, healthcare and pensions, the introduction of high taxes to pay for these schemes is inevitable.
b. Taxation on individuals must be high1, with those in society who are richer paying higher taxes. The major drawback to this traditionally is that it discriminates in itself against professionals like doctors. To combat this, there must be reduced or cancelled university fees for those entering careers like this to offset the cost to these citizens.
c. Taxation on business must be high2, creating a far more lucrative revenue stream for the government.

III. Environment
a. A future cause of extensive inequality will come from a climate damaged irreparably. The struggle for resources that will follow drastic shifts in the climate will be counterproductive for the betterment of society. To this end, environmental measures must be taken at the earliest opportunity to halt this.
b. This would include gradually phasing out non-electric cars, in favour of an efficient, extensive, electric bus (and train) system connecting villages, towns and cities.
c. Likewise, travel inside cities should favour cycling and other environmentally sustainable forms of travel.

IV. Democracy
a. The necessity of a functioning democracy can not be overstated when it comes to a state that favours equality. The right to vote and to have one’s views represented is essential. However, as of the time of writing, only sixteen nations (acc. The Economist) are considered “True Democracies”.
b. Would use a form of PR voting, namely Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), to better create representative and fair governance.

V. National Investment Fund (NIV)
a. Would set up a National Investment Fund to protect society, and crucially equality within society, in times of hardship.
b. All money in this fund would be invested outside of the nation, in ethical sources, as the time that the money would be required would be at a time where any investments within the nation would be low value.
c. The Fund would be comprised of government investment, optional private investment and a designated charity.

Through these reforms and policies, it is the belief of this author, that all citizens of the nation would be born with a significantly more equal chance in life, and that those who are unfortunate enough to fall out of work would be afforded the help and funds they require to bounce back. Likewise, the poorer members of society must be afforded opportunities to better their lots, through schemes to help fund education and basic needs. Without these such reforms, the inequality within society is perpetuated, and those who find themselves at the receiving end find that life does not improve.

The Need for Equality of Opportunity

It must be noted at this point that there do exist some advantages for a society with inherent inequality. The most significant is that when extremely rich people have significant amounts of “spare money”, they tend to invest it, or begin expensive projects that better society as a whole. An example of this would be the railway: only due to incredible wealth inequality was a scheme like this ever put into practice. Likewise, there exist arguments against equality of opportunity on the grounds that it discriminates against those born into wealthy families, namely “why shouldn’t a successful family be able to provide better standard of living for their children?”
The answer to the second question is relatively simple to comprehend, from a mathematical perspective. Take schools as an example. While it seems logical that people with more money should be able to spend this money to afford their children a higher standard of education, the damage this allowance does to other members of society is more notable. The moment a more expensive “better” option exists, that school will be able to afford better staff and better resources. This is great for those at the private school, but these are then teachers and resources that will not be afforded to those remaining students who can’t afford to pay to go to private schools. Considering far more children go to state schools than private, it is logical that to offer the greatest many students a good standard of education, there can not exist a better alternative for richer families.
The primary point is more interesting, and more or less undeniable. The question we must ask ourselves, however, is: does this potential benefit of inequality outweigh the drawbacks of inequality? This is open for interpretation, and, as mentioned previously, different reasonable people can look at the same information and come to separate reasonable views. It is the opinion of this writer that this issue is actually irrelevant to the conversation. Equality of opportunity in no way guarantees equality of outcome, and, indeed, enforcing equality of outcome has major drawbacks. Equality of opportunity simply provides a fair starting point for members of society and allows for a true meritocracy. In nations that embrace this form of equality, there are still many levels of wealth inequality as entrepreneurs are successful (e.g. Sweden). This shows that it is possible to embrace reforms that ensure equal footing at the beginnings of one’s life, while not demanding that all people earn the same salary. Providing everyone in society is wealthy enough to have a decent standard of living through a comprehensive welfare scheme, there is no reason why some people can’t be incredibly rich.
This is a distinction that is crucial to the thinking behind true Socio-Democracy. The only reasons that many people have for their anger at wealthy members of society today are that these people either had a head start in life (and therefore better opportunities), or because there are still those in society who do not have a high enough standard of living to justify having, for example, multi (or even centi-) billionaires. When, however, there are no members of society who are living in a form of poverty, or are simply exceptionally poor, there is no reason why someone can’t be extraordinarily wealthy.
The need for equality of opportunity, then, is simple:
I. It provides all members of society with a far fairer chance at improving their lot in society
II. It provides a larger pool of citizens who have a chance to better society
III. There is little to no true drawbacks to embracing this kind of running of society
The other major point, of course, is what to do about inherited wealth. Again, this is quite simple, as providing this money can’t be used to give people an unfair advantage (e.g. through private schools etc.) then the existence of inheritance is absolutely acceptable. Yes, it does perpetuate some levels of inequality within society, but as previously mentioned providing all members of society are adequately funded for good lifestyles and have chances themselves to become wealthy then it shouldn’t matter that some people are born wealthy. Indeed, it is the goal of a true Socio-Democracy to ensure that society gets wealthier, and this must include the members of society as well.

(footnotes)1 It should be noted that many nations with high taxation are among the happiest in the world, and likewise the most equal.
2 Again noting that the traditional argument against high corporation taxes makes little practical sense: no potential entrepreneur with a “million-dollar-idea” will choose not to pursue it because of high corporation tax. Indeed, it is far more likely to be due to risk of failure, which is neutralised by a comprehensive welfare state3 that affords its recipients a good standard of living.
3 The argument against comprehensive welfare is likewise incoherent: the number of people “leaching” off of welfare payments in nations with high welfare payments are minute and need not be considered a severe problem

Read factbook


on my way to gym

What a king

Aussandries and The belacian states

The belacian states

Aussandries wrote:
Preamble

I.
a. The single greatest injustice in the world is that the situation of a person’s birth determines, in the vast majority of cases, the position the individual will fulfil in society.
b. The perpetuation of a system that actively discriminates against those individuals who are born into a disadvantaged group, be that due to economic or societal circumstance, should be ceased.
c. The optimum method to eradicate this inherent inequality is to outline indisputable rights of members of society and to institutionalise these rights to afford every individual as equal as possible an opportunity to improve themselves and society as a whole.
d. This agreed-upon set of rights must be based on acceptance of all reasonable points of view and the different interpretations thereof; therefore, these rights must appeal to any reasonable and empathetic member of society.
e. It must be acknowledged that different people may interpret information in different ways, and that multiple strains of thought on a single issue could be considered “reasonable”. Thus, this set of rights must be non-partisan.

The necessity for change within society is exemplified by John Rawls’ “Veil of Ignorance” argument. In short: If we were in a conscious state before our births, and aware of the happenings of the Earth, but did not know the circumstances of our birth on the planet, we, in all likelihood, would not risk being born due to both the incredible difference of circumstance that exists between people, and the sheer multitude of those who live in worse conditions than we would deem acceptable. Even in the UK, a comparatively rich and prosperous nation and a modern democracy, the difference between the lives of those born into lower-income backgrounds and higher-income backgrounds is irrefutable.
It is reasonable to assume that any reader of this document would likewise not choose to take a gamble with the circumstance of their birth. The difference between the reactions to this information, however, are remarkably interesting. There are some who encounter the argument, are shocked into realisation that this is not an acceptable way of running a society, and think “how can we change this”. But there are also those who accept the argument and yet return “changing this state of affairs is too difficult”. It is difficult to reconcile these contradictive standpoints: how can one see injustice in the world and yet choose not to attempt to combat it?
It may be that an individual who sees the inequality yet not the need to act currently benefits from the system, and simply does not fully understand the issue. It is likewise possible that they do understand the issue, and yet lack the empathy to grasp the gravity of the situation. The question then becomes can these people be considered “reasonable” in view? Is taking the viewpoint that the accident of birth somehow should determine the course of one’s life truly reasonable? If a negative response is returned to this question, then the rational continuation is that those who hold this view should not be included in the demographic that decides on what rights all people should enjoy, and yet this seems somewhat unfair in itself and creates an air of unpleasantness that doesn’t belong in the creation of a charter that strives for true equality of opportunity.
For the sake of this document, we will be assuming that all reasonable people see injustice in society as something that is unfair and would wish to combat it given the chance, if not due to the moral issues but to the economic ones also. As Rutger Bregman states in an interview with The Guardian, “Poverty is hugely expensive”.

A proposed society wherein equality of opportunity is championed

These are proposed with the caveat that societal change would be necessary to assure equality of opportunity for oppressed groups, such as ethnic minorities or women, along with genuine reform within law. The depth of this has not been included below, as the focus is on wealth equality.

I. The General Economy
a. There are some areas of the economy that are better off in the hands of private companies due to the increased rate of development driven by desires for profit. There are, however, areas of the economy that are better off in the hands of the State, either due to the lack of development needed in that industry (e.g. water distribution), the betterment of the consumer due to lower prices (state-owned company need not profit), or the lack of motive for a private company to provide the service (e.g. streetlights).
b. To this end, the economy should be appropriately mixed between private and state ownership, in a Keynsian-Style economy.

II. Taxation
a. Acknowledging the necessity of potentially highly expensive schemes of affording citizens an equal chance in life, through comprehensive welfare, education, healthcare and pensions, the introduction of high taxes to pay for these schemes is inevitable.
b. Taxation on individuals must be high1, with those in society who are richer paying higher taxes. The major drawback to this traditionally is that it discriminates in itself against professionals like doctors. To combat this, there must be reduced or cancelled university fees for those entering careers like this to offset the cost to these citizens.
c. Taxation on business must be high2, creating a far more lucrative revenue stream for the government.

III. Environment
a. A future cause of extensive inequality will come from a climate damaged irreparably. The struggle for resources that will follow drastic shifts in the climate will be counterproductive for the betterment of society. To this end, environmental measures must be taken at the earliest opportunity to halt this.
b. This would include gradually phasing out non-electric cars, in favour of an efficient, extensive, electric bus (and train) system connecting villages, towns and cities.
c. Likewise, travel inside cities should favour cycling and other environmentally sustainable forms of travel.

IV. Democracy
a. The necessity of a functioning democracy can not be overstated when it comes to a state that favours equality. The right to vote and to have one’s views represented is essential. However, as of the time of writing, only sixteen nations (acc. The Economist) are considered “True Democracies”.
b. Would use a form of PR voting, namely Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), to better create representative and fair governance.

V. National Investment Fund (NIV)
a. Would set up a National Investment Fund to protect society, and crucially equality within society, in times of hardship.
b. All money in this fund would be invested outside of the nation, in ethical sources, as the time that the money would be required would be at a time where any investments within the nation would be low value.
c. The Fund would be comprised of government investment, optional private investment and a designated charity.

Through these reforms and policies, it is the belief of this author, that all citizens of the nation would be born with a significantly more equal chance in life, and that those who are unfortunate enough to fall out of work would be afforded the help and funds they require to bounce back. Likewise, the poorer members of society must be afforded opportunities to better their lots, through schemes to help fund education and basic needs. Without these such reforms, the inequality within society is perpetuated, and those who find themselves at the receiving end find that life does not improve.

The Need for Equality of Opportunity

It must be noted at this point that there do exist some advantages for a society with inherent inequality. The most significant is that when extremely rich people have significant amounts of “spare money”, they tend to invest it, or begin expensive projects that better society as a whole. An example of this would be the railway: only due to incredible wealth inequality was a scheme like this ever put into practice. Likewise, there exist arguments against equality of opportunity on the grounds that it discriminates against those born into wealthy families, namely “why shouldn’t a successful family be able to provide better standard of living for their children?”
The answer to the second question is relatively simple to comprehend, from a mathematical perspective. Take schools as an example. While it seems logical that people with more money should be able to spend this money to afford their children a higher standard of education, the damage this allowance does to other members of society is more notable. The moment a more expensive “better” option exists, that school will be able to afford better staff and better resources. This is great for those at the private school, but these are then teachers and resources that will not be afforded to those remaining students who can’t afford to pay to go to private schools. Considering far more children go to state schools than private, it is logical that to offer the greatest many students a good standard of education, there can not exist a better alternative for richer families.
The primary point is more interesting, and more or less undeniable. The question we must ask ourselves, however, is: does this potential benefit of inequality outweigh the drawbacks of inequality? This is open for interpretation, and, as mentioned previously, different reasonable people can look at the same information and come to separate reasonable views. It is the opinion of this writer that this issue is actually irrelevant to the conversation. Equality of opportunity in no way guarantees equality of outcome, and, indeed, enforcing equality of outcome has major drawbacks. Equality of opportunity simply provides a fair starting point for members of society and allows for a true meritocracy. In nations that embrace this form of equality, there are still many levels of wealth inequality as entrepreneurs are successful (e.g. Sweden). This shows that it is possible to embrace reforms that ensure equal footing at the beginnings of one’s life, while not demanding that all people earn the same salary. Providing everyone in society is wealthy enough to have a decent standard of living through a comprehensive welfare scheme, there is no reason why some people can’t be incredibly rich.
This is a distinction that is crucial to the thinking behind true Socio-Democracy. The only reasons that many people have for their anger at wealthy members of society today are that these people either had a head start in life (and therefore better opportunities), or because there are still those in society who do not have a high enough standard of living to justify having, for example, multi (or even centi-) billionaires. When, however, there are no members of society who are living in a form of poverty, or are simply exceptionally poor, there is no reason why someone can’t be extraordinarily wealthy.
The need for equality of opportunity, then, is simple:
I. It provides all members of society with a far fairer chance at improving their lot in society
II. It provides a larger pool of citizens who have a chance to better society
III. There is little to no true drawbacks to embracing this kind of running of society
The other major point, of course, is what to do about inherited wealth. Again, this is quite simple, as providing this money can’t be used to give people an unfair advantage (e.g. through private schools etc.) then the existence of inheritance is absolutely acceptable. Yes, it does perpetuate some levels of inequality within society, but as previously mentioned providing all members of society are adequately funded for good lifestyles and have chances themselves to become wealthy then it shouldn’t matter that some people are born wealthy. Indeed, it is the goal of a true Socio-Democracy to ensure that society gets wealthier, and this must include the members of society as well.

(footnotes)1 It should be noted that many nations with high taxation are among the happiest in the world, and likewise the most equal.
2 Again noting that the traditional argument against high corporation taxes makes little practical sense: no potential entrepreneur with a “million-dollar-idea” will choose not to pursue it because of high corporation tax. Indeed, it is far more likely to be due to risk of failure, which is neutralised by a comprehensive welfare state3 that affords its recipients a good standard of living.
3 The argument against comprehensive welfare is likewise incoherent: the number of people “leaching” off of welfare payments in nations with high welfare payments are minute and need not be considered a severe problem

Read factbook


on my way to gym

Absolutely brilliant! Spread the word

Aussandries and Dead men walking

Dead men walking

How many registered voters are there btw?

Aussandries and The belacian states

Dead men walking wrote:How many registered voters are there btw?

technically 62, not accounting for deaths - if they come back they are still registered.

The belacian states and Dead men walking

Aussandries wrote:technically 62, not accounting for deaths - if they come back they are still registered.

Up to 63 now - but yes a lot are ex-region members who could still technically vote if they wanted to

Aussandries, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

Orennica wrote:Up to 63 now - but yes a lot are ex-region members who could still technically vote if they wanted to

he speaks!! celebrate this day, comrades!

Buewye, Orennica, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

Orennica wrote:Up to 63 now - but yes a lot are ex-region members who could still technically vote if they wanted to

Even Bingsearching is registered to vote, although I doubt he'd be allowed to now

Aussandries, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

The belacian states

Orennica wrote:Even Bingsearching is registered to vote, although I doubt he'd be allowed to now

Well done for not mentioning his nation lol

Aussandries and Orennica

i will be transferring my vote from brett stanford who cant win

Aussandries, Orennica, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

Dead men walking

Iyzlandz wrote:i will be transferring my vote from brett stanford who cant win

Harsh but ok

Aussandries and The belacian states

Dead men walking wrote:Harsh but ok

Dead man walking. I am sorry to hear that your main nation Who Cares Bro got deleted

Aussandries, Orennica, The belacian states, Utrechtse gewest, and 1 otherDead men walking

Oh yeah btw hi everyone. Just checking in lol

Aussandries, Orennica, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

Team lennox wrote:Oh yeah btw hi everyone. Just checking in lol

good of u :)

The belacian states and Dead men walking

The glorious state of corbyn

Hi this is WCB on my first ever nation..... it's little bigger than dead men walking, can this replace dead men walking as my main?

Aussandries, Orennica, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

The glorious state of corbyn wrote:Hi this is WCB on my first ever nation..... it's little bigger than dead men walking, can this replace dead men walking as my main?

That should be fine - do you want to register it now for future voting events?

Aussandries, The belacian states, The glorious state of corbyn, and Dead men walking

The belacian states

The glorious state of corbyn wrote:Hi this is WCB on my first ever nation..... it's little bigger than dead men walking, can this replace dead men walking as my main?

Some of those policies...eek

Aussandries, The glorious state of corbyn, and Dead men walking

Dead men walking

The belacian states wrote:Some of those policies...eek

I'm gonna try change it, it's just this nation is so piddly. Once it get's bigger if the other hasn't changed enough then I'll switch back

Orennica wrote:That should be fine - do you want to register it now for future voting events?

Yes please- I have only registered four actually so register that on top of my current ones.... also if Aussandries isn't at the gym I was hoping for him to shift that nation to be vice president cos it's just me.

Aussandries, Orennica, and The belacian states

The belacian states

Dead men walking wrote:I'm gonna try change it, it's just this nation is so piddly. Once it get's bigger if the other hasn't changed enough then I'll switch back
Yes please- I have only registered four actually so register that on top of my current ones.... also if Aussandries isn't at the gym I was hoping for him to shift that nation to be vice president cos it's just me.

‘If Aussandries isn’t at the gym’
🤣

Aussandries, Orennica, and Dead men walking

Dead men walking

The belacian states wrote:‘If Aussandries isn’t at the gym’
🤣

It seems a daily occurrence.... whenever I'm gone I'll just say "sorry lads off to the bank to withdraw huge amounts of my money", "sorry lads off to my private airfield to take a helicopter to lunch" THIS FLEXING NEEDS TO STOP. Intervention?

Buewye, Aussandries, and The belacian states

The belacian states

Dead men walking wrote:It seems a daily occurrence.... whenever I'm gone I'll just say "sorry lads off to the bank to withdraw huge amounts of my money", "sorry lads off to my private airfield to take a helicopter to lunch" THIS FLEXING NEEDS TO STOP. Intervention?

😂

Dead men walking

Dead men walking

Utrechtse isn't on holiday, he's just fighting a dragon.

Aussandries

Utrechtse gewest

Dead men walking wrote:Utrechtse isn't on holiday, he's just fighting a dragon.

Birch what

Aussandries, The belacian states, and Dead men walking

«12. . .439440441442443444445. . .814815»

Advertisement