what is wrong with america today...

[michaeledward]

Exactly what DID you mean with your statement, and WHY do you believe this?

A statment was made ...

Some aspire, by hard work, to be represented among the 10%. Others aspire to strip the 10% of their work, and redistribute it.

... that propsed the idea that the wealthy are wealthy because they work hard ... and those that are not wealthy are just looking to take something that doesn't belong to them.

To which there was a response ...

There truly is no such thing as a 'Self-Made-Man'. We are all products of our environment.

The wealthy are not wealthy soley because they work hard. They are allowed to become wealthy because in their environment, there is a government, which codifies and enforces a set of rules. Without those rules, no amount of hard work could guarantee accumulation of wealth. Because the rules are required for wealth accumulation, and government is required for the rules, and government needs funding in order to operation (environment), taxes are imposed.

As to how collected taxes are spent, currently, they are being redistributed to Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed, much more than going to the 90% of the population that could use things like a college education, for instance.

To sum up:

You can take wealth out of the government, but you can't take government out of the wealth.

Or, we are all products of our environment.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Perhaps, but then you refuse to admit that the founding fathers had crystal balls which enabled them to adress our current societal issues. (Which is what the strict constitutional fundimentalists are basically arguing.) Adaptive mechanisms imply that the document is still a living document, and that the founders recognized that they weren't inerrant.

Not me, I was very carful to say what I meant. I think the Consitution, within the article and bill of rights, is the codification of *ideas*, with example of principles. Principles about liberty, freedom, civil responsibility and duty, the role of the state and the role of the citizen, and recognition of where the power of the state would end because of the 'inalienable' rights of humans that were not granted by the state but merely aknowledged. Within the Bill of Rights are examples of the application of those ideals. But rather than try to set up a lengthy series of laws to explain, outline, and cover every contingency, they set up a) a judicial system to use the Bill of Rights as a guidline to apply those ideals in new or unforseen situations and b) a mechanism for changing the document itself if need be. The ideals themselves are key, and they seem pretty good.

Like the 2nd amendment. These were people who had just used their own weapons to hold of a much larger military, successfully. The idea behind the2nd amendment is simple (and is actually spelled out in the amendment), "an armed citizenry is a defense against the tyranny of the state through military power". That, as a *principle*, is true. We saw it in Vietnam, the Soviets saw it in Afghanistan, we are seeing it in Iraq; if you want to bring military force against an armed citizenry, you had best think twice because it could be more trouble than it's worth to you so youmay want to find another means of accomplishing your goals. Now, the people who wrote that amendment could not forsee things like a large standing military, m-16s, and branch davidians which is why we have courts standing on precedence to determine how to apply that principle in today's environment. But the trick is, the principle *is* still true, so if you pass laws or rule on laws in a way counter to the principle, at least be honest enough to say that the ideal is no longer important. Don't try to wrestle the language to try to get the wording of the amendment to give sanction to to your cause, just have the courage to admit that you are trading the ideal of public safety for the ideal of an armed citenzry in defense against state tyranny. After all, *both* are guide ideals. Since in this case the ideal is also law...change the basic law if you have to, or admit that your opinions, while maybe justifiable to some opinions, don't really find fit in the laws of theland. And no, I do not own guns and I do not know the answer to how the 2nd amendment should be applied in a society with a large standing army of volunteer citizens and automatic weapons, although in a hundred years they will probably be passe and we'll have the same agurment over laser rifles or something..that's why I'm not a judge.

That becomes the problem, I think. Some people have opinions, principles, ideals, whatever, that are really opposed to the ideals that were set down in the Constitution, but the Constitution is the law of the land, which sorta becomes a sticking point to proposing certain ideas as law. So the solution seems to become to reinterpet the letter of the wording to try to get it to support a different ideal, because the Constitution *is* changeable, but not quicky and not easily

Judges interpret the Consitution and subsequent law to apply the principles by which those laws are established to new and unknown or unforeseen circumstances...that's their job. Amendments to the Constitution go one further because they effectively re-scramble or re-set the principles under which we operate as a nation. I believe the Constitution is designed to be flexible within those guiding principles, and I think those principles are good and strong and we should be very slow to deviate from the principles themselves, particularly in response to social whims of the day


I have no problem interpreting the Consitution in light of our environment, society, technology today, as long as the interpretation is based on following the guiding principles of fredom, liberty and civic responsibilities that are behind what is laid down in print. It's a living document but even living creatures can only stretch so far before they lose thier identity and the attributes that make them reconizable and special

 

[Marginal]

I have no problem interpreting the Consitution in light of our environment, society, technology today, as long as the interpretation is based on following the guiding principles of fredom, liberty and civic responsibilities that are behind what is laid down in print. It's a living document but even living creatures can only stretch so far before they lose thier identity and the attributes that make them reconizable and special

That still denies the basic arguments of the strict constutionalists. Which was the point of my previous post.

 

[FearlessFreep]

That still denies the basic arguments of the strict constutionalists. Which was the point of my previous post.

But not mine My only point was that for any given written document that you have to assume that the writer intended his inentions to be known and to even attempt to read it requires you to assume that you can discover that intention, otherwise there is not point in reading itt, and no point in writing it. Whether the US Constituion or anything else

I don't care about strict constitutionalists, I cared that you seemed to be putting forth that original intent was impossible to determine and my only point to that was that if you don't assume, as a writer, that your intent at least *can* be determined then there is nopoint to writng, and that if ypu don't assume, as a reader, that original intent can be discovered than here is no point in reading. But I believe you referred to that second attempt as 'necromancy' in regards to reading the US Constitution.

How you act on what you think the original intent was, and how you apply it today, is a much different issue...

 

[Marginal]

But not mine My only point was that for any given written document that you have to assume that the writer intended his inentions to be known and to even attempt to read it requires you to assume that you can discover that intention, otherwise there is not point in reading itt, and no point in writing it. Whether the US Constituion or anything else

Doesn't really explain the existence of lawyers though.

Death of author's not a new concept.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A statment was made ...


... that propsed the idea that the wealthy are wealthy because they work hard ... and those that are not wealthy are just looking to take something that doesn't belong to them.

To which there was a response ...



The wealthy are not wealthy soley because they work hard. They are allowed to become wealthy because in their environment, there is a government, which codifies and enforces a set of rules. Without those rules, no amount of hard work could guarantee accumulation of wealth. Because the rules are required for wealth accumulation, and government is required for the rules, and government needs funding in order to operation (environment), taxes are imposed.

As to how collected taxes are spent, currently, they are being redistributed to Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed, much more than going to the 90% of the population that could use things like a college education, for instance.

To sum up:

You can take wealth out of the government, but you can't take government out of the wealth.

Or, we are all products of our environment.

That is the most convoluted BS defense of an argument i've seen in quite a long history of watching convoluted arguments. You went from 'we are products of our environments' immediately to 'you can take wealth out of the government'. You did NOT, I not, show how hard work and talent have nothing to do with accumulation of wealth.

I will note that the LESS rules in place, the MORE effect talent and hard work have to accumulating wealth and power. In a lawless environment, the MOST talented and hard working are the successful. Just the opposite of your conclusion is true, that rules actually impede the accumulation of success in many instances.

Now, you may be right, if by 'environment' you mean an environment where an individual is taught the power of hard work and determination, instead of excuse making. If that is what you mean by environment (though, I know it is not) then you might be correct.

The richest men in American History started out poor. If the accumulation of wealth was merely something handed down, then the rich would always be rich and the poor would always be poor. And the rich would only get richer. History of wealth in America, however, runs contrary to this. The singular men that accumulated most wealth in America were, as a rule, rather than exception, self-made men who came from humble beginnings.

John D. Rockefeller, arguably the richest man to have lived in America, had his first job as a bookkeeper, for which he toiled for 3 months before even receiving his first pay, which consisted of a whole $50.00 for three months work. If we were to believe your model, there is no way that Rockefeller would have accumulated the wealth he did, as the accumulation of wealth would have been reserved for those who already possessed huge sums of money.

But the question is, why did Rockefeller, and not THEY, accumulate all that wealth? Did the government decide they liked Rockefeller better?

Andrew Carnegie came to America an impoverished immigrant. The environmental factor that drove him to financial success was that his mother PUSHED him to the point that failure was not an option.

As Margaret Carnagie was fond of telling young Andrew 'Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves.' Had she, instead, told Andrew Carnagie 'Society is stacked against the poor, so you shouldn't even try, because it's all a matter of environment and being born rich' I sincerely doubt he would have achieved his level of success.

Cornelius Vanderbilt was born the 4th of 9 children to parents of modest means in New York. He quit school at 11 and worked on ferries. Through hard work and frugal and shrewed financial management, he expanded his business to control shipping on the Hudson River.

John Jacob Astor was born the son of a butcher.

Again, where is the environmental factors to these men's success? They represent some of the wealthiest men in US history.

According to you, these men should have never had a chance. Please point to the external environmental factors that were more important than internal factors to these men's success.

That the individual is helpless in the face of social forces and has no impact denies the achievements of great men, who were great BEYOND their environment. Environmental factors cannot explain the genius of Einstein or Capernicus, who altered their environment. That we are but helpless beings adrift on a sea of unalterable environmental factors is idiotic thinking. Life adapts to it's environment, and seeks to dominate it's environment. It is pathological thinking to suggest that we are simply victims and products of our environment, as we are constantly in conflict with our environment.

Ideas have power. Ideas can alter societies, they can change environments. Of course, that we are 'victim's' of society is an idea meant to alter things as well. It's a tool, and I know it for what it is. It's designed to create the appearance of helplessness so that, in that void created by helplessness, a political agenda can be driven with the intent of 'helping the helpless'. It's pure ideological drivel designed to keep people in self-imposed helplessness for the enrichement of a certain political ideology. Save it for someone who's buying.

The belief that you cannot rise above your environment pretty much guarantees you won't. A motivated and talented man could turn a dollar in to millions, while a lazy and careless man could turn millions in to dust. The history of wealth is paved by men who won and lost a dozen fortunes in their lifetimes, and were never discouraged or tempted to simply resign themselves to fate.

Many want to write off success as luck, because it makes them feel better about resigning themselves to failure. But luck is when opportunity meets preparedness.

Audaces fortuna iuvat-Fortune favors the bold.

Now, read Rudyard Kiplings 'IF' 100 times and get back to work.

Your mistake is in the belief that hard work does not always equal success. That there are no guarantees of success is true, but hardworks opposite almost always leads to failure. Successful men don't worry about failure.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I hear the approaching hoof-beats of Barbara Ehrenreich and her ilk. I expect to hear soon how i'm 'Nickeled and Dimed'.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_working_poor.html

Barb betrays her true purpose in this overly candid statement. "In fact, the anger, at least, is healthy -- and could be channeled into something worthwhile, like advocating for health insurance and other social supports for the unemployed." That's a little more honest than i'm sure she meant to be. She doesn't want the poor to work or be successful, she wants to convince them to stop trying, because their only hope is people like her.

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/qanda.htm

What she wants is to foment the alleged poor in to petitioning for MORE government by telling them 'it's not your fault, just give up, there's nothing you can do'. Pathetic. But I digress.

Again, it's no surprise where much of the talking points are coming from on this topic. It's the same old class warfare in a new dress.

 

[michaeledward]

That is the most convoluted BS defense of an argument i've seen in quite a long history of watching convoluted arguments. You went from 'we are products of our environments' immediately to 'you can take wealth out of the government'. You did NOT, I not, show how hard work and talent have nothing to do with accumulation of wealth.

I will note that the LESS rules in place, the MORE effect talent and hard work have to accumulating wealth and power. In a lawless environment, the MOST talented and hard working are the successful. Just the opposite of your conclusion is true, that rules actually impede the accumulation of success in many instances.

Now, you may be right, if by 'environment' you mean an environment where an individual is taught the power of hard work and determination, instead of excuse making. If that is what you mean by environment (though, I know it is not) then you might be correct.

The richest men in American History started out poor. If the accumulation of wealth was merely something handed down, then the rich would always be rich and the poor would always be poor. And the rich would only get richer. History of wealth in America, however, runs contrary to this. The singular men that accumulated most wealth in America were, as a rule, rather than exception, self-made men who came from humble beginnings.

John D. Rockefeller, arguably the richest man to have lived in America, had his first job as a bookkeeper, for which he toiled for 3 months before even receiving his first pay, which consisted of a whole $50.00 for three months work. If we were to believe your model, there is no way that Rockefeller would have accumulated the wealth he did, as the accumulation of wealth would have been reserved for those who already possessed huge sums of money.

But the question is, why did Rockefeller, and not THEY, accumulate all that wealth? Did the government decide they liked Rockefeller better?

Andrew Carnegie came to America an impoverished immigrant. The environmental factor that drove him to financial success was that his mother PUSHED him to the point that failure was not an option.

As Margaret Carnagie was fond of telling young Andrew 'Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves.' Had she, instead, told Andrew Carnagie 'Society is stacked against the poor, so you shouldn't even try, because it's all a matter of environment and being born rich' I sincerely doubt he would have achieved his level of success.

Cornelius Vanderbilt was born the 4th of 9 children to parents of modest means in New York. He quit school at 11 and worked on ferries. Through hard work and frugal and shrewed financial management, he expanded his business to control shipping on the Hudson River.

John Jacob Astor was born the son of a butcher.

Again, where is the environmental factors to these men's success? They represent some of the wealthiest men in US history.

According to you, these men should have never had a chance. Please point to the external environmental factors that were more important than internal factors to these men's success.

That the individual is helpless in the face of social forces and has no impact denies the achievements of great men, who were great BEYOND their environment. Environmental factors cannot explain the genius of Einstein or Capernicus, who altered their environment. That we are but helpless beings adrift on a sea of unalterable environmental factors is idiotic thinking. Life adapts to it's environment, and seeks to dominate it's environment. It is pathological thinking to suggest that we are simply victims and products of our environment, as we are constantly in conflict with our environment.

Ideas have power. Ideas can alter societies, they can change environments. Of course, that we are 'victim's' of society is an idea meant to alter things as well. It's a tool, and I know it for what it is. It's designed to create the appearance of helplessness so that, in that void created by helplessness, a political agenda can be driven with the intent of 'helping the helpless'. It's pure ideological drivel designed to keep people in self-imposed helplessness for the enrichement of a certain political ideology. Save it for someone who's buying.

The belief that you cannot rise above your environment pretty much guarantees you won't. A motivated and talented man could turn a dollar in to millions, while a lazy and careless man could turn millions in to dust. The history of wealth is paved by men who won and lost a dozen fortunes in their lifetimes, and were never discouraged or tempted to simply resign themselves to fate.

Many want to write off success as luck, because it makes them feel better about resigning themselves to failure. But luck is when opportunity meets preparedness.

Audaces fortuna iuvat-Fortune favors the bold.

Now, read Rudyard Kiplings 'IF' 100 times and get back to work.

Your mistake is in the belief that hard work does not always equal success. That there are no guarantees of success is true, but hardworks opposite almost always leads to failure. Successful men don't worry about failure.

That you totally mis-understand the argument does not surprise me, which is why I kept the initial point short.

In a Lawless environment, Hard Work and Talent, do not guarantee wealth accumulation. It guarantees, he who has the power to enforce the rules accumulates wealth.

By your definition, Saddam Hussien would be a wonderful example to put beside Carnagie and Rockefeller. Because he had amassed great wealth, he must be talented and hard working. Instead of capturing him for trail by Iraqi's, we should have brought him here and gave him a chair at the Harvard Business School (or at least some Right Wing Think Tank)

 

[FearlessFreep]

Doesn't really explain the existence of lawyers though.

Sure it does. If the role of the judge is to interpret the Constitution (and precedent) in terms of a given situation, it's the role of the lawyer to present evidence and argument to the judge as to what the iterpretaton should be. Lawyer A says "Your honor, this law is unconstitutional so my client *should* be allowed to do X" and Lawyer B says "Your honor, the city was within it's rights to pass a law against X" and the judge ways the arguments against the Consitution and precedence, especially the Supreme Cout's prior decisions

 

[Martial Tucker]

I will note that the LESS rules in place, the MORE effect talent and hard work have to accumulating wealth and power. In a lawless environment, the MOST talented and hard working are the successful.

In a Lawless environment, Hard Work and Talent, do not guarantee wealth accumulation. It guarantees, he who has the power to enforce the rules accumulates wealth.

By your definition, Saddam Hussien would be a wonderful example to put beside Carnagie and Rockefeller. Because he had amassed great wealth, he must be talented and hard working.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was obvious that sgtmac_46 was referring to a democracy where there are few laws restricting activity, but the laws that do exist are generally followed by the populus.

By comparing to Hussein's Iraq, you are comparing to an environment where the laws are created by one person, and that person is not even subject to his own laws. Of course that person will come out ahead of the rest.

Put another way, if a bunch of people are playing a game, the player who
works the hardest at being good at the game usually wins more often. Additionally, the fewer rules there are in the game, the easier it is for EACH PLAYER to have a chance at winning the game, as long as everyone follows the rules.

Your analogy describes a situation where one player has the ability to create arbitrary rules as the game progresses, who is not subject to those rules, and can eliminate any other players who challenge him.

In other words, a ridiculously invalid comparison......

 

[michaeledward]

In other words, a ridiculously invalid comparison......

Really? O.K. then.

We are not products of our environment.

Each of us can operate completely out of any system of laws (such as that of the United States government), and the Rockefellers, the Gates, and the Carnegie will always rise to the top. Because, obviously, they are more talented and work harder than all others.

 

[Martial Tucker]

Hmmm.......how odd.......according to some theories, growing/living up in Chihuahua, Mexico would be a definite environmental disadvantage to growing up/living in an America.....




Immigrants find opportunity in ruined New Orleans

By Jeff Franks Fri Dec 23,10:59 AM ET

NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Much of New Orleans lies abandoned and destroyed after Hurricane Katrina struck nearly four months ago, but for Latin American immigrants the storm-ravaged city has become a land of opportunity.

While New Orleans residents are slow to return, the immigrants, most of them illegally in the United States, have swarmed in to do the hard work of cleaning up and rebuilding that others so far have shunned.
They are not here because of altruism -- New Orleans is just another place in a strange land to them -- but because there is a huge unfulfilled demand for labor and, as a result, high wages they cannot get in their homeland or in other U.S. cities.
In a sight common in the southwestern U.S., but new to New Orleans, they crowd street corners starting at daybreak, offering themselves as day laborers to anyone who needs them.
"You need worker?" asks Carlos Delgado, leaning against a light pole overlooked by a nearby statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.
"I can put up Sheetrock, roofing, concrete and I can do clean-up," the 31-year-old Mexico native says in a mixture of English and Spanish.
He had been in Houston for eight years before coming to New Orleans in October and like most of the immigrants lives in a cheap hotel room with several acquaintances.
Most days, Delgado and his colleagues -- sometimes as many as 200 on this corner parking lot near the New Orleans central business district -- get hired quickly by contractors in passing pickup trucks, who whisk them off to whatever project is pending.
"Baby, we couldn't do it without them," one of the employers shouted through his truck window.
DAILY RATES
There is so much work to be done, the immigrants say, that often they finish, return to the corner and get hired the same day for another job.
The pay is good -- "$10, $12, $15 an hour," said Jose Del Rio, 38, from Chihuahua, Mexico -- and there are few problems...............

The immigrant workers do not feel too threatened by competition from the local Americans. They point to the back of the parking lot where the only "gringos" in sight are sleeping on sheets of cardboard or sitting on wooden boxes, surrounded by empty beer cans and booze bottles.
"There are a lot of drunks here," said Delgado.
When asked where the American workers were, Del Rio shook his head and said, "Who knows? It just seems like the Latin race likes to work more."

 

[michaeledward]

Hmmm.......how odd.......according to some theories, growing/living up in Chihuahua, Mexico would be a definite environmental disadvantage to growing up/living in an America.....

No doubt, that's why Chihuahua, Mexica has generated so many multi-billionaires. They work hard, and they have talent.

 

[Martial Tucker]

No doubt, that's why Chihuahua, Mexica has generated so many multi-billionaires. They work hard, and they have talent.

It's a heckuva lot more likely for them than for someone who spends their time
"sleeping on sheets of cardboard or sitting on wooden boxes, surrounded by empty beer cans and booze bottles".

Paradoxically, Mexico has more millionaires than Germany, yet half its population is supported only by traditional low technology industry and agriculture.
http://chicagosociety.uchicago.edu/mexico/mexicofacts.html


The key factor is, when you are presented with an opportunity, do you seize it, or ignore it. It comes down to choices. Two people in the same place, given the same opportunity. One chooses to work, the other to sit on a box and drink. Neither has much of a chance of becoming the next Bill Gates. One makes the most of what he has, the other sits.

 

[michaeledward]

The key factor is, when you are presented with an opportunity, do you seize it, or ignore it. It comes down to choices. Two people in the same place, given the same opportunity. One chooses to work, the other to sit on a box and drink. Neither has much of a chance of becoming the next Bill Gates. One makes the most of what he has, the other sits.

The key factor is ... being in the right place. A place with a stable government, with rules of conduct and a method of enforcing those rules.

Without that, only strongmen, mob bosses have a shot.

First ... before personal endeavor ... systems need to be in place.

That is my point, and you are talking around it.

 

[Martial Tucker]

The key factor is ... being in the right place. A place with a stable government, with rules of conduct and a method of enforcing those rules.

Well, it seems to me that the people sitting on the boxes and drinking in New Orleans were "in the right place" to find work before the people from Mexico arrived.
The "box-sitters" CHOSE to sit and do nothing, while the workers from Mexico put themselves at risk to travel to find work, in a place where they actually have a DISADVANTAGE, because our laws are structured against them, and
they persist and prosper. The same opportunity is there, for two groups of people, existing under the same government/rules of conduct/method for enforcing the rules.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Maybe it's just me, but I thought it was obvious that sgtmac_46 was referring to a democracy where there are few laws restricting activity, but the laws that do exist are generally followed by the populus.

By comparing to Hussein's Iraq, you are comparing to an environment where the laws are created by one person, and that person is not even subject to his own laws. Of course that person will come out ahead of the rest.

Put another way, if a bunch of people are playing a game, the player who
works the hardest at being good at the game usually wins more often. Additionally, the fewer rules there are in the game, the easier it is for EACH PLAYER to have a chance at winning the game, as long as everyone follows the rules.

Your analogy describes a situation where one player has the ability to create arbitrary rules as the game progresses, who is not subject to those rules, and can eliminate any other players who challenge him.

In other words, a ridiculously invalid comparison......

I'm glad you get it, because it's obvious michael doesn't. It doesn't surprise me. It is not rules that create opportunities, in fact, too many rules stiffle opportunity. Saddam's Iraq, for example, is an example of TOO MUCH rule, not too little.

That michael thinks it requires a government to provide opportunity is only an example of his mindset. Those of us who know better, know that opportunity exists MOST where government interfers least. Governments are designed to restrict, not to to free.

What michael fails to realize, though, is that in ANY system, those who are creative and industrious ALWAYS find a way to rise to the top. Even in communist systems, designed to stiffle innovation and individual initiative, the creme STILL finds a way to rise....they just do so within they party.

However, the system designed to allow the most opportunity for the most people is a system, somewhat like our present system, that still provides and allows opportunities by NOT interferring. Freedom and freemarkets have provided more prosperity for more people than any other system in the world.

That michael thinks that governments provide prosperity is just more evidence that he has the wrong idea.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Really? O.K. then.

We are not products of our environment.

Each of us can operate completely out of any system of laws (such as that of the United States government), and the Rockefellers, the Gates, and the Carnegie will always rise to the top. Because, obviously, they are more talented and work harder than all others.

None of those people started out as part of the 'elite', Gates, the son of lawyers, was about the highest on the social ladder. The rest were the sons of peasants, who accumulated wealth on hard work and discipline.

But you are right, YOU cannot succeed where they did....because you believe you are a victim of fate, not a master of your own destiny.

Hardwork and creativity do not guarantee success, but their opposites are almost a clear guarantee of failure. Again, the belief that you are a victim of fate is a crutch, designed to console for failure.

The irony is, throughout history, the same types of people (many of them not born elite) manage to rise to the top in ANY system. They all share similar attributes, ambition being chief among them. They are willing to sacrifice.

As I said in the last post, however, it isn't government setting up rules that ALLOWS success, it's restricting government from setting up rules that allows success. The US hasn't been successful by a system of programs, but because it knows when to stay OUT of the business of business. Not everyone is successful, but more people as a percentage of the population are successful than any other time in history.

That you think you can improve on the success of the free market THROUGH government makes you no different than the failed bureaucrats of the past who think they can guide the market to better success.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm glad you get it, because it's obvious michael doesn't. It doesn't surprise me. It is not rules that create opportunities, in fact, too many rules stiffle opportunity. Saddam's Iraq, for example, is an example of TOO MUCH rule, not too little.

That michael thinks it requires a government to provide opportunity is only an example of his mindset. Those of us who know better, know that opportunity exists MOST where government interfers least. Governments are designed to restrict, not to to free.

What michael fails to realize, though, is that in ANY system, those who are creative and industrious ALWAYS find a way to rise to the top. Even in communist systems, designed to stiffle innovation and individual initiative, the creme STILL finds a way to rise....they just do so within they party.

However, the system designed to allow the most opportunity for the most people is a system, somewhat like our present system, that still provides and allows opportunities by NOT interferring. Freedom and freemarkets have provided more prosperity for more people than any other system in the world.

That michael thinks that governments provide prosperity is just more evidence that he has the wrong idea.

Government does not 'provide opportunity' and that is not what I said.

I do not think that 'goverments provide prosperity' and that is not what I said.

So, again, by your argument 'Saddam Hussein' was 'creative' and 'industrious'. Why then aren't we studying his methods and tactics?

 

[michaeledward]

None of those people started out as part of the 'elite', Gates, the son of lawyers, was about the highest on the social ladder. The rest were the sons of peasants, who accumulated wealth on hard work and discipline.

But you are right, YOU cannot succeed where they did....because you believe you are a victim of fate, not a master of your own destiny.

Hardwork and creativity do not guarantee success, but their opposites are almost a clear guarantee of failure. Again, the belief that you are a victim of fate is a crutch, designed to console for failure.

The irony is, throughout history, the same types of people (many of them not born elite) manage to rise to the top in ANY system. They all share similar attributes, ambition being chief among them. They are willing to sacrifice.

As I said in the last post, however, it isn't government setting up rules that ALLOWS success, it's restricting government from setting up rules that allows success. The US hasn't been successful by a system of programs, but because it knows when to stay OUT of the business of business. Not everyone is successful, but more people as a percentage of the population are successful than any other time in history.

That you think you can improve on the success of the free market THROUGH government makes you no different than the failed bureaucrats of the past who think they can guide the market to better success.

I believe I am a victim of fate?

Please Dr. Freud, explain to me how it is you come to understand what my beliefs are? Because, I am unaware of that belief. It must be in my unconcious somewhere.

Please Dr. Freud, help me understand these beliefs that I don't think I have. It must be like high cholesterol, or something, cuz I'm not aware of it.