homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Inequality (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Inequality
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes, to what anteater said.
And of course, there never has been equality - sucha utopian ideal is impossible. Take a random selection of 10 (or 100 or 1000) people, give each of them £1,000. Within a week (or a year or more) some willl have spent it all, some will have the same, others will have increased it, etc etc; and that has always been true, as per biblical parable.

This is the sort of saying that is attractive because it has a "just so" feel about it. But the fact of the matter, such an experiment has never really been tried, so we don't know if it really is true or not. To really know if it's true we'd have to not only give everyone the same sum of money, but also strip them of both debt and assets and resources such as relatives or parents to help support them. If we could really restart our random sampling of 100 or so people at the same starting point, while I'm sure there'd be some variation (based, as others have noted, on other sorts of inequalities such as inborn intellect or unique skill sets) I'm not sure the inequality would be as great as we imagine. We really just don't know.
I agree – and we never will know because human life just hasn’t evolved that way.
quote:
In my work with the homeless, it has been observed that "homelessness is a failure of community." Because, while it is true that for most (but by no means all) of our clients we can point to some sort of mistake or bad judgment on their part that lead to their current circumstances (e.g. addiction, criminal record) we can also observe that for the most part their errors of judgment are not all that different from similar mistakes made by the housed-- the difference being that the homeless don't have someone to bail them out (even if it's just letting them sleep on their couch for a few weeks) when they do.
Thank goodness (not God!) that there are people who do the work you do. That is sincere, just in case anybody wonders.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391

 - Posted      Profile for Humble Servant     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I was simply stating a fact.


Not a fact - I would say a prediction. Did you actually perform that experiment?

The issue with what you are trying to do by stating your prediction for these people's behaviour is the invitation to attach value judgements to the various scenarios. I sense you find spending reprehensible, regardless of what was purchased, or the circumstances of those purchases. Increasing the money I sense you regards as a good thing. It could have been acheived by stealing from or defrauding the other participants. And just keeping the sum the same - well I wonder how many could acheive that without some other source of income.

Investment involves risk. Risk involves loss. Should that loss be personal to the individual taking the risk, or shared by those who may have indirectly gained from the investment?

Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a complex relationship between inequality and equity, simply because some folks make themselves poor by profligacy and others are poor simply because of where they are born and the circumstances (sometimes the prior deeds) of their parents. Without some adjustments, a fair society will inevitable degenerate into an unfair society from the POV of succeeding generations because of inherited wealth.

Redistribution of wealth doesn't eliminate inequality simple because folks are variable in both talents and character. But it does make room for the disadvantaged to flourish on merit. So I think both inequality and inequity need to be taken into account together in public policy.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If you gave 100 people £1000 each and left them to sort things out for a month or so, they might well decide that their money had no real value. If they were on a desert island, say, coconuts and fish would be the priority. Needing those resources they might gather according to ability and share according to need. Then again they might fulfil more cynical expectations, organise themselves into competing gangs and fight to control the best fishing shallows and palm groves. If they did the latter, would anyone want to argue that this revealed an essential truth about human nature and was thus the way all societies should be organised?

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
.... If they did the latter, would anyone want to argue that this revealed an essential truth about human nature and was thus the way all societies should be organised?

No. It would sadly reveal an unfortunate truth about human nature, and demonstrate why societies need to be organised.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And if we all agree that violence and coercion can and has to be controlled, we can do it for economic abuse.

I want to de-deify the original post. If it is anti-Christian to benefit from inequality, then it should be possible to parse that as a wrong against humanity rather than a sin against God. I don't think it's hard to do this, but it's not often done well. What is the problem with inequality?

This is an important question. To be relatively poor today is not too bad. Loads of brilliant TV, games, internet, healthcare, travel. Is that enough? In the UK, the Tories have cut inheritance tax, which will increase inequality. They are going to have to moderate the extent to which the poor fund this by a bit, but not too much and not for long. What precisely is wrong with a society where the poor have enough and the rich soar away, higher and higher?

[ 27. October 2015, 08:25: Message edited by: hatless ]

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

To be relatively poor today is not too bad. Loads of brilliant TV, games, internet, healthcare, travel.

I think you have a false view of what life on benefits is actually like - either that or you are comparing and contrasting with people who aren't really poor.

quote:

What precisely is wrong with a society where the poor have enough and the rich soar away, higher and higher?

Well, if you want a purely pragmatic answer, because in the long term it corrodes democracy and leads to slower economic growth for everyone. An innovative society, with lots of technological advances and economic growth relies on a fairly large consuming (middle) class.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm thinking of low wage lifestyles, not benefits. I'm asking what's wrong with a society where most people earn the minimum wage or minimum plus twenty, thirty or forty percent, and a few people earn multiples of the minimum wage. Teaching assistant on 14k, teacher on 20k, head teacher on 100k rising to 250k if the school performs well, 500k for the CEO of an academy.

Healthcare Assistant on 14k, nurse on 20k, doctor on 100k, consultant on 200k, hospital CEO on 500k, 1M for teaching hospital.

And if that depresses economic growth, that won't matter to the people at the top.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And if that depresses economic growth, that won't matter to the people at the top.

Of course it will, where do you think that the margin to pay these wages comes from?

Also, I hope they are happy with a far lower level of technological progress - or even technological stagnation - plenty of the newer technologies are only economically viable when driven by scale.

[ 27. October 2015, 09:30: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Have you tried living on £14k? With or without working tax credits. And I'm not asking about £14k clergy stipend with housing provided (which is worth another £6k plus pa, depending on where you live in the country.)

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't appear to matter to the Tories at the moment. They are choosing policies that economists believe to favour inequality and low growth.

But as you said, it's a purely pragmatic point, appealing to financial self interest. And financial self interest (aka greed) is what got us into this mess.

I would want to answer in terms of damage to our relationships. You can't really have a proper team where responsibility is shared and where all can contribute, both critically and creatively, if some members of that team are being paid, are "worth", twenty times what others are worth. That won't matter much in a factory making widgets, or a call centre, but it does in a school or a hospital. You need reasonable parity of regard between professions in order to take good decisions.

Low paid workers increasingly become a commodity. They have to be trained up, but they exercise little true responsibility, and all decision making is handled by the people at the top (what are we to call them? Lords, I suppose). This carries over into society at large, enhanced by the fact that wealth is power in society, too. People are dehumanised by their commodification, and because humanity is reciprocal, our lords lose their humanity, too.

Of course poor and rich inhabit separate sections of society within which everyone is more equal. It's uncomfortable trying to socialise with people whose incomes are different by several multiples. So we can tolerate inequality by avoiding places where it is visible, living, travelling, holidaying, shopping and socialising apart.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It doesn't appear to matter to the Tories at the moment. They are choosing policies that economists believe to favour inequality and low growth.

But as you said, it's a purely pragmatic point, appealing to financial self interest. And financial self interest (aka greed) is what got us into this mess.

Yes, and I was answering along those lines because ISTM from your question that you were asking for an answer phrased in terms of self interest (aka 'what's in it for the rich').

There are also societal costs and the erosion of democracy too.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Have you tried living on £14k? With or without working tax credits. And I'm not asking about £14k clergy stipend with housing provided (which is worth another £6k plus pa, depending on where you live in the country.)

Not for a long time, but I know many people who do. I work in a hospital where most of the work is done by people on that level of pay.

You need someone else to share the rent, and you have to economise hard, but you have access to the best entertainment the world has ever known, you can follow sport, read extraordinarily well, converse around the globe, learn about anything. That is real wealth.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It doesn't appear to matter to the Tories at the moment. They are choosing policies that economists believe to favour inequality and low growth.

But as you said, it's a purely pragmatic point, appealing to financial self interest. And financial self interest (aka greed) is what got us into this mess.

I would want to answer in terms of damage to our relationships. You can't really have a proper team where responsibility is shared and where all can contribute, both critically and creatively, if some members of that team are being paid, are "worth", twenty times what others are worth. That won't matter much in a factory making widgets, or a call centre, but it does in a school or a hospital. You need reasonable parity of regard between professions in order to take good decisions.

Low paid workers increasingly become a commodity. They have to be trained up, but they exercise little true responsibility, and all decision making is handled by the people at the top (what are we to call them? Lords, I suppose). This carries over into society at large, enhanced by the fact that wealth is power in society, too. People are dehumanised by their commodification, and because humanity is reciprocal, our lords lose their humanity, too.

Of course poor and rich inhabit separate sections of society within which everyone is more equal. It's uncomfortable trying to socialise with people whose incomes are different by several multiples. So we can tolerate inequality by avoiding places where it is visible, living, travelling, holidaying, shopping and socialising apart.

You truly believe this rubbish?
Inequality does not breed content. Your bread and circus justification doesn't either.
Ayn Rand would be proud. Jesus? Not so much.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Not for a long time, but I know many people who do. I work in a hospital where most of the work is done by people on that level of pay.

You realise of course that under a system of massively unequal pay (with a hollowing out of the middle - as you describe) the health service will have to be scaled back to track significant falls in tax take.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A note on the give people X amount and see how they fare.
It is a rubbish thought experiment.
It is impossible to level the field completely with existing people. You would need to take children at birth, raise them equally and then perform your experiment. Actually would need to do this on a multi-generational level. But the real question is why pose this experiment.
If you are trying to demonstrate not all people are the same, no need, we know this.
If you are trying to use the example to justify weath inequity, it is more difficult. Most rich people are not rich because of their own talents. It is a hell of a lot more situational than inherent skill.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If my child needed to receive a kidney transplant to avoid a life on dialysis, and if I were a match, I would donate one of my kidneys to him or her.

Is there an unrelated child on the waiting list for a kidney for whom I am a match? It seem possible, even probable.

I believe absolutely that that unrelated child in need of kidney is of absolutely equal value to my child. Is *that* where the meat meets the cleaver? Should I be donating a kidney to a stranger?

If I don't, does it mean I don't truly believe in the intrinsic equal value of that stranger?

One thing is for sure: God is magnetised by our poverty - drawn, irresistibly, to it.

Poor comfort though it is to the starving (and those on the kidney waiting list), He will shower wealth on those who are now experiencing material poverty.

And me, with *my* poverty - my tiny, fearful faith? He has endless graces to pour out on me too. I just have to keep recognising my own poverty and asking Him for a new, more generous heart.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768

 - Posted      Profile for Penny S     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I remember the celebrations at school for the 60th birthday of one of the school cleaners. Some years after mine. I had thought she was considerable older than me. She lived by doing a number of jobs through the day, walking at a brisk pace between them - scurrying rather - as she could not afford any other transport. She had brought up a small family - I don't recall the father being visible at any time. She looked like their grandmother. Her hair was grey and straggly, her teeth snaggly, she was worn to a frazzle. She didn't have any time to take advantage of the world's goodies, nor the money to do so either.

She was poor. More hardworking than the self-satisfied (idiot*) who's going to walk into a baronetcy some day. More hardworking than most people I know. But very, very poor.

In the employ, instead of the Education Committee, and thanks to Thatcherite "reforms" of a succession of very similar companies who kept changing at the end of two years so none had to cover her for sickness (she couldn't afford a day off), pension contributions, or any of the other public goods that unions had fought for through the century.

If she could not clean to their standards with the inadequate materials she had to use** or risk her job, in the time they allocated without any reference to actual circumstances***, she could lose the job. That is poverty. And it is intolerable that there are people who think it is an OK way to organise society.

*Please substitute any suitable noun - I just used one I have never used before when the unbearable tones of a man who can't accept that he is wrong or perceive any reason why that might be came over the radio - but this isn't hell.
** Maybe there was a tie-up with the company producing the stuff. It was so useless that the women, who wanted to do a good job, brought their own materials from home, only to be threatened with the sack. These very poor people were prepared to spend their own pittances on doing a good job.
*** I think the estimates on cleaning toilets were based on London office timings, and not on primary schools where the loos can be much dirtier, either through accidents, or, occasionally, deliberate malice.

Don't tell me that such poverty of outcome is acceptable. Or that wealth in the world to come makes it OK.

[ 27. October 2015, 11:14: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442

 - Posted      Profile for PilgrimVagrant   Email PilgrimVagrant   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
May we come back, PV, to what you said about your personal circumstances.

Indeed we can. I have nothing to hide. I live in an inner city, single bedroom council flat. I do get housing benefit, but I am expected to pay part of my rent out of my benefit. Including housing rent as a benefit (which I think not entirely fair, as the council charge me whatever they think I can afford, and on the open market the rental value would fall, not rise) The total comes to £6760 ($9360) per year, still less than $10,667.

Meanwhile, my net worth in purely financial terms, not including the appliances, computer, books, tools and other knick knacks I have accrued, is around £300 ($459) in the red.

So, there you have it. That's the reason I get to eat a lot of baked beans on toast.

Nevertheless, it's not my personal position that concerns me. I know in less kind countries than the UK, I would simply not survive. We have a secure safety net, that catches people like me, and sustains them, if not in luxury, at least in a way that allows them a degree of dignity.

My real concern is the third of the global population that eke out their meagre lives on less than $1.50 a day. That is the inevitable shadow-side of a world that thinks excessive wealth acceptable, even desirable.

Cheers, PV.

--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you for that clarification. It looks as if your rent is rather low but I do see that your income is below the $10000-odd you think reasonable, even taking account of the HB- which you should count as part of your income: it does as you say relate to rent as well as income but nonetheless it is income. If you were in the privaate sector you would be getting the money and having to pay the rent yourself out of it. (BTW have you factored in Council Tax Reduction to that?)

I am pleased to hear that you find the safety neyt effective and one that allows you a degree of dignity. Most of what I hear about it, through organisations such as Church Action on Poverty, suggests that that is, alas, incresaingly an unusual experience.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Have you tried living on £14k? With or without working tax credits. And I'm not asking about £14k clergy stipend with housing provided (which is worth another £6k plus pa, depending on where you live in the country.)

Not for a long time, but I know many people who do. I work in a hospital where most of the work is done by people on that level of pay.

You need someone else to share the rent, and you have to economise hard, but you have access to the best entertainment the world has ever known, you can follow sport, read extraordinarily well, converse around the globe, learn about anything. That is real wealth.

You can enjoy all those things if you're not exhausted by the 3 hour commute each way in cattle truck conditions (standing room only, nose to armpit) taking the long way around and travelling on buses to economise. After you've spent the evening eking out cheap ingredients into edible meals to economise. After you've mended every garment you own over and over because you can't afford anything new until next pay day, and you're praying that nothing is going to break because that will eat up any savings you've made to try and climb out of this poverty. And all of that tripled if you have children.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, but Ck, it is your fault for not being clever enough to rise out of those circumstances to something greater.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know anyone with a three hour commute in my Midlands home town. Even in rush hour you are out the other side in three quarters of an hour.

In case it's not been clear, I am not in favour of inequality. I'm challenging myself and others to say what's wrong with it. PV has done it in terms of faithfulness to the Christian Gospel. What about other arguments? I like the point that it damages democracy. I don't think it's going to sway the rich, though.

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PV:
quote:
Is, then, the extent of our bank balance the measure by which we do not love our neighbour as ourselves, and thus the extent to which we are not Christian? Or are we merely being prudent, as we accrue wealth, looking after our own interests, and those of our dearest, in a cold-hearted, indifferent world?
Can it not be both. Just not heroic christian. As you have still not chosen to disclose your religious orientation, I would guess that you subscribe to the view that only heroic christians are real christians. And to be fair, a lot of people do, especially in the Evangelical wing, where "saint = saved in heaven and no-saint is . . [Two face]

I doubt many on this ship do. But I cannot deny that a fair reading of the gospels would show that Jesus was very anti-riches.

But at the same time, he didn't seem to think poor people should moan about it, since they were actually blessed. I'm not aware of Jesus campaigning for a higher standard of living.

Not even a council flat. [Smile]

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So absolutely everyone at this hospital lives and works in the same town? No-one commutes in from neighbouring villages or towns? I would be very surprised if that was the case.

Inequality in the form that it now is hurts people because the barriers to change are getting more powerful, not less. It's harder to move out of poverty into a successful lifestyle as the routes are tougher - no real apprenticeships, no value on many working class jobs, no routes into various fields unless you have mentors supporting you in ...

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

You really don't want inequality because it results in a huge amount of raw talent being wasted. The economy would be stronger and we would all be better off if we were able to realise the true value of the potential of every person. Instead of which, because of inequality, some of the people who might have the capacity to lead, design, solve problems, are not getting the chance to try.

How's that for an argument - one that I do believe, though I would find it difficult to back it up with evidence.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442

 - Posted      Profile for PilgrimVagrant   Email PilgrimVagrant   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
PV:
quote:
Is, then, the extent of our bank balance the measure by which we do not love our neighbour as ourselves, and thus the extent to which we are not Christian? Or are we merely being prudent, as we accrue wealth, looking after our own interests, and those of our dearest, in a cold-hearted, indifferent world?
Can it not be both. Just not heroic christian. As you have still not chosen to disclose your religious orientation...
Dear Anteater, I have mentioned it before, but let me now state it explicitly, so there is no misunderstanding.

I am a Christian. I have no denomination. I am a CS Lewis 'mere' Christian, holding those tenets true that are logically sound or which resonate with my experience, or both, and no others. I hope this clarifies for you.

Now, can we get off the subject of me, my finances and my beliefs, as if these were relevant in any but an ad hominem context, and back to thread topic?

Thanks, PV.

--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You truly believe this rubbish?
Inequality does not breed content. Your bread and circus justification doesn't either.
Ayn Rand would be proud. Jesus? Not so much.

Hatless is not justifying inequality. He's attacking inequality.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But there is, I think, a difference between the government acting as umpire, and the government playing an active role, and nudging the ball in particular directions.

An umpire's role does sometimes go a good bit further than just resolving whether a move was legal. Calling for a line-out or a corner kick moves the ball about much more than just nudging it.

The role of government here is not just to enforce the rules of the game. The government is also the body that decides what rules set up the game. If the government wants to set up a rule that under certain circumstances the ball is transferred to the other team at some other point in the field, that's not interference. That's a rule - whether it's a good rule depends on whether it makes the resulting game more interesting to watch and play.
It's only interference when the umpire gets in the way of the ball in a manner not allowed by the rules.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I was simply stating a fact.


Not a fact - I would say a prediction. Did you actually perform that experiment?
I wasn't going to respond to thisbut changed my mind. Can you name or refer to any time, ever, throughout human history and pre-history, when there was not inequality?
You know as well as I do that the hypothetical situation where such an experiment could be conducted is totally impossible, but our evolution was probably helped by the fact that some were natural leaders, some the get up and do things, some the home-makers, etc etc. Some would Have seen the need to find a way to store food for times when it was scarce, some would not think ahead. So the basic hypothesis is, I would say, a logical one .
quote:
The issue with what you are trying to do by stating your prediction for these people's behaviour is the invitation to attach value judgements to the various scenarios.
You judge wrongly.
quote:
I sense you find spending reprehensible, regardless of what was purchased, or the circumstances of those purchases. Increasing the money I sense you regards as a good thing.
Again, you are quite wrong.
Why do you think you know what I’m thinking better than I do?!!


[/QUOTE]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

For the reasons I laid out above - purely pragmatically, if you are rich and want to continue to benefit from the increases in the quality of healthcare and technology over your lifetime, then inequality is a bad thing. If you are relying in inherited wealth then slower economic growth is also a bad thing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This doesn't happen often, but I'm going to have to side with SusanDoris here. This post accurately describes why it is difficult to achieve equality in a monetary society, and some of the criticisms levelled at this post haven't been on the mark.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My reason for raising the issue of courtship is to point out that wealth equality ( given you have the minimum ) may not be your top priority, and also that societies have found ways to reduce sexual success potential differences, namely arranged marriages, which many today still think to be a good idea, despite the reduction in freedom.

The point of arranged marriages was never as far as I know to reduce inequalities in sexual success. Their point in the past was usually to preserve inequalities in wealth.

From what I hear of the US, most people in the US have less freedom than they have here in the UK. If you don't have money you don't have any sort of freedom that matters. Contrariwise, I don't think governments generating money by taxing financial transactions reduces freedom. Both sides of the transaction are able to negotiate the size of the transaction taking taxation into account.

Contrast health and safety regulation, which does reduce the freedom of employers to carry on in disregard of their employees' safety. (I think it's a trade-off that's well worth making, but it is in some obvious sense a reduction in freedom.)

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This post accurately describes why it is difficult to achieve equality in a monetary society, and some of the criticisms levelled at this post haven't been on the mark.

Why hasn't it been on the mark?
If all anyone was proposing was to hand out bundles of cash to people without taking notice of their prior economic circumstances and without giving any thought to subsequent action, and they believed that would totally eliminate inequality, her thought experiment would be on point.
But nobody, not even Jeremy Corbyn, is proposing doing that.

Besides, there is a lot of room to reduce inequalities in wealth and income before we get to the point where everyone has exactly the same amount of wealth. There is a long way to go between where we are here and the kinds of levels that are inevitable given character, luck, and other random noise in the system.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442

 - Posted      Profile for PilgrimVagrant   Email PilgrimVagrant   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

There is a book, called The Spirit Level that lays out some basic arguments. I have the book, but not yet read it. So many books, so little time...

Cheers, PV.

--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But I cannot deny that a fair reading of the gospels would show that Jesus was very anti-riches.

But at the same time, he didn't seem to think poor people should moan about it, since they were actually blessed. I'm not aware of Jesus campaigning for a higher standard of living.

Not even a council flat. [Smile]

When Jesus is asking the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus to give away all that they have, where do you think it is going? Isn't it going toward the poor to raise their standard of living?

The NT often seems very practical to me. And it is a book written not to rich Westerners living in a democracy, but to mostly poor people living in an occupied nation with a powerful ruler. So, no, Jesus doesn't ask his followers to advocate politically for a living wage-- because such a statement would have been meaningless in the 1st c. Instead, he asks them to do what they can-- sometimes radically so.

The same call is issued to us today to do what we can. But we can do today as rich Westerners in a democracy is different from what could be done then.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Dafyd: Why hasn't it been on the mark?
For example, this post assumed that Susan was criticising poor people for their consumers' choices. I don't see that she was doing that. There are other examples of people reading things into her post that she didn't say.

You for example. I don't see Susan suggesting that someone made this proposal of dividing money equally. The way I see it, she is suggesting a thought experiment, and I do find this thought experiment relevant to discussions about equality.

I'm all for equality. I have doubts whether it can be achieved in a monetary society. Susan expressed one of these doubts rather well. And I think that's an interesting starting point for a discussion.

[ 27. October 2015, 12:42: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Dafyd: Why hasn't it been on the mark?
For example, this post assumed that Susan was criticising poor people for their consumers' choices. I don't see that she was doing that. There are other examples of people reading things into her post that she didn't say.

You for example. I don't see Susan suggesting that someone made this proposal of dividing money equally. The way I see it, she is suggesting a thought experiment, and I do find this thought experiment relevant to discussions about equality.

I'm all for equality. I have doubts whether it can be achieved in a monetary society. Susan expressed one of these doubts rather well. And I think that's an interesting starting point for a discussion.

To be fair, it was an unclear line of thought. Susan proposed a thought experiment, but also predicted a certain outcome-- one that is usually associated with certain conclusions about efforts to redistribute wealth. Dafyd perhaps jumped on it too hard in assuming that's what Susan meant, but it's not totally out in left field. Then Susan responded by saying "I'm just stating facts"-- when actually she was not stating facts, but making a prediction in an untried experiment-- that's not a fact. On the other hand, later (long after that exchange), when I and others predicted a quite different outcome for the experiment than the one Susan predicted, she apparently agreed with me. So I think you're right that Dafyd misinterpreted her meaning, but the context was so murky that I think it was understandable.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When Jesus is asking the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus to give away all that they have, where do you think it is going? Isn't it going toward the poor to raise their standard of living?

Well, yes, directly. But whose needs is Jesus addressing? Not, primarily, those of the poor in those cases: rather, the needs of the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus. The real question here is 'what is it in your life that is keeping you from Me?' I do believe, on Christian grounds, in equality, and that includes a substantial level of material equality. But I don't base that belief on these two encounters.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

There is a book, called The Spirit Level that lays out some basic arguments. I have the book, but not yet read it. So many books, so little time...

Cheers, PV.

I haven't read it either, but hearing about it I believe you are right. It argues that greater inequality is bad for the rich. For example, healthcare outcomes in the US are obviously worse for the poor, but it turns out that, for instance, perinatal child mortality is higher for the rich, too, as compared to more equal societies.

But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together. And that stops team work, destabilises society, feeds criminality and so on, but worst of all, it stops us having normal human relationships.

How do you talk to someone who is worth forty times more / less than you? Literally, what form of address do you use? How do you dare or condescend to speak to them? And what on earth do you talk about! Your holidays? Your plans for retirement? Your children's careers? It will be painful if you do.

I want to live amongst people who can understand me and my life, and I want to understand theirs. That means less inequality. I would say three to one is plenty. Between the minimum wage and three times the minimum wage there is a broad enough band to enable us to fix our pay differentials. The realities of life for someone paid three times as much as another are very different, but not beyond comprehension, and not enough to prevent a natural conversation. When we might arrive at a similar narrowing of inequality between countries I don't know, but things are moving.

I suspect that those who earn mega bucks are uncomfortable about it. It's so random. If you happen to have the marketable talent for the moment, or if you're just in the right place, or your face fits, your book gets well reviewed, you're well-connected, you get noticed or whatever, then you get the huge rewards. You know that others are equally deserving, but it just happened to you. You don't turn the money down, of course, but unless you're very vain and lacking in awareness, you know you don't deserve it, you know that it gets in the way of good and enjoyable relationships, and you probably wish the world was different and more fair.

I think the argument has to be about relationships and society, not economics because, as I said, being on a low wage in the UK (as long as you're not paying London rents or funding a three hour commute or bringing up kids without tax credits) is not that bad. Perhaps the worst thing is the knowledge that your children, however bright and hard working, are likely to be part of the huge, de-skilled workforce on minimum wage, hoping for minimum x2, while the high paying jobs, higher and higher paying jobs, go to the people whose parents did what you couldn't, and sent their children to private school and paid for internships.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When Jesus is asking the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus to give away all that they have, where do you think it is going? Isn't it going toward the poor to raise their standard of living?

Well, yes, directly. But whose needs is Jesus addressing? Not, primarily, those of the poor in those cases: rather, the needs of the Rich Young Ruler and Zaccheus. The real question here is 'what is it in your life that is keeping you from Me?' I do believe, on Christian grounds, in equality, and that includes a substantial level of material equality. But I don't base that belief on these two encounters.
Agreed-- and a good point: we should be generous not only because there is need, and really even in a hypothetical world where there is not need-- because we need to give. Which renders some of our discussions about the "worthy" vs. "unworthy" poor meaningless.

As much as that is a faith-based proposition, I think it applies to secular society as well: that when our economic policy/ common narrative is so narrowly focused (as it is on the US) with grasping and keeping as much as we can for ourselves, it shifts something in our society in a way that damages us every bit as much as it does the marginalized.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
This doesn't happen often, but I'm going to have to side with SusanDoris here. This post accurately describes why it is difficult to achieve equality in a monetary society, and some of the criticisms levelled at this post haven't been on the mark.

Thank you LeRoc, much appreciated.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
PilgrimVagrant
Shipmate
# 18442

 - Posted      Profile for PilgrimVagrant   Email PilgrimVagrant   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by PilgrimVagrant:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

There is a book, called The Spirit Level that lays out some basic arguments. I have the book, but not yet read it. So many books, so little time...

Cheers, PV.

It argues that greater inequality is bad for the rich...

But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together.

I think you are right, in two ways. Firstly, to point your argument towards the rich, who need to be persuaded to (voluntarily) forego their wealth, and secondly that statistics about, say, drug addiction are marginal to the argument. For me, the issue is about Christian love, agape, the centre of Christian relationships, and the existential pain and discomfort of conscience that huge inequalities present to us. Which is why I have raised this matter on a Christian forum. If we can find arguments that would persuade an unbeliever that inequality is an evil, why, that would be a result far in excess of my hopes for this thread!

Cheers, PV

[ 27. October 2015, 15:00: Message edited by: PilgrimVagrant ]

--------------------
Omnes Qui Errant Non Pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

Posts: 210 | From: In Contemplation | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together. And that stops team work, destabilises society, feeds criminality and so on, but worst of all, it stops us having normal human relationships.

It is unclear to me what you actually want (there is a reasonable case to make that the things you mention above are just as 'marginal' as the things like democracy).

Furthermore:

quote:

What about other arguments? I like the point that it damages democracy. I don't think it's going to sway the rich, though.

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

Do you mean that you want an argument that has emotional force for someone who is very rich?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Thank you LeRoc, much appreciated.

Ditto for subsequent post.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You truly believe this rubbish?
Inequality does not breed content. Your bread and circus justification doesn't either.
Ayn Rand would be proud. Jesus? Not so much.

Hatless is not justifying inequality. He's attacking inequality.
In that quote, yes, must have skimmed it, apologies for that.
This quote from him is what likely set me off:
quote:

You need someone else to share the rent, and you have to economise hard, but you have access to the best entertainment the world has ever known, you can follow sport, read extraordinarily well, converse around the globe, learn about anything. That is real wealth

I think Ck has addressed this well, so I won't at the moment.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I haven't read it either, but hearing about it I believe you are right. It argues that greater inequality is bad for the rich. For example, healthcare outcomes in the US are obviously worse for the poor, but it turns out that, for instance, perinatal child mortality is higher for the rich, too, as compared to more equal societies.

But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together.

I believe, having heard the authors of The Spirit Level talk, that they hypothesise that the fact that inequality prevents us from being in it all together is part of the mechanism that leads to health outcomes being worse for even rich people.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Dafyd perhaps jumped on it too hard in assuming that's what Susan meant, but it's not totally out in left field.

I've never in this thread responded directly to SusanDoris. I think the poster you're thinking of who jumped on SusanDoris was LilBuddha.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wasn't going to respond to thisbut changed my mind. Can you name or refer to any time, ever, throughout human history and pre-history, when there was not inequality?
You know as well as I do that the hypothetical situation where such an experiment could be conducted is totally impossible, but our evolution was probably helped by the fact that some were natural leaders, some the get up and do things, some the home-makers, etc etc. Some would Have seen the need to find a way to store food for times when it was scarce, some would not think ahead. So the basic hypothesis is, I would say, a logical one .

Well, no. Because our modern life is not an exact model of our evolution, it is an adaptation to living in such high density. A cultural adaptation. Actually many adaptations. And more complexed and nuanced.
Your example implies, intentionally or not, that people are generally in their proper place economically. But it simply doesn't work this way. It also implies the cream rises to the top, the most fit rule. Our several worldwide depressions should put paid to that notion.
The experiment has so many fallacies, that it is only good for cherry-picking conclusions

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
hatless

Shipmate
# 3365

 - Posted      Profile for hatless   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

But these things are marginal. I want to make an argument along the lines that inequality robs us of our neighbours and colleagues, that it prevents us being in it all together. And that stops team work, destabilises society, feeds criminality and so on, but worst of all, it stops us having normal human relationships.

It is unclear to me what you actually want (there is a reasonable case to make that the things you mention above are just as 'marginal' as the things like democracy).

Furthermore:

quote:

What about other arguments? I like the point that it damages democracy. I don't think it's going to sway the rich, though.

How can we find an argument of the form 'you really don't want inequality because ...'?

Do you mean that you want an argument that has emotional force for someone who is very rich?

Yes, and not an argument against them, but one that appeals to them, to their better nature if you like, that invites them to support the change to a fairer society.

But you're right that my point about solidarity being undermined by inequality does sound marginal and feeble.

--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form

Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools