If human beings could not benefit from the efforts of their forbears, we'd all be living in caves. The first human who could think abstractly was a blessing to mankind; equalizing him by denying any advantage from his situation would have been not only an injustice done to an individual, but a drastic curtailment of human potential. The child of a college professor is more likely to be a college professor; that is in no way an injustice to someone who isn't the child of a college professor, anymore than being short is an injustice because there are tall people in the world. To "level things out" would be to steal the legacy from someone who is a rightful and natural heir and, if pursued to the extreme of eradicating every advantage, would condemn humanity to the least common denominator.
...I still think rich kids should have to spend a couple years fighting street crime with bare knuckles.
If more people have access to knowledge -- that which the abstract caveman and the college professor denote for their respective times --, we will have more innovation and more progress. Whereas with your model of "rightful inheritance", we will have more leaders like George W. Bush.
Who is presumptuous enough to claim that they know which aspects of humanity are worth promoting and which should be repressed? To go back to my caveman example: which of that first abstract thinker's contemporaries could have had even an inkling of what his unusual cognition would mean for generations to come? None (sorta by definition). But if out of envy they killed him, humans would never have attained their current station, and probably would be extinct as a species. Compared to what we have now, GWB is looking pretty good. Anyway... Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School, making him WAY more likely to become President (or to attain some other prominent political position) than a typical man on the street. Would you say he inherited his position? Hillary Clinton was elected to the Senate from a state she had hardly lived in, highly unlikely had she been the wife of some obscure person. Would you say she inherited her position? Success isn't randomly allocated; it is inevitable that you will find SOME advantage behind every successful person. Michael Jordan would never have been a great basketball player if he was 5'5", even if all his other qualities remained intact. Albert Einstein would never have been a patent clerk, let alone a great physicist, if he had an IQ of 85. Imagine a color-blind Monet or a dyslexic Shakespeare or a 200 pound Marilyn Monroe. Even you, Packard. You've no doubt benefited (unfairly?) from your intellect. Are you willing to take drugs to suppress your cognitive advantages so you can be equal with everyone else?
Of course, Paladin. There's absolutely no difference between inherited wealth and graduating from Harvard Law School. And simply recognizing the advantages some individuals receive from inherited wealth must obviously mean that you want them stripped of those advantages, preferably by forcing them to take drugs that'll make them retarded. That must be it.
Seriously, is anyone around here able to read criticism without assuming said critic wants to outlaw whatever it is they're criticizing? Must we deal with this tiresome straw man every fucking time?
We're not talking about forbears, we're talking about relatives. And while nepotism might be a necessary evil in the caves, the public sphere in the 21st century is very different. Effective administration requires that leadership is based purely on merit.
You, apparently. I'm the one saying let's not repress anyone's access to the positions and the knowledge with which they could generate more progress. Right. When I say it would be better if GWB hadn't been pampered for being his father's son, I obviously mean "Let's kill him!" Because, you know, either we make him President, or he dies. Chances are, the first abstract thinkers died because their daddies had less mammut to spare than other daddies. I'm skipping over the second half of your post because I don't see what's left for me to do, when you're arguing that Obama also had privilege and also is a bad President, both of which I agree with and both of which supports my point over yours. I'd add that GWB had considerably more privilege and was considerably worse, but that's just details as long as both are examples of what I'm saying. Instead, let's cut to the chase: Is there anything wrong with having monarchical dynasties, in your worldview?
I mean, if the US is just going to pick it's leaders from a small group of people who happen to be related to one another, then the whole revolution thing back in 1776 was kind of pointless.
I never knew you were a monarchist, Paladin. Others have clearly demonstrated the fallacy in that view, but somebody should als address your statements about Jordan, Einstein, and Monroe: You are talking about genetic gifts when you mention these three. I cannot give unusual beauty, athletic ability, or intelligence to my children. Even if I possessed one such trait, genetics don't necessarily pass it on to a following generation. What I can do, is make sure they are well educated, and therefore have the opportunities associated with that achievement. This will happen not because they are smart (they are), but because their parents have the means to do so. Why is that? Mostly, it's because our parents had the means, as did theirs before them. I do not have the means to provide them an obvious path to the Oval Office. When people mention them as candidates simply because they have a certain last name, that's an advantage they would not have earned.
I'm not a monarchist. I just reject radical egalitarianism. Uh, you do give those to your children. Perhaps you mean choose to give them? You could certainly choose to suppress those qualities. You could feed your would-be beautiful daughter too much bad food or neglect her teeth. You could keep your would-be star athlete out of sports. You could deny your brilliant child education. But you're unfairly advantaging your kids opposed to other kids! Why should your kids get more opportunities? Said George W. Bush's parents. What kid DID earn the advantages--genetic or from upbringing--that they have?
Boils down to, should you have to walk with a stoop to appease the dwarves? You certainly have to at union shops. Lotta "hey, new guy, you're making us look bad", going on there.
Not me. I'm not the one saying things ought to be different. How do you know which qualities in an individual will "generate progress?" You don't. And should a person be disallowed any advantage that doesn't "generate progress?" No, you (deliberately) miss the point. Everyone's in that boat. We're not talking about people-who-coulda-been-but-weren't. Is it really going to be your claim that the world is unjust if anyone who succeeds has any kind of identifiable advantage to attaining that success? Do you imagine a world where the prominent and the preeminent rise to their station despite a complete lack of advantage to do so? "Everyone may be like that, but X is especially bad" is a pretty weak defense. Your threshold for some acceptable level of "privilege" is completely arbitrary. Dynasties? No. Monarchy? Absolutely.
You're saying that we should continue to have some aspects of humanity promoted and others repressed, by accident of birth. Precisely! So let's give everyone a chance. Disallowed? We're talking about people in power using power to improve their kids' lives over those of other people. So you should be asking, how much force should they be allowed to exert over other people? Not deliberately. Make your point. Everyone being in that boat would mean that all human beings capable of abstract thought died before they practiced it. This does not seem to be true. And of course we're talking about people who could have been successes under different circumstances; that's what repression means. Where did I say "unjust"? Unrelated advantage? As I said before, as close as we can get to that world would be as good as we can make it. Every inch helps. Defense of what? I'm not saying that Obama's privilege is acceptable. Why? You do realize that your view as explained so far seems to lead to them, automatically, right?
It's more like 99%. But then again Rick thinks everyone is a war criminal. Politician? yes American? yes Yep, you're a war criminal. No, don't care that you're the elected dog catcher for your town. Still a war criminal.
You can make that claim, but your position supporting hereditary wealth and power supports a different claim. Completely wrong, and laughably so. My children won't be Michael Jordan because I didn't choose that path? This is even more bizarre than your similar statements regarding a person choosing their income level. Try as I might, none of my children will become professional athletes. I can lead them to healthy and active lifestyles, including energetic participation in sports. But none of them are going to reach his level, not even remotely close. What an odd thing to suggest. Would you argue that it's a good idea to push sports in low income communities as a path to wealth, because all it takes is dedication to that outcome? Or would you recommend instead a focus on education? Now here you actually come close to making a meaningful point. But whereas I am talking about an opportunity that many have, and that those who don't can still reach for, you are talking about something that requires a parent with the ability to manipulate society. When you mention radical egalitarianism, my response is to ask whether there is any other kind. We cannot be free if some are more equal than others. Really, the monarchist label suits your philosophy quite well.
Actually, it was more that British companies were too cheap to pay taxes and had sufficient power to control the government and write up laws to their liking. The powerful writing unfair tax advantages for themselves into law is what was going on back in 1776, and if that sounds familiar it's because it is.
Yep, the original tea party is poorly understood. It was a protest against a policy that lowered taxes for just the British East India Company. The Sons of Liberty were not opposed to taxation per se, just favorable treatment of one corporation over another, without any meaningful democratic participation for the people negatively impacted.
You're just not aiming them at the right sports. Try taking them bowling or teach them how to be a navigator/tactician on an America's Cup yacht. Take them to a bonspiel or a rodeo. Teach them how to catch monster bass and walleye.
I know, I used to think that baseball offered my kids a chance to reach the upper tier. But it seems my kids aren't Dominican enough. Your suggestions make sense. I am certain to produce the next Tiger Woods by refocusing.
gul, you missed the point. You can't make your child Michael Jordan, but you can make choices that guarantee he WON'T be. And if you do, why should the guy whose parents made the right decisions be penalized? Hereditary wealth =/= monarchy. Monarch means ONE ruler (mon + arch). If we have monarchy, who is the monarch? And instilling the desire in your kids to be educated is just another form of hereditary wealth. You are CHOOSING to use your wealth to confer advantages on your children. Would you choose to give your children only as many opportunities as the average person gets?
