The lib-left's paradox

[bush_cheney2004]

...The wealthy get a better deal right now in Canada than ever before in history. This is a kick-ass place to be rich, and one of the easiest places to grow your wealth in the history of the human race.

Apparently it's a great place to be poor, too.

[Pliny]

Its also an imaginary conundrum that doesnt really exist. Leftists interested in going that far are a tiny fringe group in the west. Barely existant.

Doesn't really exist or barely exists, which is it?

I would say ignore it at your peril. It is a politically progressive world where people want equality.

Is it not government's mandate today to level the playing field? If you think it is to equalize opportunity what does that involve? It certainly doesn't just mean creating more opportunity for those considered disadvantaged. It fundamentally changes the concept of opportunity where men and their laws can determine it by picking winners and losers. If you can convince a politician you are disadvantaged you are a winner. If you are getting through life on your own you are a loser and obviously your opportunity must be limited.

Just like the government cannot make the poor rich it cannot give the disadvantaged opportunity. It works the other way around. The idea government can provide for the poor or give the disadvantaged opportunity gives it licence to use force to limit the wealth and opportunity of others. That is what happens. As the ranks of the poor and disadvantaged swell in order to be given money and opportunity the ranks of those forced to provide it diminish. Opportunity thus becomes something at the whim of the political class.

The system makes literally thousands of value judgements on individuals on a constant basis. Its the norm in our liberal society to recognize a persons superiority in an area and reward them for it. What people DONT like is when you apply a value judgement to a whole group based on that group being more statistically likely to fit that judgement.

The system makes no value judgements. People make value judgements.

Thats not something liberals want, and thats not how liberal societies work. Our entire system is set up to reward superiority.

Liberal societies would work that way naturally but that isn't what I see in our graduated income tax structure or legislation such as affirmative action and equal rights opportunity. Calling these things liberal should be an affront to your sensibilities. They are a politician's power to determine winners and losers.

No, thats just silly. Thats not why we take money away from rich people.

Tell me it is because the poor have no money to take.

You act like we live in an overly progressive society but we just dont. This is the easiest society in human history for a rich person to get richer, and tax policy is in fact becoming more and more regressive. Nobody is served by our government as well as the wealthy.

It is politically overly progressive. Tax policy is mostly guided by where the money is. It can't get it from the poor. Government depends upon votes and money. It cannot create wealth and it cannot create opportunity, that it tries is a statement of it's progressive drive toward the centralization of power.

[Pliny]

The problem is your whole argument is a gigantic strawman. You describe equality as "no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another", and then you attribute that admittedly crazy idea onto a group you characterize as "left-libs". The problem of course is that theres many millions of "left-libs", and almost NONE of them are advocating equality of outcome, riches, etc.

See how youre being dishonest with yourself?

It's the "almost" None that bothers me. The rest that support government creation of equal opportunity or redistributing the wealth are either in that categroy of almost none or are naively disillusioned.

In reality society is trending in the opposite direction. More tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy. Income trusts, realestate trusts, and all kinds of financial vehicles designed to legally evade taxes, lower taxes on investment income, large reductions in corporate tax rates.

That would be the apparency. But you assign those powers to government and if government is giving you tax breaks and providing loopholes it is only doing it in it's own interests. If it has the power to give you all you want it has the power to take it away. Tax breaks and loopholes are only indications of how government has the power to pick losers and winners.

The wealthy get a better deal right now in Canada than ever before in history. This is a kick-ass place to be rich, and one of the easiest places to grow your wealth in the history of the human race.

Why should the wealthy get a better deal? This perception only creates the concept that corrections to equalize opportunity and redistribute wealth are politically necessary.

[scouterjim]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

If somebody is rich, fine, but that does not make them better than me. I admire somebody who has earned their way to wealth, not inherited it.

[bloodyminded]

Tax breaks and loopholes are only indications of how government has the power to pick losers and winners.

Not exactly. It is an indication of how the wealthy have a disproportionate influence and effect on government.

[Pliny]

Not exactly. It is an indication of how the wealthy have a disproportionate influence and effect on government.

Perhaps the wealthy do have a disporportionate influence and effect on government but there is no general or unified agreement among the wealthy on what government socio/economic policy should be. Some rich support the concept of the welfare state and see socialist ideas like universal healthcare and public education as essential, some don't.

Special interests each have a common, unified concern or focus and often exert undue pressure oand disproportionate influence upon government. Even corporate interests are not unified and infact will support anti-competition legislation that benefits them and may be detrimental to other corporations.

Saying the wealthy have a disproportionate influence, while it may be true, does not tell us what speical iinterests they may promote to government. They must have supported some of the concepts of the nanny state that most liberals feel are necessary. Some wealthy may not support tax loopholes and tax breaks especially for other wealthy people. As I said the government will pick the winners and losers by granting tax breaks and loopholes.

[dre]

Perhaps the wealthy do have a disporportionate influence and effect on government but there is no general or unified agreement among the wealthy on what government socio/economic policy should be. Some rich support the concept of the welfare state and see socialist ideas like universal healthcare and public education as essential, some don't.

Special interests each have a common, unified concern or focus and often exert undue pressure oand disproportionate influence upon government. Even corporate interests are not unified and infact will support anti-competition legislation that benefits them and may be detrimental to other corporations.

Saying the wealthy have a disproportionate influence, while it may be true, does not tell us what speical iinterests they may promote to government. They must have supported some of the concepts of the nanny state that most liberals feel are necessary. Some wealthy may not support tax loopholes and tax breaks especially for other wealthy people. As I said the government will pick the winners and losers by granting tax breaks and loopholes.

Theres a few things they can all agree on though

[Pliny]

Theres a few things they can all agree on though

There may even be a few things we, ourselves could agree on.

[dre]

There may even be a few things we, ourselves could agree on.

Lots actually!

[jacee]

@Pliny

What's your evidence of the existence of these lib-left straw men?

How odd that you equate human worth with financial worth. That bizarre valuation would never occur to a lefty.

Sigh ... just another disgruntled middle-aged white male with a 30 year old chip on his shoulder that Affirmative Action redistributed some of the white male 'pie' to others more deserving. . I've observed that those most vehement about this old issue are those who just can't cut it when white maleness is not an advantage.

- Yawn -

Edited September 5, 2011 by jacee