Layton's Last Letter

[Thorn]

Why do right-wing people think that they can peer into the hearts of others and easily determine their motivation ?

Riiiight. Because that never happens with Left leaning people. Why, you could search this site for hours and hours and not find any examples of a 'left leaning' poster doing that...

[Thorn]

Maybe so, but the fact is that a party that states that it's looking for 'fairness' - no matter how subjective that term is - is making a statement about their values. It implies setting up an agreement as an implicit contract wherein the parties to the contract agree to the terms. It implies dialogue, evaluation of alternatives and balance.

The Conservatives themselves use this term, and I'm thankful for it. It means: "let's talk about it". We can philosophize about perspectives, and so on but if you state it as a goal, then your party has an obligation to act on it.

But you point out that the Conservatives use it too. So, in all likelihood, do the Liberals and BQ, the Communist Party and, if there is one, the Nazi party. They all think they know what fair is. They want fairness. So what's the point of using the word at all in the context of an ideological statement? It's essentially meaningless.

Hitler thought the world was being unfair to Germans. He thought society was being unfair to Aryans. All he wanted was fairness!

[Michael Hardner]

I am also in the highest income bracket and I'm voting Conservative. What am I, cruel and evil? Do I hate fairness?

I wouldn't make that assumption about you, although some here seem to think I would be correct to do so.

And what is a 'fair' level of sharing? ... These are the sorts of questions the Left rarely likes to address, but instead prefers to dismiss.

What is fair ? I guess that's what you would bring to the debate. I would say the idea that lowest earners are lazy across the board isn't a fair characterization.

As I said, the lowest income earners aren't exactly sharing in prosperity in equal numbers - and I'm talking about working people here.

It's true that poverty can come to anyone, but it's also true that, barring sickness, most people's poverty, in this country, is the result of personal choices they've made, and continue to in their lives. Am I to wholly compensate them for that?

Of course you should not wholly compensate them for not. But that characterization is hyperbole, really, and hyperbole isn't fair.

I am all for extending a helping hand insofar as helping people learn a skill, helping them get educated, helping them get into the work force, but I have little tolerance for people who screwed up their lives, feel sorry for themselves, do little or nothing to improve them, and then whine about their lot in life.

There is a myth that education is a gold ticket to prosperity. How many successful entrepreneurs didn't finish their education ? But even in that myth, there's an implication that we need to have a fair system - to guarantee people the opportunity to better themselves, and be the best they can. Now that is fair.

[Michael Hardner]

Riiiight. Because that never happens with Left leaning people. Why, you could search this site for hours and hours and not find any examples of a 'left leaning' poster doing that...

True enough, I have seen lefties accuse individuals of being greedy, and I don't think it's correct to make that assumption either.

So what's the point of using the word at all in the context of an ideological statement?

I think that we've hit a sore point at right-of-centre posters here such as yourself. Why take such offense to this idea ? As our economic system continues to drive down wages, increase competition, internationalize all finance to the benefits of the highest earners - people will naturally wonder why they're not sharing in the benefits of these gains.

[scribblet]

You're not alone:

She kind of has a point; I had similar feelings the first time I read it: Who fills their last message to the world with pure partisan politics? It was the fifth paragraph, his message to other cancer patients, that I found to be genuinely humble and poignant.

[c/e]

I have to agree she has a point, as sad as it is for one so young to die like that, the media seem to be almost deifying him. Maybe later they will examine his politics/policies, as if he and his party ever came to the PMO, Canada would likely be in a financial mess. Social engineering would be rampant and costs to taxpayers would spiral out of control.

A good politician but a deity or martyr he is not.

[BubberMiley]

A good politician but a deity or martyr he is not.

Yes, since when do people say nice things about those who recently died?

[Thorn]

What is fair ? I guess that's what you would bring to the debate. I would say the idea that lowest earners are lazy across the board isn't a fair characterization.

I don't think lowest earners are lazy across the board. I didn't suggest that low income earners are low income earners because of laziness, but because of choices made in their lives.

As I said, the lowest income earners aren't exactly sharing in prosperity in equal numbers - and I'm talking about working people here.

Why should they be? I mean, are they all as smart as high income earners? Are they as capable? Do they have the same drive to succeed? Do they push themselves as much, on average?

For the record, I am among those who believe that the income disparity in this country is too great, and that's it even worse in the US.

I am all for ways of evening things out as long as they are, uhm, 'fair' and that means I am interested in providing equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

There is a myth that education is a gold ticket to prosperity.

I don't think it is. On the other hand, how many people with university degrees live life in poverty unless there's a sickness involved?

[Black Dog]

It's true that poverty can come to anyone, but it's also true that, barring sickness, most people's poverty, in this country, is the result of personal choices they've made, and continue to in their lives. Am I to wholly compensate them for that?

Uh, what? Care to back that up with some evidence? Or do you think anecdotal assumptions are a better base for policy than nebulous terms like "fairness"?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Oh shut up.

Seriously.

The man is talking about trying to make the world better for everyone and conservatives can't even take it with stride.

Pathetic.

[scribblet]

Yes, since when do people say nice things about those who recently died?

People like this:

http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/2011/08/22/13:28/rip-jack-layton-if-your-supporters-will-let-you/

Of course decent people will say nice things, but there's a difference between showing respect/condolences, and deifying someone.

[TimG]

What if the person making the statement is not in the group targeted by the message ? How is it self serving ? Why do right-wing people think that they can peer into the hearts of others and easily determine their motivation ?

As I said: "fairness" is a subjective term - there is no universally recognized way to measure "fairness". When someone calls for "fairness" they are invariably using it to justify imposing some "unfairness" on someone else. There are times when these impositions are reasonable, however, it takes more than someone simply stating that they think a situation is "unfair" to establish that.

[cybercoma]

Sounds to me as if they're treated quite fairly. This is like saying lazy people who don't want to work are treated unfairly because they don't have as much money as energetic people who work hard...

You assume that working hard means making more money. It doesn't. You also assume that people don't have jobs because they don't want to work or they are lazy and that's not true either.

[Thorn]

You assume that working hard means making more money. It doesn't. You also assume that people don't have jobs because they don't want to work or they are lazy and that's not true either.

I make no such assumption. I was referring to a specific not to a general. In this case, the specific is that people who don't bother to vote don't get much attention. So I pointed out another specific which says people who don't work hard, who are lazy, don't make as much money.

In other words, if you don't bother to put out the effort why should you expect to get the same reward as people who do?

That was not a general commentary on all poor people.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Thorn

[bush_cheney2004]

....For the record, I am among those who believe that the income disparity in this country is too great, and that's it even worse in the US.

Good thing you don't live in the US....but it's always fun to add the Americans to your argument!

[cybercoma]

In other words, if you don't bother to put out the effort why should you expect to get the same reward as people who do?

The government taking into consideration how their policies affect everyone is not a reward. It's what they should be doing.

[Thorn]

Good thing you don't live in the US....but it's always fun to add the Americans to your argument!

Right now, the U.S, is probably the best example in the world of a state which is corporatist in its mentality to the point where ordinary people get screwed over time and time again without recourse.

[Thorn]

The government taking into consideration how their policies affect everyone is not a reward. It's what they should be doing.

Well, granted, but I'm not sure just how this relates to what I was discussing.

[bush_cheney2004]

Right now, the U.S, is probably the best example in the world of a state which is corporatist in its mentality to the point where ordinary people get screwed over time and time again without recourse.

Plus it's all you know from watching so much American television! Referring primarily to the US in your arguments just demonstrates how little you know about the rest of the world.

Edited August 23, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Why should they be? I mean, are they all as smart as high income earners? Are they as capable? Do they have the same drive to succeed? Do they push themselves as much, on average?

These are your values.

My questions might be:

Do they work more hours ? Do they suffer health problems because of their status ? Does it make a better society to give the children of the lower classes the same opportunities to better themselves ? Do those who inherit wealth naturally deserve to be 'successful' because they had an ancestor who worked hard ?

Generally, does our system make a society where people can fulfill their potential ?

For the record, I am among those who believe that the income disparity in this country is too great, and that's it even worse in the US.

I am all for ways of evening things out as long as they are, uhm, 'fair' and that means I am interested in providing equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

Sounds good to me.

[Michael Hardner]

There are times when these impositions are reasonable, however, it takes more than someone simply stating that they think a situation is "unfair" to establish that.

If someone states that they are working for a 'fair' society, it's a reflection of their values and how they see the world. They're not trying to build a case for it.

[TimG]

If someone states that they are working for a 'fair' society, it's a reflection of their values and how they see the world. They're not trying to build a case for it.

Well that is the point. "Fair" is a subjective term which is used as political propoganda because it sounds like one is stating a fact when one is really stating an opinion.

August was merely pointing out the hypocracy of expecting the "rich" to pay 50%+ of their income to support the Canadian poor but not expecting the "rich" (when compared to Africans) middle and lower class Canadians to pay 50%+ of their income to support Africans.

Basically the correct translation of "fair" is "take money from one group with I don't like and give it to another group that I like". There is nothing noble about it but it is sometimes justified.

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Well that is the point. "Fair" is a subjective term which is used as political propoganda because it sounds like one is stating a fact when one is really stating an opinion.

If somebody doesn't know what 'fair' means, I guess.

August was merely pointing out the hypocracy of expecting the "rich" to pay 50%+ of their income to support the Canadian poor but not expecting the "rich" (when compared to Africans) middle and lower class Canadians to pay 50%+ of their income to support Africans.

1. Their taxes don't support the poor only.

2. The highest tax bracket goes deep into the middle class, not just the rich.

3. There's nothing that says they don't want to support Africans.

Basically the correct translation of "fair" is "take money from one group with I don't like and give it to another group that I like". There is nothing noble about it but it is sometimes justified.

Or how about "ensure that the economic benefits of globalization, technology and so on don't go to the top 1% of earners" ?

That sounds fair to me. I don't know how to do it, though, when capital can go anywhere on the globe but people can't.

[WWWTT]

Oh my God I can't believe some of the stuff that I have read here and on that other thread about Jacks death.

The man just died,is there anything that's off limits when someone dies?

Some real low people here,I'm not mentioning any names you know who you are!

Cancer is a terrible disease,Gods strength for those fighting and their family members supporting them!

All my sympathy for the Layton clan.

WWWTT

[TimG]

2. The highest tax bracket goes deep into the middle class, not just the rich.

Then why isn't the current system fair?

3. There's nothing that says they don't want to support Africans.

We are talking relative measures. Layton is arguing that the "rich" who already pay alot are not paying enough. One can similarily argue that the poor and middle class in Canada are not paying enough to Africans. But Africans are not a key NDP voting block so they don't factor very highly.

3Or how about "ensure that the economic benefits of globalization, technology and so on don't go to the top 1% of earners" ?

And where is the evidence that this is true? The vast majority of people are gaining the benefits technology and globalization. There lives are better than they were 20 years ago. The only block of people who are worse off are some of the workers in rich countries who now face a global competition for jobs.

In anything, the global movement of capital has made the planet a lot "fairer" because residents of rich countries no longer have a monopoly on well paid jobs. Speaking as someone making a living in a rich country I could do with a lot less 'fairness' on that front.

Edited August 23, 2011 by TimG

[Remiel]

That is why August lead with the example of how Layton's concept of "fairness" does not extend to redistributing the income of lower and middle class Canadians to Africans.

Something tells me that the attempts by the wealthy to pay less tax would not be measurably less fervent if the money was going to poor Africans rather than poorish Canadians.