It’s tragic how popular this trend is becoming. The welfare state and little risk of going hungry or actually broke has alleviated too many fears. We had a more reliable and engaging workforce when people didn’t have a safety net for pretty much everything.
It never meant that, but I definitely preferred it when people had to work to survive. I see it everywhere, more people than I can count on some type of assistance. It’s not my personal choice to see people always having a backstop for safety provided by society mandated by government policies.
It's a shame that the Nazis forever tarnished the saying "Arbeit macht frei" with their death camps. Because, it's true that work makes you free. It gives many a purpose and allows them to take care of themselves and their families. We can't have people relying upon the government to take care of them.
The socialists only benefit for a season. Once they've burned through the fat of the land, they shoot the farmers and seize the brood stocks and seed corn. Then there's nothing left for anybody. What's amazing about the Soviet Union is how long the shell game lasted on "five year plans".
When our culture is supporting politicians like Mamdani, we're in a fragile state. Too bad, indeed, that so many (of us) are struggling to stay afloat, keep the wolf from the door, having trouble affording the basics. During troubled times is when socialism gets a voice. It is heard as an answer, a way out, a savior. One can't necessarily blame folks for wanting to be saved, helped, it's just that socialism as a saving grace is a lie. This fact cannot be stressed often enuf: shout it from the rooftops, over and over.
Hmmm, I am curious what you make of some more spiritual and/or religious traditions which give their adherents guidance not to seek status (for status' sake). It is absolutely not the same as *demanding* of others to give up *their* status seeking. But I assume both might be related to a (secret?) wish or desire of people that I would render into something like, "wouldn't it be nice if we could all live in a world where people weren't quite as status obsessed."
Naturally, it then appears as a mistake to me to project this desire (in Jungian shadow projection style) onto other people, rather than simply changing one's own life in a manner that eliminates the many ways by which people compare themselves to others all the time. But that takes genuine work. It is (like all projections) always easier to seek the remedy *outside* of oneself ;)
If I read your question correctly, my attitude is "pursue your own happiness." If someone feels fulfilled by the pursuit of status, as long as that does not involve infringing on others' rights and property, it's not my place to judge. Whether that's sourced in religion or soemthing else doesn't really matter.
Yeah, that is how I would imagine a less stressful experience comes about: I allow other people to do whatever they want -- including ridiculous status pursuit -- so long as their behavior does not infringe on my freedom. I still believe it is fully OK to remind people that a world in which a large fraction of people are "consumed by" pursuit of status may not be as enjoyable for human beings, because it creates all sorts of interpersonal issues. That doesn't make status pursuit wrong or undesirable. Like everything in life: trade-offs -- both within a person and across people. And I can always choose to have as few status-junkies in my "inner circle of trust" as I like. No-one forces me to associate with the likes of Jeff Bezos in my private life. I can even refuse to buy from Amazon, if I so choose. But that is where I think my liberties roughly end. Calling for anyone to forcibly give up the fruits of their labor because I find a world in which there are rich and poor people horrible is my problem, not theirs...
I agree. You and I can proselytize all we want about what we think is a better way. In fact, I just did with "pursue your own happiness" and a live-and-let-live message, and I'm always preaching that greater apathy is a path to greater happiness.
Bezos can do as he wants. It's his money. We can also do as we want and criticize him for the vulgarity of a $50 million dollar wedding. Given what we know of the working conditions at Amazon, you can understand why others think that his splurge was based upon the backs of his employees.
So true. Only dear leader and his crew get rich, but at least we have income equality, as long as dear leader and crew are not included in the calculation.
One thing that I find telling is that apparently Mamdani got a LOT of votes from the wealthy. Is this a sign that they don't believe he's actually going to make the wealthy pay their "fair share."
Another aspect that leads to the “no one should have that much” perspective is the fallacious belief that the economy is a zero sum game. When your conceptualization of economics is that one can only have that much if others don’t have that much, then it stands to reason that those who don’t have can only have at the expense of those who do. It is a failure to recognize that anyone can build/earn “wealth” if they provide a product or service that others find valuable. But holding a proper view of the economy forces one to accept personal responsibility for one’s situation - something a large proportion of the populace no longer wishes to do.
It's one of the many flaws of socialistic economic thinking. Another is the resource myth - that a nation's wealth is a function of its natural resources. Obama said some things that indicated he thought that way.
And, yes, that too is a concept that justifies the taking of the fruit of a person's labor.
It’s tragic how popular this trend is becoming. The welfare state and little risk of going hungry or actually broke has alleviated too many fears. We had a more reliable and engaging workforce when people didn’t have a safety net for pretty much everything.
And it's not just the Left that's going in that direction.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/the-problematic-politics-of-trumps-bill-more-lower-income-americans-are-voting-gop-0b6288d0?mod=djem10point
You prefer the "good old days" when losing a job could mean losing it all including your life?
It never meant that, but I definitely preferred it when people had to work to survive. I see it everywhere, more people than I can count on some type of assistance. It’s not my personal choice to see people always having a backstop for safety provided by society mandated by government policies.
It's a shame that the Nazis forever tarnished the saying "Arbeit macht frei" with their death camps. Because, it's true that work makes you free. It gives many a purpose and allows them to take care of themselves and their families. We can't have people relying upon the government to take care of them.
The socialists only benefit for a season. Once they've burned through the fat of the land, they shoot the farmers and seize the brood stocks and seed corn. Then there's nothing left for anybody. What's amazing about the Soviet Union is how long the shell game lasted on "five year plans".
Socialism is a modern form of the ancient "plunder" model of government. Instead of plundering other nations, it plunders its own members.
Hmm.... blog idea.
When our culture is supporting politicians like Mamdani, we're in a fragile state. Too bad, indeed, that so many (of us) are struggling to stay afloat, keep the wolf from the door, having trouble affording the basics. During troubled times is when socialism gets a voice. It is heard as an answer, a way out, a savior. One can't necessarily blame folks for wanting to be saved, helped, it's just that socialism as a saving grace is a lie. This fact cannot be stressed often enuf: shout it from the rooftops, over and over.
Hmmm, I am curious what you make of some more spiritual and/or religious traditions which give their adherents guidance not to seek status (for status' sake). It is absolutely not the same as *demanding* of others to give up *their* status seeking. But I assume both might be related to a (secret?) wish or desire of people that I would render into something like, "wouldn't it be nice if we could all live in a world where people weren't quite as status obsessed."
Naturally, it then appears as a mistake to me to project this desire (in Jungian shadow projection style) onto other people, rather than simply changing one's own life in a manner that eliminates the many ways by which people compare themselves to others all the time. But that takes genuine work. It is (like all projections) always easier to seek the remedy *outside* of oneself ;)
If I read your question correctly, my attitude is "pursue your own happiness." If someone feels fulfilled by the pursuit of status, as long as that does not involve infringing on others' rights and property, it's not my place to judge. Whether that's sourced in religion or soemthing else doesn't really matter.
Yeah, that is how I would imagine a less stressful experience comes about: I allow other people to do whatever they want -- including ridiculous status pursuit -- so long as their behavior does not infringe on my freedom. I still believe it is fully OK to remind people that a world in which a large fraction of people are "consumed by" pursuit of status may not be as enjoyable for human beings, because it creates all sorts of interpersonal issues. That doesn't make status pursuit wrong or undesirable. Like everything in life: trade-offs -- both within a person and across people. And I can always choose to have as few status-junkies in my "inner circle of trust" as I like. No-one forces me to associate with the likes of Jeff Bezos in my private life. I can even refuse to buy from Amazon, if I so choose. But that is where I think my liberties roughly end. Calling for anyone to forcibly give up the fruits of their labor because I find a world in which there are rich and poor people horrible is my problem, not theirs...
I agree. You and I can proselytize all we want about what we think is a better way. In fact, I just did with "pursue your own happiness" and a live-and-let-live message, and I'm always preaching that greater apathy is a path to greater happiness.
Bezos can do as he wants. It's his money. We can also do as we want and criticize him for the vulgarity of a $50 million dollar wedding. Given what we know of the working conditions at Amazon, you can understand why others think that his splurge was based upon the backs of his employees.
Understanding the tendency toward that sentiment is not the same as accepting it as a valid viewpoint.
The working standards at Amazon which force some to pee into bottles instead of taking a bathroom break are a good indication though.
Do you buy from Amazon?
Yes. I use their Kindle Unlimited service to read e-books.
At least he didn't piss it away like the NGOs were doing with our tax money.
So true. Only dear leader and his crew get rich, but at least we have income equality, as long as dear leader and crew are not included in the calculation.
One thing that I find telling is that apparently Mamdani got a LOT of votes from the wealthy. Is this a sign that they don't believe he's actually going to make the wealthy pay their "fair share."
Then again, he ran against Cuomo so there's that.
Another aspect that leads to the “no one should have that much” perspective is the fallacious belief that the economy is a zero sum game. When your conceptualization of economics is that one can only have that much if others don’t have that much, then it stands to reason that those who don’t have can only have at the expense of those who do. It is a failure to recognize that anyone can build/earn “wealth” if they provide a product or service that others find valuable. But holding a proper view of the economy forces one to accept personal responsibility for one’s situation - something a large proportion of the populace no longer wishes to do.
It's one of the many flaws of socialistic economic thinking. Another is the resource myth - that a nation's wealth is a function of its natural resources. Obama said some things that indicated he thought that way.
And, yes, that too is a concept that justifies the taking of the fruit of a person's labor.