It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Conservative "Meritocracy" Paradise As It Recently Existed

page: 4
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well except anthropology shows us that even our most ancient ancestors took care of the group as a whole. Populations that included adults with defects that surely prevented them from doing much in the way of hunting or helping, the extremely elderly and there is strong evidence that children were cared for by the entire group.

Nothing in nature, nor history supports this Atlas Shrugged dream that has poisoned modern America. In fact history shows, again and again, that meritocracy gives way to an elite or monarchical class almost instantly.




posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


I am talking about the essential problem with a perfect commune, not today's society.

Hmmm. So - "today's society" is irrelevant?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: ketsuko

lol nice ducking there.




Ducking what? I was never talking about modern society.

But I will tell you this, when the system collapses and the government cannot pay for everyone to live like it has been? The only places in my life and family will be for those able bodied adults who will work/have skills and their dependents (old and young). After that, it will be older folks who have skills or can do some work. After that if I have extra to help others beyond survival of the group, the extra will go to help other children and/or elders or disabled, not younger able-bodied people who want to sit on the sidelines and watch the rest of us work.

Is that harsh? Absolutely. Do I like that thought? No, but if you can't take yourself, you can't help anyone else, either.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: ketsuko

Well except anthropology shows us that even our most ancient ancestors took care of the group as a whole. Populations that included adults with defects that surely prevented them from doing much in the way of hunting or helping, the extremely elderly and there is strong evidence that children were cared for by the entire group.

Nothing in nature, nor history supports this Atlas Shrugged dream that has poisoned modern America. In fact history shows, again and again, that meritocracy gives way to an elite or monarchical class almost instantly.


They did, but everyone also did what they could to provide. Did those same ancient groups also allow the able bodied to sit around and do nothing to help the group? I don't think so.

It was also not uncommon for undesirable babies to be exposed, too, if they had defects or if they would be too difficult to take care of for the group. If the population fell on hard times, the most vulnerable were often the first to go.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

So you admit your ideology will only work in a society that has collapsed? Sounds like the same politicians that were willing to destroy America to bring down Obama.

Are you sure your friends and family will approve of you lack of vision? A practical application of your ideology might not work out well for you.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Ducking what? I was never talking about modern society.

Well, this thread is about MODERN SOCIETY.

And you know it!.....so you're back-pedaling now? You said what you said. To wit:

In the type of society we want, if my neighbor is a lazy idiot who would be perfectly happy to not ever lift a finger to do his own work and live off the crumbs we send his way, then why should we continue to feel obligated to send crumbs his way when times get tough and we have to look to our own?

you WERE talking about modern American society.

But, if you want to pretend you weren't, then -
ok. Whatever.
Have a great evening!

edit on 5/22/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TheJourney

So your going to deny industry used private armies to kill striking workers?


What are you talking about, man...the point I'm making is so simple I do not believe anyone doesn't get it. Don't go on tangents. The government sending people to kill workers for striking...cannot possibly be an example of government non-intervention...
edit on 22-5-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: ketsuko

Well except anthropology shows us that even our most ancient ancestors took care of the group as a whole. Populations that included adults with defects that surely prevented them from doing much in the way of hunting or helping, the extremely elderly and there is strong evidence that children were cared for by the entire group.

Nothing in nature, nor history supports this Atlas Shrugged dream that has poisoned modern America. In fact history shows, again and again, that meritocracy gives way to an elite or monarchical class almost instantly.


Even in free markets it is human nature to take care of others. The difference is that it should largely be done at the local level, not the Federal. The problem is that when government starts taking care of people on a large scale, it creates incentives for shysters to game the system. We've spent trillions on the war on poverty and still have a boat load of poverty because we essentially created a non-mobile class of people whose bad decisions are constantly subsidized by the government.

It is a lot harder to game the system when you are asking your neighbors for help versus some anonymous bureaucrat who only knows you by a number.

Free markets taken more people out of poverty than any other system. PERIOD.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Well lets see, the government choosing to support industry over the people seems like standard operating procedures, does it not?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TheJourney

So your going to deny industry used private armies to kill striking workers?


What are you talking about, man...the point I'm making is so simple I do not believe anyone doesn't get it. Don't go on tangents. The government sending people to kill workers for striking...cannot possibly be an example of government non-intervention...


It is amazing that they can't see government is often the cause of the misery they so claim to hate...



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TheJourney

Well lets see, the government choosing to support industry over the people seems like standard operating procedures, does it not?


Standard operating procedure is one thing, non-intervention is another. Intervention isn't non-intervention, anymore than not-x is x. You cannot use government intervention as an example of government non-intervention...that doesn't make any sense...



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

It seems to me the government using the military to put down a worker strike was against the Posse Comitatus law. Unless you can provide the law that allowed the government to do what they did.

I can show examples of child labor laws or workers comp laws, can you provide a example of a law that gave the government the authority to break up a strike of the people? Yet is has been done on more than one occasion.
edit on 22-5-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: TheJourney

It seems to me the government using the military to put down a worker strike was against the Posse Comitatus law. Unless you can provide the law that allowed the government to do what they did.

I can show examples of child labor laws or workers comp laws, can you provide a example of a law that gave the government the authority to break up a strike of the people? Yet is has been done on more than one occasion.


...I feel like you're not even reading what I'm saying, and are just spewing a bunch of talking points of your own, as if it is a response to what I'm saying...
edit on 22-5-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

Free markets taken more people out of poverty than any other system. PERIOD.


Can you substantiate that claim?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I understand your attempting to make a point, and your correct I have no idea what your talking about.

I'm a student of history and it seems your attempting to equate regulation with interventionism and these are not even close to the same thing? I guess????
edit on 22-5-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

It is amazing that they can't see government is often the cause of the misery they so claim to hate...


Government is not the issue at all. Who controls that Government is the issue. In a Representative Republic, which we happen to live in, our Representatives are supposed to, by Oath and Affirmation represent their constituents. What we have today is a mirror of what existed during the period discussed in the OP - Representation being bought and sold by Corporate interests and caring only for the well being of those interests above those of the people who elected them.

Citizens United and the absolute abomination of 501(c) tax exempt political lobbying groups have left things so bare and wide open that only a fool could look and not see the bribery and nepotism involved in this nations current direction.

Sadly the propaganda has turned the middle class against the poor - even as the super rich continue to receive more and more compensation for being rich. An example being the temporary tax deductions they were afforded when things were good - spun into a war against "raising taxes" when their little tax vacation ended.

As I said in the OP ( or a subsequent post possibly ) one of the most mind-blowing aspects to this class war is that those in total control of everything have managed to convince the middle to be their crusading army.

Here's the analogy. The Titanic is sinking. The crew and richest passengers have taken all of the life boats and are now screaming back, toward the sinking ship, saying "Hey, if you throw the weak overboard you'll last longer...." and people are buying it.

Amazing.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

You are portraying the Pullman Strike in a twisted light, my friend. The strike itself wasn't what brought in federal troops and it had little to do with the fed's giving a flip about the corporate arguments involved.

The strikers rioted and overturned trains, destroyed tracks to block trains, physically assaulted workers who broke the strike, and sabotaged facilities related to rail function. Cleveland became involved when the strike disrupted the movement of the postal services. He approved striking workers being fired and brought in the military to protect the mail trains and get them running (both issues which are FULLY stated as federal duties, BTW). The strikers who were killed were those who initiated violence against the US Marshals brought in to restore order. Essentially: If you try to assault a U.S. marshal, you've broken the law to a degree in which you have voluntarily forfeited your life.

As is often the issue with labor union strikes, the union sympathizers wear rose colored glasses and always see the ends as justifying the means while the anti-union people take the stance of "Don't like it, walk away". I have always found it fascinating that pro-union diehards can focus so single mindedly on the most minor of "employer abuses" while brushing aside the completely illegal actions of striking unions to threaten, abuse, obstruct or otherwise impact workers who ARE willing to continue working under the contracts they agreed to with the employer.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


when the system collapses and the government cannot pay for everyone to live like it has been? The only places in my life and family will be for those able bodied adults who will work/have skills and their dependents (old and young).
But, meanwhile - "before" the system has collapsed (
)?

This? Those able-bodied adults who will work NOW, and have skills NOW and dependents (old and young), are just screwed, because the employers who hired, trained, and paid them have LEFT- what are THEY supposed to do?
Just hang around waiting for corporations to come back and hire them?
Or, go out and try to get a job at McD's or Walmart?

DO YOU have any idea how many skilled, educated adults have lost their jobs and now a hoard of people in a 3rd world country have been hired to "do it"?

Lots of the "young" now are only being taken on as unpaid interns......AFTER going through college, with debts to pay.
Lots of the "Baby Boomers" are now sacking groceries, or working at Culvers or CVS, for minimum wage, with part-time hours that pay no benefits. These are people who HAVE educations, and experience, and skills.....but have been deemed "too expensive" by those Ayn Rand corporations.......

And, if they're not just moving to Bangladesh.... they hire the "young" and "inexperienced" Americans to work and force early retirement on those who have the "merit" to keep their jobs.

Wait...What? Pension? Most of the youth now (whom, by the way, outnumber the Boomers) don't even know what a "pension" was!!!! Hell, even half of Gen X doesn't know.



edit on 5/22/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ten years of what you call minor infringements on the part of employers, can cost thousands of people a year their health, their families, and even their lives. The impact of what the employer can do to screw their employees is greater, because they have more power than employees. It is that simple.

This is about where the power to affect lives comes in, and seems to be missing from your take on the events described in the OP. You see, when a person has a great deal of power, often through having a great deal of money, they have a responsibility to wield that power effectively, and with humility. A humble man with power, will never HAVE striking workers outside his factory, or on his railroad, because a humble man treats his workers with dignity, respect, and an appreciation for their role in his business. Humble people understand that no matter how big their pocket book gets, nay, the bigger it gets, the less role they actually have in creating that wealth.

The bigger a company gets, the more people working for it, the less the bottom line of that company has to do with its upper and executive management, and the more it has to do with the amount of man hours that company has at its disposal, and the amount and the quality of human resource it has to fill those hours. It is a growth model seen throughout every successful business. The more money you get from having effective staff to create your product, or provide your service, the more money you make, the more people you hire, and so forth. So assuming constant customer requirement, as in the case with the constant requirement upon Walmart to keep providing cut price guff to people for example, that growth, earn, growth, earn system works just great.

And it would work great even if everyone in the company was on a living wage too, which they damned well ought to be, considering the working conditions in places like that. The people on shop floor work more hours, and work harder, than anyone operating at he executive level, and get jack diddly squat out of it, considering that it is they, not the CEO of the company, who make the business work at all. They put the gear on the shelves, mop the floors, drive the trucks, manage the warehouse, and deal with customers. Those are the only crucial things, without which no business could be done at all.

You could chuck everyone in that company, other than the frontline staff, and place a stock buyer in every store, rather than centralising it, and the business would still work, still make money, and the money saved would be enormous!

Treating staff like jerks however, when your own life is comfortable, when you are in zero danger of having your lights turned off, your home taken from you, or invaded by bailiffs, that invalidates every right an employer has to protection from their own greed. No one should be protected from their own greed, but everyone should be protected from the greed of others.

edit on 22-5-2015 by TrueBrit because: Added clarifying detail.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: ketsuko

So you admit your ideology will only work in a society that has collapsed? Sounds like the same politicians that were willing to destroy America to bring down Obama.

Are you sure your friends and family will approve of you lack of vision? A practical application of your ideology might not work out well for you.


No, I am saying that you can see what I mean in more clearly in a society that is on survival footing. Just because we aren't doesn't mean the basic rules change.

Does a society have an obligation to provide for someone who could care for themselves and chooses not to? Not someone who can't for whatever reason, but someone who has had the opportunity to be productive and contribute in some capacity and decided not to because it was more fun to sit on the couch and play video games eating hot pockets?

Now, I am not talking about whether or not you decide you personally want to pull that person's weight along with your own. I am talking about impersonal society. Is that person as worthy as someone who is physically or mentally incapable? Does that person need help more than the person who has fallen on hard times and only needs some temp help to get up again? Should we support that person instead of a child or an elderly person?
edit on 22-5-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join