|
|
 Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:45 am The Political Compass |
|
|
| Fan of Arabian horses wrote: | | it seems necessary to show more respect to others and not only to the amount of money they make or have. What?s your opinion of that? Could you please reply? |
It always amazes me how socialists and various other types of leftists always say that people who believe in capitalism, or who have more money, do not respect other people for their basic human dignity. It's really the leftists who reduce other people to money and how much they can force out of them. Leftists want to confiscate other people's money -- and not just rich people's money -- and force them to accept government programs that they may not want. This is because leftists don't recognize the basic intelligence and dignity of other human beings, and do not trust ordinary people to make decisions for themselves. There are two other things that show that leftists tend to dehumanize people. One is that it's been demonstrated that people of a socialist mentality are not willing to give as much of their money to charity as people of a capitalist mentality -- even if the capitalist-thinking people are poor. The other is that leftists are more likely than people on the right to support various forms of eugenics, from abortion of developing babies all the way to euthanizing old people who are sick. And the rationale leftists give for killing these people always involves some sort of financial argument. Leftists think of people in terms of the resources they use up and how much money they can force out of them. Since they don't understand freedom or charity very well, they automatically think capitalists are obsessed materialists also, which they usually aren't.
Here's an article about leftist and rightists and their contributions to charity.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Thu Jun 14, 2007 14:26 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
It's the assumption that most people are unable to fend for themselves, and that those who are able must provide for those who "cannot".
People are helpless, so we need a huge government to take care of us. We need to tax the hell out of the rich so we can get some of their money (without earning it ourselves). It is the responsibility of the rich (and middle class, actually) to support the poor. The poor have no responsibilities but to demand and accept the forced largesse of the rich and middle class.
It is, imo, a backwards socioeconomic philosophy:
It punishes entrepreneurialism/success and rewards sloth.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2145
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:55 am The Political Compass |
|
|
Only handicapped have the reason to accept charity. To those who are healthy but needy, the government should help them improve their education or ability to be qualified a better job,eg providing some free job trainings.I think any healthy individaul should make a better life on his/herself.
There are some people who are rich but not self-made. Some of them inherit their health but they do nothing to the society. These kind of people should be highly taxed or they will become parasites of the society which is neither good to himself nor the society.
_________________
Try to change youself before you try to change others. |
|
aleaf
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 340
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:25 am The Political Compass |
|
|
| aleaf wrote: | | Only handicapped have the reason to accept charity. To those who are healthy but needy, the government should help them improve their education or ability to be qualified a better job,eg providing some free job trainings.I think any healthy individaul should make a better life on his/herself. |
I think you're wrong about this. Sometimes healthy, capable people run into bad luck or lose everything in some natural catastrophe, and those people deserve to receive charity for a limited time. During that time -- ONLY IF THEY NEED IT -- they should get help with job training. It doesn't have to be free, but it should be accessible. (Some of the best technical schools in my country provide training assistance only in the form of a loan. When the student is finished, they help him find a job, and then he pays it back.)
But there's no question that handicapped people need assistance. However, some countries don't develop the abilities of their handicapped people, and they are shut away. In the US, many mentally retarded people are now trained to hold simple jobs and to take care of themselves -- even saving part of their salaries for the future. I enjoy one retarded man who works at a pizzeria across from a college where I teach. If it is not too hot or too cold outside, he holds a sign that tells the day's specials, and he invites people in. At other times, he cleans and does other work. He seems really happy at his job.
| aleaf wrote: | | There are some people who are rich but not self-made. Some of them inherit their health but they do nothing to the society. |
Most people who inherit great wealth have a social conscience and do a lot of work for less fortunate people. Most of them are taught this by their parents. My own city would be much worse off if its richest families did not use their inherited wealth for great good. The Ford family and the families that owned our large brewery and our biggest department store chain have done inestimable good for us. And when you meet them personally on a regular basis, you can see that these are NOT selfish, arrogant people.
| aleaf wrote: | | These kind of people should be highly taxed or they will become parasites of the society which is neither good to himself nor the society. |
You have it backwards, Aleaf. When these people are taxed, the government becomes parasites on them.
One very rich member of the Rockefeller family was approached by a man who told him he had no right to be so rich, and that his wealth should be redistributed among "the people". Mr. Rockefeller said, "You're right!" Then he took out a calculator, entered the value of his wealth, and divided it by the population of the world. He then reached into his pocket, held his hand out to the man and said, "Here are your five cents."
These rich people create employment through the things they buy, and through the jobs that they give people who work in their residences and businesses. They also do great good by supporting charitable, educational and cultural institutions. If you tax them, this money will do less good. A large part of it will be skimmed off as salaries for bureaucrats. The part that is left will be distributed by these bureaucrats in inefficient and often very foolish ways. The money does much more good for the common people in the hands of the people who have inherited it than it does in the hands of the government. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:04 am The Political Compass |
|
|
Sometimes healthy, capable people run into bad luck or lose everything in some natural catastrophe, and those people deserve to receive charity for a limited time. During that time -- ONLY IF THEY NEED IT -- they should get help with job training. It doesn't have to be free, but it should be accessible. (Some of the best technical schools in my country provide training assistance only in the form of a loan. When the student is finished, they help him find a job, and then he pays it back.
I agree.
You have it backwards, Aleaf. When these people are taxed, the government becomes parasites on them.
The resposibility of a government is to safeguard the security of its people and help people to lead a better life through policise. The money those people make is from the society so they have the duty (at least from ethies) to repay the society.
Government can use tax to provide free training, health care, pension, to improve Public facilities and so on.
Most people who inherit great wealth have a social conscience and do a lot of work for less fortunate people. Most of them are taught this by their parents. My own city would be much worse off if its richest families did not use their inherited wealth for great good. The Ford family and the families that owned our large brewery and our biggest department store chain have done inestimable good for us. And when you meet them personally on a regular basis, you can see that these are NOT selfish, arrogant people.
Good to hear that. and i haven't said all of them were selfish. some of them are nice.
_________________
Try to change youself before you try to change others. |
|
aleaf
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 19 Apr 2007
Posts: 340
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:04 am The Political Compass |
|
|
| Fan of Arabian horses wrote: | | Sorry Tom, I disagree strongly! Recently, many people in Germany lost their jobs as a matter of profit for stock owners and company leaders. |
Hi Michael,
Why do you think it is bad when people lose their jobs? This might sound like a strange question but do you really think a person who lives in Germany needs a job?
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 7387
Location: EU
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:05 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
| Jamie (K) wrote: | | one retarded man |
I take it the term 'retarded' for 'mentally ill/disabled' is not offensive in the US?
Anyway, the truth is that people often go out of their way to avoid using what they fear might be un-PC words. Sometimes even the word 'mental' is avoided, for example when 'mental handicap' is referred to as 'learning difficulties'. |
|
Conchita
Language Coach
Joined: 26 Dec 2005
Posts: 2702
Location: Madrid, Spain
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 13:24 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | ......... but do you really think a person who lives in Germany needs a job? |
HiTorsten!
Right, ...not neseccarily a job or one job. Just, like everywhere in the world, you need a source where you get the capital (whatever capital is in this case) for a somewhat pleasant life from. I agree, there are many possibilties (ways) to get the capital, even some criminal ones. I take it you?re not referring to Hartz IV. I think it?s not funny to be needed to live with that.
On the other hand you also might sleep under the bridge and eat what garbage or charity offer you or some berries you collected in the woods. Please notice, that you are just in the wintermonth? allowed to hunt some game.
Michael |
|
Fan of Arabian horses
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 836
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 13:31 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
Hi Michael,
How many people in Germany are sleeping under a bridge eating garbage? And what is so bad about living on Hartz IV?
_________________
Test Of English for International Communication
TOEIC Preparation & TOEIC Vocabulary |
|
Torsten
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Sep 2003
Posts: 7387
Location: EU
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 13:57 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
| Conchita wrote: | | Jamie (K) wrote: | | one retarded man |
I take it the term 'retarded' for 'mentally ill/disabled' is not offensive in the US?
Anyway, the truth is that people often go out of their way to avoid using what they fear might be un-PC words. Sometimes even the word 'mental' is avoided, for example when 'mental handicap' is referred to as 'learning difficulties'. |
Conchita, there is almost no term used to describe a person that is not offensive to some oversensitive person or other. And sometimes the people who are offended are not even the ones the term is used about. Often the politically correct term is so complicated and ridiculous that no one would use it. And there are even feminists who object to Jesus being called "he" or "son", even though he was obviously a man. Anyway, in common language people still use the term "mentally retarded" all the time, and only the most sensitive people are bothered by it.
I happen to be offended by the term Native American when used to describe the first immigrants to North America from Central Asia. If you are white, you can get chided for saying "American Indian", even though many (possibly most) tribal chiefs use the term. Sometimes white people have been offended when I continue to use the term "black" for people, because they think I should say "African-American". However, I have never met an "African-American" who was offended by my using the term "black", mainly because it's the term blacks generally use themselves.
Don't confuse "learning disability" with "mental handicap". A learning disability is simply some mental block against learning something. Many intelligent people have learning disabilities for certain subjects. Very frequently, though, people who are diagnosed with "learning disabilities" simply have bad teachers for that subject. One of my students was on a student teaching assignment and was given a boy to tutor who was said to have a "severe learning disability" in math. In five minutes, she made this "disability" disappear like magic. The boy simply had never been taught to solve math problems one by one. She showed him how to finish one problem and go on to the next, and suddenly he was one of the best in his class. Previously, his teachers had been more interested in diagnosing him than in looking to see what his real problem was.
In the 1970s, one of my step nieces was diagnosed in school as having "minimal brain dysfunction". I asked one of my psychology professors what that diagnosis meant, and she said, "Minimal brain dysfunction is a diagnostic term that means, 'I don't like this kid, and I don't know why.'" |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 14:18 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
| Torsten wrote: | | Fan of Arabian horses wrote: | | Sorry Tom, I disagree strongly! Recently, many people in Germany lost their jobs as a matter of profit for stock owners and company leaders. |
Why do you think it is bad when people lose their jobs? This might sound like a strange question but do you really think a person who lives in Germany needs a job? |
One of the things that causes many Americans to laugh at the European countries is how impossible they make it to fire someone. We were rolling on the floor laughing a year or two ago when French students rioted over a proposed law that would allow employers to fire them within the first two years of employment. It was the most ridiculous thing we'd ever seen, and it made the French look like cry-babies.
Firing people is a very useful tool, and it can be beneficial to both the employer and to the employee who gets fired. Among the benefits to the employee: If he was a badly performing or badly behaving employee, it makes him realize that he needs to adjust his behavior. If he was a very conscientious employee and still gets fired, it can be a signal that he's not pursuing the field where his real talents lie. This signal can be very important to future effectiveness and happiness in his career.
I have been fired two or three times in my life. Every time it was absolutely the best thing that could have happened to me. One time I was fired by a horrible company that was a mismatch for my skills and working style. This forced me to look for a job, and I was hired by an absolutely wonderful company with managers who understood me and appreciated what I did. The next time I got fired was when a company liked my qualifications, wanted me to work for them, hired me, and then realized they didn't know what to do with my specific skills. Another time I got fired when there was no place for me to advance in the company, and it was clear that I should be in a completely different profession. In all those cases, getting fired was a really beneficial experience. If I'd lived in France, I might still be suffering at that first, miserable company.
There's even a famous book on this subject. It's called "We Got Fired...and it's the best thing that ever happened to us." It includes people who have achieved great things in their careers, including the mayor of New York, the founder of a huge chain of hardware stores, and the retired president of Chrysler Corporation. These people say they wouldn't have gotten where they were if they had not been fired earlier. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 14:37 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
I fail to see why formally dismissing an employee is somehow more beneficial than hinting he or she might not be the best person for the job and then allow him or her to resign.
All the best
EU |
|
Englishuser
I'm here quite often ;-)
Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 806
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 15:03 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
| Englishuser wrote: | | I fail to see why formally dismissing an employee is somehow more beneficial than hinting he or she might not be the best person for the job and then allow him or her to resign. |
Well, there you go. It's one of the things that makes Europeans comical to us.
I like the word you used -- "hinting". Why would you just "hint" and not actually TELL him? It's quite insensitive, cruel and disrespectful to hint at something that someone needs to be told directly.
One of the reasons that the person needs to be fired is that if he is still at the job he's mismatched for, he is a drag on the employer and is damaging his own life through his inertia. Also, some people are dense and will not seek other opportunities even if they are unhappy, and even if they have been told they would be better in some other job. Many people are also afraid of the unknown and will not quit or look for a new job no matter how bad things get. This person damages his own life and future prospects by staying where he is, so he needs to be pushed out of the nest. |
|
Jamie (K)
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Posts: 4337
Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
| Fri Jun 15, 2007 15:16 pm The Political Compass |
|
|
You know, whether it's better to hint or to be blunt/straightforward (re: firing) depends on the psyches of the people involved.
Sometimes workers are laid off to save the company: some must go so that the company can survive.
Unions have ruined some businesses, driven our labor cost so much that American labor is among the most expensive in the world... and that is partly why some jobs are going overseas. Businesses can't afford to employ as many people. They have to choose between cutting profit (by increasing cost -- specifically, labor) and firing people to keep the bottom line intact.
Shareholders like the bottom line to be healthy -- ROI isn't helped when the income statement says that the company is operating at a loss... people start to dump their stock, stock price plummets, and (as a result) investments lose their value.
_________________
Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
prezbucky
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 2145
Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
|
|
| A blog for higher studies | NationStates |
