Abe Lincoln: was he right or was he right?

[Sheepdog]

And there is no "other" option.


"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
- President Abraham Lincoln

[Patroclus]

And there is no "other" option.


"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

Of course. Who would do that?

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

No, but there are many cases when the weak cannot be strengthened until the strong have been weakened.

You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

Unless the wage payer is abusing the wage earners until he is put in his place.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

No, but you can encourage brotherhood by hating the idea of class.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

Sure you can, if the rich are opressing the poor. Or do you mean, by "destroying," removing the wealth of the rich? Well, in that case, you can do even more good for the poor by distributing that person's wealth, either directly to the poor or into goods and services that the poor need.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

Nope, and spending well within one's budget won't keep one from trouble, either.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

Initiative, no. However, who is independent? Show me one person who needs nobody.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
- President Abraham Lincoln

True, but many cannot not do, yet still need.

:pat:

(not a fan of Abraham Lincoln)

[/QUOTE]

[Sheepdog]

so, just out of curiosity, who will provide jobs for the poor if we hamstring the rich? or are we talking about equality by making everyone poor and dependant on the state?

for the record, if indeed the rich willfully and knowingly oppress the poor, then i'd agree that Lincoln didn't anticipate that. but do they in fact do that? why would they? sure they are interested in making money, but it'd seem to me that the more disposable money we have, the more they make in the long run.


historically, overbearing states have been far more oppressive than the wealthy, from what i can tell.

[James Peter]

Switzerland and Sweden both seem to do fine...

I don't see why saying that somebody should only make $80m a year (instead of $100m)so that their workers can make $50,000 a year rather than $30,000 [assuming 1,000 employees] is really problematic. The majority of the population benefit hugely and, at the end of the day, the wage provider still has plenty of incentive to conduct his money-making activity.

Abe was wrong, an approriate degree of moderation is the best approach and if the rich do not adopt that degree of moderation naturally then the government should force them to. Or does the government serve only the rich? Abuse of the working classes ferments rebellion and revolt, something that nobody really wants.

[Ryokan]

Switzerland and Sweden both seem to do fine...They have some special advantages, though.

I don't see why saying that somebody should only make $80m a year (instead of $100m)so that their workers can make $50,000 a year rather than $30,000 [assuming 1,000 employees] is really problematic. Find me that company. i wanna work there. $80 m salary and only 1000 employees? That's a good business. The majority of the population benefit hugely and, at the end of the day, the wage provider still has plenty of incentive to conduct his money-making activity. Its really not that simple. In the extreme case you mentioned sure, but in the real world, day to day type situations..... Global competitveness and market flexibility suffer under extensive wage controls. If you can level the playing field with capital investment and education you are much better off.

Abe was wrong, an approriate degree of moderation is the best approach and if the rich do not adopt that degree of moderation naturally then the government should force them to. [/!QUOTE] Statements like this make even liberal Americans uncomfortable. There are fundamental difference in the way we and Europe see government. Its worth remembering. [QUOTE] Or does the government serve only the rich? Hopefully not. But we don't want it to serve only the poor either, or to be wasteful in helping anyone if possible. Abuse of the working classes ferments rebellion and revolt, something that nobody really wants.
What class of people doesn't work?

[Sheepdog]

Switzerland and Sweden both seem to do fine...

Ah, but looks can be deceiving (http://www.mega.nu/ampp/communism2.html)

I don't see why saying that somebody should only make $80m a year (instead of $100m)so that their workers can make $50,000 a year rather than $30,000 [assuming 1,000 employees] is really problematic. The majority of the population benefit hugely and, at the end of the day, the wage provider still has plenty of incentive to conduct his money-making activity.

as Ryo notes, $100m a year for a 1,000 employee firm is heavily inflated. though i suppose there is no hard and fast rule, i'm not sure in what market such a firm would even make $100m net profit.

off hand, i found this firm: http://www.golder.com/default.asp?PID=955
but being an engineering and science consulting firm, something's terribly wrong if anyone there is making less than $50k/yr

but, doesn't something seem wrong, if not pragmatically then at least fundamentally, about punishing one person for being successful, while giving incentives to someone else who hasn't earned them?

instead, let him reinvest that $100m back into the market, where everone benefits. how many people anymore will just hide their money in their back yard, when they can invest; and new investments, at some point, create new jobs and allow higher pay rates for much needed positions.

Abe was wrong, an approriate degree of moderation is the best approach and if the rich do not adopt that degree of moderation naturally then the government should force them to. Or does the government serve only the rich?

at what point do you stop, once you start applying government force? not long ago, millionares were considered rich. now, you are rich for making $100k/yr. really, even now you an i both get wealth redistributed from our own paychecks to the poor. i assume you are well off, being on the Internet, but i know i'm not rich. are you?

Abuse of the working classes ferments rebellion and revolt, something that nobody really wants.

this is why i think unionization was good, before unions became as corrupt as "the man" that they "stick it to." the ideal economy is one where both the employer and employee have power to barter an appropriate wage. of course, i'm a realist, but in any respect it can and does happen without government strong-arming.

why are terms like "abuse" tossed around like this? that or "social justice." who decides whether a certain wage bracket is abuse, and what criteria allows them to make such a judgement?

[Epoetker]

Abe Lincoln was right, but the concepts embedded in his words have changed a bit drastically.



Abe is against the entire combined weight of America's founders and a good portion of its subsequent inventors. You can most definitely bring about prosperity by discouraging universal thrift-pioneering don't pay except in the long run, and in the short run you may be spending way past your means. America has been the nation built on easy credit almost since its inception, and there's no denying that but for the motivation to pay off debts, many people would be working very little, if at all.

[QUOTE]You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

I know what he means by this, yet I'll still quibble with it as a vague statement. The public is usually not helped by mere brute legal claims against the strong, but the strong are always tempted to increase their strength through subsuming such legal methods completely. And while the laws of capitalism state that everything will eventually work out in the long run, in the long run we're all dead, as another noted economist said.

You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

Certainly not. But America has a tendency to encourage people to become more than just wage earners. Matter of fact, ideally America would rather have the main wage payers be the customers, rather than the employers. An overabundance of wage payers in power is generally a bad sign, since the habits that make a man a good employee may not be the same as make him a good entrepeneur.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred.

Yet neither can you ignore the class differences. And those who are simply aware of their own disadvantaged status compared to another class might end up with more class hatred rather than less if preached a message that only classes above them can effectively follow.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

Agreed.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

Oh, you can, for a while. Not forever, of course. But occasionally trouble comes to visit you even if you haven't been spending more than you earn in practice.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

Quite true.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

Most certainly. But the line between 'help' and 'do for' is especially thin.

[James Peter]

Firstly, I should be clear that attacking the exact details of my hypothetical example are pointless. It was supposed to be exagerated to demonstrate the point. What matters is the principle, not the hard and fast numbers which will differ from case to case anyway.

Secondly, of course it isn't that simple Ryokan, it was supposed to be an illustration not a case study.

Thirdly, working classes is a technical term and that is precisely how I was using it. Of course everybody works but being part of the working class doesn't simply mean you are an individual who works. It means that you are at the bottom end of the scale in terms of skills, wages and prospects.


instead, let him reinvest that $100m back into the market, where everone benefits. how many people anymore will just hide their money in their back yard, when they can invest; and new investments, at some point, create new jobs and allow higher pay rates for much needed positions.

Sure, IF the person chooses to do that. But what if he decides to use the money to buy a tropical island and a private jet? I guess you could argue that is being invested back into the market but the benefits to everyone from that are going to be pretty small. Instead all that happens is somebody else who is very affluent takes a large slice of the money and his workers gain a little but not much in comparison.

This is why i think unionization was good, before unions became as corrupt as "the man" that they "stick it to." the ideal economy is one where both the employer and employee have power to barter an appropriate wage. of course, i'm a realist, but in any respect it can and does happen without government strong-arming.

What is the difference in real terms between the situation you describe and a government negotiated agreement? The government, acting on behalf of the vast majority of the population, negotiates the minimum working conditions that are acceptable in the nation. It prevents the exploitation of those so poor that they will work long hours in dangerous conditions for little return precisely because they have no alternative. Which leads nicely onto the next point...

why are terms like "abuse" tossed around like this? that or "social justice." who decides whether a certain wage bracket is abuse, and what criteria allows them to make such a judgement?

The nation/society as a whole. Do you consider sending young children down coalmines of up chimneys to be abusive and think the situation is worthy of government intervention? If so then there is no ideological difference, it is simply a question of where we draw the line. Ultimately a society is responsible for her actions, you may be happy to be comfortable precisely because of the hardship of others but I'm proud to say that most of Europe is not. As Ryokan said

Statements like this make even liberal Americans uncomfortable. There are fundamental difference in the way we and Europe see government. Its worth remembering.

We want our government to achieve certain things, including providing certain minimum standards of healthcare, education and quality of life to all our citizens. We are pefectly happy to pay our taxes to achieve those goals (well, generally) and most of us believe that a completely unregulated system won't achieve them.

There is certainly the threat of too much regulation that will stifle those ambitions rather than realising them but there is also the threat of not enough regulation. Abe's argument is essentially that any regulation that redistributes wealth is bad. That is, I believe, wrong. A certain amount of consideration for the masses is required unless you want to see another October Revolution or People's Revolt. It is the the best interests of the rich and powerful that their workforce is healthy and happy anyway, all of the rich and powerful benefit from that situation so it is reasonable to expect all to contribute (as denying some of them access to the communal workforce would be impossible in the modern world without even more drastic legislation).

[Sheepdog]

Firstly, I should be clear that attacking the exact details of my hypothetical example are pointless. It was supposed to be exagerated to demonstrate the point. What matters is the principle, not the hard and fast numbers which will differ from case to case anyway.

fine. and i can create an exageratted case where all rich people voluntarily dump their excess money into nonprofit orgs that help the poor. what would it prove?

Sure, IF the person chooses to do that. But what if he decides to use the money to buy a tropical island and a private jet? I guess you could argue that is being invested back into the market but the benefits to everyone from that are going to be pretty small.

perhaps. he could do that. but an investment advisor would think he's gone mad as a hatter.

after all, what happens should he have to resign, or goes skiing in the Alps and comes back in a full body cast? and suddenly he has creditors hounding him. i suppose he could sell off the island and the jet and come out with less in the long run. a shrewd person, rich or not, is going to save and invest at least a good portion of his wealth. not only is it good for retirement and for "rainy days," you'd make more money in the long run, and that's what wealthy people love to do. by and large, they are greedy pigs and want to make even more money.

Instead all that happens is somebody else who is very affluent takes a large slice of the money and his workers gain a little but not much in comparison.

and....?

i make little but not much in comparison to the CEO of the company that i work for. but honestly? why do i care? like i said, i'm well off. sure, i'd like a bigger slice of the pie, but i'll do it through hard work, not by finding a bigger bully to coerce his lunch money out with.

What is the difference in real terms between the situation you describe and a government negotiated agreement?

the government is a corrupt monstrosity filled with politicians who have a vested interest in lining their own pockets through back door deals.

do you really trust them to barter on your behalf?

The government, acting on behalf of the vast majority of the population, negotiates the minimum working conditions that are acceptable in the nation. It prevents the exploitation of those so poor that they will work long hours in dangerous conditions for little return precisely because they have no alternative. Which leads nicely onto the next point...

is that really all that this is about? because i do support a minimum wage and work safety regulations. and i don't think that these nullify what Abe was saying.

The nation/society as a whole. Do you consider sending young children down coalmines of up chimneys to be abusive and think the situation is worthy of government intervention? If so then there is no ideological difference, it is simply a question of where we draw the line.

except that i'm a realist and shun ideology wherever i can.

Ultimately a society is responsible for her actions, you may be happy to be comfortable precisely because of the hardship of others but I'm proud to say that most of Europe is not.

so wait a minute. who's hardships am i happily living comfortably off of? the children we force to work in coal mines 16 hours a day? oh wait, that's a tragic bugaboo from a long dead age, and good riddance. so who is it? the poor? because technically speaking, i'm below the poverty line. and yet, i'm living very comfortably. the fact is, i am very happy to be comfortable precisely because of the hardship of a poor man-- myself.

so, can you explain again how punishing the successful and giving incentives to those who haven't earned them is "social justice," or offsets some sort of "abuse"? i can understand child labor laws and the like, but that is an actual, tangible abuse that we can observe and legislate against.

as for Europe, that they are huddling together for warmth is telling. the EU, what a joke. they assert themselves as a counterweight to American power, but with high unemployment, sagging birth rates, and burdensome welfare states, it'll be interesting to see if they can even keep up in the next few decades. and that's not a lot to say about the US; i think we have a lot working against us, but for some strange reason we keep chugging along.

We want our government to achieve certain things, including providing certain minimum standards of healthcare, education and quality of life to all our citizens. We are pefectly happy to pay our taxes to achieve those goals (well, generally) and most of us believe that a completely unregulated system won't achieve them.

a completely unregulated system is a boogeyman that socialists see hiding under their beds.

i must suggest that you trust your government way too much.

There is certainly the threat of too much regulation that will stifle those ambitions rather than realising them but there is also the threat of not enough regulation. Abe's argument is essentially that any regulation that redistributes wealth is bad. That is, I believe, wrong. A certain amount of consideration for the masses is required unless you want to see another October Revolution or People's Revolt. It is the the best interests of the rich and powerful that their workforce is healthy and happy anyway, all of the rich and powerful benefit from that situation so it is reasonable to expect all to contribute (as denying some of them access to the communal workforce would be impossible in the modern world without even more drastic legislation).

ok, think about that for a second. it is in the best interests of the rich and powerful to redistribute their wealth. don't you think they'd realize that and do something about it? some of them don't, but some others redistribute their wealth anyways, through investing in companies that hire and employ the working class, through managing healthy companies that keep them working, and in some cases even through voluntary philanthropy. their intentions may be questionable (especially with the former where there's a return to be had), but oh well.

is it enough? i suspect not, but it's not a judgement i think either of us can make. in cases where there is tangible abuse, like fraud or criminal negligence, i agree there is a matter of justice that has to be met.

[Sheepdog]

Abe is against the entire combined weight of America's founders and a good portion of its subsequent inventors. You can most definitely bring about prosperity by discouraging universal thrift-pioneering don't pay except in the long run, and in the short run you may be spending way past your means. America has been the nation built on easy credit almost since its inception, and there's no denying that but for the motivation to pay off debts, many people would be working very little, if at all.

i think he was careful in his wording. if thrift was over-all discouraged, it would indeed be a sad situation. (maybe he did mean in the universal sense) not everyone is a pioneer, nor should everyone be. and not too many pioneers see the fruit of their labor.


Yet neither can you ignore the class differences. And those who are simply aware of their own disadvantaged status compared to another class might end up with more class hatred rather than less if preached a message that only classes above them can effectively follow.

true. good point. i don't know if he would have disagreed. :shrug:

Oh, you can, for a while. Not forever, of course. But occasionally trouble comes to visit you even if you haven't been spending more than you earn in practice.

actually, that particular statement of his is one i would have directed towards the Republicans. there are times to spend more than you have (to be fair, i interpreted his statements to be rules of thumbs, not absolutes), but doing it for stupid reasons is just foolhardy.

[Ryokan]

Firstly, I should be clear that attacking the exact details of my hypothetical example are pointless. It was supposed to be exagerated to demonstrate the point. What matters is the principle, not the hard and fast numbers which will differ from case to case anyway. Not really. In a practical sense it makes a great difference. That's the thing. The practical cost of working out your principles can make ti not worth it.

Secondly, of course it isn't that simple Ryokan, it was supposed to be an illustration not a case study.See above.

Thirdly, working classes is a technical term and that is precisely how I was using it. Of course everybody works but being part of the working class doesn't simply mean you are an individual who works. It means that you are at the bottom end of the scale in terms of skills, wages and prospects. Okay.





What is the difference in real terms between the situation you describe and a government negotiated agreement? The government, acting on behalf of the vast majority of the population, negotiates the minimum working conditions that are acceptable in the nation. It prevents the exploitation of those so poor that they will work long hours in dangerous conditions for little return precisely because they have no alternative. Which leads nicely onto the next point...
Here I agree. I don't like labor unions in most markets. They monopolize the labor market, and that is bad for everyone else.


The nation/society as a whole. Do you consider sending young children down coalmines of up chimneys to be abusive and think the situation is worthy of government intervention? If so then there is no ideological difference, it is simply a question of where we draw the line. Ultimately a society is responsible for her actions, you may be happy to be comfortable precisely because of the hardship of others but I'm proud to say that most of Europe is not. As Ryokan said



We want our government to achieve certain things, including providing certain minimum standards of healthcare, education and quality of life to all our citizens. We are pefectly happy to pay our taxes to achieve those goals (well, generally) and most of us believe that a completely unregulated system won't achieve them. Do you think America has a completely unregulated system?

There is certainly the threat of too much regulation that will stifle those ambitions rather than realising them but there is also the threat of not enough regulation. Abe's argument is essentially that any regulation that redistributes wealth is bad. That is, I believe, wrong. A certain amount of consideration for the masses is required unless you want to see another October Revolution or People's Revolt. It is the the best interests of the rich and powerful that their workforce is healthy and happy anyway, all of the rich and powerful benefit from that situation so it is reasonable to expect all to contribute (as denying some of them access to the communal workforce would be impossible in the modern world without even more drastic legislation).
I just don't see how you could possibly imagine the US is near a level of inequality that any such revolt at all is possible.

[James Peter]

fine. and i can create an exageratted case where all rich people voluntarily dump their excess money into nonprofit orgs that help the poor. what would it prove?

Your example would prove nothing, except that self-regulation can in theory work. I don't deny that. Abe's contention though is that you can never strengthen the weak by weakening the strong - the key point is 'never'. That means that he is wrong (you're the one who wanted it to either be entirely true or else false) if there is just a single conceivable (even if it is unlikely) exception. It is much, much easier to prove the negative than the positive.

the government is a corrupt monstrosity filled with politicians who have a vested interest in lining their own pockets through back door deals.

Then I strongly suggest that you find yourself a better system of government. The UK has pretty strict measures in place to prevent those back door deals and politicians don't need to raise millions in campaign funds to keep their jobs. A media that is prepared and able to attack and expose politicians who break the rules if other safeguards fail is absolutely essential but the US's partisan mentality is problematic in that regard. The media needs to be reasonably neutral.




is that really all that this is about? because i do support a minimum wage and work safety regulations. and i don't think that these nullify what Abe was saying.

It does nullify it because it provides an exception and a single exception is all that is required. You are strengthening the poor by taking from the rich and giving to them.


so wait a minute. who's hardships am i happily living comfortably off of? the children we force to work in coal mines 16 hours a day? oh wait, that's a tragic bugaboo from a long dead age, and good riddance. so who is it? the poor? because technically speaking, i'm below the poverty line. and yet, i'm living very comfortably. the fact is, i am very happy to be comfortable precisely because of the hardship of a poor man-- myself.

so, can you explain again how punishing the successful and giving incentives to those who haven't earned them is "social justice," or offsets some sort of "abuse"? i can understand child labor laws and the like, but that is an actual, tangible abuse that we can observe and legislate against.

How about the workers in China or India who made your clothes working long hours in poor conditions and have minimal access to healthcare? What about the african farmers who grew that food, toiling long and hard for incredibly low wages? There are people outside of the US and they can be abused and exploited just as much as people inside of it. What gives the US (or any multinational) corporation to rape a poor foreign power of her resources, bribing the corrupt government and exploiting the citizens?


as for Europe, that they are huddling together for warmth is telling. the EU, what a joke. they assert themselves as a counterweight to American power, but with high unemployment, sagging birth rates, and burdensome welfare states, it'll be interesting to see if they can even keep up in the next few decades. and that's not a lot to say about the US; i think we have a lot working against us, but for some strange reason we keep chugging along.

A brief history lesson. During the Industrial Revolution England grew strong by exploiting her natural resources. With time they ran low and so we used military and economic might to take the natural resources of our colonies. Eventually we realised that doing so was wrong and so gave many of those colonies back to their people. We grew weak because we chose to lay down some of our power (and much of it had also been expended fighting two world wars of course). The US had claimed vast amounts of natural resources through conquest/genocide and rose up to fill the void left by using those resources. The USSR did similarly. Eventually the USSR collapsed due to mismanagement. The US continues to be strong only because it continues to exploit the poorer, weaker nations of the world. Europe is also still guilty of doing so to a lesser extent. China and India are rising though, they have vast natural resources still
and will probably eclipse the US within the next century. The US doesn't have a manifest destiny, just because she has been strong for a brief period doesn't mean she always will be and she certainly has no right to be. All your talk about those who 'work hard' is pretty meaningless, power fundamentally comes down to who is the biggest bully. History has proven it again and again. Why do the rich have the right to certain things? Because the masses acknowledge and accept the system. It isn't an intrinsic right, it is a right that is given. That which is given can be taken away... In a democracy the true power should be the people and so the people must be appeased for the inequality to continue. Perhaps I simply don't believe that the current system should continue and see no reason to allow the decendents of the strong a few generations ago to remain strong by exploiting the weak. I, we, can be just as strong or even stronger - so let us make those who currently hold power do what is right and fair, that all who work benefit sufficiently from their labour, or take the power from them.

Pinko Commie remember....

[Ryokan]

Then I strongly suggest that you find yourself a better system of government. The UK has pretty strict measures in place to prevent those back door deals and politicians don't need to raise millions in campaign funds to keep their jobs. A media that is prepared and able to attack and expose politicians who break the rules if other safeguards fail is absolutely essential but the US's partisan mentality is problematic in that regard. The media needs to be reasonably neutral. Yeah, that.




Except.... most of these workers, with the exception of the African farmers, are actually being helped by American "imperialism" in that the factories built provide them a higher quality of living than they would have had otherwise, and they get paid the prevailing market rate for their wage. Unfortunately, because of where they live and the skilss they have it jsut isn't that high. That's why it is important that governments and corporations in those countries use the money from these primitive industries to invest in more capital intensive, and therefore higher paying, work. No country has been pulled out of poverty any other way.


[QUOTE]
A brief history lesson. During the Industrial Revolution England grew strong by exploiting her natural resources. Actually, it grew strong by organizing its society, more so than any other nation at the time, around capitalist and industrialist principles. With time they ran low and so we used military and economic might to take the natural resources of our colonies. Which really was only necessary because of all the stupid trade barriers nations had at the time. Well, that, and national pride and geo strategic jockeying. Eventually we realised that doing so was wrong and so gave many of those colonies back to their people. Realized it was wrong and realized for at least 40 years it cost you more than it got you, and that post WW2 it would have been near impossible to hold most of them. We grew weak because we chose to lay down some of our power (and much of it had also been expended fighting two world wars of course). A little, but msotly because Britain created a bloated, overregulated, union controlled economy that could not compete with the free market economies or well organized socialist ones. The US had claimed vast amounts of natural resources through conquest/genocide and rose up to fill the void left by using those resources. The USSR did similarly. Eventually the USSR collapsed due to mismanagement. The US continues to be strong only because it continues to exploit the poorer, weaker nations of the world. See I strenuously, strenuously disagree with this interpretation of history. Natural resources are nice, but they are not, are not the critical factor in the wealth or poverty of nations and buying them does not represent exploitation. That is garbage James Peter, and a deeply flawed perspective that has poisoned your perspective of my country and international politics in general, I think. Europe is also still guilty of doing so to a lesser extent. China and India are rising though, they have vast natural resources still
and will probably eclipse the US within the next century.[/QQUOTE] Which is good. It will be good for 2 billion people to have a western quality of life and it will be good for security responsibilities to be more spread out.[QUOTE] The US doesn't have a manifest destiny, just because she has been strong for a brief period doesn't mean she always will be and she certainly has no right to be. We don't need strength, just safety and prosperity. We may will lose our hegemony, but not necessarilly the other two. All your talk about those who 'work hard' is pretty meaningless, power fundamentally comes down to who is the biggest bully. History has proven it again and again. We clearly are not reading the same book. Why do the rich have the right to certain things? Because the masses acknowledge and accept the system. It isn't an intrinsic right, it is a right that is given. That which is given can be taken away... In a democracy the true power should be the people and so the people must be appeased for the inequality to continue. Perhaps I simply don't believe that the current system should continue and see no reason to allow the decendents of the strong a few generations ago to remain strong by exploiting the weak. I, we, can be just as strong or even stronger - so let us make those who currently hold power do what is right and fair, that all who work benefit sufficiently from their labour, or take the power from them.

Pinko Commie remember....Well, pinker than me at least. :lol:

[James Peter]

See I strenuously, strenuously disagree with this interpretation of history. Natural resources are nice, but they are not, are not the critical factor in the wealth or poverty of nations and buying them does not represent exploitation. That is garbage James Peter, and a deeply flawed perspective that has poisoned your perspective of my country and international politics in general, I think.

Power is fundamentally about wealth/resources. People are a resource, land is a resource, fossil fuels are resources, metals are resources... It is by using resources that you gain power and more resources (if that is your goal - and it usually is). The US started by using the resources they did have (people and technology mostly) to gain other resources (conquering and generally killing off the people who had previously held the land and resources, in acts which really do deserve the label genocides). They then used those resources to become an economic powerhouse when the worlds previous powers could no longer hold on to their power because they'd just wasted all their power fighting each other and then turned their hand to economic imperialism, having seen that true imperialism doesn't work. The problem is that the US's power is largely finite and that China and India are in a comparatively strong position to begin competing economically with the US and certainly could compete militarily if they had to (but both sides know that would be too costly). Do I blame the US for her actions? Partially. I think that the way the game is played certainly is neither 'christian' nor 'good' but the great European powers acted in similarly 'bad' ways in previous centuries.

The way I see it we have two options: play the game the way it has been played for the last half dozen centuries and probably lose or change the rules. I favour changing the rules, recognising that the game isn't zero-sum afterall and that it is better to sacrifice some things in order to keep others. Safety and prosperity are our objectives, the question is just what prosperity means and how to best ensure our safety. Also I freely admit that while I think a change of strategy is needed for pragmatic reasons my chief motivation is ethical - I simply do not think that the current system is fair/just and so advocate change to a system that is closer to my ideological ideals.

[dizzle]

JP seems to like putting his hands in other people's pockets.

[James Peter]

JP seems to like putting his hands in other people's pockets.

Is it not appropriate to return stolen goods from a theif to their rightful owner? Or does the fact that you've stolen something make it rightfully yours?

[Ryokan]

Is it not appropriate to return stolen goods from a theif to their rightful owner? Or does the fact that you've stolen something make it rightfully yours?

How are the rich stealing? In general. Is it theft to have skills that are more valuable than those of the general public, or to have better luck than the general public?

[dizzle]

How are the rich stealing? In general. Is it theft to have skills that are more valuable than those of the general public, or to have better luck than the general public?

My thoughts exactly. What crap. I make a better living than the median for sure. I was not born into a well to do family, and everything I have, I worked from the very bottom by sheer skills. Yet JP thinks he has a right to dictate a large chunk of my income. Get your hands out of my pockets dude, you didn't earn the money nor do the work.

[Ryokan]

Power is fundamentally about wealth/resources. People are a resource, land is a resource, fossil fuels are resources, metals are resources... It is by using resources that you gain power and more resources (if that is your goal - and it usually is). The US started by using the resources they did have (people and technology mostly) to gain other resources (conquering and generally killing off the people who had previously held the land and resources, in acts which really do deserve the label genocides). They then used those resources to become an economic powerhouse when the worlds previous powers could no longer hold on to their power because they'd just wasted all their power fighting each other and then turned their hand to economic imperialism, having seen that true imperialism doesn't work. The problem is that the US's power is largely finite and that China and India are in a comparatively strong position to begin competing economically with the US and certainly could compete militarily if they had to (but both sides know that would be too costly). Do I blame the US for her actions? Partially. I think that the way the game is played certainly is neither 'christian' nor 'good' but the great European powers acted in similarly 'bad' ways in previous centuries.

The way I see it we have two options: play the game the way it has been played for the last half dozen centuries and probably lose or change the rules. I favour changing the rules, recognising that the game isn't zero-sum afterall and that it is better to sacrifice some things in order to keep others. Safety and prosperity are our objectives, the question is just what prosperity means and how to best ensure our safety. Also I freely admit that while I think a change of strategy is needed for pragmatic reasons my chief motivation is ethical - I simply do not think that the current system is fair/just and so advocate change to a system that is closer to my ideological ideals.
I've thought about it, and I am not sure I can budge you. At least not right away in totality Think about this though. Why is Russia or most of Africa poor nations growing poorer despite their resources, and Japan, or Singapore, or Sweden, or Switzerland rich nations? I would suggest that it is because societal organization counts for alot more than resources. i would also suggest if you look at imperialism, or most wars, ego, personal conflict and political concerns counts for alot more than economic considerations. I just don't know where our discussion should go from here. We see current and past events, and America's role in the world, is different.

[James Peter]

How are the rich stealing? In general. Is it theft to have skills that are more valuable than those of the general public, or to have better luck than the general public?

It all hinges on your fundamental conception of property. Can land really be owned? If so on what basis? If Corporation Delta pays a large sum of money to Dictator Smith does that give them a legitimate claim to the property of Nation Gamma? They have only acquired the 'rights' on the basis of Dictator Smith's force of arms and if he is removed by Revolution Omega then why should their claim stand? Was it ever the Dictator's property to sell to them? If it wasn't then their claim should be void.

There is a distinction between those who start with the same and who are simply more able and so end up with more and those who start with ten thousand times as much or who gain through dubious means (Exhibit A being various Russian Oligarchs). There is no problem with differences in wealth but resolving those differences through the same methods that they were acquired seems to be difficult to object to. I'm not really arguing for a communist system but I guess I do take the view that societies, rather than individuals, should benefit. A system with reasonable taxation and regulation to ensure certain minimum standards is the best compromise. Actual implementationl hinges on what is 'reasonable' and what is best for society as whole but these are the principles towards which I believe we should strive as a planet.

[James Peter]

I've thought about it, and I am not sure I can budge you. At least not right away in totality Think about this though. Why is Russia or most of Africa poor nations growing poorer despite their resources, and Japan, or Singapore, or Sweden, or Switzerland rich nations? I would suggest that it is because societal organization counts for alot more than resources. i would also suggest if you look at imperialism, or most wars, ego, personal conflict and political concerns counts for alot more than economic considerations. I just don't know where our discussion should go from here. We see current and past events, and America's role in the world, is different.

Well in the grand scheme of things I consider people a resource and of course using resources efficiently is as important as just having them. How a nation uses its human resources is probably far more critical than how they use their tin. The Developed World's current advantages are mostly in the realm of human resources, we may be outnumbered but on the current battlegrounds each of our 'troops' counts for so much more.

On the subject of economic considerations versus politic ones... I think that politic considerations are always, fundamentally, about resources (e.g. economic). Why were wars fought across Europe for the best part of a thousand years? For property (land and otherwise). Why did Germany initiate WWII? Partly out of vengeance but mostly out of a desire for 'living space' and to drag herself out of economic depression and to become rich again. Ideological reasons often justify wars but economic reasons usually sustain them. Maybe wars outside the Old War are different but our wars have always (from the Punic Wars through to the Napoleonic and beyond) been fundamentally about money. "Kill the enemy and you can take their stuff, if you don't they'll take yours" has been the fundamental principle of warfare since we started fighting.

[Ryokan]

Well in the grand scheme of things I consider people a resource and of course using resources efficiently is as important as just having them. How a nation uses its human resources is probably far more critical than how they use their tin. The Developed World's current advantages are mostly in the realm of human resources, we may be outnumbered but on the current battlegrounds each of our 'troops' counts for so much more. Why does it have to be us vs. them. Even today i don't think it is.

On the subject of economic considerations versus politic ones... I think that politic considerations are always, fundamentally, about resources (e.g. economic). i think they are usually personal. Kuwait and or the Falklands, the only straight interstate invasions in the last fifty years, had minor economic considerations and major personal and political ones.Why were wars fought across Europe for the best part of a thousand years? Europe was divided into hundreds of power hungry fiefdoms? To allow Hitler to feel like a great man and fulfill his destiny, and so the German people could reclaim their honor. [QUOTE] Partly out of vengeance but mostly out of a desire for 'living space' and to drag herself out of economic depression and to become rich again. Bull. Liebensraum would have been a drain like nearly all colonial efforts. Like his prison camps. Ideological reasons often justify wars but economic reasons usually sustain them. Not really. Msot wars have negative economic results for all combatants. Maybe wars outside the Old War are different but our wars have always (from the Punic Wars through to the Napoleonic and beyond) been fundamentally about money. The Punic wars were, but not every war is. Most aren't even in Europe. Money didn't split up Yugoslavia. "Kill the enemy and you can take their stuff, if you don't they'll take yours" has been the fundamental principle of warfare since we started fighting.
Its how war started, but we are so much more complex now.

[Urizen]

And there is no "other" option.


How about a "that's not actually an Abraham Lincoln quote" option. :teeth:

That particular saying actually comes from Rev. William J. H. Boetcker who lectured around the US around the turn of the 20th century. (The misperception of it being a Lincoln quote stems from a speech by Ronald Reagan where he incorrectly attributed to Lincoln.)

[Duder]

Hello, Sheepdog -

When I read that, it did not sound at all like President Lincoln's style. And after doing a few minutes research, it turns out that President Lincoln did not write it. It is just one more example of the many things mistakenly attributed to Lincoln - the most misquoted man on earth.


___________________________________

The "Ten Points" appear every February 12 in newspaper ads honoring Abraham Lincoln. In fact, these aphorisms are from the pen of Reverend William John Henry Boetcker (1873-1962).

* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

http://www.illinoishistory.gov/facsimiles.htm

______________________________________

These sentiments were created by the Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, who lectured around the United States about industrial relations at the turn of the twentieth century. There is no evidence linking them to Lincoln as the author.
At one time President Ronald Reagan used them in a speech, wrongly attributing them to Lincoln. Those who are familiar with Lincoln's writings, recognize that these statements do not reflect Lincoln's "voice," nor can they be found in any authentic Lincoln literature.

You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/cannot.htm

_____________________________________