Spoiled rich teenager commits fraud - you gotta read this

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

IIRC, most millionaires in this day and age are "new money" which means they earned their lot in life by hard work and perseverence ... not by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Those aren't the only two options. You missed one of the far more likely ones: Blind luck.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by xouper

So you will pre-emptively assume I am an asshole until I prove otherwise?? Very big of you.

Well, I will if he doesn't.

My experience with Republican/libertarian types fits very closely into what Sauron has been describing.

I spent a summer attending Libertarian meetings....talk about the most self-centered, anti-social, greedy people I've ever associated with....it was a veritable sinkhole of "I got mine, fuck everybody else."

It also goes a long ways toward explaining why I have problems trusting Cool Hand.

[beyelzu]

I am a fiscal conservative, social liberal, in other words a little l libertarian,


so am I an asshole, godfry?


or am I more of one when you take that into consideration.

[godfry n. glad]

Yo, bub...

You're not an asshole, you're a dickhead. Look in the mirror dammit!

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but that doesn't make me a libertarian, or a Libertarian.

I believe that government has a role in organizing society, providing justice and protecting the innocent, which explicitly excludes me from being a libertarian.

I suspect you like to think of yourself as a libertarian, but you're not really one. Given some of your comments, that is.

A true libertarian is an anarchist who believes that government has no role in society whatsoever. Of course, there can be many shades of libertarianism, down to and including those who believe that basic human rights prevail over governmental strictures...civil libertarianism...in which I would put myself.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Those aren't the only two options. You missed one of the far more likely ones: Blind luck.

Well, if this is a far more likely reason ... I hope blind luck comes my way one day.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Those aren't the only two options. You missed one of the far more likely ones: Blind luck.

He also forgot: Knowing the right powerful people and viciously and ruthlessly trampling over those who have scruples.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Yo, bub...

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but that doesn't make me a libertarian, or a Libertarian.

I believe that government has a role in organizing society, providing justice and protecting the innocent, which explicitly excludes me from being a libertarian.

see I view this differently, in my thinking your beliefs exclude you from being a Libertarian.

I suspect you like to think of yourself as a libertarian, but you're not really one. Given some of your comments, that is.

I do believe we arent using the same definition for libertarian.

A true libertarian is an anarchist who believes that government has no role in society whatsoever. Of course, there can be many shades of libertarianism, down to and including those who believe that basic human rights prevail over governmental strictures...civil libertarianism...in which I would put myself.

I have not seen the term civil libertarian used before, I think I might still it, it sounds better than little l libertarian.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Well, if this is a far more likely reason ... I hope blind luck comes my way one day.

Me too!

Seriously though, I hate the claim that becoming a millionaire is the result of hard work and perseverance. I think the fact that 98% of the people who work hard and persevere never become millionaires (or even close) is pretty strong evidence against any necessary correlation there.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

civil libertarian

I think I'm a civil libertarian according to Wikipedia's definition:

A civil libertarian is one who is actively concerned with the protection of individual civil liberties and civil rights. Civil libertarians do not necessarily agree with fiscal libertarianism.

Civil libertarians might, for example, argue that the fundamental civil right to self determination means that pornography and drug use should be legal, but they might have no objection to taxation and civil ordinances. Both conservative and liberal ideologies have civil libertarian adherents. The most prominent civil libertarian organization in the United States is probably the American Civil Liberties Union.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Me too!

Seriously though, I hate the claim that becoming a millionaire is the result of hard work and perseverance. I think the fact that 98% of the people who work hard and persevere never become millionaires (or even close) is pretty strong evidence against any necessary correlation there.

Yeah, most millionaires become millionaires when their benefactor dies or when they reach the age that allows them access to their trust fund(s). Hard work and perseverance has little to do with it.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

It also goes a long ways toward explaining why I have problems trusting Cool Hand.

Nice to see you too, Godfry (and I'll spell it with a capital "G" if I like). I was wondering how long it would take you to bring up your irrational hatred/distrust/whatever-you-want-to-call-it of me. Congratulations. I've been back here less than 24 hours and you've already done it.

You have been a dick to me from day one for no good reason, but you just can't admit it or let it go. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you lost it a long time ago.

Fuck it. I'm not even going to try anymore. Save your rants and your words. I have absolutely nothing to say to you.

*Plonk!*

CH

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I think the fact that 98% of the people who work hard and persevere never become millionaires (or even close) is pretty strong evidence against any necessary correlation there.

I didn't mean to imply that if you worked hard and persevered, you'd be rewarded with wealth. I think there is a difference between saying that some/most rich people worked hard for their money, and saying that if you work hard you'll become rich.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I didn't mean to imply that if you worked hard and persevered, you'd be rewarded with wealth. I think there is a difference between saying that some/most rich people worked hard for their money, and saying that if you work hard you'll become rich.

That's a good point, you're right.

But there's also a big difference between saying "some/most rich people worked hard for their money" and what I was responding to:

Originally Posted by TomJoe

IIRC, most millionaires in this day and age are "new money" which means they earned their lot in life by hard work and perseverence ... not by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

As far as I can tell being nouveau riche doesn't say anything about whether someone has worked hard and persevered to obtain their wealth. All it really says is that they accquired it by means other than inheritance.

[xouper]

godfry n. glad: A true libertarian is an anarchist who believes that government has no role in society whatsoever.

Where did you get that fucked up notion of libertarianism? Even wikipedia does not agree with that definition.

By your definition I am not a libertarian.

I am also not a Libertarian, with a capital L.

By wikipedia's definition, I am both a civil and fiscal libertarian. I am not a "I got mine and fuck y'all" so you can take your misguided, ignorant, and presumptive assessment of me and shove it up your ass. Sheesh.

[xouper]

godfry n. glad: It also goes a long ways toward explaining why I have problems trusting Cool Hand.

Based on that comment, I no longer trust your sense of objectivity.

I would much rather live in a country full of people like Cool Hand than a bunch of socialist pig dog greedy bastards who think they are entitled to other people's wealth.




[Sidebar: For the astute logicians among us, my last comment above contains several exaggerated and intentional fallacies, including a straw man and a false dilemma. I did that for the sake of brevity since I didn't want to write a whole fucking book just to express my moral outrage at people who are not fiscal libertarians.]

[Darren]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

I'm not sure that I'd call life a "rat race". Also, I don't think you can fault these kids for being born to parents who happen to be rich, and live in affluent neighborhoods. I also do not think that they'll have an "assured advantage". Growing up, we lived much closer to poor than we did to rich, and I remember growing up being told constantly ... if you want something, you'll achieve it if you put everything you have into it. Which may be why growing up in a two parent family with only one high school diploma between them, my sister and I both have several graduate degrees now.

I wouldn't call life a rat race either, TomJoe - just certain aspects of, and attitudes to, modern life. Also, if you read the entire post, you will see that I make it crystal clear that I do not believe that these kids are at fault:

Originally posted by Darren - The way things are, I certainly wouldn't blame the parents for wanting a better education and future for their kids, nor could anyone fairly blame the kids for having this advantage (as much as it is through no merit of their own, so it is through no fault of their own either).

It is certainly not true that everyone can get what they want if they want it enough or put everything they have into achieving it. What you do make crystal clear in your post is the (good) influence your parents had on your (and your sister's) education and career start. That is what I'm getting at here (and I'm not faulting this per se either, or demeaning your own efforts in any way). The circumstances under which you are born and brought up have a massive influence over what you can and cannot do in life. If, as a child, one or both of your parents had yelled at you, for instance, that you were never going to university and that you could expect no help from them, or some such thing - do you really think you would have followed the same path, had the same chances?

Originally posted by TomJoe - You also do not know the civil responsibilities that these children may be presented with. To whom much is given, much is expected, and I think we can only hope that these kids who are rich, will see that money isn't everything and will give back to the less fortunate. We also do not know how the money is being spent ... all I've seen in this thread is some horrible generalizations, with little to no support for them.

That's exactly the problem. In your analysis we can only hope for charity from those who benefit from luck in how well placed they are to receive wealth generated by society. Well I disagree that this is inevitable, I don't want to just hope for charity from the lucky to the less lucky, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. Society generates wealth, each individual plays a part in this generation, only a part - who should decide which part deserves a greater share than another? The well placed? The strong?
If you look at the question considering what wealth is, how it is generated, how distributed etc. you have to admit that it is not all down to the work of those who are "rich" (naturally a relative term) - their "riches" mean something in real human terms, and how "rich" an individual can become is an indicator of how much (or how little) human life is valued by the society in which they live. A society which places a low value on human life deserves changing, in my opinion.

Originally posted by TomJoe - IIRC, most millionaires in this day and age are "new money" which means they earned their lot in life by hard work and perseverence ... not by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

My definition of rich does not equate to being a millionaire. Rich is a relative term. The children of moderately or even slightly wealthy individuals have a better chance at maintaining their station or advancing, depending on circumstances which lean heavily on luck. Answering your generalization above with one of my own: I'm not by any means suggesting that rich people don't work hard, but at least as many poor people work just as hard.
Many people become super rich because, for example, they own shares in a company which successfully externalizes costs at the expense of a particular society or sector of society and/or the environment etc. Other people may have to work harder for less reward, but the lucky shareholder need only sit back and reap the benefits.

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Do we need to raise taxes, or just allocate the current US budget more wisely than we do? Pork barrel spending needs to stop, and health care needs to become more affordable.

As an example, when I was working part-time at Buffalo General Hospital getting my Masters degree in Clincal Laboratory Science, I used to run tests which counting man power, machine cost/upkeep and reagents costs would run about $7. We charged around $150.

In answer to your first question, TomJoe: both (though by raised taxes I mean planned progressive taxation). Also, health care needs to be free to avoid massive injustice to humanity. Your (very relevant) example affirms my distaste for the private health care ideology (not, I stress, the holders of such ideology or the workers within a system governed by such a principle - just the ideology itself).

[xouper]

Darren: ... health care needs to be free to avoid massive injustice to humanity.

And I think plumbing services should be free. What good is free water if you have to pay a plumber to fix your broken delivery system? Oh, the massive injustice to humanity.

And I think gasoline should be free. People should be free to live and work where they want and not be penalized just because they live farther away from work. Oh, the massive injustice to humanity.

(Where's the rilly rilly big rolley-eyes smiley?)

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by xouper

And I think plumbing services should be free. What good is free water if you have to pay a plumber to fix your broken delivery system? Oh, the massive injustice to humanity.

And I think gasoline should be free. People should be free to live and work where they want and not be penalized just because they live farther away from work. Oh, the massive injustice to humanity.

So what're you saying, xouper? Only people with money deserve medical care?

[Darren]

Originally Posted by xouper

And I think plumbing services should be free. What good is free water if you have to pay a plumber to fix your broken delivery system? Oh, the massive injustice to humanity. (Where's the rilly rilly big rolley-eyes smiley?)

Sorry Xouper, I just couldn't find it . Will this one do instead?



or this one?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Darren

Sorry Xouper, I just couldn't find it . Will this one do instead?



or this one?

I think Xouper might be looking for this: or this:

I don't know about any rillyrillybig rolleyes.

I think you should go with the village, myself.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Also, I don't think you can fault these kids for being born to parents who happen to be rich, and live in affluent neighborhoods.

Common misconception. No one is faulting the kids for their parents' wealth. Or how the parents choose to spend it.*

All we're saying is that the public schools should not become an enabler of wealth-based segregation and bastions of privilege. That is not the function of the schools, especially those in the Bellevue district.

IIRC, most millionaires in this day and age are "new money" which means they earned their lot in life by hard work and perseverence ... not by being born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

Yep. Many millionaires do earn their own money, as opposed to being inheritors of it. I've seen several studies that suggest the best way to become a millionaire is to own your own business.

But merely pointing out that many people work to become millionaires, while true, obscures two key facts:

1. This society and its laws are optimized for wealthy people. The laws, tax codes, income magnification effect of inherited wealth, expropriation of land and opportunities to reneg on contracts, even the existence of Inc. vs. Ltd - they are all optimized for wealthy people. A current example of this is the bankruptcy law weaving its way through Congress. For lower to middle income people, you cannot shield items in a bankruptcy. But there is an exemption for wealthy people who want to create asset protection trusts:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/03/...ankruptcy.html

2. The role of luck. There is a large component to wealth in operation here - a component that conservatives and libertarians almost always try to downplay, because to acknowledge it would rob them of bragging rights. That component is pure dumb luck.

* I do fault how some people spend their money, but that's a discussion for another time.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Well, if this is a far more likely reason ... I hope blind luck comes my way one day.

Luck is very truly a key element. I can trace my career to a single decision I made in military language school that has made all the difference in the world.

Story here - skip if boring:

When I graduated from high school, I went into the Navy. In those days, they made you take a test for language proficiency, called the DLAB (Defense Language Aptitude Battery). It tests your ability to deal with grammar quickly, listen for inflection, spot patterns, etc. They use a made-up language for part of it. In another part, they use English, but they apply a new set of grammar rules to it. So you have to figure out what is happening in the story, using the grammar clues (2 minutes to memorize).

I got the highest score ever recorded east of the Mississippi - I'm sure that someone has broke it by now, however. In any event, I insisted on a guaranteed enlistment contract to study Russian. Little did I know that Russian was 75% of what all the linguists were being slotted for, and no guarantee was necessary.

I got to Monterey and had a month before class started. I spent a lot of time eavesdropping on Russian students. Then I did the same thing for Arabic. I found out that I much prefered the "ear appeal" of Arabic. So I requested a switch from Russian to Arabic. I was told that I'd have to find someone who currently had Arabic, but wanted to change. I found another enlisted person whose orders had been screwed up and he had been given Arabic by accident. So we switched.

Luck, luck, luck.

That one decision to study Arabic and not Russian, allowed me to do things, go places, meet people, etc. that simply would not have happened if I had stayed in the Russian group. It opened doors that led to a college scholarship, employment in software, and finally employment at Microsoft.

Luck, luck, luck.

The rest, as they say, is history.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

I did that for the sake of brevity since I didn't want to write a whole fucking book just to express my moral outrage at people who are not fiscal libertarians.

You apply morality to the question of fiscal viewpoints?

I noticed that libertarians have an almost evangelical belief in the pure goodness of the free market. One of the other reasons why I distrust that particular political viewpoint.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by xouper

And I think plumbing services should be free. What good is free water if you have to pay a plumber to fix your broken delivery system? Oh, the massive injustice to humanity.

And I think gasoline should be free. People should be free to live and work where they want and not be penalized just because they live farther away from work. Oh, the massive injustice to humanity.

(Where's the rilly rilly big rolley-eyes smiley?)

This is precisely the viewpoint that my earlier phrase "I got mine....." was intended to encapsulate.

As I predicted, you don't actually believe that you viewpoints fall under the idea of that phrase. You're not lying, and you're not trying to cleverly deceive anyone either, when you claim that. You've truly convinced yourself about this.

But when you actually express your political and economic viewpoints, the reality is that they *can* be described by my phrase.

[xouper]

viscousmemories: So what're you saying, xouper? Only people with money deserve medical care?

I'm not saying that at all.

However, there is no such thing as "free" health care. Not even in Canada.

Health care always comes at a cost to someone. My position is that the cost of someone's health care should not be imposed on other people against their wishes. In my strongly held moral opinion, taking money from someone against their wises is a violation of their fundamental liberties.

For those who consider health care a "right", it then becomes a question of whose rights take precedence? I consider fundamental personal liberties to have precedence over the so-called "right" to health care. In any case, I do not consider health care to be a "right" in the same moral or legal sense as the more traditional rights. The "right" to free health care is no more a right than the right to free plumbing, in my opinion. And it has nothing to do with "I got mine and fuck y'all" (which has to be the biggest straw man I ever saw).

For example - and let's make this very personal - if you needed money for some health care, would you really go to your neighbor's house and take some of his money against his wishes? If so, then you are a thief (even though you may feel justified in doing so). If you would not steal money from your neighbor to pay for your health care, then why is it any more moral to let the government be the middle man in that theft?

Those who wish to pay taxes (or who do not mind paying) for a "free" health care system, are certainly free to do so. My point is that it should be a personal choice, not a government imposed "choice".

I concede the point that as things are today not everyone who needs health care can get it. It is an unfortunate fact of reality and is a natural consequence of the law of supply and demand. In fact for most of human history, the modern notion of health care was pretty much non-existant for most people.

The solution, however, is not to violate the personal liberties of Tom and Dick to pay for Harry's health care. There are privately run charity organizations that do a much better job than the government in helping those who cannot afford health care. A good example is St. Jude Children's Hospital. Appealing to people's sense of charity does work. Those who want to help others get health care can volunteer their time or money as they see fit. It should not be made mandatory by the government (which is what a national health care system does).