There should be no rich as long as there are poor?

Ash, I don't think you want to let those with insufficient "character", (intelligence, good luck, psychological stability, self-discipline, etc. etc.) starve because safety nets are bad for character development. Perhaps we should teach "character" (i.e., protestant ethic values) in our schools AND have social security programs just in case our instructional efforts are not enough and/or because competitive capitalism necessarily produces both "losers" and "winners.".

JL,

If there are no consequences for our behavior, then why should anyone bother to do the "hard" thing? "Math is too hard", so the child never learns to count and as an adult is cheated out of pocket change. We may condemn those who take advantage of the foolish, but they themselves bear the greater responsibility for remainging fools. Some choose willingly to take risks and bear great burdens for many years as they gain an education, learn skills and build productive lives, should they not in the end reap their rewards? Those who take their lives in hand and work to improve it do so to avoid failure and poverty, however they define it. That's what freedom is about; making choices that matter. With the idea that government will protect and insure againsta any risk, any failure there is no reward for effort, nor disadvantage for the grasshopper who spends the warm summer days fiddling and belittling the industry of the ant.

Idle question... similar situation except the slaves are robotic constructs that are becoming increasingly possible to create. Would this be a bad thing?

Consider that in Athens a similar system of slavery created a aristocracy that spent its time in luxury and philosophical thought which greatly enhanced the technology and science of the region.

A similar system at the moment exists yet the slaves are located in other countries and denied sufficient social mobility to raise themselves despite their potential industriousness, creativity or ability.



Somewhat irrelevant question. Stalin seized and used power for personal benefit as it became available to him. Had Lenin survived longer it would be a more applicable example.



As we were discussing earlier it seems to be doing wonders in Sweden.



... I agree with you that absolute equal distribution of all things would be (in our present social environment) a poor idea. Yet only the most extreme would suggest such a goal. The simple basis of providing social safety nets and assistance in those with ability yet moderate means to reach a level that their abilities may provide is a different matter.

I understand that the title of this thread would imply such an extreme point of view, but I can't believe that you and JL would disagree on that level. Or do you?

Though JL and I do not share a similar place on the political spectrum, we are largely in accord as to goals and ends. On religious matters, I'd say we are almost interchangable.

I just got the feeling that it was one of those arguments where you more or less agree but get accidentally overextended into defending the far extremes of your position. Thought I should bring up the possibility before it went to far, should that have been the case.

...(continued)...

For example expecting a mild socialist to explain and defend the excesses of dictatorship communist russia when all they're suggesting is expanding welfare. (don't read to much into that sentence... just an example motivated by what's in my head from the topic, not actually commenting on the topic). The socialist then feeling they should defend Russia despite not agreeing with the actions thereof based on feeling that they lose the argument if they don't.

And the same happening on the other side as well obviously. Not saying that happened, just seeing the possibility and attempting to divert it if so, since I know how annoyed I get should I accidentally do that.

I can't imagine that our political differences would ever erode the mutual respect that JL and I have for one another. The distance between our political ideology is real, but of little consequence ... at least to me.

Deserved on both sides in my opinion

Most clearly so, Antibuddha. ULTIMATELY our differences make no difference. I treasure my spiritual fellow travelers more than I do my political fellow travelers, but that in no way should minimize the importance of political perspectives.
I should make clear that by "spiritual fellow traveler" I do not mean those who share my "theological" views; I mean those who share my passion to experience Reality as thoroughly as possible in terms of our limited human potential.
-edited