Income Inequality

[Martin Hash]

This forum doesn't have any Equalist members so extremes never come up.

I have personally invited a couple dozen Equalists that I'm related to, or know from the Democratic Party, to come to this forum and participate. I finally gave up. Unless it's Twitter or Facebook, these people won't debate. All they want to do is throw vindictive, scorn & ridicule in 140 characters that scroll off the screen by the end of the day. It's Instagram-like unilateral communication. They do NOT want to engage honestly.

I noticed this when I was a forum nomad after leaving my old forum a decade ago. After a while, as short as a day & as long as a year, I was no longer welcome. I could tell the political philosophy of the forum just by how they exiled me: Conservative - banned; Progressive - ignore or close down. I have literally had half a dozen Lefty forums shut down rather than give me a platform to talk.

p.s. When I found DCF, I found home... Until he became too Progressive & shut down rather than give a platform for people he disagreed with to talk.

Sometime's a person's image is more important to them than allowing people to talk.

Most people in fact, but political pundits risk alienating their audience with that kind of hypocrisy. If Dan is straight HH now, fine, that's a life change, but CS, that baby's dead.

[The Conservative]

This forum doesn't have any Equalist members so extremes never come up.

I have personally invited a couple dozen Equalists that I'm related to, or know from the Democratic Party, to come to this forum and participate. I finally gave up. Unless it's Twitter or Facebook, these people won't debate. All they want to do is throw vindictive, scorn & ridicule in 140 characters that scroll off the screen by the end of the day. It's Instagram-like unilateral communication. They do NOT want to engage honestly.

I noticed this when I was a forum nomad after leaving my old forum a decade ago. After a while, as short as a day & as long as a year, I was no longer welcome. I could tell the political philosophy of the forum just by how they exiled me: Conservative - banned; Progressive - ignore or close down. I have literally had half a dozen Lefty forums shut down rather than give me a platform to talk.

p.s. When I found DCF, I found home... Until he became too Progressive & shut down rather than give a platform for people he disagreed with to talk.

Sometime's a person's image is more important to them than allowing people to talk.

Most people in fact, but political pundits risk alienating their audience with that kind of hypocrisy. If Dan is straight HH now, fine, that's a life change, but CS, that baby's dead.

Yeah, I stopped listening to CS for a while because of his slants... I liked the forum more than the podcasts.

[TheOneX]

I think the biggest issue with the forum wasn't that people disagreed with him, but because the discussion had become less civil and less friendly to new people joining. A lot of the threads devolved into the same two people arguing back and forth in arguments that seemed more personal than topical.

[The Conservative]

I think the biggest issue with the forum wasn't that people disagreed with him, but because the discussion had become less civil and less friendly to new people joining. A lot of the threads devolved into the same two people arguing back and forth in arguments that seemed more personal than topical.

Mattered on what section. Also, new people were welcome, stupid people, not so much.

[TheOneX]

I think the biggest issue with the forum wasn't that people disagreed with him, but because the discussion had become less civil and less friendly to new people joining. A lot of the threads devolved into the same two people arguing back and forth in arguments that seemed more personal than topical.

Mattered on what section. Also, new people were welcome, stupid people, not so much.

Yes, I am mainly talking about the political side of the forum. It's not that they weren't welcome, it was just an intimidating atmosphere that wasn't conducive to new people wanting to join.

[The Conservative]

I think the biggest issue with the forum wasn't that people disagreed with him, but because the discussion had become less civil and less friendly to new people joining. A lot of the threads devolved into the same two people arguing back and forth in arguments that seemed more personal than topical.

Mattered on what section. Also, new people were welcome, stupid people, not so much.

Yes, I am mainly talking about the political side of the forum. It's not that they weren't welcome, it was just an intimidating atmosphere that wasn't conducive to new people wanting to join.

Well yeah... what do you expect with people with strong personalities?

[DBTrek]

Why does "work" have to be part of the equation? If society has the means to provide basic necessities to everyone, why continue with the farce of wage slavery?

Perhaps you're familiar with the maxim "Whatever you subsidize, you will get more of".
Think of cash for clunkers which stimulated the auto industry by subsidizing the sale of inefficient old cars to encourage the purchasing of newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. Likewise, subsidizing the lifestyles of non-productive citizens we, by default, encourage the production and proliferation of more non-productive citizens.

How long can that cycle continue before the system collapses?
Not long, I think.

[Martin Hash]

Work Ethic definitely must be a primary component of society, if for nothing else to prevent building resentment from those that do work.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Work Ethic definitely must be a primary component of society, if for nothing else to prevent building resentment from those that do work.

Well nobody is proposing full Communism here. You can still make more if you do choose to get educated and work, but the UBI would serve for those that aren't needed or motivated to do so.

[Speaker to Animals]

Why does "work" have to be part of the equation? If society has the means to provide basic necessities to everyone, why continue with the farce of wage slavery?

Perhaps you're familiar with the maxim "Whatever you subsidize, you will get more of".
Think of cash for clunkers which stimulated the auto industry by subsidizing the sale of inefficient old cars to encourage the purchasing of newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. Likewise, subsidizing the lifestyles of non-productive citizens we, by default, encourage the production and proliferation of more non-productive citizens.

How long can that cycle continue before the system collapses?
Not long, I think.

That's a good example of how this kind of thinking goes wrong. Cash for Clunkers was envisioned as a program that both cleaned up the environment and helped the working poor. It not only did neither, it made getting transportation that much more difficult for the poor.

By law, these used cars had to be rendered inoperable. The law took countless vehicles that working poor could afford off the market, forcing them to look for more expensive vehicles (or do without). It also shrunk the supply of vehicles in general, which drove up prices.

When you consider how vital transportation is in America due to how we planned our cities, this turned out to be one of the most anti-poor laws passed in generations.