Ultimately it comes down to Economic rationalism VS the social equality's which some of us would like to exist.

And I suppose which ever you (personally) believe is more important..

Capitalism and the US offers social equality, more than any other nation. Anyone can move up the ladder. Anyone can run for President. Anyone can found a Fortune 500 company. The US has unrivaled class fluidity. 70% of all US millionaires are self-made.

Oh -- you mean equality of results, not equality of opportunity. Well, since not everyone has the same skills, intelligence, or drive, how can equality of results be guaranteed? The only way it ever has been: with coercive governmental tyranny.

People with mental disabilities can't

Maybe you should wear a plackard down Sth Central, and see if the street gangs agree with you...

Maybe you should tell that to the thousands of illiterate people who can't get a job.

Non sequitor.

I'll tell them to thank the US gov't for their plight. First, they can thank the welfare systems that rewarded and incentivized illegitimacy and destroyed the family in inner cities, where often 70% of black children are born in fatherless households. Then, after that, they can thank public schools, which take 12 years of captive schooling to produce 33 - 50% illiteracy rates in the inner cities as well.

So, the cure for the failures of Big Government is....more Big Government?

erm I'm afraid that's another one I'm not familiar with

My fault for not spelling it correctly:

Main Entry: non se·qui·tur
Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
Date: 1540
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said

...then how was my statement non sequitur?

In any society there are those who can't rise by their own effort. But that has nothing to do with those who can. I'm talking about the overwhelming rule, but you're talking about the exception. Since every country has exceptions, I don't see how that's relevant.

If I talk about technical advances in video, and you start talking about the blind being unable to see video, that's true I guess, but not relevant.

You stated that Capitalism and the US offers social equality, more than any other nation. You explained this by stating that anyone can move up the ladder. Well if not everyone can move up the ladder (mentally disabled people) then it's not all that equal, is it?

Precise language is important. What the US offers is equality of opportunity not equality of results. Anyone can do anything that he is qualified for. But that doesn't mean that anyone can have or be anything just for wishing it. A short, slow, fat guy may want to be in the NBA, but his physical abilities aren't sufficient. Yet there is no law or governmental prior restraint blocking him. Only his own abilities and perseverence will dictate.

Get it?

Yeah, I get it, but it's not always a matter of being in the NBA or making millions. Sometimes it comes down to being able to feed and clothe and bathe yourself. Some people don't have the opprotunity to do even these basic requirements for themselves because of physical and/or mental disability. Sure they have the opprotunity in the sense that there's no law stopping them, but their condition, which they have no control over, robs them of the ability to do these things, which takes the opprotunity away. Do the rest of us have a duty to give these people a life and their dignity? I tend to think so.

A duty? No, I disagree. Certainly this can be supplied voluntarily, through private organizations, but IMO never through coercion.

Even so, this is still irrelevant to the issue at hand. Regardless of the unfortunate few, you still have the vast majority who can achieve.

...what do you mean by coercion?

It's certainly relevant to those unfortunate few.

Governmental force = coercion.

Except I wasn't discussing them. With any policy or philosophy, there is the rule and there is the exception. We were discussing the rule. If you want to start a separate discussion on the exception, fine, do that. But if you want to claim the exception has some bearing on the discussion of the rule, then you need to make that connection.

I don't think it's enough to rely on individual goodwill. I think laws are required as well to make sure such people are taken care of. I believe we dohave a duty to them.


The connection is your line 'Anyone can move up the ladder', and you were talking about social equality. Last I checked they were 'someones' and a part of society.

Then the burden is on you to make that case.

Sorry, you're again equating "opportunity" with "guarantee." Anyone can move up the ladder who is willing and able to do what is necessary. If some are unwilling and others are unable, that has nothing to do with the chances of everyone else.

You're essentially saying that you require that EVERYONE is guaranteed success, regardless of what they do.

How do you figure that?


Everyone should be guarenteed success in eating and maintaining a level of dignity, that's what I'm saying.

But money doesn't grow on trees. Someone has to supply it, by threat of force. You are insisting that A's right to have something implies a duty on B to provide it, to be enforced at gunpoint. I.e, A's right to have something trumps B's rights, even though it's B's earned property. It seems clear that you have to justify this claim.