Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the declasse' dept.

America divided – this concept increasingly graces political discourse in the U.S., pitting left against right, conservative thought against the liberal agenda. But for decades, Americans have been rearranging along another divide, one just as stark if not far more significant – a chasm once bridged by a flourishing middle class.

Peter Temin, Professor Emeritus of Economics at MIT, believes the ongoing death of “middle America” has sparked the emergence of two countries within one, the hallmark of developing nations. In his new book, The Vanishing Middle Class: Prejudice and Power in a Dual Economy, Temin paints a bleak picture where one country has a bounty of resources and power, and the other toils day after day with minimal access to the long-coveted American dream.

In his view, the United States is shifting toward an economic and political makeup more similar to developing nations than the wealthy, economically stable nation it has long been. Temin applied W. Arthur Lewis’s economic model – designed to understand the workings of developing countries – to the United States in an effort to document how inequality has grown in America.

The 2017 World Economic Forum had the answer: "The people who have not benefited from globalization need to try harder to emulate those who have succeeded," and, "'People have to take more ownership of upgrading themselves on a continuous basis.'"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by UncleSlacky on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:00AM (63 children)

    by UncleSlacky (2859) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:00AM (#514100)

    Probably the Scandinavian countries - they certainly have the highest social mobility.

  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:12AM (62 children)

    And the lowest mobility cap.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by butthurt on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:47AM

      by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:47AM (#514137) Journal

      In Denmark the "cap" is at least $21 billion.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Danish_billionaires_by_net_worth [wikipedia.org]

      In Sweden it's at least $19 billion.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_billionaires_by_net_worth [wikipedia.org]

      In Norway the "cap" is at least $10 billion. From a list of Norway's richest people:

      1. John Fredriksen (Shipping) - $10 billion

      [...]

      2. Olav Thon (Real Estate) - $6 billion

      [...]

      3. Odd Reitan (Grocery Sales) - $5 Billion

      [...]

      4. Stein Erik Hagen (Retail) - $4.7 billion

      [...]

      5. Johan H Andresen Jr (Tobacco) - $3.2 billion

      -- https://successstory.com/lists/richest-people-in-norway [successstory.com]

      Finland is the saddest of all, with the "richest," if you can call it that, person capped at $3.6 billion.

      https://successstory.com/lists/richest-people-in-finland [successstory.com]

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:47AM (5 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:47AM (#514138) Journal

      What's a "mobility cap"?
      Something like... the speed of light?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2, Disagree) by butthurt on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:14PM (3 children)

        by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:14PM (#514154) Journal

        It's the maximum amount of wealth one is allowed to have. Under democratic socialism as practised in Scandinavia, it's sharply limited (see my comment above).

        /comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=19657&page=1&cid=514137 [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:21PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:21PM (#514160) Journal

          Nice. Thanks.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:59PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:59PM (#514541)

          It's the maximum amount of wealth one is allowed to have. Under democratic socialism as practised in Scandinavia, it's sharply limited

          hmm, the most limited was 3.2 Billion. I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

          Of course you may have a fantasy land in your head were that actually limits people in a meaningful way... (Mental wounds not healing, Life's a bitter shame, Your goin' off the rails on a crazy train)

          • (Score: 2, Funny) by butthurt on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:17PM

            by butthurt (6141) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:17PM (#514568) Journal

            If you think it's not a meaningful limitation, try having your wealth capped at $3.6 billion for awhile. See how you like it.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:21PM

        by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:21PM (#514393) Journal

        What's a "mobility cap"?

        It's something that only exists in the feeble minds of the alt-right and other Republicans, like "death panels".

        --
        lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:50AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:50AM (#514142)

      I prefer having the chance to win the lottery even if it means a massive number of fellow citizens live in poverty and stress. Freedom to fuck people over is what made US great and people should just stop being might! Good thing we're going great again!!

      I was worried the socialist scum might actually gain power with old jewbern.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:30PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:30PM (#514304)

        I prefer having the chance to win the lottery

        Somebody obviously slept through math class.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:28PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:28PM (#514350)

          Most Americans have about the same grasp of mathematics. That's why it's a third-world country now.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:23PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:23PM (#514398)

          Freedom to fuck people over is what made US great

          I could be wrong, but that seems like some twisted trolling and sarcasm. Regardless, someone modding that shit up is just... insane.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:25PM (15 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:25PM (#514163)

      Because, when you have 1 billion in the bank, you need MORE, right?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @12:49PM (#514178)

        > Because, when you have 1 billion in the bank, you need MORE, right?

        By the time someone gets to a billion (Dollars, not Yen) they are already surrounded by toadys and yes-men (and/or hookers and blow), which all reinforces the feeling that MORE is a good thing.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:29PM (13 children)

        That's up to the individual to decide. You don't get to set their life goals for them any more than they do for you.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:58PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:58PM (#514287)

          Isn't it up to you to decide for them?
          Weren't you implying just before that the billions of dollars Scandinavian countries could earn wasn't high enough for them?

          Which is silly anyway, since for a few paltry millions they could buy US citizenship trivially, and your 'cap' goes away.
          Must be some reason they don't, but I just can't put my finger on it...

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:36PM (1 child)

            by Gaaark (41) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:36PM (#514306) Journal

            They COULD buy US citizenship, but they're probably wondering if that would be an intelligent idea, when all the rich Americans are buying hideaway fortresses in New Zealand, lol.

            No, the US is fucked and the rich are planning their get-away for when they're done sending it all to hell and reaping their riches, lol.

            --
            --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:59PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @08:59PM (#515111)

              Please, rich people often spend money on shit they don't need or won't even use. Remember Steve Job's $100 Million Yacht that was finished after he died? I'm sure based on that you would deduce that "The Rich know there is another biblical flood coming! Just look at all the boats they are buying! We the plebs are fucked!"

              For every retreat bought in New Zealand there are no doubt 3 overpriced penthouses bought in Dubai.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:30PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:30PM (#514351)

          Just because you have life goals doesn't mean we should let you fulfill all of them. If your goals are mutually exclusive with the happiness of millions of your peers, then your goals are morally flawed and I would have no problem with forcing you to relinquish them.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:23PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:23PM (#514440)

            I won't be happy until you are dead.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:48AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @07:48AM (#514714)

              How unfortunate for you.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:54AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:54AM (#515228)

                It is, but inshallah we will prevail, and you the kaffir will yield or die.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:31PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:31PM (#514352)

          As much as I like the whole "you get to do what you want"-thing, if you've got a billion more in the bank than most people, I think that's enough. Then anything more is just for shits and giggles and so that others won't have it.
          If you have a personality that says "I've got so many resources that I will never have any issues" and then follow it up with "but I want even more", then you're not a very nice human being. Then it's just because you want to fuck over others and be able to point at said fucking-over to your other billionaire friends to show how much better you are than them.

          I think at that point, it is no longer up to the individual to decide. Clearly society has provided enough to said individual and society gets to decide something for you.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:13PM (#514435)

            I tend to think of it as they have a lot more to lose. Maybe a high tax rate ain't so bad to keep the status quo intact.

            I would go with an income tax up to 99% above certain incomes. A person earning that much money is benefiting very heavily from society (infrastructure, police, a civil society). If it's a problem, take it up with whoever pays you - are you not worth the 99% headwind the employer has to take on to get you those extra few $mill? Sure you are, go negotiate champ.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:33PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:33PM (#514355)

          I agree with your first sentence. It is not for an INDIVIDUAL to decide. Not even the rich individual himself though. Despite the West's recent fascination with individual freedom, society put limits on what is for the individual to decide. I think it is easy to argue that this is a (morally) good thing (as good usually is about more than the needs of a single individual). Hence, it is acceptable for me for a society to limit the riches of an individual. Our society is run by a government, and, though this certainly has failings, it is only logical that thus the government gets to decide that it can tax you, and could easily put a limit to your personal wealth.

          Arguing from another angle, it could easily be claimed that even although you as individual have worked hard to acquire your wealth, you could not have achieved this without the framework that society provided to you. Thus society has some standing to demand things back from you.

          Now, some have argued that rich people are good for society as they will stimulate its growth and thus in turn make more people prosper. The FA seems to cast some doubt on this hypothesis.

          • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:51AM (1 child)

            by art guerrilla (3082) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:51AM (#514604)

            zuckerberg didn't build that inertnet ! ! !

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:22AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @12:22AM (#515216)

              That was Al Gore.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:59AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:59AM (#514703) Journal

            Despite the West's recent fascination with individual freedom, society put limits on what is for the individual to decide. I think it is easy to argue that this is a (morally) good thing (as good usually is about more than the needs of a single individual).

            That "recent fascination" is centuries old and has resulted in great human progress. Let us note over the millennia that society has put plenty of limits on what is for the individual to decide. These have invariably led to immense human suffering such as widespread slavery for most of those millennia, endless tyranny, and death on a scale that can only be understood with numbers. Sure, you could go ahead and argue it is morally good to do this, but you'd be ignoring an awful lot of moral evil.

            Hence, it is acceptable for me for a society to limit the riches of an individual. Our society is run by a government, and, though this certainly has failings, it is only logical that thus the government gets to decide that it can tax you, and could easily put a limit to your personal wealth.

            Except when it's not logical. Government decisions aren't better than anyone else's decisions. Instead, we find that they are often by a wide margin the worst decisions ever made.

            Arguing from another angle, it could easily be claimed that even although you as individual have worked hard to acquire your wealth, you could not have achieved this without the framework that society provided to you. Thus society has some standing to demand things back from you.

            Individuals helped create that framework. It is only fair that they be allowed to benefit from such "frameworks" particularly since that is the whole point of these frameworks. And it is a waste of resources to make decisions for an individual capable of making their own decisions.

            Now, some have argued that rich people are good for society as they will stimulate its growth and thus in turn make more people prosper. The FA seems to cast some doubt on this hypothesis.

            So is there a reason you think that? Or should we go on and argue other things that can be argued? Perhaps the Moon is made of green cheese? It can be argued, so why not do that. Perhaps the Moon Nazis are mice? It can be argued. And they're enslaving feline space Jews for an invasion of Venus? It can be argued after all. What is arguable is a far broader category that what makes sense.

            What I've noticed with such talk is that there is a universal disdain for what the loss of freedom entails. You never care what taxes are spent on, you merely assume that it'll be beneficial despite ample evidence to the contrary throughout the world and history. Similarly, there is an assumption that wealth inequality is bad without ever bothering to mention what level of wealth inequality is good.

            This is idiotic. You should at least think and reason through your desires before foisting them off on the rest of us.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by aclarke on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:39PM (32 children)

      by aclarke (2049) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:39PM (#514225) Homepage

      How many billions does someone need? There comes a point when it's just about overcompensating for something else, or "winning". Neither of those reasons are likely to be of net social benefit.

      There needs to be some prize for hard work and for taking risks. But that needs to be balanced against the greater good. I'm not a fan of many European countries' punitive inheritance taxes, for example, but on the other hand it's a bit easier to take a risk when you know if you fail, there's a least a safety net to catch you and you're unlikely to end up on the street.

      • (Score: 1, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:45PM (25 children)

        Social benefit is irrelevant. The government does not exist to promote social benefit, it exists to protect the rights of its people who are individuals.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:57PM (#514240)

          If you mean the U.S. Government, then make the distinction. Believe me, there are plenty of Commie-lite governments out there that do not share your view of what government is or what it is for. And in many of the countries now experiencing "cultural enrichment" those types of governments are rife.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:28PM (1 child)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:28PM (#514261) Journal

          it exists to protect the rights of its people who are individuals.

          Heh, if that were true there would be no poverty. Institutional (private and public) obstruction of upward mobility would vanish in a puff of smoke.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:42PM (#514554)

            Do you have a right to upward mobility, or do you have to earn your advancement in society?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @02:41PM (#514273)

          Bullshit TMB, that's exactly why the government exists. How else do you keep the starving masses from rioting and pillaging?

          I get that you got yours so to hell with everybody else, but why not just admit that you're a selfish, greed bastard that got lucky? There's tons of people who work harder than you do for minimum wage or less.

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by Whoever on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:50PM (20 children)

          by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:50PM (#514322) Journal

          Social benefit is irrelevant. The government does not exist to promote social benefit, it exists to protect the rights of its people who are individuals.

          There is a document that I think you should read, I think it's called the "Declaration of Independence". It calls for government to promote "the pursuit of Happiness". Perhaps I am just simple, but "the pursuit of happiness" sounds a lot like promoting social benefit.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:16PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:16PM (#514385)

            so does "to promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty"

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:22PM (18 children)

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:22PM (#514396)

            No, that's completely wrong. It says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

            So the pursuit of Happiness (among other rights), came from the Creator, or are inherent, if you prefer. It does NOT call for government to "promote" it. It calls for government to get out of the way of it. To wit: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

            --
            I am a crackpot
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:49PM (9 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:49PM (#514420) Journal

              GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE.

              Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States."

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:28PM (7 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @06:28PM (#514443)

                What is the source of authority for the USA's Constitution if not by delegation from mostly Joe Blow average people like you or I?

                If I alone do not have the authority to demand half of all your production, then neither can I delegate that same task to anyone else. (If you disagree, please feel free to respond showing your willingness to send me half your income.)

                Therefore any claims to taxation authority in the Constitution is void as it has zero legitimacy and its only source of power is identical to that of an armed mugger, as well as being the exact moral equivalent: criminal.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:29PM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @07:29PM (#514477)

                  I usually don't argue with toddlers, but I'll make an exception this time: taxes are the price you pay for your fancy society. If you don't quite understand that concept, then I'm afraid you'll never get a nice green sticker to put on your suspenders for the day from the teacher.

                  Now off you go, go play somewhere where you can't hurt yourself.

                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:26PM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:26PM (#514529) Journal

                    I usually don't argue with toddlers, but I'll make an exception this time: taxes are the price you pay for your fancy society.

                    Hmmm, sounds to me like you haven't argued with anyone else other than toddlers with that shoddy an argument. The obvious rebuttal here is that sure, you can pay taxes for a fancy society. You can also pay taxes for a thoroughly corrupt, bankrupt society. Don't expect people to be respectful of paying taxes, when their taxes go to destructive or blighted purposes.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:59PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @09:59PM (#514542)

                    I usually don't argue with toddlers, but I'll make an exception this time: taxes are the price you pay for your fancy society

                    Invalid ad hominem aside, you are equating "fancy society" with slavery. Are you perchance pining for the olden days of your family's southern cotton plantations?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:59AM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:59AM (#514644)

                    Looks like the toddlers have a pretty good vocabulary, sadly they definitely don't get a sticker. Maybe we should cram them into the time machine and send them back to China during the revolutionary days for a "vacation" in a re-education camp. Maybe then they'll appreciate the taxation method of promoting the good / general welfare.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:54AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @04:54AM (#514676)

                      If there's no authority delegated to the Constitution to demand taxes (regardless of the words written, such authority cannot be delegated to it because normal people like you and I have no such authority to give), there's no authority for other forms of slavery such as your Chinese re-education camps.

                      Taxation doesn't produce "good / general welfare" - all it produces is resources taken from another via force. Muggers do that. Do you view muggers as producing "good / general welfare" for anyone but themselves?

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:23PM (1 child)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:23PM (#514763)

                        False equivalency goes no where.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:59PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:59PM (#514875)

                          That's exactly my point: neither those that pay mere lip service to the Constitution nor the document itself are synonymous with authority.

                          The Constitution was not created in a vacuum nor by the master slave-holder for all humans within the Colonial borders - it was produced by ordinary people who could only delegate powers they themselves already possessed. A collection of delegated powers can not exceed those of its source.

              • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:01PM

                by curunir_wolf (4772) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:01PM (#514544)

                The discussion was about the Declaration of Independence. Why are you quoting the Constitution? What does that have to do with the topic?

                As far as the "general welfare" clause, do you know the difference between the meaning of general welfare of a nation in the 18th century and the meaning of welfare spending today? Anyway, according to what the framers said in the Federalist Papers, the clause imparted no additional powers to the federal government that were not already enumerated.

                --
                I am a crackpot
            • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:30PM (3 children)

              by Whoever (4524) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @10:30PM (#514549) Journal

              No, that's completely wrong. It says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

              And it continues with:

              —That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, ... organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

              You attempted a cheap misdirection by omission. You are wrong.

              The Declaration is quite clear, when you don't quote it selectively, that Government should protect the right to the pursuit of happiness and to promote happiness.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:31AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:31AM (#514695)

                The Declaration is quite clear, when you don't quote it selectively, that Government should protect the right to the pursuit of happiness and to promote happiness.

                And what is the remedy, as stated by the same source, for when government does not protect such rights?

              • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:08PM (1 child)

                by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @12:08PM (#514758)

                Protecting the inherent right of a person to pursue their own happiness is a vastly different concept than promoting happiness. You're attempting to conflate the two and it's not the same at all.

                As an example, there is a group that decides which country has the "happiest" people. Typically one of the Scandinavian countries gets top honors in this category. Yet, the ONLY criteria they use is based on government policies - they do not examine any criteria based on the actual feelings and attitudes of the citizens. As a result, the country that last year was deemed the happiest was one that had one of the highest proportion of their citizens taking antidepressants or other mood-altering pharmaceuticals. Clearly, "promoting" happiness and protecting the right to pursue happiness are not the same.

                --
                I am a crackpot
                • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:10PM

                  by Whoever (4524) on Wednesday May 24 2017, @02:10PM (#514811) Journal

                  Apparently, your reading skills are defective. You seem to be incapable of reading this part: "organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:25PM (3 children)

              by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:25PM (#514573) Journal

              As TMB put it above “[the government] exists to protect the rights of its people”; therefore, if you admit that the “pursuit of happiness” is a right (come from the Creator or as social construct), we come to the logical conclusion that the government (at least in the ol’ U.S. of A.) is obliged to protect your right to happiness and ‘protection’ does not mean simply to get out of the way.

              Think of your right to life. The State must not only punish those who might kill you, which would be equivalent of “getting out of the way” until something bad happens to you.

              The State has the obligation to make sure your life is not threatened by others or by circumstances, so you have everything from the FAA, FDA, Fire Departments, OSHA and other agencies charged with promoting your right to live by reducing your chances to die.

              I’m sorry to see the people regard the government as something separate and apart from society; not saying that people are wrong, just saying I’m sorry the political class has grown so distant from truly representing the people. And I’m sorry to see fellows who fail to grasp that they have a right to demand a better government and not simply shrug and decide it’s not their business.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:33AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:33AM (#514697)

                The State has the obligation to make sure your life is not threatened by others or by circumstances

                Wow. You really are in for a rude awakening should you stumble across Warren vs D.C. [findlaw.com] and its implications [firearmsandliberty.com].

                • (Score: 1) by jelizondo on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:55AM (1 child)

                  by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 25 2017, @02:55AM (#515258) Journal

                  Our decision to reverse and remand leaves many issues open:  whether the mistreatment Warren alleges actually occurred;  whether the treatment that did occur violated his constitutional rights;  whether any or all of the incidents fall within the scope of the settlement we mentioned earlier;  whether the District had actual or constructive notice of the violations or whether Warren can establish municipal liability under some other theory.   We have nothing to say on these issues.   We hold only that the complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Reversed and remanded.

                  Can you read? The Court did not rule on any of allegations, only on the dismissal of the action. (And one must be idiotic to fail to use a lawyer when attempting to sue the government as this guy did; anyone who thinks they can just file a suit without professional legal assistantance, will get trounced by government lawyers.) You're other link is about suing police and counties over an alleged failure to protect someone, which drives my point: you get the government you voted for.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @03:39AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 25 2017, @03:39AM (#515265)

                    *cough* The wrong Warren vs D.C. [justia.com] case was linked, tho the second article referred to the correct case from 1981. This link to the sketchy-but-available justia site is correct.

                    Government refuses to take responsibility for your safety. Why do you persist in the delusion that it does something it explicitly denies?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:56PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @01:56PM (#514238)

        At this point we've repeated the same arguments ad nauseum. I'm convinced that the problem is really just a layer of bigotry that is now at a semi-unconscious level. The idea of meritocracy and personal responsibility is just some self-justification for these conservatives to continue their hatred and xenophobia. Facts never matter, their counter facts are almost always low level garbage and frequently enough blatant lies they might actually believe.

        They are angry about being constantly told they are wrong by the ivory tower snobs, and that anger has been manipulated by high level propaganda. What else can be done about it? Discussion doesn't work. Education (links upon links) doesn't work. The only thing left is to keep pounding the grass roots political movements, the majority of the country is on our side. Perhaps if we can actually reverse this tide of horror the bipartisan politicians have foisted on us, and we start acting responsibly on a global level then maybe these fools will try and assimilate "mentally" hehe. They'll suddenly see the light even though they'll continue their weird smug superiority complex. At least they won't be harming people, just annoying everyone with their smug. May all their children study basket weaving and have consensual bisexual relations.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:44PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:44PM (#514317)

          Or maybe the liberals are wrong in just as many ways.

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:52PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @03:52PM (#514328)

            If liberals are so wrong, then why are blue states usually better off across the board than red states? If not for the taxes paid by the liberal states, the red states would fully devolve into 3rd world quality of life.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snow on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:21PM (2 children)

              by Snow (1601) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @05:21PM (#514395) Journal

              Education. Educated people tend to lean toward liberalism. Educated people also tend to make more money.

              It's the Conservative Paradox. The very people who have the most to gain from liberal policies are the same people who vote towards the right.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:28PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 23 2017, @11:28PM (#514576)

                What a brilliant analysis. "Everybody who disagrees with me is stupid! Look, we have studies!" Meanwhile, college campuses are turning out snowflakes that can't handle reality without a safe space and a long list of demands.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:01AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @03:01AM (#514645)

                  This person right here could use some more education.

                  Hey object who probably identifies as human, how about unions? Are those good or bad?

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday May 23 2017, @04:14PM (#514347) Journal

      Boo fucking hoo. I'm all in favor of someone needing to settle for gold plating instead of platinum on his fifth Maserati if it means some single mother doesn't get evicted and watch her kid die on the street. The fact that you aren't just proves to everyone you're gonna spend your afterlife somewhere hot.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:37AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 24 2017, @06:37AM (#514698)

        Who is going to hold the gun during the robbery? You?

        Most muggers of this caliber are too cowardly to do the work their own selves.