SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Income inequality in America has been growing rapidly, and is expected to increase [PDF]. While the widening wealth gap is a hot topic in the media and on the campaign trail, there's quite a disconnect between the perceptions of economists and those of the general public.
For instance, surveys show people tend to underestimate the income disparity between the top and bottom 20% of Americans, and overestimate the opportunity for poor individuals to climb the social ladder. Additionally, a majority of adults believe that corporations conduct business fairly despite evidence to the contrary and that the government should not act to reduce income inequality.
Even though inequality is increasing, Americans seem to believe that our social and economic systems work exactly as they should. This perspective has intrigued social scientists for decades. My colleague Andrei Cimpian and I have demonstrated in our recent research that these beliefs that our society is fair and just may take root in the first years of life, stemming from our fundamental desire to explain the world around us.
http://theconversation.com/lifes-not-fair-so-why-do-we-assume-it-is-45981
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 11 2015, @02:43PM
Of course the Constitution of the United States is among them. It's a terribly long list, the Western Canon. Are you one of those who jumps up every time a complete and exhaustive list for something is not spelled out for you? The Google machine produced this introductory syllabus [studymore.org.uk]. Add it to your weekend reading list and discover that "social contract" is not a loosy-goosy concept but one that's deeply set in the foundation of Western Thought. If you live in a Western society, the concept of social contract is literally interwoven with every legal, political, and social structure that forms your daily life. It's so ubiquitous it's invisible to most.
As to "legally binding," I don't know what you would call documents that duly elected and appointed representatives sign. Because that's who the signers of the Declaration were--duly elected and appointed representatives of the American colonies. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by representatives of member nations. They are different kinds of documents than constitutions, but that's because they're called "declarations" and not "constitutions." But that doesn't make them not legally binding. And I cited the declarations because it's much easier to pick up on the concept of "social contract" in their language than it is to read between the lines of constitutions.
Your rhetoric needs work, or at least more editing. You contradicted yourself no fewer than four times in those two sentences. "a system of law that is biased against the wealthy" is by definition not a system of law that is biased against the poor. And if the wealthy can buy better protection from the law, then again that is not a system that is biased against the wealthy. So having a system that protects the interests of wealth is not one that protects all members of society.
Maybe you meant something else, but it didn't come through.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 11 2015, @03:09PM
Of course the Constitution of the United States is among them. It's a terribly long list, the Western Canon. Are you one of those who jumps up every time a complete and exhaustive list for something is not spelled out for you?
Well, I guess it's fixed now. I made the obvious point that if you're going to talk about social contracts, then it would be a good idea to use actual social contracts as examples.
As to "legally binding," I don't know what you would call documents that duly elected and appointed representatives sign.
Here, "documents that duly elected and appointed representatives sign" seems viable, if a bit clunky. It's worth noting that isn't "legally binding". Legally binding means there are actual negative consequences, enforced by the legal system, for not following the contract in question.
"a system of law that is biased against the wealthy" is by definition not a system of law that is biased against the poor.
Nonsense. Think about it. It is quite possible to be biased about both a thing A and everything that is not thing A. A classic example is to assume that A is bad and everything that is not A is thereby good. Congrats, you have just biased both A and not A. My take is that this sort of dual biasing is actually a common way human bias manifests.
And if the wealthy can buy better protection from the law, then again that is not a system that is biased against the wealthy.
Unless the system forces them to buy that protection, which is the usual state of developed world societies.