On 2/19/2012 3:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 9:19 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote:

That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to
understand
the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made
as to
how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of
really
knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and
blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken
advantage
of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you
would
see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed
fair.

OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that
the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty
line, and some live above it, is unfair.

Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily
defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what
constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary.

Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other
half
then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a
moral or
legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all
depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in
the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in.

Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is:

" free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception;
conforming with established standards or rules"

Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the
fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the
government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the
worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the
layabout's beers and chips.

It needn't even be that drastic. Assume everyone works reasonably hard
and to the best of his ability; assume there are no layabouts. Assume
different people all have different innate abilities. Then it is
reasonable to assume there will be a distribution of unequal wages, with
some earning more than others. By statistical definition, there will be
a median wage: half will earn below the median, and half will earn above
it.

That would be fair. There is no reason to think that two people both
working the same amount of time with roughly the same degree of effort
"ought" to earn the same amount of money. This is what was always, and
is still, wrong with the feminists' "equal pay for equal work" mantra:
they are looking only at the amount of input - effort - without regard
to the *value* of the output.


Here's the problem.

Nope - there isn't any problem.


Lots of people are not as capable as others.

Too bad.


Sometimes the differences are drastic. So by your thinking those gifted
with ability are going to make a lot of money and those shafted at birth
are going to make hardly anything.

No one was shafted at birth merely because he was not born with as much
innate ability.


Just because that is how nature made
things does that mean we as humans have to accept that as fair.

You have no valid reason not to accept it as fair.


Especially when you know that means great numbers of people without much
ability are consigned to lives of poverty and misery just because they
can't do things as well as others.

No, they're not necessarily "consigned" to poverty. Even people without
a lot of endowed ability can still do well enough if they apply
themselves. It's their responsibility to do the best with what they have.


If that was your kid would you not be bothered by that?

I only would be bothered if someone - say, liberal do-gooders pushing
affirmative action - set up immoral impediments in his way, such as
keeping him out of a decent school because minorities with worse grades
were admitted instead.



I hate to keep bringing up society

Then stop. It means nothing. "Society" doesn't do anything - ever.


but if people are not willing to help
those who can't provide a good life for themselves then we are not
living in a civilized world.

That's false. That is by no means the definition of civilization.