Greed is Good!

[Old Greg]

from your posts you were arguing everyone had equal right to 'worth' and had a right to the same consideration by virtue of being born.

I tried to split the definition into Rights, Contribution & wealth as some posters are talking from different perspectives.

Not the right to worth, just worth. I made no mention of rights as I'm not convinced that equality implies identical rights. That's a whole other discussion.

[vetran]

My "argument" is simply a statement of a measurable fact, that inequality correlates with these things. Your desire to put a political spin on it is the only cliche in play here.

You mean they have less inequality?

You mean they have more inequality?

I know plenty of people with very little money that don't resort to crime, if you have enough to survive on then there is no need to. The UK benefits system though badly managed does allow enough to survive on.

As AssG will happily tell you correlation is not causation.

[vetran]

Not the right to worth, just worth. I made no mention of rights as I'm not convinced that equality implies identical rights. That's a whole other discussion.

I used 'rights' to define your version of worth as I perceived it. I believe a severely disabled person has as much right to enjoy safety, development of their abilities and life, as say Usain Bolt or Anita Rodderick. But I don't think many able people have made as much of a contribution as Stephen Hawking.

from the original speech, the key phrase as I see it:

One, that we help those who genuinely cannot compete; and two, that we provide opportunity for those who can."

[Old Greg]

I know plenty of people with very little money that don't resort to crime, if you have enough to survive on then there is no need to. The UK benefits system though badly managed does allow enough to survive on.

As AssG will happily tell you correlation is not causation.

So what is the causal relationship?

[doodab]

I know plenty of people with very little money that don't resort to crime, if you have enough to survive on then there is no need to. The UK benefits system though badly managed does allow enough to survive on.

And lots of rich people who do. Which is rather missing the point. Pointless anecdotes aside, the overall level of crime in a society correlates strongly with income inequality

As AssG will happily tell you correlation is not causation.

Indeed. It's possible that crime increases inequality, in which case perhaps that's one way in which inequality could be addressed.

[Old Greg]

I used 'rights' to define your version of worth as I perceived it. I believe a severely disabled person has as much right to enjoy safety, development of their abilities and life, as say Usain Bolt or Anita Rodderick. But I don't think many able people have made as much of a contribution as Stephen Hawking.

from the original speech, the key phrase as I see it:

Sure, but how was I hammering on about rights?

[vetran]

And lots of rich people who do. Which is rather missing the point. Pointless anecdotes aside, the overall level of crime in a society correlates strongly with income inequality

Indeed. It's possible that crime increases inequality, in which case perhaps that's one way in which inequality could be addressed.

My point of the anecdote is 'poverty' in the UK doesn't drive people to crime. They make the choice because they believe that either they deserve the spoils or that the people they harm don't. Now if you look in a country where poverty means you can't eat then there might be a direct link.

Made perfectly by your riposte that rich people commit crime too.


not according to this:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/...olentCrime.pdf

slide 3, Japan & Switzerland buck the trend - why?
The Italy and Spain have half the murder rate of South Korea with a similar gini score.

I think you could say that perceived inequality increases the likelihood of violent crime where the society permits it. Or that certain societies value life more, or that they are better at preventing murders.

From the study you could say being Black or Hispanic means you are 2.5-7 times more likely to WANT to be a criminal. I prefer to believe that their situation makes it more likely both because their peers are involved and because they are less likely to have honest outcomes due to poor education and prejudice.

[vetran]

Sure, but how was I hammering on about rights?

I used 'rights' to define your version of worth as I perceived it.

sort of in my post. Sorry your aggressive attitude some times makes it difficult to take your posts seriously.

[doodab]

My point of the anecdote is 'poverty' in the UK doesn't drive people to crime. They make the choice because they believe that either they deserve the spoils or that the people they harm don't. Now if you look in a country where poverty means you can't eat then there might be a direct link.

Made perfectly by your riposte that rich people commit crime too.

But I never mentioned "poverty". What has your point got to do with inequality?

not according to this:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/scspi/...olentCrime.pdf

slide 3, Japan & Switzerland buck the trend - why?

It's quite clearly yes according to that though, isn't it. Picking two data points that "buck the trend" doesn't mean the trend doesn't exist. That the points are scattered about a bit simply indicates that like most real world phenomena there are other factors at play.

[Old Greg]

But I never mentioned "poverty". What has your point got to do with inequality?



It's quite clearly yes according to that though, isn't it. Picking two data points that "buck the trend" doesn't mean the trend doesn't exist. That the points are scattered about a bit simply indicates that like most real world phenomena there are other factors at play.

But most people who smoke don't get lung cancer. And plenty of people who get lung cancer don't smoke. And look at Japan! The Japanese Smoking and Lung Cancer Paradox
I would suggest that smoking and lung cancer may both be the result of moral weakness.