Income inequality vs. income mobility

[Mister Mister]

   You are asking us to point to what actions we have taken outside "the umbrella of the state".  This is impossible (unless some of you have been to mars or venus) because the "umbrella of the state" is an imaginary concept, whereby lines on maps are negotiated between different governments to determine which people where are subject to which laws.  Similarly, gangs might divide drug-dealing or pimping turf between them, but this "turf" does not really exist except as a concept which loosely determines when force will be used and when it won't.  Human beings cannot be owned or ruled like robots or atoms.  Their behavior CAN be influenced through voluntary transactions, or through the threat of violence.  Human experience and history show that a great deal can be accomplished through voluntary interaction in the absence of violent control.  You might say that these things are made possible under the "protection" of the state, but there are many examples to the contrary, i.e. the spontaneous generation of complex languages, lacking a central authority; eBay, which involves unenforceable contracts; or the black and gray markets (when guns aren't involved).  The difference between a State or government and other violent people is that the State depends on the general belief in its virtue and necessity.  Most of us here see this is the root cause of the evil in society and seek to undermine this belief as the most important political action.  You are claiming that the belief in a world where people don't believe in the virtue of the State is a naive fantasy.  Maybe, maybe not; it's impossible to know.  But personally I am moved by reason and morality and cannot help but to make this argument.

[Mister Mister]

   Thanks for the reminder.  This video has come up a lot amongst people I know lately.  Income Mobility as well as the overall increase in standard of living are important points, but if you leave it there, it sounds like you are justifying or defending the current economic system.  It is essential to point out that the huge majority of the richest people are rich because they can appeal to the government to minimize risk and competition, as well as receive subsidies directly or indirectly.  If Halleburton wanted to hire mercenaries to blow Iraq to hell and take their oil, I couldn't stop them, and I would condemn them, but at the end of the day there's no way this could be cost effective.  It can only work because the costs are outsourced via taxation and risk is outsourced to propagandized teenage boys.  I know that this is obvious to most of you, but it's the kind of argument that can be effective for your average socialist.To be in the 1% you would most undoubtedly have to curry favor from the government, not sure if you could be happy doing this.

[Rick Horton]

 

   You are asking us to point to what actions we have taken outside "the umbrella of the state".  This is impossible (unless some of you have been to mars or venus) because the "umbrella of the state" is an imaginary concept, whereby lines on maps are negotiated between different governments to determine which people where are subject to which laws.  Similarly, gangs might divide drug-dealing or pimping turf between them, but this "turf" does not really exist except as a concept which loosely determines when force will be used and when it won't.  Human beings cannot be owned or ruled like robots or atoms.  

 

 

imaginary concept? The concept is REAL. And it's effects are proof. The idea has effect, thus the idea is real. It's always been there. You are saying that you aren't dominated by these concepts?  If you are controled by them and you think you are controled by something that doesn't exist, than you have a very big issue with what is and isn't imaginary. It's not a physical, but is an ideological reality that does get enforced. 

 

You might say that these things are made possible under the "protection" of the state, but there are many examples to the contrary, i.e. the spontaneous generation of complex languages, lacking a central authority; eBay, which involves unenforceable contracts; or the black and gray markets (when guns aren't involved).

 

 

What evidence do you have that anything under the domination and order caused by The State can be said to be without effect from The State?  The societal conditions created a landscape in which eBay was created and allowed. It could be ripped apart, regulated, etc... by the State. Its existence is dependent on the State. The State recognizes the actions of eBay as suitable, and permissable. Everything and everybody involved with eBay is effected by The State, so obviously the State has impact on the lives and morals of it's users. 

 

  The difference between a State or government and other violent people is that the State depends on the general belief in its virtue and necessity.

 

 

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. The State doesn't depend on that. Can you back that up?

[Mister Mister]

 

imaginary concept? The concept is REAL. And it's effects are proof. The idea has effect, thus the idea is real. It's always been there. You are saying that you aren't dominated by these concepts?  If you are controled by them and you think you are controled by something that doesn't exist, than you have a very big issue with what is and isn't imaginary. It's not a physical, but is an ideological reality that does get enforced. 

 

 

   Yes, what I meant to do was to point out the reality of the situation.  Just because a government claims ownership or jurisdiction over a very large area of land, doesn't mean that they control all the people within that territory like robots; only individuals can control themselves.  Government can only influence their behavior through bribes or threats.  To say that we all live and trade at the mercy of the government is different from saying that the government CONTROLS all of our lives and interactions down to every last detail. it's true that government could kill me at any time with a drone strike I guess, but that doesn't mean that my breathing and eating is a result of the government.  I think you are giving government far too much credit.  it is quite clear to me that the more violent control is escalated, the more dysfunctional a system, or as Robert Anton Wilson used to say "imposition of order = escalation of chaos"

 

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. The State doesn't depend on that. Can you back that up?

 

Yes. To begin with, I would ask why governments invest so much in media and education? The purpose of propaganda is to justify actions that otherwise people would disapprove of. If you are just taking advantage of a power differential, why resort to propaganda? Because it is much more effective than dealing with the resistance of millions of people. The government doesn't like to expose its guns, so to speak, unless it has to.

If you ask a store-owner why he gives money to the mafia, he will say that it is to avoid violence against his person and property. If you ask the average taxpayer why he gives money to the government, he usually will respond with any number of reasons which are essentially moral arguments, in other words,"government is virtuous". If you undermine this they tend to fall back on the argument from effect, or "government is necessary". those who might say "so I don't get arrested" or who have problems with certain areas of government spending, will still react very strongly to the suggestion that there should be no coercive agency collecting money from them. A violent gang dominates people just because it can, but doesn't try to corrupt the hearts and minds of its victims. As soon as it begins to appeal to morality, and ask them to be thankful for their servitude, it takes on a different character, that of government or religion. I see this as the fundamental divide between State and local gang. A gang could never extort such a a large amount of money from so large a population. Neither could they manipulate national debts and currency the way they do. The military could never pay its soldiers so little unless they believed what they were doing was moral and necessary.

Hope that makes sense.

[Arius]

So, here's the question: Do other people recognize income mobility?  Everybody can see the inequality, but do they think it is static?  Why?  What do you folks think?

I'm gonna talk to you, cause I like that topic too.

It's true that there is some degree of income mobility.  I might, over the course of 30 or 40 years of wage labor, manage to increase my annual income from $15k to $80k or $90k.  However, and I think it's worth considering carefully, it takes an entire lifetime of wage labor to accomplish that change.  I believe the important point is not the actual distribution of wealth.  It really doesn't matter who has the money.  What matters is how much violence was used to accomplish and maintain a specific distribution.  In our case, society is rife with welfare (both corporate and individual).  The large nanny state acts to inhibit the equitable transfer of wealth.  Rather than fall into the neo-con trap of becoming a corporate apologist (by over-focusing on income mobility), can't we all just agree that force in society is categorically bad, and any wealth arrangement which requires force to arrive at or maintain is equally bad?

You don't notice when the obesity makes it hard to run.  You don't notice when the obesity starts to cut off circulation to random parts of your body.  You notice when the obesity causes diabetes and your toe is amputated.

You don't notice when the state subsidizes big business by creating tiny pockets of extremely competitive, immobile labor markets (how much usable land in the US is "off-limits" and owned by the government).  You don't notice when capital is allowed to move and work all over the globe, but people are kept within their own nation states (The wealthy can work in any country, at any time.  The poor cannot.).  You notice when the liberalization of capital, combined with the entrapment of people, makes a tiny few, well-connected people obscenely wealthy while the rest actually lose income over time.

Wealth inequality is symptomatic of the exceptional amount of violence in our economy.  That's all.

I see mobility, and want to find my way into the 1%, if only to fall down from it a month later because something.

(Non-sarcastically) Please, share that knowledge with me.  I've been alive for decades. I've worked, saved, and I am now less employable than I have ever been.  I currently make the lowest wage of my life.  I have never been fired, never received a poor evaluation.  I've deferred gratification in favor of education.  What is this path to income mobility you know of?  Cause I don't even know how to get from $10k up to $50k a year...Much less how to become a millionaire.

I'll need to dwell on why that provokes such a strong emotional reaction in me.  I'm actually a little frustrated that you'd say that.  Perhaps it's that the statement conflicts with my experience...I just don't know.  Still, I'd really like to know how to get that mobility.

And, a hypothesis: Socialists, Anarcho or otherwise, do not think the individual has any mobility of income.  Does that resonate, and/or make sense?  Am I being Capt. Obvious?

I'm kind of a lefty (though I self-identify as a centrist).  I'm not pro-state.  If asked I'll point-out that the bulk of the economic activity created by the state serves to absorb the surplus production of naturally unsupportable industries.  I'm not anti-market, but I do point-out that the costs of maintaining an economy of conspicuous consumption are being socialized by the state (the poor pay disproportionately, through regressive taxation, for the protection of the property of the rich).   I know the individual has some mobility.  Not much (relative to the distance from one side of the wealth scale to the other), but some.

[Rick Horton]

 

 

Well, okay then. Since Stefan's definition of Anarchy (as stated over and over by himself) is a society without rulers I will accept that you disagree with him on what Anarchy means. Maybe you'r right. Maybe he distorted the meaning. I will concede then, that I'm disagreeing with Stefan's definition of Anarchy, so I guess we can move on from there. I wasn't aware that you don't agree with him on what Anarchy is. Even then, though, you haven't met the bar of being able to determine at all when a powerful group of people gets the priveledge of being called The State. The most powerful of any tribe, or group, city, Country, area, flock, etc... is The State, unless you have a magic way to decipher what makes powerful people "organized" Organized doesn't have a size to it. It has the element of cooperation, or working together. Obviously a group that controls others by its very essence would be "organized" irregaurdless of its size, shape, costumes, titles, etc.... so I argue that the most powerful group in any area is the State. Since the size of an area is abstract in determining what constitutes a State (unless you can point it out, factually) than what I'm saying is definitely applicable to the term State. 

 

Obviously you're committed to stretching the definition of the state far beyond what you surely know people here are discussing regardless how much evidence is shown to you to the contrary. Even Stefan, when he says "rulers" I doubt means something as informal as "any guy in a group who happens to have a little more power or influence." He can clarify that if he wishes.

There is really nothing more to be said. If you want to stretch the definition of the state that way, you can say whatever you wish. It will have little if any relevance to the discussions people here have an interest in. So I'm moving on now.

 

Okay, well apparently you have no idea when a State becomes a State, so you can't go any further. 

[Rick Horton]

 

 

imaginary concept? The concept is REAL. And it's effects are proof. The idea has effect, thus the idea is real. It's always been there. You are saying that you aren't dominated by these concepts?  If you are controled by them and you think you are controled by something that doesn't exist, than you have a very big issue with what is and isn't imaginary. It's not a physical, but is an ideological reality that does get enforced. 

 

 

   Yes, what I meant to do was to point out the reality of the situation.  Just because a government claims ownership or jurisdiction over a very large area of land, doesn't mean that they control all the people within that territory like robots; only individuals can control themselves.  Government can only influence their behavior through bribes or threats.  To say that we all live and trade at the mercy of the government is different from saying that the government CONTROLS all of our lives and interactions down to every last detail. it's true that government could kill me at any time with a drone strike I guess, but that doesn't mean that my breathing and eating is a result of the government.  I think you are giving government far too much credit.  it is quite clear to me that the more violent control is escalated, the more dysfunctional a system, or as Robert Anton Wilson used to say "imposition of order = escalation of chaos"

 

I'm sorry, but no it doesn't. The State doesn't depend on that. Can you back that up?

 

Yes. To begin with, I would ask why governments invest so much in media and education? The purpose of propaganda is to justify actions that otherwise people would disapprove of. If you are just taking advantage of a power differential, why resort to propaganda? Because it is much more effective than dealing with the resistance of millions of people. The government doesn't like to expose its guns, so to speak, unless it has to.

If you ask a store-owner why he gives money to the mafia, he will say that it is to avoid violence against his person and property. If you ask the average taxpayer why he gives money to the government, he usually will respond with any number of reasons which are essentially moral arguments, in other words,"government is virtuous". If you undermine this they tend to fall back on the argument from effect, or "government is necessary". those who might say "so I don't get arrested" or who have problems with certain areas of government spending, will still react very strongly to the suggestion that there should be no coercive agency collecting money from them. A violent gang dominates people just because it can, but doesn't try to corrupt the hearts and minds of its victims. As soon as it begins to appeal to morality, and ask them to be thankful for their servitude, it takes on a different character, that of government or religion. I see this as the fundamental divide between State and local gang. A gang could never extort such a a large amount of money from so large a population. Neither could they manipulate national debts and currency the way they do. The military could never pay its soldiers so little unless they believed what they were doing was moral and necessary.

Hope that makes sense.

 

It doesn't make sense. This whole argument strategy based on ideas that don't conform to anarchy being somehow less real than ideas that do conform to anarchy, which in itself only exists in the minds of the followers of it, and even then they breach the rules themselves by owning property, is really problematic for you. Rulers are real. The state is a bunch of real rulers. If you don't think the State is a real thing, then HEY, you're right, but what's the difference? The rulers are still going to rule because thats the way they are. Anarchists cant stop them without using force. Anyhow, trying to stop rulers is nothing more than trying to stop winners and losers, powerful people and weak people. So it's as infintile to believe that's possible as it is to believe in something like Zeitgeist, or Christianity.  Then when you compound the problem with this philosophy with the fact that you can't even admit that powerful people will always end up controling the playing field and the weak will not. Now, if somehow the weak people figure out how to level the playing field then THEY are the new powerful people, and they will control the playing field.  I don't look at it like well, Governments are necessary. I look at it like, well no matter what we always end up with the most influential people in power and they by that nature end up being the State.  You can't have no State. You'd have to create a world of totally equal humans in intellegence, drive, morals, health, finances, etc... Otherwise how do you prevent influencial people from doing what they do, which is seeking power?  I argue you dont, can't, and it's never been DONE in history. There have always been rulers. Rulers always become the State.  The State are the product of rulers.  The state is rulers. That's why anarchy is fatally flawed. That's my argument. That's my observation, evaluation, and I used to think I was an anarchist until I realized anarchy has never existed. It's a word based on an idea that hasn't been seen in the real world. Ever.  

[Formelyknown]

Dear Monaco F1 racing dude.

You never shown that you have a standard to evaluate a valid claim. You never though about what make something valid, but on rationalize all the bullshit and prejudice you learn from your childhood.

[Rick Horton]

 

Dear Monaco F1 racing dude.

You never shown that you have a standard to evaluate a valid claim. You never though about what make something valid, but on rationalize all the bullshit and prejudice you learn from your childhood.

 

I don't know if you're post is to me. Standards are essential in evalutating claims. I don't know if you're talking about income inequality, though. I have no idea what you are saying. English isn't your first language, right?  I just can't parse your comment and I don't know if it was toward me because I'm not Monaco F1 racing dude but my name looks similar to the first part of that. 

[Mister Mister]

 I'm not saying that the State or "rulers" are not real, just defining exactly what that means.  I defined the State as violent rulers who are believed to be virtuous and necessary, in contrast to your average gang.  This is very important, as it makes them much more effective, as I argued.  It doesn't mean that they deserve credit for everything happens on their "turf", just that humans are influenced by the threats and bribes of the ruling government.  As anarchists we see that the entire concept of "rulers" based on coercion and fraud is immoral and impractical.  A society without such rulers may or may not be possible, but this is impossible to know.  The point is not to conceive of some imaginary society, or some desired end, and advocate of that, but rather to point out the immorality and impracticality of the society we have now.  No one can know what a free and peaceful future might look like.  However we can point to the success of free and peaceful human interactions.  You might claim that it is impossible to divide these interactions as some "closed system" separate from the government who claims jurisdiction over that territory, that those voluntary interactions are only possible because of the State, but if you argue that, then it must work both ways.  The power of the State is also derived from the wealth produced by voluntary interaction.