 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
JOE
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 10 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Birthright
June 16, 2007 - 03:50 PM
|
|
Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth. In his article "Taking Luck Seriously" Matt Miller suggests that birthright results in the "inherited package of wealth, health, genes, looks, brains, talents and family." Approximately two-thirds {or more} of all wealth in the United States is inherited by birthright. In a recent study conducted at Ohio State University's Center for Human Resource Research, author Jay Zagorsky stated "Intelligence is not a factor for explaining wealth." Therefore, one may draw the conclusion that most business and political leaders are not intelligent. They did not earn their way into powerful positions but rather were manipulated into them because of birthright. This further begs the question: then why are they in charge? Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? Does the merit system stop when one graduates from school? While intelligence is certainly not the only factor in determining who is most fit to lead our society, it is certainly a better measure than birthright. In over two hundred years the United States has failed at overcoming one of the biggest barriers to a just society. We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
JOE
Joined: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 10 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Country: United States
|
Birthright Part 2
June 16, 2007 - 03:50 PM
|
|
"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest? What tangible proof is there that top executives contribute that much more to the successful attainment of corporate goals? Why aren't these executives {Enron} given longer prison terms than car thieves? If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}. It is this ignorance perpetuated by birthright that is leading this country to collapse. Perhaps someday our society will be lead by intelligent people who see their own best interest as having promoted society's best interest.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Dorothy and Oz
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 16 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 20
Country: New Zealand
Province/State: Hawke's Bay
City: Napier
|
Re: Birthright
August 10, 2007 - 02:36 AM
|
|
Thats so excellent and true. They only are in charge because the people who should be incharge are supressed. Power is everything... if you have none then you are not heard. Thus why Al-Qaeda was formed. they are freedom fighters for those who cannot speak... despite the fact they are very extreme. "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" now they have power and are listened to.
Maybe we will never over come the concept of "birthright" if we stay power hungry.
Come on, tony Blair and George Bush cant have passed any exams I swear
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Birthright
August 10, 2007 - 02:52 AM
|
|
"Thus why Al-Qaeda was formed. they are freedom fighters for those who cannot speak..."
You have no idea why Al Qaeda was formed -
"Freedom" You think they are fighting for freedom?
they want they kill men who don't have beards, and force women to wear the Hijab. Their idea of government would make Infidels like YOU a servant.
They want to overthrow governments so they can impose their intolerant ideology on the entire middle -east.
they ban music - not just western music but ALL music. They ban all liquor, ban free speech , there is no freedom of religion in the Al Qaeda ideology.
Women are not allowed to work, or drive.
Please tell me how they fight for freedom.-
I have a read a few of your posts and they are highly opinionated - and often ignorant.
I think some one of your age should ask more questions and not assume they know everything.
"Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth."
Lord knows Bin Laden didn't inherit a fortune - he is a poor man sticking up for the little guy - right?
I think Bin Laden of all people can appreciate what it means to be born into money and power.
This post was edited on: 2007-08-10 at 03:01 AM by: Luke Lieberman
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Dorothy and Oz
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: 16 (view all)
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 20
Country: New Zealand
Province/State: Hawke's Bay
City: Napier
|
Re: Birthright
August 11, 2007 - 08:39 PM
|
|
They believe that they are protecting the Muslim faith whether or not they are doing it in the best way possible is something quite different.
But I guess fighting for freedom really should be blowing up some innocent Iraqis and then having a **** and a moan when some terrorist blows up a few buses. Yay, Go the war on terror.
Like it's actually made the world any safer. Before you start calling people ignorant think about how you look to us. Ask and we shall get a corrupt answer, yay thats awesome!! Making assumptions? Based on ignorance... Its a very interesting theory but you forget that you also make assumptions... Or infact you just cant accept that other people have opinions themselves.
The white way is the only way! Go the Eurocentric views! Next on the agenda, lets disrespect a few Red Indians cause they arnt Catholics!!!
This post was edited on: 2007-08-11 at 08:48 PM by: Dorothy and Oz
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Birthright
August 12, 2007 - 01:30 PM
|
|
"But I guess fighting for freedom really should be blowing up some innocent Iraqis..."
Which is exactly what Al Qaeda does - Chlorine bombs, car bombs, decapitations, summary executions.
Al Qaeda blows up innocent Iraqis - all the time.
I am not suggesting that the US Army are pure as newly fallen snow - but the idea that Al Qaeda is fighting for some noble cause is just childish.
I would say that fighting for freedom means that you are fighting so that others might be free -
it does not mean fighting so that others will be forced to bow down to your own narrow, intolerant fanatical religious beliefs.
You do realize that Al Qaeda considers MOST of the people in Iraq (namely the Shia) to be apostates.
"they are protecting the Muslim faith"
they think most Muslims are apostates and heretics - they even invented the concept of "Takfir" - which allows them to kill innocent muslims if they are not of the Whahabbi sect - because according to them only the Whahabbi are real muslims.
You are very young, so I am taking all your bluster with a grain of salt -
passion is good, misguided as it may be. I think perhaps if you kept an open mind - you would realize that the world is a much more complicated place then you give it credit for.
You suffer from the same problem as Bush - you see the world as black and white - and so there is no nuance to your thinking.
it is ironic that often liberals are often the most narrow minded. You read a couple books, you have never been outside Australia/New Zeland - and yet you are so sure you have the world all figured out.
"infact you just cant accept that other people have opinions themselves."
sigh... such childish rhetoric - this is a debate site -
obviously you have your opinion - and obviously I am permitted to disagree with it - and debate you on the substance of your posts.
on the off chance that you are open minded perhaps the debate will help you see another point of view.
but this protest rhetoric and hyperbolae you employ is not the stuff of meaningful debate which gets to the core of issues -
it is the kind of stuff you write on signs when you march in a circle outside a government building.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 748 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 53
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Birthright
August 12, 2007 - 09:51 PM
|
|
JOEBIALEK wrote:
Birthright is defined as a right, privilege, or possession, such as property, to which one is entitled by birth... Why is it that our country is not run by the best and brightest? We refuse to find a way to limit the benefits of birthright and therefore make for a fairer {and better managed} society.
I am sorry, but I beg to differ. I assume Joe that you feel chlidren should not inherit or benefit from their parent's wealth? What should happen to the parent's wealth? When they die, should it be taken by the government? The children should have to "start fresh" and build their own wealth, only to have it taken away, too?
You may not like capitalism because not everyone ends up "equal." Wherever egalitarianism (read Marxism) has been tried, it has eventually been abandoned (okay, with the glorious exceptions of Cuba and North Korea) . Why? As an incentive system for encouraging people to work, it was an abject failure. Everyone soon learned to work as little as possible, because no matter how hard they worked (or others didn't work), everyone got the same equal share. Capitalism is not an ideology, but just "human nature." We want to enjoy the fruits of OUR labor. AND we want our children to enjoy those fruits, too!
Ideally democracy should weed out those unfit to govern. Obviously, it doesn't always work, but it is a better system than any other alternative. The world has already tried having Kings and Queens, religious leaders, normal dictatorships and "dictatorships of the Proletariat", the enlightened trend is clearly toward democracy.
Bill Clinton overcame an underprivileged background to become President. Although he wasn't perfect, he was pretty good. Maybe that supports your theory a bit. But the other President near and dear to most liberal hearts, John F. Kennedy, came from the most privileged background imaginable. So the connection between having or not having wealth and becoming a "good leader" (or even being able to become a President) is not as clear as you think.
violetlovato wrote:
...Thus why Al-Qaeda was formed. they are freedom fighters for those who cannot speak...
Violet, a mind is a terrible thing to waste...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 748 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 53
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: Birthright
August 12, 2007 - 10:59 PM
|
|
JOEBIALEK wrote:
"A Decade of Executive Excess,'' the sixth annual survey of executive compensation by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, finds the ratio of top executive to factory worker pay has exploded this decade from 42 to 1 in 1980 to 419 to 1 last year. Why are we paying these people so much more if they don't have the intelligence and will to act in our best interest?
JoeBialek, I am as shocked by high executive pay as you are. I am also shocked by Oprah Winfrey's salary and by the salaries some athletes get for hitting a ball with a stick or throwing a ball through a hoop. SOMEONE must think these people are entitled to their high compensation.
In the case of company executives it is the companies' shareholders who demand the company be run profitably and that they get a good return on their investment. There is a long list of executives who have been fired for not achieving this goal (their "Golden Parachutes" are quite shocking, too!). Is this a bad goal? You obviously feel a company's goals should be different. What? Giving as many employees as possible as much money as possible?
Look at the American auto industry to find some of the highest paid employees in the world. But this goal is obviously not good for the auto companies, which are all in difficulty right now. They have had to cut their workforces to a third of the 1979 levels.
JOEBIALEK wrote:
If intelligence determined corporate leadership rather than birthright, the compensation ratio would be much lower because smart leaders would recognize it as the right thing to do whereas those that are there by birthright simply don't know any better {or care}.
Are you talking about family-owned companies? I really think you are on shaky ground here, trying to say high-paid executives have a "birthright" to their positions. Yes, these people probably have benefitted from very privileged upbringings, gone to the best schools, probably used family connections.
How does Robert Maxwell fit your theory? He was born Ján Ludvík Hoch in a small Czechoslovak village, came to England without a penny in his pocket and built a media empire, only to be disgraced when it was revealed he had raided his employees' pension funds?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Birthright
August 13, 2007 - 06:59 PM
|
|
It is not simply a matter of motivating the economy - which is does.
Inheritance is a basic right.
When my mother died - who should get her wedding ring? I did, anyone thinks they have a claim on it can deal with me personally - why should the government have it?
In terms of family bussiness - I am in a few of them - I was brought up in the bussiness - I was taught the family bussiness from a young age -
basically there is no one more qualified to run our particular bussiness than me. The second or third generation family member already knows everyone involved and the property inside and out.
Being groomed for a particular company from birth has its advantages.
Often the second generation litteraly come up through the ranks starting young working at entry level. I have an Arab frined - his parents own a falafel place and a cafe around the corner from my house.
when they die - who should get the cafe if not one of their children?
Why should they work so hard to make their cafe the best it can be - why would they build it to last - if they do not have the right to pass it on to their children?
The smoothest transition is often logically to the next generation in the same family.
I don't believe in nepotism - but often you are creating a great deal of needless confusion and disorder in the business commmunity if you are regularly changing ownerships of private companies.
That restrains economic growth - and growth is good for everyone.
What makes more sense is and estate tax which draws money from inheritance into the public pocket.
I am not opposed to some redistribution of wealth when a rich man dies - in the vein of a tax when the wealth changes hands within the family.
But think disinheriting a child of all his parents owned is simply foolish - it will cripple the economy - and unjust.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Birthright
August 13, 2007 - 07:02 PM
|
|
It is not simply a matter of motivating the economy - which is does.
Inheritance is a basic right.
When my mother died - who should get her wedding ring? I did, anyone thinks they have a claim on it can deal with me personally - why should the government have it?
In terms of family bussiness - I am in a few of them - I was brought up in the bussiness - I was taught the family bussiness from a young age -
basically there is no one more qualified to run our particular bussiness than me. The second or third generation family member already knows everyone involved and the property inside and out.
Being groomed for a particular company from birth has its advantages.
Often the second generation litteraly come up through the ranks starting young working at entry level. I have an Arab frined - his parents own a falafel place and a cafe around the corner from my house.
when they die - who should get the cafe if not one of their children?
Why should they work so hard to make their cafe the best it can be - why would they build it to last - if they do not have the right to pass it on to their children?
The smoothest transition is often logically to the next generation in the same family.
I don't believe in nepotism - but often you are creating a great deal of needless confusion and disorder in the business commmunity if you are regularly changing ownerships of private companies.
That restrains economic growth - and growth is good for everyone.
What makes more sense is and estate tax which draws money from inheritance into the public pocket.
I am not opposed to some redistribution of wealth when a rich man dies - in the vein of a tax when the wealth changes hands within the family.
But think disinheriting a child of all his parents owned is simply foolish - it will cripple the economy - and unjust.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Slick Frenzy
Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Posts: 236 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Age: 38
Country: United States
Province/State: Texas
City: Dallas
|
Re: Birthright
August 25, 2007 - 03:22 AM
|
|
violetlovato wrote:
They believe that they are protecting the Muslim faith whether or not they are doing it in the best way possible is something quite different.
But I guess fighting for freedom really should be blowing up some innocent Iraqis and then having a **** and a moan when some terrorist blows up a few buses. Yay, Go the war on terror.
The white way is the only way! Go the Eurocentric views! Next on the agenda, lets disrespect a few Red Indians cause they arnt Catholics!!!
This post was edited on: 2007-08-11 at 08:48 PM by: Dorothy and Oz
figters for Islam is irrellevant. if they are going about it in the right way is everything. You speak from a very "black & white" point of view. Idealism isn't wrong, it's just usually misguided. As mature you will find that issues are no longer are about the "black & white" but about the "right & wrong"
You draw a moral equivalence between a terrorist group and the war on terror. Bush is a bad, bad man and he is killing thousands of Iraq's innocent and however the mantra goes. Just rmember, you, being a young woman and all, how much Islam repects your sex. The freedom fighters you praise, will have no prolbem taking your head too. The freedom they fight for really comes down to one choice. Be Muslim or we kill you.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Azira Aziz
Joined: Nov 26, 2003
Posts: 216 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 25
Country: Malaysia
|
Re: Birthright
August 31, 2007 - 06:27 AM
|
|
Now, seriously, luke, how did a discussion on the blue eyed boys of the upper crust Americans end up being skewed on how Muslims allegedly screw up things?
Kindly enlighten me with any causal-effect linkages.
Anyways, I agree with your later view in regards to inheritences and supposed trade dynasties. It's common for families to carry on the predominent family trade, be it MNCs, or even politicians (them Kennedy, Tunku Abdul Rahman's and Tun Razak's descendants in the Malaysian context, the Gandhis for India, etc).
We have a saying in Malay, "where does the soup/gravy go if not on the rice/chicken?" Like father, like son and so forth.
Which makes me curious, did anyone in your family carry on a family trade for generations, luke?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Luke Lieberman
Joined: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 3007 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: Birthright
August 31, 2007 - 10:08 PM
|
|
"Now, seriously, luke, how did a discussion on the blue eyed boys of the upper crust Americans end up being skewed on how Muslims allegedly screw up things?"
the girl directly before my comments said -
"They only are in charge because the people who should be incharge are supressed. Power is everything... if you have none then you are not heard. Thus why Al-Qaeda was formed. they are freedom fighters for those who cannot speak..."
So my first comment was to straighten out that abysmally misguided perception.
But Violetlovato brought Al Qaeda into the discussion - I merely responded.
As for family business - different members of my family own different businesses in different respects -
I'm third generation American so the bussinesses only go back 1 generation - 2 at the most.
but I am going to hire one of my nefews next summer, my father and I own 2 companies together.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Camolot
Joined: Sep 7, 2007
Posts: 8 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 32
Country: United States
Province/State: Kentucky
City: Louisville and Jefferson County
|
Re: Birthright
September 10, 2007 - 11:02 AM
|
|
in relation to the 'rhetoric", questions of birthright are trumped by the obvious need to distribute wealth, wealth is the top of an age old ascent to power over others by the manipulation of innocence, folks with needs trump folks with unlimited desires and wants the ficticious nature of combatic joust along lines being discussed in major houses of legislature distrupt the potential energy created with the localization of government intstead of the constant push of mole hills into mountains only to be toppled by the incredible presumptuousness of those trying to infiltrate the nature of Mothers and the ingenuity of the humilty of fathers.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
