AN EGALITARIAN SOCIETY

The principle matter at hand, for the upcoming elections, is one of Income Inequity. That is the unfairness by which income (which, when accumulated, becomes wealth) is distributed in our economy (and society).

That is, the fundamental moral discourse is this: If we all contribute by means of our labor to generating economic wealth, in terms of Gross Domestic Product, then do we not all have a right to share equitably in the well-being that our economy provides?

Mankind learned to employ the Division of Labor such that it could produce a surplus beyond an individual’s personal needs and thus exchange the surplus to obtain other goods/services that enhanced their well-being. That Division of Labor in a free-market economy, however, derives returns that are unequal. Doctors should earn more than a floor-sweeper given the skills that must be mastered to practice their profession. And that example applies to all professions.

And yet, in the aggregate, does that mean that a free-market economy has no limits in the accumulation of income to produce wealth? No, it doesn’t - not in an Egalitarian Society. Limits are necessary to assure that the wealth is distributed not equally but equitably amongst all members of a society.

After all, if a nation is menaced by some external threat, do we distinguish amongst our population those who must defend the country and those who can freeload? Or must we all participate according to our abilities? The right answer is the latter.

Consequently, the discourse is indeed not about millionaires. It is about this question: What should taxation and government expenditures be in order to offer our citizens the means to live decent lives by working at decent jobs with a decent wage?

Which means, amongst other goals, that we expand our Public Services to assure that the population is afforded key services that are necessary to their well-being - for example:
* A Public Option National Health Service to assure their physical well-being) and the provision (at the least possible cost) and
* Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education to assure that we all have skills/aptitudes necessary to assure our own economic well-being by means of our work?

A nation’s equity does not depend upon the fact that some will earn more than others – but that some will earn much, much more than others. The matter devolves thus to this question: What is the multiple in any given society, between that which the lowest earner is paid and the amount of money the highest earner receives?

And when that multiple is exaggeratedly too large, is it not egalitarian to tax the richer to provide public services to the poorer such that they both may enjoy a minimum of well-being? After all - the wealth of the former, is it not dependent upon the consumption of the latter? And if we selfishly impoverish the latter, will not the general well-being of the nation be affected?

MY POINT

Therefore, do we not have as a National Objective that the economy benefits the most citizens possible of the nation – rather than the glaring disparity that presently exists?

Will we see any of the above “progressive values” translate into political objectives in America? Perhaps … when hell freezes over. Americans are just not “there” yet.

It’s obvious, that the American voter has “one” choice: republican, as represented by a bunch of backward looking fools that honestly represent themselves as republicans, and another backward looking republican fool, namely Obama, that represents himself as a democrat.  The attempt to sell Obama as a democrat, let alone, a “leftist,” reveals the blatant dishonesty or cluelessness of the author. With the election and re-election of Obama, we see one of most cynically effective efforts to move the country “rightward,” that I’ve seen in my lifetime.  Rightwing politics cannot “sell” in this country.  But righwing politics masquerading as left-leaning politics, is a masterful method of stealthily moving a rightwing agenda on the nation.  When you steer your car into a sharp right turn, you must make slight and instantaneous leftward movements with the steering wheel, to keep from losing control.  Obama’s handlers and advisers are executing this agenda perfectly.  “Compromise, compromise, compromise.”  But knowing “when” to compromse, is the key. Compromise isn’t an absolute good.  Compromise, when it comes to constitutionally guaranteed rights? Are we nuts?

Shifting?  Slightly? 

Public opinion polls, though never published (because of what they would indicate) have shown over the last several decades that, by huge majorities (60, 70, 80+ percent), the American people are FAR to the left of both factions of the Corporate Party.  Odd how reporters consistently miss what ought to be headline news, but then, as Upton Sinclair noted: “It’s very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it”.

Actually there is no shift.  Its just the Dim-ocrats turn to be the arm of the single
party to promise one thing while doing the same thing and disappoint while trying
to disguise the same policies. Stand by for the next “shift” in 12 to 36 months.

So if your not a T party your Left ? This benefits Obama How ? Only because there is no one to vote for ?

What a silly article. Obama has consistently ruled as a Republican President. He has, with the help of a recalcitrant GOP and his own lack of a spine, created no jobs, and there is no reason to believe that ,given four more years, he will create any then.

No, the hope for the future of this nation lies with more of us understanding that our two party system is a lie.

If I were Obama I would’t count on this….I will vote against the right, but cannot vote for
Obama under any circumstances….I’m sure there are many independents just like me
who consider Obama as a presidnent who pushed forward the 1 percent agenda, and
sold out the people…

Wait, Obama’s a leftist? That’s news to me. All this means is that the American public basically has two options when it comes to the status quo:

Republicans: Ayn Rand-worshipping blowhards, theocratic loons with delusions of grandeur, corrupt former and current governors with pockets full of cash, neocon war warmongers, sexually deviant pizza salesmen.

Democrats: Ayn Rand-worshipping blowhards, cynics with delusions of grandeur, neocon war mongers who fire drone missiles at US citizens without due process and 16-year-old Pakistanis, oligarch puppets with pockets full of cash, nicer-sounding rhetoric.