Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mises]

I share your disgust at the distribution of wealth.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/story.aspx?guid={25FECF6C-D974-4A45-A166-0E8D02684A80}&siteid=rss

http://www.iaconoresearch.com/BlogImages/09-02-12d_incomes.png
(the above chart shows a difference between mean and median income over time..growing inequality).

This is structural, and doesn't need a revolution. I'm quite sure I've posted a couple times on this site about my disgust for our current financial arrangement so I'll not get into it again. But needless to say, if you want to lessen severe inequality the savers must benefit from policy, not the borrowers/lenders (which means the lenders).

Hayek took issue with the phrase "social justice", and I do too. It is just a fuzzy cover for a wide range of silly ideas that will strip me of my liberty. And to me, my liberty is more important than my "health care". So, I need to know where to hide from the social justice revolution.

[Gopher]

And you are right to be wary o people on self-righteous, idealistic crusades for such cover-all isms as "social justice," Mises.

They are dangerous. Think O'Brien and his Room 101 as one possible outcome of their endeavors. We are not that far off with so many still striving to enforce their own Newspeak dictionary -- deleting this and that word and/or concept as "offensive" and not to be spoken, etc.

[bacasper]

Give me a better phrase than "social justice," and I'll be happy to use it.

But yes, revolutions are dangerous.

I also find this idea that certain concepts may not be spoken, and people not offended as very dangerous also. I would hope that freedom of even the most vile, repulsive speech (the only kind really requiring protection) would be a part of any successful revolution.

[mises]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bacasper]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[bacasper]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Kuros]

[bacasper]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Khenan]

I think he meant something closer to 'every kook and idiot is *able* to commit a crime,' although technically it was correct as written... but there's already enough quibbling over definitions in this thread. He's right - freedom and security are inextricably linked, as Old Ben pointed out. The more security your government provides for you, the less freedom it allows. It seems like a nice inverse correlation.

Everyone will have their own opinion as to where exactly on the safety-freedom continuum it is best to place society. Some would call people on one end 'dictators,' and the other end would be 'anarchists.' Personally, I know which end I prefer, but it doesn't have to be either-or, obviously.

However, this continuum is misleading, because clearly a dictatorship is not a guarantee of safety. Franklin said that when you give up freedom you give up safety. Consider the fact that it is precisely our freedoms that generate our safety, because our freedoms are, in a very real sense, guarantees of protection from mistreatment by our governments.

Giving up your liberty will not buy you an equal amount of safety - you will simply lose both.

[megandadam]