[ryanwaggoner]

There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work). One is past, one is future, and each wishes to demote the value of the other. One side has power but lacks the vision and talent to use it; the other has the capability but not the means.

Sounds suspiciously like Marxism. People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.

What's ironic is that a) many of the people at the top started out at the bottom and earned their way to the top, and b) those at the bottom are ultimately trying to cultivate the same things: wealth and connections.

I find it incredibly naive to think that we're at some turning point in history where suddenly the world is going to become some kind of meritocracy and the people who are just starting out will behave any differently once they make it than people have been behaving forever. I also find it humorous that you think that people at the top are basically just dumb, boring people who lack vision and talent, and who have only their inherited wealth and connections to keep them on top. Give me a break.

[theBobMcCormick]

Can we all just let go of the ridiculous cold-war era brain washing?

Claiming an idea is invalid because it "sounds suspiciously like (Marxism/Communism/Socialism/etc)" is an ad hominem. It's flawed thinking, a logical fallacy. When you do it, you're not effectively supporting your argument you're just revealing your own intellectual shallowness.

[ryanwaggoner]

first, I did support my argument. second, I don't feel the need to disprove the same thing over and over. some theories are just wrong, and labeling them as such is not an ad hominem attack. do you feel the need to have an entire debate every time someone makes a case for young earth creationism. in my mind Marxism and YEC have about the same level of validity, which has been proven over and over; I feel no need to do so again.

that's just my opinion, and if you disagree, fine. but don't have a knee jerk reaction and assume that because I labelled something Marxist means I'm intellectually shallow.

[netsp]

Marxism and YEC have about the same level of validity

OK, but your reasoning is still flawed.

There is an all-out, bitter war going on between property (connections, inherited wealth, resources) and energy (talent, ambition, hard work)

If unbannable had used those ideas to underpin his arguments, attacking Marxism would make sense. But he doesn't. He just (sort of) shares one of Marx's observations & moral dispositions. Not everything that Marx claimed, observed, said or saw is disproved. To the extend that Marxism is disproved, it is the political or economic systems.

The same tactic is used by anti-evolutionists trying to draw a connection to Nazism.

This is a close cousin of a straw man. Straw man is a shallow argument.

[netsp]

Sounds suspiciously like Marxism.

Is that a reason to dismiss? This may be a stumble on an idea that Marx would agree with, but noone is asking you to accept marxism wholesale.

'Sounds suspiciously like..', is a defensive way of thinking. It's wanting to know who's side you are on so you know what position to hold. It's almost like being afraid of being persuaded by argument.

[unbannable]

People with wealth and connections are the bad guys, while the struggling guy at the bottom is the good guy.

It's not that simple. There are people who have both wealth/connections and talent. There are good guys who are well-connected and wealthy.

The moral battleground is the exchange rate between these two fundamental commodities. Talent should trade very high against property, but often it doesn't. The good guys are those who are trying to make the exchange rate proper; the bad guys believe the talented exist only to serve those who are already powerful. So powerful people who use their resources to advance those who are talented are among the good guys.

[ryanwaggoner]

Yeah, it's not that simple. That's my whole point.

Also, can you provide some objective basis for the statement that talent should trade very high against "property"?

[unbannable]

Those who want talent to trade highly against property are those who believe the best and most capable should be making the big decisions. They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.

Those who want the reverse are those who have power but lack talent, and their supporters.

[anamax]

How do you determine "best and most capable"?

One way to do so is to let people trade their talent for property that they use as they see fit. If they're good and not just lucky, they'll succeed again, getting more property over which to make decisions.

However, that method seems to be in conflict with "talent should trade highly against property".

> They have the interest of humanity-at-large at heart.

That's bullshit on stilts.

[netsp]

Should?