Are you concerned about the future of America?
Oh God, yes!!!
Side Score: 30
Not really, no.
Side Score: 8
I am especially concerned for the future of America indeed. Even though the rich were defeated this election, all their millions put into Mitt Romney poured down the drain, this country is still, for the most part, a corporate-controlled, somewhat fascist, oligarchy.
People are not free because of the disparity in wealth. The wealthy control almost everything, including our opinions. They can even go out of their way to make people believe that Labor Unions are the bad guys while they hide the information on how they raise their own pay and make themselves more comfortable while making everyone who works for them suffer.
Success should not be punished, ideally. But because of human nature, people who are successful in this country use their power and money to control free will and freedom of the Middle and Lower Class... which is evil and warrants punishment. The one-size-fit-all system of government punishment, regulation, may punish the innocent, which is not good, but I can also see why it may be the only way to punish the guilty, simply because the guilty among the wealthy are the ones with the power to avoid being punished in the first place.
In conclusion, yes, I am worried about the future of America, because we are barely different from Feudal Europe. We have an Upper Class that controls everything with their power, and then everyone else below them slavers away under their power, just trying to stay comfortable.
The only difference is that the Upper Class in America has the power to make people believe that this is not what is going on, when this is exactly what's going on.
Side: Oh God, yes!!!
That's all fine and good except that there's still one thing I do not understand. Except for 2008 (to the present) Our standard of living had been going up. That improvement is not due to poor people. It's due to rich people. I think a little appreciation is in order ;)
Side: Oh God, yes!!!
Ideally, redistribution of wealth. I know, I've heard the argument that, if you punish wealth, nobody will have incentive to try and become wealthy, but I'm not sure about that. I think it's important to get rid of the one-tax-fits-all glove in this scenario and instead punish only the wealthy that have literally ruined peoples lives and manipulated opinions and bribed government officials (or tried to).
And while that would be difficult to manage, I'd assume, what it would do is encourage entrepreneurs to actually use what freedom of market we have to do good and not evil. To prefer generosity over greed.
But at the same time, such an idea makes me wonder, 'what if they have so much money and power that they can't be tracked down anymore and punished, like John Rockefeller was?'
If such was the case, then I would generally agree with a one-size-fits-all solution in wealth redistribution. Which again brings up the argument of incentive to be successful. Well, greed doesn't have to be the incentive, no? Nowadays people create small businesses for two reasons: because they have a dream to create and serve people, or, because they want to eventually become the owners of giant companies and have huge sums of money they will never use.
If you take away the later incentive of the examples above, does that really eliminate people's incentive to create products and serve communities? Not at all.
In fact, it's my own earnest belief that the only reason the poor are lazy (the few that are truly lazy, that is; most are just trying to survive or be comfortable) is because they have no hope to ever become successful, or even average, simply because they were born into their respective class. And they have every reason and plenty of supporting evidence to believe this! As the rich constantly work to take away power from their workers so that they may make larger personal incomes.
But if you take away the power of the rich to do these things, to control and destroy lives, to manipulate politicians and people's opinions, and then give that redistributed wealth to the poor, what happens? Maybe some would say they would piss the money away, but I say nay. I say, if the poor had such hope, and had such leeway to actually enter the Middle Class, the vast majority of them would, because the way I see it, the only reason they turn to being the 'scum of the Earth' is because they have no other choice because of being born into a class created by the rich.
Which brings me to what I think would be the best solution provided that we cannot really punish only the rich that violate morality: tightly knit classes. Redistribute wealth so that the three classes are almost nonexistent, and at least, are extremely close together. The rich would still have plenty of luxury, the Middle Class would be content, not stressed, and the Lower Class would be easily comfortable. And nobody could go above or below these standards, thus, preventing people from having the freedom to eliminate the freedom's of others.
Side: Oh God, yes!!!