Lowering CEO to average employee ratio

[wachtwoord]

How is it "stealing?" Taxes were way higher a few decades ago and people were still happy.

 

"We're not stealing from you cause back in the day we used to steal less! You should be happy!" Brilliant argumentation. Really impressive.

 

If you take someone's belongings with force or under threat of force, it's theft.

 

Being insulting doesn't really strengthen your argument. You've failed to say why paying taxes is theft. You've also failed to say why if who has substantial wealth has less why they it would hurt them.

 

I did not fail to say why paying taxes is theft: "If you take someone's belongings with force or under threat of force, it's theft." How is that not taxation?

 

Regarding your second question. There's no need to prove that as it's not your right to decide how someone else his wealth gets utilized.

 

With all the entitlement going around I'm really at a point where I would rather burn money than give it to some entitled pricks. Parasites are detrimental to society. Why should anyone want to pay for their continued existence? They aren't really providing a service.

 

BTW: Note I'm not wealthy. I have nowhere near enough wealth to be directly impacted much by the direct consequences of antisocial (aka progressive) taxation that's been going on. Indirectly I am hurt though cause it hurts the progress of society tremendously. On top of that it builds pressure like a volcano that will erupt someday (large scale wars about food, water and other resources are coming with the growing number of non-contributing members in society).

[LC]

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

 

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

 

No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

[Guest]

wach, I'm going you're a Ron Paul guy. I think most people do not think of taxes as theft but as an obligation. Government takes care of certain things and citizens pay. Your view on taxes as theft is not share by many. Is it theft an employer requires overtime or is threatened with termination? After thy are stealing the person's free time.

 

Further I don't look at the poor as "parasites". Many of them aren't as lucky as us. As a result we have a duty to help the less fortunate.

[DTEJD1997]

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014

 

But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.

 

No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out. You show me a highly unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are no counterexamples. None. It’s not if, it’s when.

 

In the circles that I travel in, lots of people have no or little problems with inequality.  They have a problem with the way the "system" is set up.  They feel that the older & more established folks are pulling the ladder up with them, and they have no/little chance to advance.  They also believe that they have been "tricked" by the educational system.  They went into massive debt to get degrees/licenses that are worth little/nothing.  They have mortgage sized debt and no reasonable way to pay it off. 

 

This is why there are so lawsuits against the law schools.  Well over half the law schools in America need to be shut down.  Many of the law schools were operating in ways that are similar to "for profit" schools that have been shut down already.

 

Another problem with inequality is that the government now mandates that you buy "health insurance".  Nobody I work with has bought it.  They will take their chances and pay the penalty.  When you have to pay $300 or $400 a month with a massive deductible, and then get limited coverage, what is the point?  It is simply a transfer of wealth from the young & relatively healthy to others.

 

Finally, a lot of my peeps are upset with the tax system.  S.E Michigan is relatively high in taxes.  Why are we paying taxes? Where is all the money going? The roads are nightmare.  A good chunk of the primary skool system is useless or even harmful.  Police are ineffectual!  Witness what happened to my father....The public sector employees make quite a bit MORE than private sector employees and get tremendous benefits to boot.

 

So a lot of people are upset not so much about inequality, but that they are not getting a fair shake and that they believe the system is rigged.

[wachtwoord]

wach, I'm going you're a Ron Paul guy. I think most people do not think of taxes as theft but as an obligation. Government takes care of certain things and citizens pay. Your view on taxes as theft is not share by many. Is it theft an employer requires overtime or is threatened with termination? After thy are stealing the person's free time.

 

No, overtime is part of the voluntary contract between employee and employer. I have no interest in what most people believe. Most people are incredibly stupid, close minded, weak sheep.

 

Further I don't look at the poor as "parasites". Many of them aren't as lucky as us. As a result we have a duty to help the less fortunate.

 

They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted.

 

I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual.

[RichardGibbons]

They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted.

 

I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual.

 

LOL, by definition?  Earning money is the only definition of contributing?  So, for instance, you'd view a stay at home mom raising a family as a parasite?  A Walmart employee living below the poverty line isn't contributing?  A doctor volunteering for Doctors without Borders is a parasite?

 

So no, I don't admit this is factual.  Kind of twisted, I think.  That said, you've also said that we should torture thieves to death.  So, I guess your view of the world is pretty skewed.

 

The most amusing thing in this discussion is that StahleyP, Jurgis and I almost don't need to say anything to refute your reasoning.  You almost do it yourself.

 

I think perhaps your next argument should be that we should exterminate all kids because they're nothing but leeches.

[RichardGibbons]

As a meta comment, this sort of discussion makes me wonder about the impact of Fox News. 

 

I'm concerned that because there's no real debate on Fox, right wingers and libertarians are losing the ability to understand what sorts of arguments are strong and what arguments are weak. This could result in them having problems creating strong cases espousing their positions.  (e.g. Libertarians are right that taxes are extortion.  But jumping up and down and yelling about thieves isn't going to persuade many people).

 

One potential result could be a block of die-hard conservatives who are unable to convince others that their positions are reasonable, simply because they don't have skills to argue it effectively.  This could lead to a disproportionate degree of rule by left-wing governments, and the rise of people like Bernie Sanders.

 

To me, this is quite problematic.  I think the center is the best place to be, combining the power of capitalistic economic incentives with rules reducing inequality to improve the quality of life for everyone, and reduce the chance of the rich being killed by the poor.  But if the right are unable to argue their positions effectively, I'm worried we'll actually end up with a socialist like Sanders calling the shots to everyone's detriment.

 

I don't know the solution to this, but I'm hoping that the rise of Trump will be a wake-up call that convinces the broader right-wing to return to rational arguments rather than black-and-white ideology.

[wachtwoord]

They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted.

 

I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual.

 

LOL, by definition?  Earning money is the only definition of contributing?  So, for instance, you'd view a stay at home mom raising a family as a parasite?  A Walmart employee living below the poverty line isn't contributing?  A doctor volunteering for Doctors without Borders is a parasite?

 

So no, I don't admit this is factual.  Kind of twisted, I think.  That said, you've also said that we should torture thieves to death.  So, I guess your view of the world is pretty skewed.

 

The most amusing thing in this discussion is that StahleyP, Jurgis and I almost don't need to say anything to refute your reasoning.  You almost do it yourself.

 

I think perhaps your next argument should be that we should exterminate all kids because they're nothing but leeches.

 

Yes by definition maybe look it up? Your examples are context specific. A stay at home mom who cannot afford to raise her kid without government support is indeed a leech. One that can is not, but it likely depends on the cost involved and the potential future worth of the kids. The doctors without borders is really impossible to determine. I was thinking of the many many obvious examples. Why discuss the edge cases when we can discuss the 95% within 2 standard deviations?

 

I said thieves "should be" tortured to death? Did you dream that?

 

It seems like you think you don't need arguments as you are dodging the arguments. Ever thought of a career in politics?

 

I think we should stop this argument (which I shouldn't have started, but entitlement really pisses me off) as it will not lead to anything.

 

I repeat, before you portray me as rich, I'm middle class, not even upper middle class. And yes that is something I am looking to change (and will) but the "social" net is designed to keep people down. Hard to swim with a ball around your ankle.

[Guest]

How does one determine a "parasite?"

[RichardGibbons]

Yes by definition maybe look it up? Your examples are context specific. A stay at home mom who cannot afford to raise her kid without government support is indeed a leech. One that can is not, but it likely depends on the cost involved and the potential future worth of the kids. The doctors without borders is really impossible to determine. I was thinking of the many many obvious examples. Why discuss the edge cases when we can discuss the 95% within 2 standard deviations?

 

Parasite definition:  person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return.

 

The problem is that you aren't talking about edge cases.  Poor people aren't edge cases--most of the poor are working or contributing to society.  You really think that a bunch of poor people are sitting around home, watching TV?  Almost everyone's trying to get ahead--the edge case is the person who isn't.

 

To me, if you're raising kids well, you're certainly contributing a lot to society.  Most of the poor have jobs.  So I think maybe you consider poor people parasites not because they aren't contributing to society, but rather because they get support.

 

The crux of the definition is whether the poor give any useful or proper return.  You seem to assume because they're poor, they don't.

 

That said, if you haven't given Sanjeev money for this board, then according to your definition you're a parasite (though I don't consider you one.)

 

I said thieves "should be" tortured to death? Did you dream that?

 

I was referring to this comment. 

 

So you take it upon yourself to steal it from others? Yes then you surely don't deserve food.

 

I consider starving someone to death torture.  I guess you just consider it murder?

 

I repeat, before you portray me as rich, I'm middle class, not even upper middle class. And yes that is something I am looking to change (and will) but the "social" net is designed to keep people down. Hard to swim with a ball around your ankle.

 

I didn't portray you as rich.  I'm reasonably wealthy now (though not super wealthy), and one of the conditions leading to that wealth was the social safety net.  If I didn't live in a country with a socialized medical system, it would have been irresponsible to start a business when a single adverse medical event could destroy my family.  Because I knew that I was covered in the case of bad luck, I was able to start a company.

 

So, I guess I was a parasite for several years.  Then I paid the government millions in tax.  Does that make me less of a parasite, or is it the case of "once a parasite, always a parasite"?  Can I get my parasite label retroactively removed because I paid taxes that would more than pay for any costs I incurred?  Do I still not deserve food, or do I get to eat now that I'm one of the people being stolen from, rather than one doing the stealing?

 

(I think I must still be a parasite, because otherwise how do you justify starving to death people like JK Rowling when they're in the process of writing one of the most beloved series ever and becoming a billionaire?  Man, figuring out the implications of your worldview is really confusing.)

[wachtwoord]

Yes by definition maybe look it up? Your examples are context specific. A stay at home mom who cannot afford to raise her kid without government support is indeed a leech. One that can is not, but it likely depends on the cost involved and the potential future worth of the kids. The doctors without borders is really impossible to determine. I was thinking of the many many obvious examples. Why discuss the edge cases when we can discuss the 95% within 2 standard deviations?

 

Parasite definition:  person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return.

 

The problem is that you aren't talking about edge cases.  Poor people aren't edge cases--most of the poor are working or contributing to society.  You really think that a bunch of poor people are sitting around home, watching TV?  Almost everyone's trying to get ahead--the edge case is the person who isn't.

 

To me, if you're raising kids well, you're certainly contributing a lot to society.  Most of the poor have jobs.  So I think maybe you consider poor people parasites not because they aren't contributing to society, but rather because they get support.

 

 

The vast majority of the social safety net money goes to people who contribute zero (at best) to society. So no they don't have jobs. Ever.

 

I agree that well-raised kids are better than badly raised kids. But why have the kids at all if you clearly can't afford them? Also, most badly raised kids are from the bottom of society. At least here.

 

The crux of the definition is whether the poor give any useful or proper return.  You seem to assume because they're poor, they don't.

 

If you aren't motivated to do so, why would you? People do what you reward them for. The "social" system rewards people for "bad" behavior so they will behave badly. I don't even blame them (for taking the money, I do blame them for being unthankful and entitled). I blame the system.

 

That said, if you haven't given Sanjeev money for this board, then according to your definition you're a parasite (though I don't consider you one.)

 

I did pay (some token amount). Couldn't post if I didn't. (although Sanjeev doesn't see the money as payment but more a filter for spammers).

 

 

I was referring to this comment. 

 

So you take it upon yourself to steal it from others? Yes then you surely don't deserve food.

 

I consider starving someone to death torture.  I guess you just consider it murder?

 

I consider it neither. I (or society) wouldn't be killing them, simply not feeding them. They should feed themselves. Not helping someone is not the same as actively hurting them. I'm not evil (I don't get joy out of people being in pain) I simply do not wish to give up my property to alleviate their pain. Simply because it won't work and it's also unfair.

 

There's limited resources on this planet and too many people to share it among. Do you know the quality of life in most of the poorer parts of the world? It's completely dreadful (I doubt there's words to describe how dreadful). But you want extra money for the poor in the rich countries to buy a TV set or go on holiday? (in my country you are officially below the poverty line if you cannot go on holiday at least once a year).

 

If we would redistribute wealth in the world among everyone in the word equally you wouldn't have 1% of what you have now. Do you want that? No? So you only want to help those in your country? Why? Why are they so more deserving? Even the poorest of the poor in my country are better of than the vast majority of the population in most. There is just not enough wealth to go around.

 

So you think your decision of redistributing wealth is so much better than the natural distribution created by distribution by skill (yes unequal)? Which by the way has the added benefit that enriching the world is directly rewarded with financial gain (and therefore accomplished by more people) meaning faster growth of scientific advancement which will bring us closer to your unrealistic utopia where everyone has a worthy life. Right now the vast vast majority does not.

 

TLDR; Again, I am not evil. You are simply naive and your decisions are unfair.

 

I didn't portray you as rich.  I'm reasonably wealthy now (though not super wealthy), and one of the conditions leading to that wealth was the social safety net.  If I didn't live in a country with a socialized medical system, it would have been irresponsible to start a business when a single adverse medical event could destroy my family.  Because I knew that I was covered in the case of bad luck, I was able to start a company.

 

So, I guess I was a parasite for several years.  Then I paid the government millions in tax.  Does that make me less of a parasite, or is it the case of "once a parasite, always a parasite"?  Can I get my parasite label retroactively removed because I paid taxes that would more than pay for any costs I incurred?  Do I still not deserve food, or do I get to eat now that I'm one of the people being stolen from, rather than one doing the stealing?

 

(I think I must still be a parasite, because otherwise how do you justify starving to death people like JK Rowling when they're in the process of writing one of the most beloved series ever and becoming a billionaire?  Man, figuring out the implications of your worldview is really confusing.)

 

Why do you force me to invest in your future returns (which are far from certain) while I will hardly benefit from and won't even have equity in? Would you invest in such a business proposition? Cause I certainly wouldn't (voluntarily).

[Guest]

wach, I'm going you're a Ron Paul guy. I think most people do not think of taxes as theft but as an obligation. Government takes care of certain things and citizens pay. Your view on taxes as theft is not share by many. Is it theft an employer requires overtime or is threatened with termination? After thy are stealing the person's free time.

 

No, overtime is part of the voluntary contract between employee and employer. I have no interest in what most people believe. Most people are incredibly stupid, close minded, weak sheep.

 

Further I don't look at the poor as "parasites". Many of them aren't as lucky as us. As a result we have a duty to help the less fortunate.

 

They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted.

 

I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual.

 

Working a high paying job is also voluntary. Most high earners have a rough idea that they're going to pay more in taxes before they take a position.

 

Further, how about those that subtract from society yet still earn a high salary. Sure, they pay taxes, but the harm they do to society is much worse than the taxes they pay. Are they not worse than your "parasites?"

[wachtwoord]

wach, I'm going you're a Ron Paul guy. I think most people do not think of taxes as theft but as an obligation. Government takes care of certain things and citizens pay. Your view on taxes as theft is not share by many. Is it theft an employer requires overtime or is threatened with termination? After thy are stealing the person's free time.

 

No, overtime is part of the voluntary contract between employee and employer. I have no interest in what most people believe. Most people are incredibly stupid, close minded, weak sheep.

 

Further I don't look at the poor as "parasites". Many of them aren't as lucky as us. As a result we have a duty to help the less fortunate.

 

They are paraditic by definition. Taking from the system while not contributing anything of value. This as opposed to a symbiotic relationship where you both contribute and take. They have zero value to society so every bit of wealth spend on them is wasted.

 

I understand this is al very devoid of emotiom but you must admit it's factual.

 

Working a high paying job is also voluntary. Most high earners have a rough idea that they're going to pay more in taxes before they take a position.

 

Further, how about those that subtract from society yet still earn a high salary. Sure, they pay taxes, but the harm they do to society is much worse than the taxes they pay. Are they not worse than your "parasites?"

 

1. You want to stimulate people to strive for average jobs? That's what you'll do by not rewarding them. I personally don't take positions which require more work from me unless they represent an a very high increase in wages as more than half of the extra income will go to income taxes alone. You really believe that's best for society? I'm quite certain I won't live in my country of birth in ten years.

 

2. Yes they might be worse? I high paid individual who commits a terrorist attack for instance is net detrimental to society and likely worse than any individual parasite (probably not as a group though). Isn't this obvious though?

[Guest]

1) You want to stimulate people to spend? How about providing a good education? Or jobs? Let's not do any of that and have super low taxes so that the wealth can invest in financial assets. Yeah, great idea!

 

2) What punishment do you think is worthy of these fine, wealthy folks?

[wachtwoord]

1) You want to stimulate people to spend? How about providing a good education? Or jobs? Let's not do any of that and have super low taxes so that the wealth can invest in financial assets. Yeah, great idea!

 

2) What punishment do you think is worthy of these fine, wealthy folks?

 

1) No? I'm do not follow the retarded school of Keynesian

 

2) I'm pretty sure there are already laws and punishments for terrorists

[RichardGibbons]

The vast majority of the social safety net money goes to people who contribute zero (at best) to society. So no they don't have jobs. Ever.

 

Do you have a source for that stat?  I haven't seen anything to that effect ever, so I'm curious where you got it from.  (Or is this just some "Look!  They're all retirees and disabled veterans" deal?)  I'm seriously curious about this....

 

The thing that I find interesting about this argument is that you almost certainly can't imagine living like that--doing nothing and having someone else take care of you.  Neither can I.  And I have a hard time believing anyone actually wants to live that sort of life.

 

I think pretty well everyone wants to have a high standard of living, and I think I've never met someone who doesn't actually care.  So I'm curious where all these lazy bums are hiding.  If I could see these legions upon legions of people without ambition, I think it would be much easier for me to come around to your "let them starve" point of view.

 

So you think your decision of redistributing wealth is so much better than the natural distribution created by distribution by skill (yes unequal)?

 

It's interesting to take this premise--that stuff is naturally divided up by skill--and see where it takes you.

 

The median black household in the USA makes $35K a year, while the median white household makes about $60K.  I assume in your world, that basically means that blacks are intrinsically less skilled?  In my world, the most likely explanation is that it's the result of bad luck (much of that bad luck being the genetic lottery.)

 

Why do you force me to invest in your future returns (which are far from certain) while I will hardly benefit from and won't even have equity in? Would you invest in such a business proposition? Cause I certainly wouldn't (voluntarily).

 

Exactly.  Now you're starting to come around to my point of view! Your laissez-faire system wouldn't create these great outcomes. Let's go back to my first comment on this thread:

 

There's value in discussing how to design the world optimally to reduce the horrible outcomes resulting from bad luck. 

 

You wouldn't have invested in it, and that's a terrible thing for society. Relying on capitalism to decide everything results in considerably non-optimal outcomes.  Without this social program, we wouldn't have a new business creating goods that consumers want and providing jobs to people who make those goods, all of it increasing our standard of living.  A total win!

 

 

[sys]

leaving aside talk of salary regulation and taxation, i think the more interesting question is why the labor market does not itself correct this (real or perceived) imbalance.  i think most would agree that there are many more individuals with the ability to be effective ceos than there are ceo positions.

 

to me it seems like the reason must be that there is a perception among owners that switching costs exceed the accumulated losses due to overpaying executives.

[wachtwoord]

RichardGibbons: Do you truly not understand my points or do you like playing politics and trying to twist my words? Of course it would have been better for society if these things would not have been funded. Just because you found some example that accidentally turned out ok does not mean that this type of investment overall has a positive ROI. If you wouldnt invest as an individual investor neither should government on your behalf.

 

In the end we can cut this whole discussion short though: hands off stuff that isnt your or that hand is coming off.

 

Sys: Interesting question. It could be your explanation but perhaps the market is just slow with reaching equilibrium. It often is.

[LC]

leaving aside talk of salary regulation and taxation, i think the more interesting question is why the labor market does not itself correct this (real or perceived) imbalance.  i think most would agree that there are many more individuals with the ability to be effective ceos than there are ceo positions.

 

to me it seems like the reason must be that there is a perception among owners that switching costs exceed the accumulated losses due to overpaying executives.

 

This is a good point and I've thought about it a lot. I think there are a handful of factors at play, including:

-ambiguous qualifications of what makes a "good CEO"

-the switching cost point you mention

-fear of being the odd-man-out (i.e. the owner to take the first step in reducing ceo pay)

-an 'old boys club' at the top, where many of these ppl look out for each other vs. meritocracy

-the faulty assumption that CEO pay must be in line with company scale (but not other positions)

-lack of true attribution - i.e. faulty measurement of what a CEO actually contributes towards company success

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

Wachtwoord, it's not that I don't understand your points.  It's that I think they're wrong, and I'm providing counterexamples to show why. I can understand why it bothers you though. When a counterexample proves that you wrong, you either have to modify your ideology or whine, and people almost never modify their ideology.

 

I'm still curious about your evidence of "The vast majority of the social safety net money goes to people who contribute zero (at best) to society. So no they don't have jobs. Ever."  Seriously.  If you've got something, I'm really curious.

 

(And if you have nothing, then.... Really?  The core tenet of your beliefs, and you have nothing? Come on, you gotta have something. Please.)

 

Sys, I think LC has largely got it, except that I also think it's like the problem in politics.  For most issues, most people care a bit, but not that much, while the lobbyists care a lot about the issue.  So, the lobbyist expend way more effort and mostly get their way, even if it's not what the vast majority wants.  It's the same way with executive pay.

 

[vox]

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/wk1bqw/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive---j-k--rowling-extended-interview-pt--1

 

http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/The-Christmas-That-Gave-Oprah-Hope-Video

[wachtwoord]

Wachtwoord, it's not that I don't understand your points.  It's that I think they're wrong, and I'm providing counterexamples to show why. I can understand why it bothers you though. When a counterexample proves that you wrong, you either have to modify your ideology or whine, and people almost never modify their ideology.

 

I'm still curious about your evidence of "The vast majority of the social safety net money goes to people who contribute zero (at best) to society. So no they don't have jobs. Ever."  Seriously.  If you've got something, I'm really curious.

 

(And if you have nothing, then.... Really?  The core tenet of your beliefs, and you have nothing? Come on, you gotta have something. Please.)

 

Sys, I think LC has largely got it, except that I also think it's like the problem in politics.  For most issues, most people care a bit, but not that much, while the lobbyists care a lot about the issue.  So, the lobbyist expend way more effort and mostly get their way, even if it's not what the vast majority wants.  It's the same way with executive pay.

 

What I mean your counter examples are not counter examples to my arguments. They are counter examples to complete misinterpretations of my arguments. So your either doing this on purpose (to "win" in a political fashion; basically all the retards think you're winning but you're really not) or you truly do not comprehend what I'm saying.

 

Either way we're talking past each other. You're very likely just a sheep who is mentally unable to think outside of the box of social norms in today's society. It makes sense, most people are as our biological bodies are still too close evolutionary to living in small tribes where being accepted as part of the group was the most important thing.

 

Regarding the evidence, yes I've seen this but I haven't have any direct evidence readily available. (Let's place this in perspective though as you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your ridiculous claims either.)

[Guest]

wach, how do you feel about eugenics?

[wachtwoord]

wach, how do you feel about eugenics?

 

No ethical problems (with the concept itself, deprnding on the context and amount of force used I could) although it's kind of a poor man's version of direct genetic improvement.

 

If done well it can speed up human evolution. I'm not sure whether humans are able to do this well though as we're full of prejudices and pre-conceived beliefs and are way too emotional. The natural evolutionary process will get there in the end but it will take a very long time and require some large nigh-exrinction events.

 

I won't live to see any of this though.

[RichardGibbons]

Thanks for the interesting discussion, wachtwoord. I think we've both made our best cases within the limitations of the time we were willing to put into an Internet thread.  It was fun! :)