<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title><![CDATA[Comments for entry "Democracy, Capitalism, Internet" at Dilbert.com Blog]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/843]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Regular thoughts and updates from Dilbert.com]]></description>
<language><![CDATA[en-us]]></language>
<generator><![CDATA[VPI.Net MyBlogAbout]]></generator>
<managingEditor><![CDATA[]]></managingEditor>
<webMaster><![CDATA[]]></webMaster>
<ttl><![CDATA[5]]></ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from DougOrleans]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1843950]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Ben Franklin never said anything of the sort.

&quot;The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you never know if they are genuine.&quot; â€” Abraham Lincoln]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SunAMCDTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1843950]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from zhanbao28]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1841753]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone  Welcome to ====  http://www.luckygrip.com ==
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35
Jordan (1-22)&amp;2009 shoes $45
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&amp;G) $30
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $14
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15
New era cap $16
Biki ni (Ed hardy, polo) $18  
FREE SHIPPING
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 
 http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com 

  http://www.luckygrip.com 

 http://www.luckygrip.com]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1841753]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dsgweg]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1839215]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Hi buddy : 

in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone


 ===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


 ===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


$33 True Religion jeans, Ed Hardy jeans,LV,Coogi jeans,Affliction jeans 

$30 Air Jordan shoes,Shox shoes,Gucci,LV shoes

50%Discount winter fashion :Sandle,t-shirt,caps,jerseys,handbag and brand watches!!!

$15 Ed Hardy ,LV ,Gucci Bikini

$15 Polo, Ed Hardy, Gucci, LV, Lacoste T-shirts

$25 Coach,Gucci,LV,Prada,Juicy,Chanel handbag,

$10 Gucci,Ed Hardy sunglasses

$9 New Era caps.

give you the unexpected harvest


===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


 ===== http://www.netetrader.com   =====


==== ( http://www.scnshop.com ) =====
]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1839215]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from fledder]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834483]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I'm from the Netherlands, and here we have a multi party political system, which means that after the elections only a coalition of 2, 3 or more parties can form a majority.

Anyway, before that happens, each political parties' program is calculated by an independent analysis institute for impact on several areas of society, including how that boils down to various living situations and societal classes.

So we have the better and reliable information that you are suggesting. And it doesn't make any difference. People still vote against their interests. People still focus on TV debates (if at all) rather than actual data.

It's not a data problem. It's a people problem. Whether it is because people are lazy, stupid, too busy or uninterested I don't know, but practice shows even reliable data does not work for rational voting behavior.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[MonPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1834483]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1830222]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[ps i didnt mean to downplay the impact of having resources. being rich is a huge advantage. 

im just a fan of the human spirit. In the Conan movie with James Earl Jones (snake guy), the Snake villain touts 'flesh' as stronger than 'steel', then asks a follower to commit suicide, which she does without question.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[SatAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1830222]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1830221]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@nasch:
transgenerational impact on outcome is a touchy subject. (especially when race dynamics enter)

parents income/education for example.

My concern is not about family impact on opportunity, but govt impact. Thats what we, as a society, need to ensure is fair to all.

IMO, families should absolutely have the right to impact their children, even if that means their kids will be advantaged over other kids.

Although I dont think parents intelligence or knowledge or $ really are the legacy they pass on. IMO, its the attitudes and processes that granted the parents their success in their own life.

Attitudes of success or finishing what you start or 'of course im going to college and will get degree', are far more important than ability. As well as HOW you respond to setbacks and outright failure.

I would rather a kid is raised by poor family with healthy optimistic attitudes about life than by his old neighbor who won the lottery.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1830221]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RavenBlack]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1830115]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@several people who were talking about this:

Yeah, I don't think food stamps and medicaid are so much to win votes, as to prevent crime. This is not to suggest it's like a bribe to would-be criminals, but rather that anyone who can't get a job (there aren't as many jobs as there are people, so some of these will exist) and has no other source of income, will almost inevitably turn to &quot;crime&quot; as the alternative to starving in the street (and possibly having their family starve in the street). I put crime in inverted commas because in my eyes the real crime is not allowing people the means to support themselves, and anyone who takes that ability back from society is not firmly in the wrong (though of course, I would prefer that it not be taken from me!)

Anyway, I digress, my point is that even if I was being 100% selfish, and I am exempt from all social support due to being an immigrant, if I could vote, I would vote in favor of food stamps and government sponsored housing, because it keeps people from being strongly incentivised to take my stuff, and it's significantly cheaper than imprisoning all those people would be. (I'm not 100% selfish so I would also be in favor of support programs for other reasons.)

Unfortunately, people who are opposed to such programs mostly see &quot;it costs my tax dollars&quot; and don't see &quot;it saves more tax dollars in other places.&quot; Keeping someone in prison is ridiculously expensive.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1830115]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from RVChip]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829701]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Rather than try to force everyone to vote, I like to see voting be reserved only for those who earn the right, along the lines described by Robert A. Heinlein in his novel &quot;Starship Troopers&quot; (NOT the movie - the book!). His premise was that people who are willing to first serve, would be more likely to vote in the interests of their country rather than for their own selfish interests. One of the founders (Franklin?) is supposed to have said that the Republic would survive only until the people discovered they could vote themselves largess. I expect those people would be least likely to want to serve, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also, the founders never expected that public office should be a life-long career -- we definitely need term limits at every level. And high-office holders should be both born AND RAISED in country, and have earned the right to vote by serving as well.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829701]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from nasch]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829461]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[PS I agree with you about opportunity equality and it's low in the US.  Much of your outcome is determined by your parents' income, educational level, etc.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829461]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from nasch]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829460]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[language, what about the fact that the poor vote at very low rates?  I don't remember hearing either candidate ever mention the word &quot;poor&quot; only &quot;middle class&quot;.  That's a very squishy term, but to me it doesn't make me think of people on welfare or food stamps.  Anyway, I'm just wondering how much the really poor actually vote themselves anything given that they mostly don't vote.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829460]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829118]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@therion
you make a good point about outcome being a reality, whereas opportunity is an abstraction. maybe this would make a good example for ppl with imagination being able to see higher paths and understandings.

i think it comes down to reality having the element of time. things can change.

if we want our actions to impact our reality, then potential will be more important to us than current conditions. if we have something that can change (for the better), and we are the ones who can change it, we will find enjoyment in doing so.

after that, the only question left is whether you want personal accountability for your actions. if you do, you prefer a meritocracy with potential, instead of a nanny state with permanent equivalence.

permanent equivalence is only possible by crippling the extraordinary's opportunities and/or rewards. plus destroying the meaning behind ppls effort.

gotta crack some eggs to make an omelete tho, right?

luckily its not so black and white, its not all of one and none of the other. but ppl of ability and intelligence seem to prefer meritocracy by a lot. its funner for them. i would argue its funner for the disabled as well. we all like our actions to have meaning, even if our actions are inferior to others.

outcome equality strips the meaning off of ppls actions, for the modest virtue of sharing.

i would venture to say that meaning is the highest value of the human consciousness. what does a sterile atheist want to leave behind? a building, a book, something to last, his legacy. did any choice he ever made MEAN anything? uh oh, here comes a black hole, annihilating info with its hawking radiation. rofl.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829118]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829050]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@nasch:
I did not mean to imply that the poor's lack of paying taxes amounted to voting themselves $. I omitted the fact they support policy which gives them freebies like welfare, food stamps, and other social services. I mistakenly thought this was a given variable we all would know.

In light of the poor's support for govt aid, I thought the only point left to connect the dots (for them voting themself money) was to show they didnt contribute what they suck out. (thus the 47% comment)

of course the poor voting themselves $ is not 47% of the population. but it is a % higher than 1. Franklins maxim is reaching a critical mass, where the greedvoters are a considerable block politicians must deal with (and if you are a dem politician, must energize).

personally i would be ashamed to follow a party who courted this vote. the policies of said party dont stand on their own merit, and must be buttressed by a coalition of malcontents who selfishly squander their rights in the democratic process for a bowl of porrige. they dont care about foreign policy, the national debt, global trade restrictions; they want gas in their car.

i think we've all seen the video of the black woman who believes in barrack santa claus who knows if she is naughty or if she voted for him. all she has to do, in her mind, is support him, and he will put gas in her car and pay her rent.

the &quot;vote in exchange for material rewards&quot; bargain has been struck. its a standing social contract between the poor and the democrat party.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[FriAMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1829050]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from dooz]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828468]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, I like how you think!]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828468]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Kraderif]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828399]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[I don't think it would crumble.  You still have to beat corruption, stupidity and apathy.  How many times have we not witnessed smart people making poor decisions even when they have enough and accurate infomation to make a better choice?  Not only in politics, but everyday life.  In my opinion, most of the time is not about lack of information, but lack of willingness against stubborness to be blind.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828399]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Therion]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828317]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@Language, I agree with your comments about degree requirement and business ownership, but I think your idea about potential equality being better than real equality is just detached from reality as Franklin.

How could potential *ever* be better than real?

Sure, there has to be some incentive, or laziness would be rewarded. Voters would recognize that. They wouldn't vote for perfect equality; they would only try to make the pay distribution more even than it is now (which is increasingly like a banana republic).]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828317]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Melvin1]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828296]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@language (and anyone who thinks middle income Americans pay anywhere near 20% in federal income taxes):

The average taxpayer pays 11% in federal income taxes. The 25% rate is MARGINAL and is only paid on TAXABLE income (not all wages) ABOVE $35,350 for singles, $70,700 for married.  Income below that is taxed at zero, ten, and 15%.

Your single adult &quot;near the poverty line&quot; would still be paying less than 20% in federal income taxes if (s)he were making $100,000 and only took the standard deduction.  Otherwise you make many excellent points.  But most Americans seem to think they pay 25% of their income to the IRS. Simply not so.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828296]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from nasch]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828224]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[@language: 
&quot; Romney said we have 47% paying no fed income tax. Those on the bottom are ALREADY voting themselves $, and have been for a long long time. &quot;

It's been mentioned before, but not paying income tax isn't voting yourself money.  Some do get more in aid than they pay in taxes, but 1) that's less than 47% 2) most of that 47% have jobs and pay payroll tax.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828224]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from Kingdinosaur]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828223]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Theron, the Dunning-Kruger effect has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand.  Nor does it have anything to do with equality.  There's a topic on hand.  This is not it.


So let me put the topic in terms for the people living in Rio Linda:
Everyone taking a five finger discount from the public funds is bad.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828223]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828222]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[[Nine thumbs down, but nobody has given me an answer. Why would equality mean the end of the Republic, when all the data on Gini coefficient and history of wealth inequality suggests the opposite?]

opportunity equality is a higher virtue than outcome equality.

when you place a lower order virtue above its superiors you CAUSE massive social unrest.

economic disparity is its own vice, but it must be very inequitable before it trumps small doses of its superiors.

i would argue we have relatively low opportunity equality as well. we spent the last 40 years focusing on racial or demographic equality of opportunity, but that was never the real difficulty. the hurdles to owning business are too great. the hurdles to getting jobs are too great.

starting a business is gated behind massive red tape, on top of the restrictive capital requirements.

pretty much all middle class jobs are gated behind a 4 year degree. a degree that is a social construct obstacle, not a measure of intelligence. its a financial barrier and time investment. some degrees actually mean something, granted. but there are thousands upon thousands of jobs out there that require a 4 year degree in ANYTHING.

the 4 year degree requirement for middle class jobs is an opportunity gate FAR GREATER than any racial or protected class discrimination gates.

yes wealth disparity is a problem, but the main issue confronting the poor is opportunity. the 4 year degree gate, imo, is to force the poor to do jobs noone wants, even tho the poor have the capacity to do higher jobs. its effectively a caste system restriction. a degree in history doesnt make someone a better employee in anything except teaching history. yet having that little piece of paper opens up many opportunities outside that field.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828222]]></guid>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Comment  from language]]></title>
<link><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828153]]></link>
<description><![CDATA[Scott, I think you underestimate our current situations proximity to Ben Franklins maxim.

There is a kernel of truth in most things. Romney said we have 47% paying no fed income tax. Those on the bottom are ALREADY voting themselves $, and have been for a long long time.

Obama paints romney as a rich guy who is gaming the system. Again, kernel of truth. The rich arent large in numbers, so they &quot;vote themselves money&quot; by getting others to elect the politicians they can control.

USA needs a more clear mission statement. the constitutions threefold mission isnt clear enough. we spend almost 1/3 of our budget on the poor, and we tax the rich at almost 10% at times, while young single adults near poverty level pay over 20%. both of these things cause inequity, and the 2 party system is the author of them.

we already have ppl voting themselves $. the poor directly do it, and the rich indirectly do it. of course as a rich guy franklin probably didnt mind the rich indirectly doing it, as he saw them as a benevolent force, but it doesnt matter. when groups (any group including rich) start voting straight selfishness-a known vice- (not self-interest) democracy wont work. we have both rich and poor trying to make laws unfair for the other and trying to hijack govt policy for their ends.

the republic has a critical mass of ignorance and indifference to issues (intellectual) and a critical mass of selfishness (emotional). together this makes ppl ripe for propaganda manipulation. thats why we got so much class warfare and &quot;discussion hijacking&quot; by minor issues.

its why body language and appearance dictate winner. obama looks down when romney attacks him, shaking his head, therefore ppl think romney wins. romney meets obamas gaze when obama attacks him, therefore ppl think obama has no dirt on him.

it no longer matters what content is because ppl cant (or wont) hold candidates accountable for lies (romneys plans) or for mistakes (obamas track record) on their own. they wont hold them accountable unless media runs a story prompting them to.]]></description>
<pubDate><![CDATA[ThuPMCDTE_Rthth]]></pubDate>
<guid isPermaLink="false"><![CDATA[http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/1828153]]></guid>
</item>
<pubDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></pubDate>
<lastBuildDate><![CDATA[WedPMCSTE_Rstst]]></lastBuildDate></channel></rss>
