I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.
PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.
I can see your libertarian angst starting to seep through in your comments, lol. Regardless, the definition of value you put forth makes value itself completely arbitrary, and subjective to any number of viewpoints. However, Jameer's agreement with you belies something else~ how is the value of an object determined by the seller? Is it merely a number they make up, or is it based on the price they paid for the product? If you move up the chain from resources to manufacturing to distribution, the value of the object increases as it passes hands from one seller to buyer, so on and so forth. The value of that object is determined, in each case, by the price paid by the seller. That value is objective, based on the expenditures needed to pass that product up the chain. It is interesting, however, that at the end of that chain, in your view, the value of something becomes completely subjective, whereas throughout its previous life it has a foundation upon which it is based.
The value you speak of being "normative" is only within the paradigm of a subjective value theory, which I personally find ludicrous. I'm curious, however, why an intrinsic theory of value, concerning the resources and labor that goes into producing an item, doesn't seem to make sense to you. What do you see as the problem with that value theory, and why is a completely mobile theory of value based on subjective opinion the best option? Understanding that our two viewpoints do not intersect, I guess, is important.
I'm curious why you think a value system where the buyer determines the value benefits the seller, and where the seller determines the value benefits the buyer? I'm also intrigued you find no flaw in a system that has led to a gallon of Cola being equal in value to a gallon of gasoline~ it would seem to me that, in application, the values of two such things should be drastically different, since one is infinitely more useful than the other.
I agree with you. I am in no way advocating paying everyone the same. Education, as an expense, should be duly compensated. My contention is more related to the statistic that the top 20% earners in America control 85% of the wealth~ do they, then, do 85% of the work? This country has been founded on labor, and often low wage industrial jobs, yet in 2007 the bottom 40% earners controlled just .3% of the wealth. That lower 40% at the time of the study represent nearly 60 million Americans. The system that has been described purposely pushes capital towards business, which then funnels it where it see's fit. It does not empower anyone but those in control, and instead results in massive wealth disparity. I have issue with a system that intends to profit for profit's sake, and truly, from a philosophical standpoint, profit only makes sense within the confines of this system in which we reside.
btw, you can read the article from which these numbers were taken here
here's a fancy little display too
To a point, that is very correct, but taxation on the rich won't put money in the hands of those who are on the bottom. The only way that would work would be by creating an overbearing social safety net~ what needs to be done is to empower them by lowering/eliminating the necessary expenditures that end up absorbing most of their income and making sure that those who make so much more contribute proportionately~ but taxation on the rich isn't an answer to someone who is making $8/hr at McDonalds. What is going to help them is making sure that life is livable, and providing them a means to better themselves, be it assisted education or investment programs~ making their money go further, not just taking more from the rich.