But but but billionaires! waaahhhhhhhh

[HatchetHarry]

Tell a guy who was just laid off from his fucking job and cant find one, cause it was fucking outsourced to add an extra wing to the billiionaire fucks mansion, that he is in the top one percent in the world. Sure it will make him feel better. Or tell a homeless fella that he is in the top one percent too. Itll make his day. Lots of people affected by inequal distribution and believe it or not, I favor capitalism. No commie or socialist. But.....crony capitalism and the politicians have rigged the system. If you cant see that our infrastructure is failing, housing prices out of control, fucking food prices going up all the fucking time, and insane taxes fucking us middle class over, then you are blind, a servant or a troll. Follow the money trail and youll see that the politicians are bought and paid for and The Federal reserve is a private bank. Who owns that? They control fucking everything, and while I do appreciate the fact that I have more than most of the world, it doesnt take away the fact that its a struggle to make ends meet at times. For alot of people. And I know many people are fiscally irresponsible but the USA education system doesnt teach kids a goddamn thing about economics or finance. And thats for a reason.

You sound triggered and full of excuses. lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

do you have any figures to support that? as far as i can see wage growth and inflation in the US have both been hovering around 2%, so you're not getting poorer, you're staying the same. And on average you earn more than 99% of the people on earth so you should be able to find a few bucks to put invest and get some of them sweet investment gainzz!

You're missing the obvious problem. The U.S. has a certain amount of existing wealth and creates a certain amount every year, and laws determine how those amounts are distributed. Most people look at the distribution and think that it's not ideal and that policy should be changed to improve it, and in America, most of us have some say in how we're governed. That doesn't apply to the world at large. Also, the notion that opposing policy that leads to wealth and income inequality is the same as some kind of personal criticism of beneficiaries of bad policy is silly.

 

[Jack V Savage]

There are some definite dangers associated to the above line of thinking. Demanding some kind of post-market distribution of wealth isn't necessarily fine just because "we voted for it." One of the government's jobs is to defend the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and it's not fair to redistribute someone's property just because the masses want it to be distributed. If it was amassed fairly, then it is up to the owner of said property what to do with it. What "we" think about that is irrelevant, much the same way that "our" views on who you marry, what you eat, and how you dress are irrelevant and therefore not within the scope of what we can vote to change.

You seem to think that property exists prior to laws, but it's actually defined by laws. What's more, when it comes to income, the idea that redistribution isn't valid breaks down into incoherence (what, exactly, are people morally entitled to? Their income from last year? Their expected income for next year?).

 

[Teen Wolf]

TS is a retard.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

TS' crying equals "I'm a poor useful idiot!!! Aren't you non MAGimps so stupid derrr?!?!"

siding with people who wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire over normal humans. Smh.

Interesting beginning attemp to dehumanize. The wealthy are just as much "normal humans" as anyone else. Your attempt to classify them as anything but "normal humans" is quite telling.

I point this out because groups that are initially dehumanized by another group, typically have violence initiated against them at a later time.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You know what's really stupid? Hating people you never met because they have something you don't have but feel entitled to instead of just focusing on how to improve your own situation.

People who have no ability to raise themselves up, have to pull others down.

The kind of people you mentioned, have no understanding of how wealth is created, or even how to acquire any of their own. They think their ability to take and destroy, is somehow equal to your ability to create and earn.

These are the kind of people who are jealous of anyone who has a dollar more than them. They believe that that dollar was somehow stolen from them, and they are fully entitled to that dollar. Conversely, these are the same people that feel guilty at the presence of anyone who has a dollar less than them. According to their system of morality, they stole that dollar from that poorer person.

What's a normal human? You? You come across as angry and mean like you're the one who wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire.

It's almost like leftists forget all of the violence that was inflicted on the world by the left.

Think of all the million that were killed by the Communists and the National Socialists.

 

[computer fogie]

You do realize that cost of living in the world is different right?

$15,000 will give you a decent middle class life in most places in Mexico but its near hobo status in California.

TS clearly has no idea what he's ranting about. He's not even listening to people who are trying to help him understand.

 

[sub_thug]

You seem to think that property exists prior to laws, but it's actually defined by laws. What's more, when it comes to income, the idea that redistribution isn't valid breaks down into incoherence (what, exactly, are people morally entitled to? Their income from last year? Their expected income for next year?).

Do you not believe in "natural rights" as per John Locke? There are certain rights that are self-evident and exist prior to the advent of formalized law. American political philosophy is founded on these concepts, so I am surprised to hear you stating something different.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Do you not believe in "natural rights" as per John Locke? There are certain rights that are self-evident and exist prior to the advent of formalized law. American political philosophy is founded on these concepts, so I am surprised to hear you stating something different.

Jack has been pushing this "property depend on government" line for years.

It's a nonsense theory that ignores the self-evident fact that everyone owns their own body.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you not believe in "natural rights" as per John Locke? There are certain rights that are self-evident and exist prior to the advent of formalized law. American political philosophy is founded on these concepts, so I am surprised to hear you stating something different.

I believe that natural rights are a good background for gov't. The success of liberalism is a testament to that. But that's unrelated to the issue we're discussing. It's an objective fact that gov'ts created and maintain the institution of property, and gov'ts are ideally designed to promote human flourishing. People have free speech without gov'ts, they don't violently exclude everyone else from a piece of property that they're not occupying without gov'ts. Further, you didn't address the point about income. People agree to work for after-tax dollars and circumstances naturally change. So you cannot possibly defend the proposition that fiscal policy can never be morally changed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Jack has been pushing this "property depend on government" line for years.

It's a nonsense theory that ignores the self-evident fact that everyone owns their own body.

Er, everyone is their body, but not everyone owns land. Only people the gov't determine has a claim to land own land. Likewise, ownership of the rights to the fruits of others' labor is something that the gov't determines. And ideas.

 

[Higus]

I wonder if TS has any idea how much of his taxes go towards corporate welfare as opposed to the safety net.

 

[sub_thug]

I believe that natural rights are a good background for gov't. The success of liberalism is a testament to that. But that's unrelated to the issue we're discussing. It's an objective fact that gov'ts created and maintain the institution of property, and gov'ts are ideally designed to promote human flourishing. Further, you didn't address the point about income. People agree to work for after-tax dollars and circumstances naturally change. So you cannot possibly defend the proposition that fiscal policy can never be morally changed.

I think the two are inextricably linked. Natural rights define who we are as humans in a political sense, and government is created to defend those rights as a primary function. That's why we value things like the common defense, a court system to settle disputes, etc. We don't kneel before them as the creator of our property rights, as those things already exist without the advent of government.

I absolutely believe in the lawful transference of property rights, which is what income is at a fundamental level. I help you build a house, and you compensate me with a good or service that I agree upon. A common currency merely assists us in equating value along a common standard and gives us an outlet other than an equivalent good or service. If I help you build a home, I don't want to be paid in 800,000 apples, haha. But in exchange for assisting you with your property, you can pay me in dollars, which I now own. As someone who is free to do what I want with those dollars, I can invest them. And all investing is, at a fundamental level, is buying ownership in a stake of a business in exchange for the business having my money to expand the business. It's become a little more complicated with the advent of brokerage firms, but the principle remains unchanged. So how is that like any other form of income? It's all fundamentally how we decide to utilize and risk our own property? The input of labor isn't really relevant to the conversation, IMO.

 

[steveflynn]

Jack has been pushing this "property depend on government" line for years.

It's a nonsense theory that ignores the self-evident fact that everyone owns their own body.

Actually, without government property rights would not exist at all.

 

[steveflynn]

People who have no ability to raise themselves up, have to pull others down.

The kind of people you mentioned, have no understanding of how wealth is created, or even how to acquire any of their own. They think their ability to take and destroy, is somehow equal to your ability to create and earn.

These are the kind of people who are jealous of anyone who has a dollar more than them. They believe that that dollar was somehow stolen from them, and they are fully entitled to that dollar. Conversely, these are the same people that feel guilty at the presence of anyone who has a dollar less than them. According to their system of morality, they stole that dollar from that poorer person.



It's almost like leftists forget all of the violence that was inflicted on the world by the left.

Think of all the million that were killed by the Communists and the National Socialists.

Umm, National Socialists were definitely on the right side of the political spectrum.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Umm, National Socialists were definitely on the right side of the political spectrum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

'Hitler also spent large amounts of state revenues for a comprehensive social welfare system to combat the ill effects of the Great Depression, promising repeatedly throughout his regime the “creation of a socially just state.”[32]Hitler both expanded the state-owned welfare organizations[33] and privatized social welfare organizations. Nonetheless, the NSV instituted expansive programs to address the socio-economic inequalities among those deemed to be German citizens. Joseph Goebbels remarked about the merits of Hitler’s welfare state in a 1944 editorial “Our Socialism,” where he professed: “We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation.”

 

[steveflynn]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

'Hitler also spent large amounts of state revenues for a comprehensive social welfare system to combat the ill effects of the Great Depression, promising repeatedly throughout his regime the “creation of a socially just state.”[32]Hitler both expanded the state-owned welfare organizations[33] and privatized social welfare organizations. Nonetheless, the NSV instituted expansive programs to address the socio-economic inequalities among those deemed to be German citizens. Joseph Goebbels remarked about the merits of Hitler’s welfare state in a 1944 editorial “Our Socialism,” where he professed: “We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation.”

So, having social welfare programs within a society equals being on the left side of the ideological spectrum? Thus, taking from this kind of logic, every single country/movement throughout history has been socialist/leftism? Nazis ruthlessly murdered and purged communists, social democrats and trade unionists from society and did not ever call for widespread abolishment of private property or competition between businesses.

 

[KnightTemplar]

There's been a lot of complaining here lately about how billionaires have so much money and its not fair on the rest of us.

Well guess what? If you earn $32,400 a year then you are in the top 1% of income earners in the world.

To put that in perspective, the median income in the USA in 2017 across all occupations was just over $50,000.

Also of note, working full time (40hr/week) on minimum wage in the US will get you $15,000, which puts you inside the top 8% of income earners.

You hate on the billionaires for being rich, but since we're here with access to technology and the internet really we're all pretty rich so maybe start hating on yourselves?

Let the crying begin.

How much did the Bilderberg Group pay you to start this Thread?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

So, having social welfare programs within a society equals being on the left side of the ideological spectrum? Thus, taking from this kind of logic, every single country/movement throughout history has been socialist/leftism? Nazis ruthlessly murdered and purged communists, social democrats and trade unionists from society and did not ever call for widespread abolishment of private property or competition between businesses.

No, you're just missing (perhaps on purpose) the part where the Nazis refer to their own government as a socialist government. Then they proceeded to implement entirely socialist programs, like nationalizing entire industries.

Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Squarechoke]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany

'Hitler also spent large amounts of state revenues for a comprehensive social welfare system to combat the ill effects of the Great Depression, promising repeatedly throughout his regime the “creation of a socially just state.”[32]Hitler both expanded the state-owned welfare organizations[33] and privatized social welfare organizations. Nonetheless, the NSV instituted expansive programs to address the socio-economic inequalities among those deemed to be German citizens. Joseph Goebbels remarked about the merits of Hitler’s welfare state in a 1944 editorial “Our Socialism,” where he professed: “We and we alone [the Nazis] have the best social welfare measures. Everything is done for the nation.”

If you are fooled by that the Nazis called themselves socialists, and had some socialist ideas mixed in early on, then you're one of those that just listen to what politicians say and don't actually look what they do. The actual inspiration for the Nazis were Italy's fascists. Ideals about national/racial superiority, rearmament and expansion, and consolidation of capital. They started with some socialist economic policies but eventually went over to a corporate cartel base.

Judging by your analysis of the Nazis I'd fully expect you to think that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.