But but but billionaires! waaahhhhhhhh

[HunterSdVa29]

There is a set amount of wealth created in a given year. The distribution of that wealth in society in that given year is also a set amount.



Everyone calm down, we have it better than people living under an Absolute Monarchy. No need to try to improve society any further.

no, no it's not

so any raise you got was planned for the year prior?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

LOL! Of course there's a finite pool of money (and all other resources, like land). We don't live in some magical fairyland.



OK. We're admitting that it's a problem, then? This dishonest attempt by Farmer and Greoric to rewrite history (and ignore the present)?

negative

 

[HomerThompson]

no, no it's not

so any raise you got was planned for the year prior?

 

[Jack V Savage]

negative

So let's be clear, Hunter. You think that land is infinite? Natural resources? Cash? Scarcity doesn't exist on Earth?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

if I plant some tomatoes in my yard, and then sell them for profit....

any time a bank gives a loan out....

money is not static

 

[HunterSdVa29]

So let's be clear, Hunter. You think that land is infinite? Natural resources? Cash? Scarcity doesn't exist on Earth?

no need
where in the hell did I ever even mention land or natural resources

stop strawmanning

 

[HomerThompson]

if I plant some tomatoes in my yard, and then sell them for profit....

any time a bank gives a loan out....

money is not static

You're a moron. Have a good day.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

You're a moron. Have a good day.

you're a very respectful poster

carry on, as you were

 

[Jack V Savage]

no need
where in the hell did I ever even mention land or natural resources

stop strawmanning

?? Er, OK? So money is infinite (which of course it isn't) but you're at least admitting that resources aren't. So you're admitting that if some people have more of something, other people have less, yes? So what's your point again?

 

[KantoTerror]

 

[sub_thug]

OK. We're admitting that it's a problem, then? This dishonest attempt by Farmer and Greoric to rewrite history (and ignore the present)?

Never said anything to the contrary. Nazis are what happens when you go all the way to the right, and Communists are what happens when you go all the way to the left. The arguments against extremism should be really obvious to anyone with a grasp of history, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be as common as you might hope for.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Never said anything to the contrary. Nazis are what happens when you go all the way to the right, and Communists are what happens when you go all the way to the left. The arguments against extremism should be really obvious to anyone with a grasp of history, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be as common as you might hope for.

Pretty much right. I think anarchy is what happens when you go all the way to the left, but attempts to bring about communism in practice seem to usually lead to something like big-C Communism, and it doesn't seem to just be a coincidence.

 

[sub_thug]

Pretty much right. I think anarchy is what happens when you go all the way to the left, but attempts to bring about communism in practice seem to usually lead to something like big-C Communism, and it doesn't seem to just be a coincidence.

Anarchy seems to me to be synonymous with libertarian ideals, but at this point, I think we are splitting hairs. Regardless of what extremist positions that people seem to hold, the path towards those kinds of ideals seems to be historically paved in terrible atrocities.

Democratic Capitalism isn't always a perfect system, but it seems to be the least awful one out there.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

no need
where in the hell did I ever even mention land or natural resources

stop strawmanning

This is the nuance that so many on the left fail to recognize:

Desires have the potential to be infinite, resources are finite.

However, this doesn't mean that wealth is finite. New wealth is created almost every day. There is only one source of all wealth, individual human intelligence. The individual is the one entity that creates or discovers a new way for us to all serve each other. When this creation or discovery is made, new wealth is created.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Anarchy seems to me to be synonymous with libertarian ideals, but at this point, I think we are splitting hairs. Regardless of what extremist positions that people seem to hold, the path towards those kinds of ideals seems to be historically paved in terrible atrocities.

Democratic Capitalism isn't always a perfect system, but it seems to be the least awful one out there.

Left-wing libertarian ideals, yes. Right-wing "libertarians" still want either the gov't or a private military to impose and maintain property rights; they just oppose the gov't doing anything else besides keeping the masses under control. So it's more of an authoritarian system than one that can be called anarchic or "libertarian."

But, yeah, liberalism is by far the best system ever devised.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is the nuance that so many on the left fail to recognize:

Desires have the potential to be infinite, resources are finite.

However, this doesn't mean that wealth is finite. New wealth is created almost every day. There is only one source of all wealth, individual human intelligence. The individual is the one entity that creates or discovers a new way for us to all serve each other. When this creation or discovery is made, new wealth is created.

Part of the issue here appears to be that you don't seem to know what "infinite" means. You also seem very hazy on what wealth is.

 

[luckyshot]

They should be forced to redistribute that money. Everything needs to be equal and its not fair. Instead if curing aids in Africa, bill gates should be fixing Harry and the Heroins who have been forced by a capitalist dictatorship to live in the streets. MAGA right? Trumpkins lol

Well, real talk, maybe we should all be paying a bit more in taxes to subsidize a fast transition to clean energy rather than pulling out of the Paris Accord and imposing tariffs on solar panels. If we are the richest individuals in the world, don't we at least have an ethical obligation to the rest of the world not to fuck up the environment just so we can be even richer?

Is there a word for white knight thats for rich people and not women?

Lol. Sig worthy.

As far as garbage threads go this one is up there. So now people need to cut those poor billionaires some slack ? Are they not given enough representation by our government? 2 parties aren’t enough?

Oh, man, this thread is full of savagery.

Poor TS.

 

[sub_thug]

You're making a factual statement that you can check (just look up enclosures). You're simply mistaken here. It's not a matter of opinion.

Not sure what you're not understanding. You cited Locke, and I pointed out that he didn't agree with you. He recognized the value of the gov't creating private property but also the downside. If it can be done without harm to anyone else, it's good; otherwise, it's more problematic.

Locke stated in his ideas about the social contract that people gave up their Hobbesian "right to all things" in exchange for defense of their natural rights by the government. If the government did not protect those rights, then the people had the duty to overthrow said government. But the rights themselves do not extend from the government itself, merely the defense.

It's further worth noting that gov't force is behind the value of ideas, at least. Again, that policy decision is defensible, but it has to actually be defended, and the pros and cons should be weighed. To claim that we have no right to do it otherwise is just an argument from ungrounded authority.

You're speaking about the defense of those intellectual property rights, which is correct. And that's where patents, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, trade secrets, etc. come into play.

That's not what I said. If I buy shares in a company (or own it full on), that means the gov't is insisting that a portion (or all) of what the workers in that company produce goes to me.

That's a contract between you and the company. A company is not made to be publicly traded, but if it agrees to certain terms, it is publicly traded. And the investors' rights to claim are defended by the government.

Read what I wrote again.

We may be saying something similar. The input of labor is grounds for claim of ownership to the good, service, or profits.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Locke stated in his ideas about the social contract that people gave up their Hobbesian "right to all things" in exchange for defense of their natural rights by the government. If the government did not protect those rights, then the people had the duty to overthrow said government. But the rights themselves do not extend from the government itself, merely the defense.

Did you miss what I quoted earlier?

Here it is again:

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.

He's recognizing a limit to property rights that we have long since passed in reality.

You're speaking about the defense of those intellectual property rights, which is correct. And that's where patents, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, trade secrets, etc. come into play.

Yes. Gov't creates ways to encourage creativity and allow people to profit from it. But, again, this is all conventional and clearly a result of policy rather than something that simply emerges out of nature. And so it should be subject to the same types of evaluation that any other policy is.

That's a contract between you and the company. A company is not made to be publicly traded, but if it agrees to certain terms, it is publicly traded. And the investors' rights to claim are defended by the government.

Yes, the gov't is a third party in those contracts, which NB are made under some level of coercive threat (workers need money to live).

We may be saying something similar. The input of labor is grounds for claim of ownership to the good, service, or profits.

Under the condition I outlined, yes. And even that is a decision that gov'ts make rather than something that just occurs magically. Again, that gov't created property rights (not even that long ago, relatively speaking--after recorded history) is a factual matter.

And to back up on the labor point, I noted that on a year-to-year basis, opposing redistribution (which in this case means changes on either side of fiscal policy) is incoherent. What level of future income is someone entitled to? Their expectation? Their pay from last year?

 

[Higus]

Billionaires do literally nothing to effect the average person

there's not some set finite pool of money, that they get more of as we get less of....

the economy grows ffs
Right now, the average middle class person, shit even lower class person in the Western World has a better life than Absolute Monarchs in the 19th Century.....

Are we distinguishing between billionaire individuals or billionaire corporations and their shareholders?