Libertarianism

[Seth]

And don't tear that tag off yer mattress!

They actually made a federal rule changing the language on such tags precisely because people objected to being told by the government that they couldn't rip tags off their own mattresses (and pillows). The tag now says (essentially) "Tag not to be removed except by the consumer."

[Seth]

Strangely, income inequality is quite low in the US, because 99 percent of people are about the same income-wise. We have almost no totally destitute people, as compared to India or even Mexico, and even with 15 percent unemployment 85 percent of people are employed.

What all you pathetic, greedy, jealous progressive jackasses are complaining about is that a minuscule one percent of the population is very wealthy.

Face it, you're simply inferior to them, and anyone else who makes more than you, and you're not worth more than you're getting paid right now, and probably never will be. So suck it up and get used to working for minimum wage because that's all your lazy socialist asses are worth.

The obscenely wealthy always say that their accrued inheritences are morally justified by personal merit, it's just not necessarily their own.

Indeed. Exactly. If your father works hard his whole life and invests wisely in order to build an inheritance for you in order to (altruistically) make your life better so that you can do the same for your children, making their lives better than yours, who is to say that you are not justified in using and enjoying what your father, or his father, or his father built for you?

In the US, no inherited fortune is the product of theft from someone else. In all cases inherited fortunes are the result of somebody's hard work and entrepreneurship, even if it's in the past.

A basic premise of private property is that the one who owns it gets to determine to whom it passes when he dies. Otherwise, nobody would plan for the future of their children or their family because they would know that everything they worked for and scrimped to save will be stolen by the government and given to some dependent class idler, so why work at all?

They also like to say that the financial inpoverishment of others is justified by personal failings and moral deliquency, again, just not necessarily that of the poor.

Hm. Never heard that argument before.

A person is not valued in gold but by the content of their character, and those that place money above all things are simply defecient in character.

First you have to show that a person who either builds or inherits great wealth is in fact placing money above all things, which is generally not the case. We don't have legions of Scrooge McDuck's hoarding cash in a vault somewhere so they can swim in it. Even the top 1 percent spend their money, usually lavishly, in order to maintain the lifestyle they like. In doing so they employ innumerable people in creating, transporting, marketing, operating, repairing and using all the myriad of goods that a wealthy person needs in order to maintain his or her lifestyle.

Without that wealth being spread around, every one of those jobs would either not exist or would pay much less because of a lack of demand.

[Brian Peacock]

Strangely, income inequality is quite low in the US, because 99 percent of people are about the same income-wise. We have almost no totally destitute people, as compared to India or even Mexico, and even with 15 percent unemployment 85 percent of people are employed.

What all you pathetic, greedy, jealous progressive jackasses are complaining about is that a minuscule one percent of the population is very wealthy.

Face it, you're simply inferior to them, and anyone else who makes more than you, and you're not worth more than you're getting paid right now, and probably never will be. So suck it up and get used to working for minimum wage because that's all your lazy socialist asses are worth.

The obscenely wealthy always say that their accrued inheritences are morally justified by personal merit, it's just not necessarily their own.

Indeed. Exactly. If your father works hard his whole life and invests wisely in order to build an inheritance for you in order to (altruistically) make your life better so that you can do the same for your children, making their lives better than yours, who is to say that you are not justified in using and enjoying what your father, or his father, or his father built for you?

In the US, no inherited fortune is the product of theft from someone else. In all cases inherited fortunes are the result of somebody's hard work and entrepreneurship, even if it's in the past.

A basic premise of private property is that the one who owns it gets to determine to whom it passes when he dies. Otherwise, nobody would plan for the future of their children or their family because they would know that everything they worked for and scrimped to save will be stolen by the government and given to some dependent class idler, so why work at all?

My point exactly. Finding oneself in the circumstance of inheriting even a small fortune is not indicative of the merit of the individual beneficiary - it's just a hand out from one generation to another.

They also like to say that the financial inpoverishment of others is justified by personal failings and moral deliquency, again, just not necessarily that of the poor.

Hm. Never heard that argument before.

You've never heard arguments to the effect that the poor are only poor because they don't work hard enough, or because they don't aspire to better themselves, that they only have themselves to blame for the circumstances they find themselves in, and perhaps that any attempt to alleviate poverty only leads to laziness and dependency on the part of poor, which is a state of moral decline for which the poor can be rightly criticised.

A person is not valued in gold but by the content of their character, and those that place money above all things are simply defecient in character.

First you have to show that a person who either builds or inherits great wealth is in fact placing money above all things, which is generally not the case.

I don't have to demonstrate anything to validate my sentiments or the broader opinion it implies, that to value money over people, so that one's personal financial well-being is maintained at the expense of the well-being of others, is a character flaw in itself.

We don't have legions of Scrooge McDuck's hoarding cash in a vault somewhere so they can swim in it. Even the top 1 percent spend their money, usually lavishly, in order to maintain the lifestyle they like. In doing so they employ innumerable people in creating, transporting, marketing, operating, repairing and using all the myriad of goods that a wealthy person needs in order to maintain his or her lifestyle.

Yes, we've heard much about the merits and worthiness of this 'trickle-down' effect - by which we're told that every time a rich man spends a penny it trickles down into the mouths of the poor. Keep telling yourself that its the wealthy few that drive the economy if you like, and that it's only right I guess that the vast majority should service the needs of the few. Whatever gets you through the day.

Without that wealth being spread around, every one of those jobs would either not exist or would pay much less because of a lack of demand.

Yes, I can see that the demands of the wealthy for luxury goods, opportunity they provide for meagre employment to service those demands, is a great comfort and something for which the poor are truly thankful. Yessum boss. Sho'nuff we is.

[Seth]

Strangely, income inequality is quite low in the US, because 99 percent of people are about the same income-wise. We have almost no totally destitute people, as compared to India or even Mexico, and even with 15 percent unemployment 85 percent of people are employed.

What all you pathetic, greedy, jealous progressive jackasses are complaining about is that a minuscule one percent of the population is very wealthy.

Face it, you're simply inferior to them, and anyone else who makes more than you, and you're not worth more than you're getting paid right now, and probably never will be. So suck it up and get used to working for minimum wage because that's all your lazy socialist asses are worth.

The obscenely wealthy always say that their accrued inheritences are morally justified by personal merit, it's just not necessarily their own.

Indeed. Exactly. If your father works hard his whole life and invests wisely in order to build an inheritance for you in order to (altruistically) make your life better so that you can do the same for your children, making their lives better than yours, who is to say that you are not justified in using and enjoying what your father, or his father, or his father built for you?

In the US, no inherited fortune is the product of theft from someone else. In all cases inherited fortunes are the result of somebody's hard work and entrepreneurship, even if it's in the past.

A basic premise of private property is that the one who owns it gets to determine to whom it passes when he dies. Otherwise, nobody would plan for the future of their children or their family because they would know that everything they worked for and scrimped to save will be stolen by the government and given to some dependent class idler, so why work at all?

My point exactly. Finding oneself in the circumstance of inheriting even a small fortune is not indicative of the merit of the individual beneficiary - it's just a hand out from one generation to another.

What's your point? Do you object to one family member giving another a "handout"?

They also like to say that the financial inpoverishment of others is justified by personal failings and moral deliquency, again, just not necessarily that of the poor.

Hm. Never heard that argument before.

You've never heard arguments to the effect that the poor are only poor because they don't work hard enough, or because they don't aspire to better themselves, that they only have themselves to blame for the circumstances they find themselves in, and perhaps that any attempt to alleviate poverty only leads to laziness and dependency on the part of poor, which is a state of moral decline for which the poor can be rightly criticised.

I don't think "justified" is the proper word. "A consequence of" might be more accurate. Your statement is pejorative because it uses the value-laden words like "obscenely wealthy", they", "like", and "moral delinquency."

Thus you load your argument against the application of reason at the front end.

A person is not valued in gold but by the content of their character, and those that place money above all things are simply defecient in character.

First you have to show that a person who either builds or inherits great wealth is in fact placing money above all things, which is generally not the case.

I don't have to demonstrate anything to validate my sentiments or the broader opinion it implies, that to value money over people, so that one's personal financial well-being is maintained at the expense of the well-being of others, is a character flaw in itself.

Now you have to show that their concentration on their own financial well-being is maintained "at the expense of" the well-being of others, which implies both a causal link and an assumed duty to the well-being of others that would morally require the "obscenely wealthy" to place others well-being before their own, which you have not done.

We don't have legions of Scrooge McDuck's hoarding cash in a vault somewhere so they can swim in it. Even the top 1 percent spend their money, usually lavishly, in order to maintain the lifestyle they like. In doing so they employ innumerable people in creating, transporting, marketing, operating, repairing and using all the myriad of goods that a wealthy person needs in order to maintain his or her lifestyle.

Yes, we've heard much about the merits and worthiness of this 'trickle-down' effect - by which we're told that every time a rich man spends a penny it trickles down into the mouths of the poor. Keep telling yourself that its the wealthy few that drive the economy if you like, and that it's only right I guess that the vast majority should service the needs of the few. Whatever gets you through the day.

Now you're just being insulting. Wealthy people drive the economy in exactly the same way everyone else does, and while their per-capita spending may be higher than average, their overall contribution is eclipsed by the spending of the middle class, which does exactly the same thing for the economy. There are particular segments of the economy that they directly support, such as the luxury yacht industry, which evaporated in the US, leaving thousands out of work when Clinton imposed the luxury goods tax. That entire industry went somewhere else.

Without that wealth being spread around, every one of those jobs would either not exist or would pay much less because of a lack of demand.

Yes, I can see that the demands of the wealthy for luxury goods, opportunity they provide for meagre employment to service those demands, is a great comfort and something for which the poor are truly thankful. Yessum boss. Sho'nuff we is.

A job is a job is a job.

The point is to debunk your specious argument that the wealthy are only wealthy because they steal from the poor, which is just another mendacious, mindless, boring Marxist zero-sum fallacy argument that has no basis in fact.

[FBM]

And don't tear that tag off yer mattress!

They actually made a federal rule changing the language on such tags precisely because people objected to being told by the government that they couldn't rip tags off their own mattresses (and pillows). The tag now says (essentially) "Tag not to be removed except by the consumer."

And who says our gummit isn't sensitive to the needs of the people?

[Tero]

http://karireport.blogspot.com/2014/05/ ... ut-by.html

[Tero]

From our friends at freerepublic

Compromise with the left is like agreeing to only half a turd in the punch bowl.

[Seth]

From our friends at freerepublic

Compromise with the left is like agreeing to only half a turd in the punch bowl.

Wow, well said. Thanks, I'm going to use that, often.

[Hermit]

[piscator]

From our friends at freerepublic

Compromise with the left is like agreeing to only half a turd in the punch bowl.

Wow, well said. Thanks, I'm going to use that, often.

The punch bowl?

[Seth]

Well, now that you mention it, this is correct. You see, the thing about being oppressed by the private sector is that you have tools, weapons and power to put an end to such oppression much more easily than you do when it's the full power of the government that's doing the oppressing.

With private oppression, you can't actually be oppressed unless you allow it to happen. The ultimate solution to private oppression is, of course, removing your oppressor permanently from your life, which is made much more easy and simple when it's just one or a few private oppressors and you and your Libertarian compatriots are many and well armed.

[pErvinalia]

In relation to private oppression by the market, only if you've got money.

[JimC]

In relation to private oppression by the market, only if you've got money.

IT'S YOUR FAULT IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY!

[pErvinalia]

Social Darwinism FTW!!

[MrJonno]

Nah I'm quite happy to get the government to oppress libertarians and I'm hardly going to shear my own wool of me am I