What is your opinion on Income Inequality?

[The United Colonies of Earth]

It makes the rich greedier, the poor poorer, and stagnates postindustrial (read: American-style) economies and makes them more prone to financial failures.
It has to be reduced.

[Yankee Empire]

Damn shoulda phrased better. My point wasn't that rich and poor don't exist in a monetary system, but I was trying to say that the part where there's gigantic gaps between them isn't that unavoidable.

No it's not, i have no oppositon for narrowing the divde betwen the rich/middleclass/poor, but I don't believe society will ever be rid of Rich and Poor.

I personally have no problem with that, so long as the poor have opportunities to better their economic standing in a practical manner i.e. not relying on one in a million(or a greater divide) inventions or the lotto, or having to settle for some minimum wage job.

[Zaras]

Damn shoulda phrased better. My point wasn't that rich and poor don't exist in a monetary system, but I was trying to say that the part where there's gigantic gaps between them isn't that unavoidable.

No it's not, i have no oppositon for narrowing the divde betwen the rich/middleclass/poor, but I don't believe society will ever be rid of Rich and Poor.

I personally have no problem with that, so long as the poor have opporotunities to better their economic standing in a practical manner i.e. not relying on one in a million(or a greater divide) inventions or the lotto, or having to settle for some minimum wage job.

Yeah, inequalities aren't a problem as long as they conform to Rawls' theory of justice.

[Libera Patria]

Sorry, here's a quick search for some "data" for you.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2 ... ogram-buck

Oh, isn't that cute, the libertarian fuckheads at the Cato Institute. Get a better source! Libertarianism is invalid because of how stupid it is about reality.

So.. any source that you ideologically disagree with is automatically invalid?

[Yankee Empire]

Oh, isn't that cute, the libertarian fuckheads at the Cato Institute. Get a better source! Libertarianism is invalid because of how stupid it is about reality.

So.. any source that you ideologically disagree with is automatically invalid?

Anyone whos seen a number of Zaras' posts understand that he believes this to be an adequate way to argue, to him his preconceptions are self evident truths.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but in the realm of a "Reasonable" discussion this makes it rather pointless and tiresome to argue with him.

[Libera Patria]

So.. any source that you ideologically disagree with is automatically invalid?

Anyone whos seen a number of Zaras' posts understand that he believes this to be an adequate way to argue, to him his preconceptions are self evident truths.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but in the realm of a "Reasonable" discussion this makes it rather pointless and tiresome to argue with him.

Yeah, I've kind of noticed that

[Grave_n_idle]

Oh, isn't that cute, the libertarian fuckheads at the Cato Institute. Get a better source! Libertarianism is invalid because of how stupid it is about reality.

So.. any source that you ideologically disagree with is automatically invalid?

In all fairness, Cato Institute 'evidence' does have a tendency to be compromised by over-active ideology.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily automatically write-off everything that comes out of the Cato Institute - but I would take any reasoning and conclusion they presented with a huge pinch of salt.

[Zaras]

Oh, isn't that cute, the libertarian fuckheads at the Cato Institute. Get a better source! Libertarianism is invalid because of how stupid it is about reality.

So.. any source that you ideologically disagree with is automatically invalid?

Nope. Cato is automatically invalid because of their violent disregard for reality. Just like Fox News.

[Zaras]

Anyone whos seen a number of Zaras' posts understand that he believes this to be an adequate way to argue, to him his preconceptions are self evident truths.

Now that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, but in the realm of a "Reasonable" discussion this makes it rather pointless and tiresome to argue with him.

Yet you still bother doing it. Why?

[Greater Nilfgaard]

We do not share it with hippies and communists.

Of course you don't, because if you did, you'd risk actually having more awareness about the world's sucky parts and an actually intelligent opinion. And the world really needs druggy cultist rambling about great (ar)s(eh)ouls that much.

The Great Souled would learn nothing from your presence. I've already been on this thread long enough to see your ramblings (mostly against other posters) go full circle.

Seriously are you an anarchist or not?

Because in one post your praising the Marxist idea of a stateless, classless, communal society and in the next your calling for a big government to regulate all those "ebil rich peepul an' ter corporations".

Seems more like a teenager's radical and incoherent fantasies then an actual consistent policy position.

Your opinion is fluid like Mitt Romney. A politician who was NOT great souled.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Of course you don't, because if you did, you'd risk actually having more awareness about the world's sucky parts and an actually intelligent opinion. And the world really needs druggy cultist rambling about great (ar)s(eh)ouls that much.

The Great Souled would learn nothing from your presence. I've already been on this thread long enough to see your ramblings (mostly against other posters) go full circle.

The irony is strong in this one.

Because in one post your praising the Marxist idea of a stateless, classless, communal society[/quote]

End goal.

and in the next your calling for a big government to regulate all those "ebil rich peepul an' ter corporations".

Short-term measure to put capitalism on a leash.

Seems more like a teenager's radical and incoherent fantasies then an actual consistent policy position.

Speaking of fantasies, your "manifesto" is one.

Your opinion is fluid like Mitt Romney. A politician who was NOT great souled.

It's not fluid, it's two ideas to be employed at different times.

[Greater Nilfgaard]

It's not fluid, it's two ideas to be employed at different times.

Two CONTRADICTORY ideas. You know an awful lot about his plan.

Are you a puppet? Or one of his hippies-in-arms?

[Grave_n_idle]

Of course you don't, because if you did, you'd risk actually having more awareness about the world's sucky parts and an actually intelligent opinion. And the world really needs druggy cultist rambling about great (ar)s(eh)ouls that much.

The Great Souled...

Ugh. Enough about the Inflated Ghosts, already.

Get back on topic. Heads-up - the topic isn't you.

[SPQR Legions]

So.. any source that you ideologically disagree with is automatically invalid?

Nope. Cato is automatically invalid because they dared to dispute my narrow vision of how the world should work. Just like Fox News.

Fixed.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It's not fluid, it's two ideas to be employed at different times.

Two CONTRADICTORY ideas. You know an awful lot about his plan.

Are you a puppet? Or one of his hippies-in-arms?

They're only contradictory if employed simultaneously. If one is employed first then phased out in favour of the other, then no.

I'm of more or less the same political persuasion. I'm making an assumption.

[Libera Patria]

Nope. Cato is automatically invalid because they dared to dispute my narrow vision of how the world should work. Just like Fox News.

Fixed.

[Zaras]

It's not fluid, it's two ideas to be employed at different times.

Two CONTRADICTORY ideas.

This has to be a joke. You can't possibly be silly enough to think this.

State regulation is a step towards laying the foundation for a transition to socialism. Seriously. All those drugs and E-Metres are really getting to ya.

[Forster Keys]

I like it.

[Zaras]

Nope. Cato is automatically invalid because they dared to dispute my narrow vision of how the world should work they're fucking idiots who don't know how to research and cherrypick everything that doesn't fit their worldview. Just like Fox News.

Fixed I just seriously defended a bunch of biased shits just because they're on my political side.

Fixed to account for the fact that you don't know how it works.

:clap: I'm clapping a defense of a blatantly biased institute whose entire mission is to crap out libertarian bullshit instead of actual research.

Fixed for you too. Lrn2fix.

[Zaras]

Because in one post your praising the Marxist idea of a stateless, classless, communal society and in the next your calling for a big government to regulate all those "ebil rich peepul an' ter corporations".

Seriously, if you can't tell that these aren't contradictory, you need to learn what nuance and long-term planning are.

And it's "you're", not "your".

[SPQR Legions]

Two CONTRADICTORY ideas.

This has to be a joke. You can't possibly be silly enough to think this.

State regulation is a step towards laying the foundation for a transition to socialism. Seriously. All those drugs and E-Metres are really getting to ya.

Wait, so all this talk about "regulation" and the government's role in redistributing the wealth is really just a front so that you can impose some sort of retarded teenage anarchist fantasy?

Yeah. Count me OUT.

Practice your social engineering with Nilfgaard. Leave the rest of us alone so we can live our lives in peace.

[Libera Patria]

Fixed I just seriously defended a bunch of biased shits just because they're on my political side.

Fixed to account for the fact that you don't know how it works.

:clap: I'm clapping a defense of a blatantly biased institute whose entire mission is to crap out libertarian bullshit instead of actual research.

Fixed for you too. Lrn2fix.

Seriously, what is it with you and your grudge against libertarians? I thought you might at least prefer them over social conservatives. You obviously aren't interested in hearing what other means, are you? Just throw out some radical insults and declare all you disagree with shitheads and nazis, and I'm sure you'll come across as a fine debater

[SPQR Legions]

Fixed I just seriously defended a bunch of biased shits just because they're on my political side.

Fixed to account for the fact that you don't know how it works.

:clap: I'm clapping a defense of a blatantly biased institute whose entire mission is to crap out libertarian bullshit instead of actual research.

Fixed for you too. Lrn2fix.

Yeah sure. We're the biased ones...

You're completely objective lol

[Greater Nilfgaard]

Seriously, if you can't tell that these aren't contradictory, you need to learn what nuance and long-term planning are.

Long term planning on the scale your suggesting would require a large level of authoritarianism. Something you've already ardently rejected. Thus it is contradictory and a fantasy.

If you were more like me then maybe you could pull it off....

And it's "you're", not "your".

Grammar Nazi.

[SPQR Legions]

I like it.

Like what?
Income inequality? Or one of the absurd social engineering plans currently saturating this thread?