What is your opinion on Income Inequality?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Anyone who possesses in excess of the social mean is, yes.


Absolutely; it takes a lot of work to set up schemes to lie, cheat, and steal. I don't deny that at all.

The question is, is it the sort of work that is socially beneficial or not? Is it the sort of work that is compatible with a free society or not?


Again, depends on what kind of work. Dishonest work, absolutely. Honest work, not at all.

You are really ignorant or lazy if you think 100% of all rich people got there by lying, cheating, stealing, assaulting, and manipulating everyone.

Well, OK, you're right.

I'll admit it: some of them got rich by having the wealth transferred to them by people who did the dirty work themselves (e.g. inheritance, gifts, etc.).

[The Black Forrest]

Wow. Who taught you this?

Ayn Rand.

Hmmm? I thought the Randie spawning run went by the site already.

[North Stradia]

You are really ignorant or lazy if you think 100% of all rich people got there by lying, cheating, stealing, assaulting, and manipulating everyone.

Well, OK, you're right.

I'll admit it: some of them got rich by having the wealth transferred to them by people who did the dirty work themselves (e.g. inheritance, gifts, etc.).

There's a reason you're the only person on my ignore list here.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Income inequality is good, because people are not equal. Equality of opportunity is okay, but equality of outcome is a horrible idea. Any attempt by the state to balance income inequalities is immoral and should be discouraged.

This. Except that equality of opportunity is NOT okay. Equality before the law is the only equality I care about.

And since "the law" is a social construct, and heavily dominated by the already-powerful...

yeah, you hate real freedom.

Stop calling yourself a libertarian. You're as authoritarian as Stalin, as Brezhnev, as Kim.

[Uelvan]

You are really ignorant or lazy if you think 100% of all rich people got there by lying, cheating, stealing, assaulting, and manipulating everyone.

Well, OK, you're right.

I'll admit it: some of them got rich by having the wealth transferred to them by people who did the dirty work themselves (e.g. inheritance, gifts, etc.).

Prove your claims. I gave testament to a rich person I know who got there from hard work. Now prove to me, he and everyone else rich did so through evil means. You've got the burden of proof.

[Divair]

Ayn Rand.

Hmmm? I thought the Randie spawning run went by the site already.

They're omnipresent. Always a few of them.

[The Black Forrest]

Well, OK, you're right.

I'll admit it: some of them got rich by having the wealth transferred to them by people who did the dirty work themselves (e.g. inheritance, gifts, etc.).

There's a reason you're the only person on my ignore list here.

The irony.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Well, OK, you're right.

I'll admit it: some of them got rich by having the wealth transferred to them by people who did the dirty work themselves (e.g. inheritance, gifts, etc.).

Prove your claims. I gave testament to a rich person I know who got there from hard work. Now prove to me, he and everyone else rich did so through evil means. You've got the burden of proof.

Since everyone is, by his very existence, morally entitled to an equal share of social wealth, possession in excess of the social mean is by definition theft from those who have less, since it is taking from them what is rightfully theirs without their consent.

[CVT Temp]

It's funny, because you assume that capitalism is a healthy economic model.

But that's the brilliant circular logic of it. Define "efficient" and "healthy" and other loaded terms in a way that makes statements like "Capitalism is healthy and efficient." vacuously true, but then take advantage of the fact that, under common parlance definitions, these words are normative, and equivocate. Suddenly, it looks like you're proving all sorts of wonderful stuff about free markets when really all you're doing is playing word games and proving tautologies.

[CVT Temp]

I don't like it, but idiots have the right to be idiots.

If and only if their idiocy is not harmful. The problem is that right libertarians only recognize physical harm.

[North Stradia]

I don't like it, but idiots have the right to be idiots.

If and only if their idiocy is not harmful. The problem is that right libertarians only recognize physical harm.

People do not have the right to not be offended.

[CVT Temp]

People do not have the right to not be offended.

Did I mention offense? There's economic harm, environmental harm, social harm, etc.. None of these involve people getting a sad.

[The Black Forrest]

I don't like it, but idiots have the right to be idiots.

If and only if their idiocy is not harmful. The problem is that right libertarians only recognize physical harm.

And it doesn't affect him personally. It's easy to say "I don't like it"

[Uelvan]

Prove your claims. I gave testament to a rich person I know who got there from hard work. Now prove to me, he and everyone else rich did so through evil means. You've got the burden of proof.

Since everyone is, by his very existence, morally entitled to an equal share of social wealth, possession in excess of the social mean is by definition theft from those who have less, since it is taking from them what is rightfully theirs without their consent.

We aren't entitled to shit. Humanity's dragged itself from wallowing in bushes and mud. That's all we're really entitled to. I am just lucky I live in a country where being that poor and desperate is ungodly uncommon due to programs that help people out. Now, if we all lived in a gigantic communistic fairly land where everyone agreed, that we should all be paid equal then yes you have a point. The fact of the matter is, however, we are living in a market run society where fiscal responsibility is a higher concern. You want to get rich? You work, you get lucky, and you spend like a minimalist, simple as that.

I am still waiting for my proof that every rich person is evil, btw.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

If and only if their idiocy is not harmful. The problem is that right libertarians only recognize physical harm.

People do not have the right to not be offended.

They have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sex, gender or race.

[North Stradia]

People do not have the right to not be offended.

Did I mention offense? There's economic harm, environmental harm, social harm, etc.. None of these involve people getting a sad.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

[The Black Forrest]

If and only if their idiocy is not harmful. The problem is that right libertarians only recognize physical harm.

People do not have the right to not be offended.

We are not talking about censorship.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Did I mention offense? There's economic harm, environmental harm, social harm, etc.. None of these involve people getting a sad.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

Why do you want to destroy the human species?

[Divair]

Did I mention offense? There's economic harm, environmental harm, social harm, etc.. None of these involve people getting a sad.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

The epitome of humanity right here, folks.

[The Black Forrest]

Did I mention offense? There's economic harm, environmental harm, social harm, etc.. None of these involve people getting a sad.

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

How old are you?

[Divair]

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

How old are you?

I'd be willing to bet under 15.

[North Stradia]

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

How old are you?

16.

[CVT Temp]

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

You know that the environment can degrade to the point where it's hard for humans as well, right? I don't care how much of a rugged individualist you think you are, if I drop you of on Venus, you're going to die.

Recognizing that environmental damage can also affect us negatively, we can set reasonable limits on how bad we're going to allow it to get.

[The Black Forrest]

How old are you?

I'd be willing to bet under 15.

I suspect the parents punished him for something.

[North Stradia]

I honestly don't give a fuck about the so called "environment".

Why do you want to destroy the human species?

Why do you want to force people to drastically reduce their standard of living to benefit the "environment"?