No one wants to be Rich.

[Souseiseki]

We don't ask conservatives to love it.

We ask them to stop whining about "theft" while using the services of their supposed thieves, despite the fact no one is forcing them to live here.

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that, I see no reason to pay for something I don't use. If you want social security, pay for it yourself.. But wait, I forgot.. Those services are based on theft, poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!

most of the people around you do though

do you enjoy being surrounded by relatively healthy people?

[Des-Bal]

Really? Because I've been nothing if not upfront, in fact this entire tangent has been about how eager I am to admit that I support sweatshop labor.

....and there is a logical justification for that?[/quote]

Freedom of contract.

[Mavorpen]

So you don't use public roads?

You don't want patent protection?

No copyright laws?

No public education?

No agency to make sure your water isn't polluted?

No agency to make sure your food is safe?

Until you give up all of this, don't expect me to take you seriously.

If you're forced to pay for something you may as well enjoy the benefits of it.

I...what?

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Duvniask]

I don't even.

You probably would if you read the posts. Someone accused me of being blunt, I said I don't use smokescreens, someone else insinuated I did, I pointed out that I clearly don't.

I read almost everything on this thread. So no. I just don't understand who in their right mind, could say they support sweatshop labour.

[Esternial]

That's rich, coming from you.

Really? Because I've been nothing if not upfront, in fact this entire tangent has been about how eager I am to admit that I support sweatshop labor.

Yeah, but your arguments are based on misconceptions of third world situations, making me wonder which nutjob gave you that view in the first place.

You simply assumed that people can just move when they want to, decline an offer when they feel it's unfair. These people CAN'T move, because they lack the resources, they can't decline an unfair offer because they have a family to feed, and there many other alternatives available - if they have a choice at all.

The third world allows people a lot less freedom that ours, which you seem to assume.

[Des-Bal]

I...what?

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

You keep asking that, do you forget your own posts? You just said that you wouldn't take anyone who complained about the "theft" of their taxes but enjoyed public services seriously. If you're being forced to pay regardless of whether or not you think it's fair, you might as well enjoy the benefits.

[Riserland]

Really? Because I've been nothing if not upfront, in fact this entire tangent has been about how eager I am to admit that I support sweatshop labor.

....and there is a logical justification for that?

Freedom of contract.[/quote]

I was referring to your LOVE of sweatshops. I honestly cannot see how a person can rationalize this without being a complete sociopath.

[The Merchant Republics]

The only problem I see is that income guarantees aren't higher.

The fact is, all wealth is social and so all individuals are entitled to an equal share of social wealth. Private ownership in excess of the social mean constitutes theft from those who have less, and is incompatible with freedom and individual liberty.

I respectfully disagree.

While the value of goods (and thus wealth) is derived from social interaction, production is created individually (or rather in isolated groups), the share of wealth you are entitled should be representative of your value your production is given.

Having wealth above the mean. Strongly indicates that you are a person who's has benefitted the whole more than the average person. It is therefore just to reward them by allowing them to keep that excess. Especially because wealth begets more capital and production thus increasing the mean share.

That said. It would be wrong of us to penalize those who fall below the productive mean, which is why I understand the need for progressive taxation. I just feel it should not rob those with excess (not that it does, simply that it can). What truly robs the poor though is not taxation but the lack of opportunity.

Education is a part of it, but for many the best solution is giving them the ability to be more productive.

The problem is we have two equally wrong philosophies in the common discourse. One that we take from the most productive (the rich) and redistribute it to the least which only creates additional dependency of the poor on the rich and lowers the mean productivity.
The other is unburdening the most productive and penalizing the least, which nominally raises our productive mean but because of our penalization of the poor doesn't actually result in increased wealth.

The idle system would provide allow the rich to reinvest their capital on the poor, which would increase the wealth of both and mean productivity equally.

[Des-Bal]

Yeah, but your arguments are based on misconceptions of third world situations, making me wonder which nutjob gave you that view in the first place.

You simply assumed that people can just move when they want to, decline an offer when they feel it's unfair. These people CAN'T move, because they lack the resources, they can't decline an unfair offer because they have a family to feed, and there many other alternatives available - if they have a choice at all.

The third world allows people a lot less freedom that ours, which you seem to assume.

If they don't work they don't have money? That is a uniquely third world problem to which I was unaware.

[Neo Art]

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that!

Don't you live with your parents?

[Des-Bal]

I was referring to your LOVE of sweatshops. I honestly cannot see how a person can rationalize this without being a complete sociopath.

I repeat, freedom of contract. If fifty cents a day is unfair don't take the job. If you don't like the conditions don't take the job.

[Esternial]

Yeah, but your arguments are based on misconceptions of third world situations, making me wonder which nutjob gave you that view in the first place.

You simply assumed that people can just move when they want to, decline an offer when they feel it's unfair. These people CAN'T move, because they lack the resources, they can't decline an unfair offer because they have a family to feed, and there many other alternatives available - if they have a choice at all.

The third world allows people a lot less freedom that ours, which you seem to assume.

If they don't work they don't have money? That is a uniquely third world problem to which I was unaware.

READ MY BLOODY POST.

They don't have a choice like we do. They can't just apply for any job, because there aren't any other options.

[Mavorpen]

If you're being forced to pay regardless of whether or not you think it's fair, you might as well enjoy the benefits.

Completely irrelevant to the fact that it's laughably hypocritical. Please, can you stop making these silly posts that have nothing to do with my own?

[Esternial]

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that!

Don't you live with your parents?

Another example of Hippostania being oblivious.

[EnragedMaldivians]

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that!

Don't you live with your parents?

Yes, but he built them himself.

[Sibirsky]

Shouting does not make your argument correct.

We don't have free markets. Guess who prolonged the downturn both times?

Bank's, People who couldn't pay their mortgage's, People who don't pay Tax's.

[Duvniask]

I was referring to your LOVE of sweatshops. I honestly cannot see how a person can rationalize this without being a complete sociopath.

I repeat, freedom of contract. If fifty cents a day is unfair don't take the job. If you don't like the conditions don't take the job.

What the fuck?

As you, yourself stated, it's the only alternative to starvation. So they can chose between starvation and being worked to death instead?

[Des-Bal]

READ MY BLOODY POST.

They don't have a choice like we do. They can't just apply for any job, because there aren't any other options.

They have a choice between taking a job and not taking a job.

[Esternial]

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that, I see no reason to pay for something I don't use. If you want social security, pay for it yourself.. But wait, I forgot.. Those services are based on theft, poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!

most of the people around you do though

do you enjoy being surrounded by relatively healthy people?

He's full of it. He assumes that some of the things he benefits from are just magically provided to him.

That magic happens to be social welfare, fancy that. If only he'd see pass his bias and admit it like a man I'd be willing to enter a serious debate.

[Farnhamia]

We don't ask conservatives to love it.

We ask them to stop whining about "theft" while using the services of their supposed thieves, despite the fact no one is forcing them to live here.

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that, I see no reason to pay for something I don't use. If you want social security, pay for it yourself.. But wait, I forgot.. Those services are based on theft, poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!

You don't use them, Hippo, because you still live at home with your parents. Full disclosure is a good thing, you know. And you should read that last post out loud, maybe you'll realize just how silly it is. "poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!"

[Des-Bal]

What the fuck?

As you, yourself stated, it's the only alternative to starvation. So they can chose between starvation and being worked to death instead?

Yes.

[Duvniask]

READ MY BLOODY POST.

They don't have a choice like we do. They can't just apply for any job, because there aren't any other options.

They have a choice between taking a job and not taking a job.

No, the job or death.

[Esternial]

READ MY BLOODY POST.

They don't have a choice like we do. They can't just apply for any job, because there aren't any other options.

They have a choice between taking a job and not taking a job.

I see...I though you'd catch on quicker. Never in my life have I been so wrong.

Not taking a job equals no income to feed your children. Hence, no choice but to take that unfair job or die starving.

[Esternial]

What services? I certainly do not use any kind of public healthcare, social welfare or other bullshit like that, I see no reason to pay for something I don't use. If you want social security, pay for it yourself.. But wait, I forgot.. Those services are based on theft, poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!

You don't use them, Hippo, because you still live at home with your parents. Full disclosure is a good thing, you know. And you should read that last post out loud, maybe you'll realize just how silly it is. "poorer people are using the state to steal money and wealth from succesful people!"

I hope his opinion will change when he grows the fuck up.

[Duvniask]

What the fuck?

As you, yourself stated, it's the only alternative to starvation. So they can chose between starvation and being worked to death instead?

Yes.

Right so they can treat you however they like, even if you are desperate and absolutely need a job, they can still do that in your worldview.

So much for an actual choice.