Hong Kong

[Genivaria]

Not really, you're just angry that you're being taken to task for your utterly inhumane statements, get over it.

"Businesses should have a stronger say in politics. Also political dynasties and corporate lobbying is good. Also one man one vote is less democratic than what I propose. Also the homeless deserve it."

"Lol fuck that"

"wHy CaN't YoU dEbAtE mE PrOpErLy?!?!"

The fact that he doesn't even embrace the often cited "SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP" from Starship Troopers idea of getting more right by actually contributing more to society, instead he bases it entirely on how much money you make and how wealthy you are.
As if the very state of BEING wealthy makes one more worthy than someone who is poor but say serves their nations military for 20 years, or is the best teacher/doctor in the nation.

[Purgatio]

Again, your inability to understand that it is in fact possible to "call me out" and disagree with my opinions without unsubstantiated allegations of being an 'wumao' is only more evidence of your inability to debate in a mature way. Literally everyone else in the thread who disagrees with me seems to manage it, except you. You need to grow up.

Not really, you're just angry that you're being taken to task for your utterly inhumane statements, get over it.

Given that I've only made this comment to you and not the other people who have disagreed with me in this thread, like Novus and Bombadil, no, it's you and only you who are being immature and childish. I'm calling you out specifically rather than my other opponents because you specifically can't seem to disagree politically without resorting to statements like "50 cent paycheck" which, ironically, is precisely the kind of political nicknaming a real 'wumao' actually engages in.

Again, everyone else in this thread has expressed a disagreement with my worldview without unsubstantiated allegations. Everyone except you. So clearly, it is possible to have a mature disagreement with someone on politics, you're just incapable of it for some reason.

[Purgatio]

"Businesses should have a stronger say in politics. Also political dynasties and corporate lobbying is good. Also one man one vote is less democratic than what I propose. Also the homeless deserve it."

"Lol fuck that"

"wHy CaN't YoU dEbAtE mE PrOpErLy?!?!"

The fact that he doesn't even embrace the often cited "SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP" from Starship Troopers idea of getting more right by actually contributing more to society, instead he bases it entirely on how much money you make and how wealthy you are.
As if the very state of BEING wealthy makes one more worthy than someone who is poor but say serves their nations military for 20 years.

Except I'm not talking about denying the poor a vote entirely, I'm defending the current LegCo breakdown between functional and geographical constituencies where, yes, universal suffrage in HK exists and, yes, everyone regardless of wealth has the right to vote. I'm okay with that.

[Genivaria]

The fact that he doesn't even embrace the often cited "SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP" from Starship Troopers idea of getting more right by actually contributing more to society, instead he bases it entirely on how much money you make and how wealthy you are.
As if the very state of BEING wealthy makes one more worthy than someone who is poor but say serves their nations military for 20 years.

Except I'm not talking about denying the poor a vote entirely, I'm defending the current LegCo breakdown between functional and geographical constituencies where, yes, universal suffrage in HK exists and, yes, everyone regardless of wealth has the right to vote. I'm okay with that.

No you're talking about giving the rich a weighted vote to the point that the poor might as well not show up to the polls.

[Novus America]

You say 'objective fact' and provide nothing to support it so don't be surprised when your fucking opinion is dismissed.
If you think that poor and homeless have no stake in taxes or fiscal laws than boy are you in for a shock when you actually go out in the real world.

The American economy crashes tomorrow. Whose life changes more? The unemployed and homeless person who already owns nothing and is not even scraping by? Or the wealthy family with billions in an estate and whose family business or portfolio will depreciate in value dramatically?

So, again, as a matter of objective fact, which family has the bigger stake in whether the country's economic governance and fiscal stewardship is sound and stable? The homeless family that owns nothing and is already unemployed, or the family with an estate worth billions like the Kochs, the Mercers, the Mars family?

Obviously the rich have a greater interest in maintaining the status quo.
But that does not mean anything to those who benefit more from changing things.

[Pasong Tirad]

The American economy crashes tomorrow. Whose life changes more? The unemployed and homeless person who already owns nothing and is not even scraping by? Or the wealthy family with billions in an estate and whose family business or portfolio will depreciate in value dramatically?

So, again, as a matter of objective fact, which family has the bigger stake in whether the country's economic governance and fiscal stewardship is sound and stable? The homeless family that owns nothing and is already unemployed, or the family with an estate worth billions like the Kochs, the Mercers, the Mars family?

Obviously the rich have a greater interest in maintaining the status quo.
But that does not mean anything to those who benefit more from changing things.

Yeah but they're not rich so obviously their opinions don't matter.

[Makdon]

It's literally just objective fact, though. A rich person objectively has a larger stake in the governance of the country, who is in charge has very little impact on a person with little wealth, little assets and who is unemployed and without any stable employment. Someone who pays taxes cares about how high taxes will be and wants fiscal responsibility. Someone who runs a business is affected directly by commercial regulations and contract law. Someone who owns wealth cares about property rights and capital controls and whether there's a stable economy. In contrast, the poor and downtrodden generally stay poor when the economy does well or does badly, their fortunes might change a little bit, sure, and they might get a few handouts here and there, but the amount of impact laws have on a rich person's wealth and asset security is gigantic compared to the impact it has on a poor person. So yeah, its simply objectively true that the rich have a bigger stake in a country's future than a poor person. Calling it "stupid, vapid, and ignorant" doesn't make it less true, it just means you believe it is "stupid, vapid, and ignorant", nothing more.

ah yes, it'll affect a rich person more healthcare is universal or not. it'll affect a rich person more if labor laws are so far gone that you can't live off of one minimum wage job. it'll affect a rich person more when public schools get such shit funding that it's practically impossible for someone who isn't rich to get a marginally useful education. To pretend that rich people are more affected by national policy is to pretend that the money they have is more important than the quality of millions lives.

[Purgatio]

Except I'm not talking about denying the poor a vote entirely, I'm defending the current LegCo breakdown between functional and geographical constituencies where, yes, universal suffrage in HK exists and, yes, everyone regardless of wealth has the right to vote. I'm okay with that.

No you're talking about giving the rich a weighted vote to the point that the poor might as well not show up to the polls.

If the poor don't show up their favoured candidates don't win the geographical constituency seats, so there's still a point. Its weighed to represent different economic interests who will be affected by governmental policies.

[Bombadil]

The fact that he doesn't even embrace the often cited "SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP" from Starship Troopers idea of getting more right by actually contributing more to society, instead he bases it entirely on how much money you make and how wealthy you are.
As if the very state of BEING wealthy makes one more worthy than someone who is poor but say serves their nations military for 20 years.

Except I'm not talking about denying the poor a vote entirely, I'm defending the current LegCo breakdown between functional and geographical constituencies where, yes, universal suffrage in HK exists and, yes, everyone regardless of wealth has the right to vote. I'm okay with that.

Limiting the vote to no actual influence, and further simply ignoring that vote where it goes against them is no real suffrage at all, and certainly not universal.

The healthiest ecosystems are those that allow for the greatest variety that leads to greater adaptability, it's basic science.

[Purgatio]

It's literally just objective fact, though. A rich person objectively has a larger stake in the governance of the country, who is in charge has very little impact on a person with little wealth, little assets and who is unemployed and without any stable employment. Someone who pays taxes cares about how high taxes will be and wants fiscal responsibility. Someone who runs a business is affected directly by commercial regulations and contract law. Someone who owns wealth cares about property rights and capital controls and whether there's a stable economy. In contrast, the poor and downtrodden generally stay poor when the economy does well or does badly, their fortunes might change a little bit, sure, and they might get a few handouts here and there, but the amount of impact laws have on a rich person's wealth and asset security is gigantic compared to the impact it has on a poor person. So yeah, its simply objectively true that the rich have a bigger stake in a country's future than a poor person. Calling it "stupid, vapid, and ignorant" doesn't make it less true, it just means you believe it is "stupid, vapid, and ignorant", nothing more.

ah yes, it'll affect a rich person more healthcare is universal or not. it'll affect a rich person more if labor laws are so far gone that you can't live off of one minimum wage job. it'll affect a rich person more when public schools get such shit funding that it's practically impossible for someone who isn't rich to get a marginally useful education. To pretend that rich people are more affected by national policy is to pretend that the money they have is more important than the quality of millions lives.

Everyone is affected by how the government chooses to distribute resources, so it's a wash on either side. Yes, the poor are affected if welfare is slashed. The rich are affected if business subsidies are slashed or bank bailouts are ended. Again, whether the government spends money on you affects the lifestyle of that demographic, rich, poor, middle-class, whatever. But the upper-middle class, the affluent, and the wealthy have an additional stake beyond mere resources - a lot of their existing private wealth accumulation, through voluntary contracts and transactions and property trading, all depends on a working legal system, a prosperous economy, and stable governance. Those without the economic leverage to enjoy the goods that come with the rule of law, stable property rights regimes and freedom of contracts and an expectation those contractual bargains can be enforceable in court, will be affected less by a government that fails to maintain and uphold these virtues. So, ceteris paribus, a rich person is always more affected by the government than the poor, because he is affected both by how the government transfers resources (which is true of all economic demographics) but his own private wealth creation and maintenance is additionally affected by whether the government maintains the conditions needed for autonomous private ordering or not.

[Bombadil]

Ultimately Purgatio is the product of a society that views politics like a family, that people are a rabble of children that must be controlled by the wise patriarchy of the business and government elite - and it's fine if you're among that elite, of course you view the world as just that way, because it's most just for you.

[Purgatio]

Except I'm not talking about denying the poor a vote entirely, I'm defending the current LegCo breakdown between functional and geographical constituencies where, yes, universal suffrage in HK exists and, yes, everyone regardless of wealth has the right to vote. I'm okay with that.

Limiting the vote to no actual influence, and further simply ignoring that vote where it goes against them is no real suffrage at all, and certainly not universal.

The healthiest ecosystems are those that allow for the greatest variety that leads to greater adaptability, it's basic science.

But the LegCo as it stands is extremely adaptable, because as economic and market conditions change it affects those who are represented by the functional constituencies in a very direct way. If anything this is an argument for the LegCo system which by design is more adaptable to global economic changes, because it gives influence to the demographics that are directly affected by those changes, than those only indirectly affected.

[Purgatio]

Obviously the rich have a greater interest in maintaining the status quo.
But that does not mean anything to those who benefit more from changing things.

Yeah but they're not rich so obviously their opinions don't matter.

No, they matter less, they still matter though. They should have a voice, some voice.

[Purgatio]

Ultimately Purgatio is the product of a society that views politics like a family, that people are a rabble of children that must be controlled by the wise patriarchy of the business and government elite - and it's fine if you're among that elite, of course you view the world as just that way, because it's most just for you.

But the system as it stands is fundamentally fair, when you have more to lose you need an advocate on your side to make sure everyone else in society doesn't coercively use the law to steal what you have. Families who have worked hard over generations to build their estates and portfolios which are intended for their children and their children's children will always have those estates vulnerable to the thieving and class-envious impulses of the rest of society, many of whom can't wait to use the tax to expropriate and ransack the fruits of generations of labour and saving. At the end of the day its a fairness issue and its a property rights issue. Protecting stability of property rights and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions is a fair system for everyone.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The blood sucker advocate accuses the rest of us of being thieves. Lol.

[Makdon]

Everyone is affected by how the government chooses to distribute resources, so it's a wash on either side. Yes, the poor are affected if welfare is slashed. The rich are affected if business subsidies are slashed or bank bailouts are ended. Again, whether the government spends money on you affects the lifestyle of that demographic, rich, poor, middle-class, whatever. But the upper-middle class, the affluent, and the wealthy have an additional stake beyond mere resources - a lot of their existing private wealth accumulation, through voluntary contracts and transactions and property trading, all depends on a working legal system, a prosperous economy, and stable governance. Those without the economic leverage to enjoy the goods that come with the rule of law, stable property rights regimes and freedom of contracts and an expectation those contractual bargains can be enforceable in court, will be affected less by a government that fails to maintain and uphold these virtues. So, ceteris paribus, a rich person is always more affected by the government than the poor, because he is affected both by how the government transfers resources (which is true of all economic demographics) but his own private wealth creation and maintenance is additionally affected by whether the government maintains the conditions needed for autonomous private ordering or not.

you claim that since both hold equal stakes in terms of resources, but since the rich have more to lose, they have more stake in politics. Let's unpack that. Specifically, is it really true that they both have equal stake in terms of resources?
No. If welfare is slashed, people spend the rest of their life in crushing debt. People live with chronic conditions that could be treated, but aren't. Some people might even die, it's rare, but people who've been refused at hospitals for lacking insurance have died in the past. Now, if business's start to go downhill because they lose subsidies or can't get a bailout, what happens to the ceo? They retire with a million dollar pension. What happens to the shareholders? they lose a bit of money, but they'e still rich. What happens to the workers there? They're laid off or have their wages cut. So I think it might be a bit much to say that "Everyone is affected by how the government chooses to distribute resources, so it's a wash on either side."

[Bombadil]

Ultimately Purgatio is the product of a society that views politics like a family, that people are a rabble of children that must be controlled by the wise patriarchy of the business and government elite - and it's fine if you're among that elite, of course you view the world as just that way, because it's most just for you.

But the system as it stands is fundamentally fair, when you have more to lose you need an advocate on your side to make sure everyone else in society doesn't coercively use the law to steal what you have. Families who have worked hard over generations to build my estates and portfolios which are intended for their children and their children's children will always have those estates vulnerable to the thieving and class-envious impulses of the rest of society, many of whom can't wait to use the tax to expropriate and ransack the fruits of generations of labour and saving. At the end of the day its a fairness issue and its a property rights issue. Protecting stability of property rights and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions is a fair system for everyone.

Yes yes, you're self serving opinion is exactly why you shouldn't have more power than those who do not have much to lose. Listen, everyone's opinion is self serving, that's fine, but it's also why everyone should have an equal say.

A system to simply protect inherited wealth is categorically worse than an open, free and transparent system where everyone has an equal say.

Any of your favourite Chicago school of economists would agree.

[Purgatio]

The blood sucker advocate accuses the rest of us of being thieves. Lol.

What right do you have to a family's properties and possessions that they or their ancestors acquired through contracts, transactions, gifts and sales?

[Pasong Tirad]

Yeah but they're not rich so obviously their opinions don't matter.

No, they matter less, they still matter though. They should have a voice, some voice.

Oh ok that's better then.

[Makdon]

The blood sucker advocate accuses the rest of us of being thieves. Lol.

aCtuAlLy, tHe riCh mAdE thIeR mOneY faIrLy, sO yoU'Re thE TheiVes bEcaUse tAxEs arE a Sin

[Bombadil]

The blood sucker advocate accuses the rest of us of being thieves. Lol.

What right do you have to a family's properties and possessions that they or their ancestors acquired through contracts, transactions, gifts and sales?

You already have vast advantages accrued to you by mere luck of birth, and now you want even more.

As I said before, Christ on a stick..

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The blood sucker advocate accuses the rest of us of being thieves. Lol.

What right do you have to a family's properties and possessions that they or their ancestors acquired through contracts, transactions, gifts and sales?

As much as a French Aristocrat had over his 6000 serfs when the revolution came.

[Purgatio]

But the system as it stands is fundamentally fair, when you have more to lose you need an advocate on your side to make sure everyone else in society doesn't coercively use the law to steal what you have. Families who have worked hard over generations to build my estates and portfolios which are intended for their children and their children's children will always have those estates vulnerable to the thieving and class-envious impulses of the rest of society, many of whom can't wait to use the tax to expropriate and ransack the fruits of generations of labour and saving. At the end of the day its a fairness issue and its a property rights issue. Protecting stability of property rights and the peaceful enjoyment of possessions is a fair system for everyone.

Yes yes, you're self serving opinion is exactly why you shouldn't have more power than those who do not have much to lose. Listen, everyone's opinion is self serving, that's fine, but it's also why everyone should have an equal say.

A system to simply protect inherited wealth is categorically worse than an open, free and transparent system where everyone has an equal say.

Any of your favourite Chicago school of economists would agree.

Its not about defending inherited wealth, its about defending people's private ordering and private property. The entire economy is structured around incentivising people to act because they have the confidence that the property they acquire will belong to them and the income they earn will be theirs, but a democratic system and an electoral system that does not account for the reality that the minority who own more are at risk of being skewered at the ballot by the majority who own less means that the ability to incentivise people to work hard, earn and innovate is imperilled - why work hard to become wealthy when all your gains that you've laboured and toiled for yourself and your family can be stripped from you unilaterally at the ballot box? Every democratic system needs checks and balances to prevent this thieving impulse from bearing fruit, whether it is a properly-balanced electoral system like in the City of London and the LegCo, or if it doesn't happen that way, then it'll happen indirectly through lobbying behind the scenes. This way's more open and transparent, and more democratic too.

[Samadhi]

The blood sucker advocate accuses the rest of us of being thieves. Lol.

aCtuAlLy, tHe riCh mAdE thIeR mOneY faIrLy, sO yoU'Re thE TheiVes bEcaUse tAxEs arE a Sin

Taxes are theft.
Advocates for taxation are psychopaths.

[Purgatio]

What right do you have to a family's properties and possessions that they or their ancestors acquired through contracts, transactions, gifts and sales?

As much as a French Aristocrat had over his 6000 serfs when the revolution came.

A family estate is the product of many, many years of hard work, private sacrifices and savings, expropriating it all is just cruel and inhumane in the extreme and destroys a person's capacity for autonomy and self-determination free from the State's unlimited capacity to erase your property rights unilaterally at its untrammelled discretion.