Question for rtwng

[crazy canadian]

No, I mean donated wealth. People who have made it, and then some. Or people who just want to give to charity. Just think about it yourself. My kids just woke up. Gotta go for now.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Any form of economics is tyranny? that's nuts.

or cashews or peanuts. its still the truth in many applications

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
How much money is enough for a person?
I asked what each person thinks personally. If you didn't have to worry about anyone else. I'm not deciding for anyone else.

It varies per person.

For me I don't want a lot. I'm glad though that others want more and are willing to work to get it. Bill gates has done more for other people probably than any other person on the face of the planet. Look how many jobs the whole pc industry has opened up all around the world. Look at all the efficiencies gained.


I just don't like conversations like this, cause the next step is OK. how can we enforce our nonrepresentative consensus on all individuals? That's a shitty question.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
or cashews or peanuts. its still the truth in many applications

name one.

 

[crazy canadian]

Dude with crazy hair:
I'm not saying how much money someone is 'allowed to have', I'm asking you, not fighting you. Do you have an answer?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
name one.

using the courts to outfinance your competitors (the little guy) to enforce some capitalist objective.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
Dude with crazy hair:
I'm not saying how much money someone is 'allowed to have', I'm asking you, not fighting you. Do you have an answer?

'should' implies 'allowed' .

 

[crazy canadian]

Well, I mean in each own person's own mind, to live how they want to live, without tonnes of extra.

 

[crazy canadian]

Unless 'tonnes of extra' is what they want, of course.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
using the courts to outfinance your competitors (the little guy) to enforce some capitalist objective.

That's not illustrative of how economics is tyranny. That's an example of how government can be corrupted.

 

[crazy canadian]

Support Inner City capitalism. Fight for all. I gotta jet.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
Support Inner City capitalism. Fight for all. I gotta jet.

I support capitalism all over. I will. c-ya.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by crazy canadian
No, I mean donated wealth. People who have made it, and then some. Or people who just want to give to charity. Just think about it yourself. My kids just woke up. Gotta go for now.

I think about everything for myself. Thanks for being a condescending little humdinger. People who want to give have no problem finding charities. People don't need government to be generous and kind.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
That's not illustrative of how economics is tyranny. That's an example of how government can be corrupted.

how government can be corrupted or how the judicial process can be abused? either way its still a form of economic tyranny by allowing the wealthier of the two outlast the least wealthy by financial attrition, hence its tyrannical.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
how government can be corrupted or how the judicial process can be abused? either way its still a form of economic tyranny by allowing the wealthier of the two outlast the least wealthy by financial attrition, hence its tyrannical.

but it's not economics that's the problem. It's government corruption. If a company puts another out of business without corruption, is that still tyranny by economics?

Anytime a company goes out of business from better competition, it's tyranny. That's truly insane.

 

[5stringJeff]

Wow...

1. Government compulsed wealth redistribution should be terminated immediately. The government has no right to force me to pay my hard-earned money to someone else. HOWEVER, I am all for private charities, and I think if there were no welfare programs in the US, private charities, both secualr and (gasp) religious, would step up. In fact, my church runs a halfway house for single moms in our city, and though we are certainly not South Central LA, we have our fair share of poor people, and I'm glad to be helping out.

2. Socialism, as a form of government, goes against the God-given rights that we have, including the right to keep what I earn. If someone wants to form a commune or socialized health/education co-op, more power to them. But by forcing that system on a population, you are, in effect, enslaving that population to the whims of the ruling/elite class, who makes economic decisions for you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Wow...

1. Government compulsed wealth redistribution should be terminated immediately. The government has no right to force me to pay my hard-earned money to someone else. HOWEVER, I am all for private charities, and I think if there were no welfare programs in the US, private charities, both secualr and (gasp) religious, would step up. In fact, my church runs a halfway house for single moms in our city, and though we are certainly not South Central LA, we have our fair share of poor people, and I'm glad to be helping out.

2. Socialism, as a form of government, goes against the God-given rights that we have, including the right to keep what I earn. If someone wants to form a commune or socialized health/education co-op, more power to them. But by forcing that system on a population, you are, in effect, enslaving that population to the whims of the ruling/elite class, who makes economic decisions for you.

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[crazy canadian]

So do you believe socialism should work with capitalism and meet somewhere in the middle? Take away the gov't, help out those who need it, and long live capitalism? Like capitalists who help others?

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
but it's not economics that's the problem. It's government corruption. If a company puts another out of business without corruption, is that still tyranny by economics?

Anytime a company goes out of business from better competition, it's tyranny. That's truly insane.

no, if its fair competition and one company succeeds thats not tyranny. Using your advantages unfairly is.

 

[crazy canadian]

What about laws? Keep the laws? Change the laws to whatever the existing capitalists feel? Since they will be running the world? What if they support legalizing hard drugs? I think socialism is needed. Everyone just has to find ways to satisfy both sides.