Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[TruthNotBS]

You're making an (even bigger) idiot out of yourself. I'm not black.

Yeah sure, keep lying dumbass. Uncle Tom.

 

[dblack]

Yeah sure, keep lying dumbass. Uncle Tom.

Hehe ... well, that's about as clueless and off base as the rest of the shit you post. So at least you're consistent.

Meme on!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Hehe ... well, that's about as clueless and off base as the rest of the shit you post. So at least you're consistent.

Meme on!

Stop lying. You used to have a profile picture with what was obviously, you as a teen or your son or grandson. He's clearly black and if you aren't then you're a racist and against the working class. Why shouldn't I speculate about your character and who you are? You do it to me all of the time, so fuck you. You're a fucking capitalist piece of shit, who likes to lord himself over others and hence hates to see workers empowered. You're a punk and the only reason you're able to insult me or anyone else on the internet is because you're hiding safely behind an anonymous computer.

If what I say is clueless and off-base, then debunk it. You can't so all you have are false accusations and insults.

 

[dblack]

Stop lying. You used to have a profile picture with what was obviously, you as a teen or your son or grandson. He's clearly black and if you aren't then you're a racist and against the working class.

Uh... nope. You're more deluded than I thought. But it's funny, so by all means continue!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Uh... nope. You're more deluded than I thought. But it's funny, so by all means continue!

Yep, you're a liar.

 

[dblack]

Yep, you're a liar.

If you say so. I can't really care.

You should get back to your memes.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

They are bestowed by force. That's the only thing objectively real in the entire legal process. When I call them fiction I mean the beliefs that authorize them are imaginary. The right to life, liberty and property these are subjective opinions as imaginary as believing that you're gods representative on earth or the rightful ruler and King of all that you see, those beliefs are only made real by the application of force. I am in fact saying that there is no objective difference between forcing someone to bow to your religion by force, your law by force, or your gun by force. Force is force.

Again, the point I was making to the libertarian and the point he understood and walked away from addressing is that inalienable rights aren't objectively real. You have no objective right to own property, just a subjective one that you use force on others to make them respect.

Okay. Unless you're saying we disregard the law where rights are concerned, I'm not sure why this is so important.

Nope.

Here is what you've said:

Post 850 - "I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources."
Post 856 - "I'm saying I prefer to live in a society where the success created by society is celebrated and shared by all."
Post 863 - "I'm talking about taxing wealth to the point that becoming a billionaire is impossible."

Post 869 - "I want a progressive tax rate that makes reaching a billion dollars in wealth impossible."
Post 871 - "What you're not accounting for is the distribution of a country's wealth. We may be more prosperous as a nation but that wealth is largely held in that hands of a tiny few…"
You've been saying all this time that you don't want a few (that being billionaires) to have access to all the resources so the resources can be shared by all. Now you're saying eliminating billionaires is not necessary to that goal.

Wealth is leverage. The fact that people could possibly gain more leverage doesn't address the danger in allowing some to hold that much leverage over others and the economy.

But YOU have the right and access to gain wealth for yourself.

Apparently you feel that if you don't have what it takes to become rich (or AS rich as some), no one else should be allowed to become rich.

That's not to the point. Demand doesn't drive productivity.

Please tell me you're not that stupid. Demand determines the level of production because if they produce more than what is selling, they lose money.

That's economics 101 and everyone knows this, even those not involved in business.

I guess this explains your half baked ideas about economics.

Productivity determines abundance, the whims of capitalists determines productivity and leverage determines the share of abundance that goes to Capitalists verses laborers.

If a laborer does not own stock in the company, why should any of the capital go to him?

If a company is built from the ground up to where the employees are invested, by all means they should share in the capital. Otherwise, no.

I did. When I say all that all is required for people to exploit natural resources is the liberty to do so without violence I'm talking about a world without private property. If no one person had claim to natural resources then all would be free to access and exploit them for their own desires. In that instance I would agree with you that demand determines productivity because everyone would be working for themselves to meet their own demands.

How long before someone complains that So-and-So is taking more of the resources than others? And if there's no private property, who owns it, the government? If so, you would take resources out of the hands of those who paid for those resources, were trained and educated to process, package and market them and put them (resources) in the hands of a bunch of people that ran up a thirteen trillion dollar debt to fund foreign wars, foreign aid to ungrateful countries that don't deserve it, and special interest waste programs, among other things.

The U.S. government is a colossal clusterfuck of waste, myopia, low expectations, mediocrity, negligence and mass confusion peopled by mindless drones whose only interest is checking all the boxes on forms.

See you did miss my point. My point to libertarian wasnt that I was better than him, it was that those like him crowing about violations of their inalienable equal rights use force to impose their subjective will just like everybody else.

I said that in regards to your remarks about asking questions. It had nothing to do with anything you've said to dblack.

Specifically: "That said, asking questions for clarification is the very purpose of asking questions. It's the reason I do it and it's the reason you do it. But you pretend you don't care about opinions but ask questions for clarification anyway. As you do, you assiduously declare throughout the discussion that you don't care about my opinion."

That's not how capitalism works. Productivity has gone up in this country while wages have remained stagnant because how much laborers get out of their productivity must be leveraged. There is no unbiased arbiter determining who gets what based on how hard they worked. There are only individuals or groups of individuals using wealth, skills and circumstance to leverage one another. Regardless of all that I'm not anti capitalist. I don't know what fundamental change you're referring to. Higher taxes and a larger social safety net isn't a fundamental change. It's a difference of degree.

Higher taxes and more social safety nets is only part of what you've been saying. You've also talked about sharing resources and THAT would fundamentally change our system by itself.

Less in this instance constitues your subjective opinion.

If I cited specific numbers, that would be subjective. But I did not. Some will contribute less than others and that is a fact just as it is a fact right now.

What?

Exactly. This is something we see a lot of from left-leaning people who preach about sharing wealth. If you suggest they share their wealth first, you get:

"Whaaaat?"

Yes, it's a fact that you don't care and also your opinion in regards to billionaires. It's both.

Okay then, what's my opinion of billionaires? Maybe you can tell me because I really don't have an opinion one way or the other about them.

I wasn't suggesting you were lying about how you felt towards billionaires I was saying I don't give a shit how you feel about billionaires. Fucking christ you're a moron.

I know you weren't suggesting I was lying, dumbass. Did I indicate in any way that I thought you were? Fucking Christ you're a moron.

In Post 870 you accuse me of not caring about a person's right and liberty to become rich. This to me expresses the idea that you think this right and liberty to become rich is some objective thing.

Which in turn suggests to me that you already forgot - or are ignoring - that we already came to an understanding that our rights come from the law. That being the case, can't we just go from there instead of you preaching about subjectivism/objectivism in every goddamn post? You really need to find another hobby and take a break from this obsession.

If you really understood them to be subjective then you'd understand that I simply care about them in different manner than you do.

You don't care about them at all.

Post #865: "I don't feel bad about a person with hundreds of millions of dollars not being able to make it to a billion. So sad for them."

In what manner is more here an objective determination?

More money, dumbass. Along with more taxes, putting more people to work, producing more products and services to make life and work a little easier and more efficient for everybody. You know, more than you are now.

And people are looking to politics for a more equitable distribution of wealth and this bothers you. So what?

Sham comparison. People have a right to earn as much money as they want, which is as it should be in a democratic society. Your plan deprives us of those rights.

Says who? It's the force of law that determines who is entitled to what.

You just answered your own question, dumbass.

That's you attempting a counter argument, innit? By arguing as if rights are objective things when rights are whatever society says they are.

Irrelevant. Again, please explain to me how my comment was an argument "fashioned" against YOU.

So then people can have a right to success?

If the law is thusly changed, yes. But it's not what I'm saying and I think it's a bad idea.

Or maybe success means something else to you other than favorable outcomes?

Of course it means favorable outcomes. The question is: for who?

You want favorable outcomes for those who would otherwise not be able to orchestrate favorable outcomes for themselves with their own abilities, intelligence and decisions.

 

[TruthNotBS]

If you say so. I can't really care.

You should get back to your memes.

That's all I post? Memes? Again, you're a liar.

You want

 

[dblack]

That's all I post? Memes? Again, you're a liar.

You want

Again. Can't care what you think. You're shilling for communism. And I'm an Uncle Tom. What else you got?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Again. Can't care what you think. You're shilling for communism. And I'm an Uncle Tom. What else you got?

Whether I'm "chilling" for communism or not is irrelevant, to the veracity of what I'm saying. You're one logical fallacy after another.

 

[dblack]

Whether I'm "chilling" for communism or not is irrelevant, to the veracity of what I'm saying. You're one logical fallacy after another.

Mkay. And I'm an Uncle Tom. Veracity. LOL - nice one.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Mkay. And I'm an Uncle Tom. Veracity. LOL - nice one.

Yes, look it up in the dictionary. Do you know what that is?

 

[dblack]

Yes, look it up in the dictionary. Do you know what that is?

- you got anything else? You're getting boring.

Are you all out of memes?

 

[TruthNotBS]

- you got anything else? You're getting boring.

Are you all out of memes?

You're unable to refute anything I say about communism, so all you can do is pretend that my posts just consist of memes. You're pathetic. Now have the last word and delude yourself into thinking you've won something. Bye punk.

 

[TruthNotBS]

'Equity' is hideous, and should not be tolerated in a free capitalistic society!!

We all should be on board for 'equality'. We know, that has not been the case in the past, but the goal starting today, is that everyone should have an equal opportunity.

'Equity' on the other hand, is a whole different animal, and is very un-American!

Not surprisingly, a Marxist will always be for 'equity', where you take and give depending on their needs. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Sound familliar? This is the world that Kamalla Harris wants for America.

"The government cannot deny rights to certain people because they are black, female, Muslim, etc.—this would be unequal treatment. A mandate to foster equity, though, would give the government power to violate these rights in order to achieve identical social results for all people. In accordance with this thinking, the authorities might be justified in giving some people more rights than others."

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy​

"There’s a big difference between equality and equity."​

Kamala Harris Says Equal Outcomes Should Be the Goal of Public Policy

Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris provided narration for a short animated clip that appeared on her Twitter feed Sunday. In the clip,

reason.com

She's not a Marxist. You don't know what Marxism or communism is.

 

[Curried Goats]

Okay. Unless you're saying we disregard the law where rights are concerned, I'm not sure why this is so important.

I understand that you're too dense to understand why that's important, that's why my original comment was to the libertarian who did.

Here is what you've said:

Post 850 - "I want it to alleviate the worst outcomes and mitigate the ability of people to own too many of our natural resources."
Post 856 - "I'm saying I prefer to live in a society where the success created by society is celebrated and shared by all."
Post 863 - "I'm talking about taxing wealth to the point that becoming a billionaire is impossible."

Post 869 - "I want a progressive tax rate that makes reaching a billion dollars in wealth impossible."
Post 871 - "What you're not accounting for is the distribution of a country's wealth. We may be more prosperous as a nation but that wealth is largely held in that hands of a tiny few…"
You've been saying all this time that you don't want a few (that being billionaires) to have access to all the resources so the resources can be shared by all. Now you're saying eliminating billionaires is not necessary to that goal.

That's not what Im saying. I was responding to your strawman suggesting that I thought eliminating billionaires was necessary for social safety nets. I do advocate for social safety nets and the elimination of billionaires but they're mostly separate issues. I never suggested eliminating billionaires was necessary for the existence of social safety nets.

But YOU have the right and access to gain wealth for yourself.

I have many rights, including the right to vote to redistribute wealth.

Apparently you feel that if you don't have what it takes to become rich (or AS rich as some), no one else should be allowed to become rich.

What it takes is force.

Please tell me you're not that stupid. Demand determines the level of production because if they produce more than what is selling, they lose money.

That's economics 101 and everyone knows this, even those not involved in business.

I guess this explains your half baked ideas about economics.

Capitalism is a profit driven machine not a demand driven one. Demand only plays a part.

If a laborer does not own stock in the company, why should any of the capital go to him?

Because force will dictate that it does just as it dictates who owns property and capital.

If a company is built from the ground up to where the employees are invested, by all means they should share in the capital. Otherwise, no.

I don't really care how you feel about who should get a share of what.

How long before someone complains that So-and-So is taking more of the resources than others? And if there's no private property, who owns it, the government? If so, you would take resources out of the hands of those who paid for those resources, were trained and educated to process, package and market them and put them (resources) in the hands of a bunch of people that ran up a thirteen trillion dollar debt to fund foreign wars, foreign aid to ungrateful countries that don't deserve it, and special interest waste programs, among other things.

I also don't care about your political gripes.

The U.S. government is a colossal clusterfuck of waste, myopia, low expectations, mediocrity, negligence and mass confusion peopled by mindless drones whose only interest is checking all the boxes on forms.

There there.

I said that in regards to your remarks about asking questions. It had nothing to do with anything you've said to dblack.

Specifically: "That said, asking questions for clarification is the very purpose of asking questions. It's the reason I do it and it's the reason you do it. But you pretend you don't care about opinions but ask questions for clarification anyway. As you do, you assiduously declare throughout the discussion that you don't care about my opinion."

I don't care about your opinions. My interest is only piqued when it appears you're attempting an objective argument and only then to see if you can follow through with it and to be amused when you ultimately fail.

Higher taxes and more social safety nets is only part of what you've been saying. You've also talked about sharing resources and THAT would fundamentally change our system by itself.

See, like this one.

How my guy? What's fundamental to the system that I want to change? What do you even mean by fundamental to the system. What system? None of this is clearly defined by you. Is voting for change not fundamental to the system as well?

If I cited specific numbers, that would be subjective. But I did not. Some will contribute less than others and that is a fact just as it is a fact right now.

No.... if you cited specific numbers that would at least be objective in some sense. Some do invest more capital than others, objectively speaking, but there are lots of things that go into making a company (capital, labor, infrastructure) and which of those you value more is subjective.

Exactly. This is something we see a lot of from left-leaning people who preach about sharing wealth. If you suggest they share their wealth first, you get:

"Whaaaat?"

I asked what because I didn't know what you meant. Sure. My wife and I both come from large immigrant families who grew up sharing everything. My parents fed and hydrated half the kids in my neighborhood after school. After everyone got done playing basketball at the park they'd come back to my house because my mother always bought these giant jugs of Gatorade like she was fielding an NFL team. They let their siblings and cousins and even a neighbor stay with us for a year as he was getting divorced so he could be near his kids. That's the example I grew up with.

Okay then, what's my opinion of billionaires? Maybe you can tell me because I really don't have an opinion one way or the other about them.

I don't care what it is.

I know you weren't suggesting I was lying, dumbass. Did I indicate in any way that I thought you were? Fucking Christ you're a moron.

You reiterated that this was your factual opinion regarding billionaires as if I was questioning whether or not it was when I was simply saying that I don't care what your opinion is. Why do facts and opinions continue to confuse you my guy? They aren't that hard to understand.

Which in turn suggests to me that you already forgot - or are ignoring - that we already came to an understanding that our rights come from the law. That being the case, can't we just go from there instead of you preaching about subjectivism/objectivism in every goddamn post? You really need to find another hobby and take a break from this obsession.

When you make a post that doesnt seem to question your understanding of it I'll stop bringing it up.

You don't care about them at all.

Post #865: "I don't feel bad about a person with hundreds of millions of dollars not being able to make it to a billion. So sad for them."

You care for the force of government and law to allow them to exist and I care for the force of government and law to prevent their existence. We both care about them, just in subjectively different ways.

More money, dumbass. Along with more taxes, putting more people to work, producing more products and services to make life and work a little easier and more efficient for everybody. You know, more than you are now.

That's you subjectively valuing capital more than labor.

Sham comparison. People have a right to earn as much money as they want, which is as it should be in a democratic society. Your plan deprives us of those rights.

If rights don't objectively exist then nothing in regards to them is as it should be. There's only how you prefer them to be and how I prefer them to be and so on and so on for everyone else. Beyond the philosophical point you're trying to make what legal right are you referring to you? The fact that the government can legally collect taxes at all proves that argument not to be true. In order for it to be true taxes would have to be optional. You have a right to earn as much as you want minus the taxes you owe.

Irrelevant. Again, please explain to me how my comment was an argument "fashioned" against YOU.

Are you attempting to address someone else as you respond to my posts?

If the law is thusly changed, yes. But it's not what I'm saying and I think it's a bad idea.

What are you saying?

Of course it means favorable outcomes. The question is: for who?

That is the subjective question, it's your answer that I don't care about.

You want favorable outcomes for those who would otherwise not be able to orchestrate favorable outcomes for themselves with their own abilities, intelligence and decisions.

What does, those who would otherwise not be able to orchestrate favorable outcomes, even mean?

Organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth is what everyone is doing. Both you and the libertarian want to pretend otherwise.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I understand that you're too dense to understand why that's important, that's why my original comment was to the libertarian who did.

But you addressed it to me in your last post.

That's not what Im saying. I was responding to your strawman suggesting that I thought eliminating billionaires was necessary for social safety nets. I do advocate for social safety nets and the elimination of billionaires but they're mostly separate issues. I never suggested eliminating billionaires was necessary for the existence of social safety nets.

You said you wanted a progressive tax on the rich to - in addition to taxing billionaires out of existence and thus spreading access to resources - generate more tax revenue for social safety nets.

Post #863 - "I would like to see the same sort of mixed economies we see in Europe and Asia. Large social safety nets, universal healthcare, paid family leave... supported by higher taxes.

Post #871 - "That said I'm ok with using force to maintain some level of person and private property but I also think everyone in the nation should benefit from allowing you this fiction in terms of providing a healthy social safety net by taxing whatever profits you earn from exclusive fictional rights to said resources afforded to you by said society."
If you did not mean taxing the rich to the point of forestalling the achievement of billionaire status to generate more tax revenue for social safety nets, then: 1.) All you're saying is you have a personal vendetta against the rich. and 2.) You're contradicting yourself.

I have many rights, including the right to vote to redistribute wealth.

Post #884 - "What right or liberty? What even is a right or liberty and where does it come from? Is it an objective thing or subjective thing?"
Post #886 - "It is the defintion of a legal fiction. That's what laws are."
- "Rights and liberties are whatever society say(s) they are."
Post #890 - "By arguing as if rights are objective things when rights are whatever society says they are."

You're quick to point out to me that rights are subjective when I bring up that people have a right to get as rich as they choose but just as quick to point out that you have the right to vote to redistribute wealth.

You're full of shit.

What it takes is force.

Irrelevant. You have just as much right to become rich, do you not?

Capitalism is a profit driven machine not a demand driven one. Demand only plays a part.

You won't even get profit without demand, dumbass. Demand is what generates profit.

Jesus, where did you study economics, a Kudzu-League University?

Because force will dictate that it does just as it dictates who owns property and capital.

So you're going to force companies through violence to give profits to workers that had no part in the initial investment or work to create and build the company?

Not what one would expect living in a democratic society.

I don't really care how you feel about who should get a share of what.

I guess not. You would only care if I agreed that it should be forced.

I also don't care about your political gripes.

If you ignore how bloated and inefficient the government already is, I guess not.

There there.

This from the guy whining about not getting his share from rich people through violence.

I don't care about your opinions.

Then, again, why do you ask questions?

My interest is only piqued when it appears you're attempting an objective argument and only then to see if you can follow through with it and to be amused when you ultimately fail.

And what "objective" argument are you referring to?

See, like this one.

"See, this one" what?

How my guy? What's fundamental to the system that I want to change?

Individually earned income, for one. Forcing companies to share profits with workers who did not invest in the company for another.

What do you even mean by fundamental to the system. What system? None of this is clearly defined by you. Is voting for change not fundamental to the system as well?

You haven't defined a thing about your system other than to say "Vote for it."

I'll bet you haven't given the first thought as to the logistics of making something like what you're proposing happen. Nor have you given any thought as to how it can be done fairly and without government overreach.

All you have is some vague notion of a workers' Utopia where everyone gets paid for the sweat of others.

No.... if you cited specific numbers that would at least be objective in some sense.

It wouldn't be objective at all because the number would be completely arbitrary.

Some do invest more capital than others, objectively speaking, but there are lots of things that go into making a company (capital, labor, infrastructure) and which of those you value more is subjective.

It doesn't matter what you value more if you didn't invest in the company. If you didn't, you should have no say in matters other than those directly involving you and your job (pay, benefits, worker's rights, etc.).

Like I said before, if a company is created and built on your premise, by all means, share the profits with the workers if that's the arrangement agreed upon between investors and workers. It's not a horrible idea and if it works, great. I'm against the idea of the government forcing it on everybody, including those companies that were not created to operate this way.

I asked what because I didn't know what you meant. Sure. My wife and I both come from large immigrant families who grew up sharing everything. My parents fed and hydrated half the kids in my neighborhood after school. After everyone got done playing basketball at the park they'd come back to my house because my mother always bought these giant jugs of Gatorade like she was fielding an NFL team. They let their siblings and cousins and even a neighbor stay with us for a year as he was getting divorced so he could be near his kids. That's the example I grew up with.

Buying Gatorade for neighborhood kids is a far cry from government-mandated sharing of wealth in the way you propose and is voluntary anyway. We could probably use more of that kind of selflessness but should it be forced? That sounds too much like religion or Soviet-style communism to me.

I don't know about you but fully forty percent of my income goes to taxes and other fiduciary obligations. What you propose would likely increase that amount to fifty or even sixty percent. I'm not comfortable with giving half or more of what I earn to the government. It would be like I'm not even working for myself anymore.

I don't care what it is.

You're the one saying it was an opinion but now you're saying you don't know what that opinion was?

You reiterated that this was your factual opinion regarding billionaires as if I was questioning whether or not it was when I was simply saying that I don't care what your opinion is.

I did not say it was a factual opinion, dumbass. I said it's a fact I don't care that they exist.

Why do facts and opinions continue to confuse you my guy? They aren't that hard to understand.

You don't even know what that "opinion" was.

An opinion about billionaires would be they are fat or lazy or assholes or greedy or whatever. I expressed no assessments one way or the other about billionaires themselves; their characters, actions, words, etc..

When you make a post that doesnt seem to question your understanding of it I'll stop bringing it up.

I've already agreed with you two or three times that our rights are not inalienable and that they are given to us by law. How can you still be confused at this point how I view rights?

You care for the force of government and law to allow them to exist and I care for the force of government and law to prevent their existence. We both care about them, just in subjectively different ways.

Wrong. There is no law saying billionaires can or should exist. They can exist by simple virtue of there being no laws against it. Therefore, no force of government or law was required or used to allow them to exist. On the other hand, you want government force and law against it. That's the difference.

That's you subjectively valuing capital more than labor.

It has nothing to do with what I favor. It is an objective fact that companies and corporations contribute more capital to the system, pay more taxes and put more people to work than people like you and I ever will.

If rights don't objectively exist then nothing in regards to them is as it should be.

Then your idea of a democratic society is highly subjective.

There's only how you prefer them to be and how I prefer them to be and so on and so on for everyone else. Beyond the philosophical point you're trying to make what legal right are you referring to you? The fact that the government can legally collect taxes at all proves that argument not to be true.

What? What does that have to do with how rich a person wants to be?

In order for it to be true taxes would have to be optional. You have a right to earn as much as you want minus the taxes you owe.

Meaning, I have a right to become as rich as I want.

Are you attempting to address someone else as you respond to my posts?

Me: Post #883 -"So why are you responding to my opinions?"

You: Post #884 - "I respond to questions you have about my arguments because they're about me and arguments you imagine to be objective, like the one about a person's right and liberty to be rich, because I find them amusing."

Me: Post #885 - "Bullshit. You've been responding to my opinions by asking questions about them. I already proved that above when I cited your question about the disabled."

You: Post #886 - "Because it pertained to some argument you imagined fashioning against me."

What are you saying?

Jesus Christ. You said: "So then people can have a right to success?"

I said that if the law is changed then I guess they will have that right. But I think it's a bad idea. Clear?

That is the subjective question, it's your answer that I don't care about.

I haven't given you an answer to that question, dumbass.

What does, those who would otherwise not be able to orchestrate favorable outcomes, even mean?

Those who don't have the ability, intelligence and wisdom to make the right choices to become wealthy. Simple, right?

Organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth is what everyone is doing. Both you and the libertarian want to pretend otherwise.

We haven't said a word between us as to whether or not this is what everybody is doing so I have pretended nothing. We're disagreeing on whether or not it is a good idea to do it.

You've taken quite a few liberties at interpreting what I've been saying or what I meant. Precisely what you're always telling me I can't do with your comments.

 

[Curried Goats]

But you addressed it to me in your last post.

Because you have all these thirsty questions about the argument I made to someone else.

You said you wanted a progressive tax on the rich to - in addition to taxing billionaires out of existence and thus spreading access to resources - generate more tax revenue for social safety nets.

Post #863 - "I would like to see the same sort of mixed economies we see in Europe and Asia. Large social safety nets, universal healthcare, paid family leave... supported by higher taxes.

Post #871 - "That said I'm ok with using force to maintain some level of person and private property but I also think everyone in the nation should benefit from allowing you this fiction in terms of providing a healthy social safety net by taxing whatever profits you earn from exclusive fictional rights to said resources afforded to you by said society."
If you did not mean taxing the rich to the point of forestalling the achievement of billionaire status to generate more tax revenue for social safety nets, then: 1.) All you're saying is you have a personal vendetta against the rich. and 2.) You're contradicting yourself.

You feel free to imagine my feelings all you like.

Post #884 - "What right or liberty? What even is a right or liberty and where does it come from? Is it an objective thing or subjective thing?"
Post #886 - "It is the defintion of a legal fiction. That's what laws are."
- "Rights and liberties are whatever society say(s) they are."
Post #890 - "By arguing as if rights are objective things when rights are whatever society says they are."

You're quick to point out to me that rights are subjective when I bring up that people have a right to get as rich as they choose but just as quick to point out that you have the right to vote to redistribute wealth.

You're full of shit.

Rights aren't objectively real. Legal rights are subjective to the country you live in and made real through the use of force. I have a legal right to vote. I have no problem explaining these distinctions to you if you get confused.

Irrelevant. You have just as much right to become rich, do you not?

And?

You won't even get profit without demand, dumbass. Demand is what generates profit.

Jesus, where did you study economics, a Kudzu-League University?

This isn't what you said previously which is that demand drives productivity. Demand does generate profit but it's only part of the equation when determining production. Production can also influence demand. Keeping production and availability of a product lower than demand can keep demand high.

So you're going to force companies through violence to give profits to workers that had no part in the initial investment or work to create and build the company?

Not what one would expect living in a democratic society.

Why not? How do people and companies come to even aquire private property in the first place of not through violence? I did all that work on the front end explaining to you what property even is and already you've forgotten.

Individually earned income, for one. Forcing companies to share profits with workers who did not invest in the company for another.

Taxes, social safety nets, regulations for minimum wages, those exist already my guy. The only thing I'm suggesting changing is the extent of them.

You haven't defined a thing about your system other than to say "Vote for it."

I need to explain to you how democracy works?

I'll bet you haven't given the first thought as to the logistics of making something like what you're proposing happen. Nor have you given any thought as to how it can be done fairly and without government overreach.

You're arguing as if I advocate for something experimental rather than the same thing every developed European and Asian country has already done.

All you have is some vague notion of a workers' Utopia where everyone gets paid for the sweat of others.

I never said anything any Utopia, just a better distribution of wealth.

It doesn't matter what you value more if you didn't invest in the company. If you didn't, you should have no say in matters other than those directly involving you and your job (pay, benefits, worker's rights, etc.).

Of course it matters what you value more. Labor is also an investment into the company, just of a different sort.

Like I said before, if a company is created and built on your premise, by all means, share the profits with the workers if that's the arrangement agreed upon between investors and workers. It's not a horrible idea and if it works, great. I'm against the idea of the government forcing it on everybody, including those companies that were not created to operate this way.

But not against the government forcing a system of inequity through private property ownership. At least the libertarian understands that at the end of all these equations force is force. You don't.

Buying Gatorade for neighborhood kids is a far cry from government-mandated sharing of wealth in the way you propose and is voluntary anyway. We could probably use more of that kind of selflessness but should it be forced? That sounds too much like religion or Soviet-style communism to me.

If you don't want to live under a system ultimately governed by force then abandon society and live alone in the woods.

I don't know about you but fully forty percent of my income goes to taxes and other fiduciary obligations. What you propose would likely increase that amount to fifty or even sixty percent. I'm not comfortable with giving half or more of what I earn to the government. It would be like I'm not even working for myself anymore.

I don't care.

You're the one saying it was an opinion but now you're saying you don't know what that opinion was?

Yep. I don't have to know what your opinions are to know that your opinions are opinions and not facts. Your feelings regarding billionaires are subjective, inherently. Moron.

I did not say it was a factual opinion, dumbass. I said it's a fact I don't care that they exist.

Which is just you saying in other words that your opinion is an honest one rather than a lie. Moron.

You don't even know what that "opinion" was.

You don't and you've displayed that here hilariously!

An opinion about billionaires would be they are fat or lazy or assholes or greedy or whatever. I expressed no assessments one way or the other about billionaires themselves; their characters, actions, words, etc..

All your opinions regarding billionaires, including whether they should exist or not, are opinions. Moron.

Wrong. There is no law saying billionaires can or should exist. They can exist by simple virtue of there being no laws against it. Therefore, no force of government or law was required or used to allow them to exist. On the other hand, you want government force and law against it. That's the difference.

Fucking moron there is no private property or money or economy or billionaires without the force of law.

It has nothing to do with what I favor. It is an objective fact that companies and corporations contribute more capital to the system, pay more taxes and put more people to work than people like you and I ever will.

It's your subjective feelings however that value capital more than you value labor.

Then your idea of a democratic society is highly subjective.

Who's isn't, moron?

What? What does that have to do with how rich a person wants to be?

I just explained it to you, moron. You have the freedom in this country to be a wealthy as you want minus the taxes that you owe. It means that no matter how rich they want to be they will owe taxes. It wasn't that hard to figure out.

Meaning, I have a right to become as rich as I want.

Minus taxes.

Me: Post #883 -"So why are you responding to my opinions?"

You: Post #884 - "I respond to questions you have about my arguments because they're about me and arguments you imagine to be objective, like the one about a person's right and liberty to be rich, because I find them amusing."

Me: Post #885 - "Bullshit. You've been responding to my opinions by asking questions about them. I already proved that above when I cited your question about the disabled."

You: Post #886 - "Because it pertained to some argument you imagined fashioning against me."


Jesus Christ. You said: "So then people can have a right to success?"

I said that if the law is changed then I guess they will have that right. But I think it's a bad idea. Clear?

We don't mandate some level of success already? Food and housing vouchers, E.R. care...?

I haven't given you an answer to that question, dumbass.

Good because I don't care about your answer.

Those who don't have the ability, intelligence and wisdom to make the right choices to become wealthy. Simple, right?

I don't actually know what that means other than you being salty about people using their power and wisdom to regulate capitalism for more favorable outcomes.

We haven't said a word between us as to whether or not this is what everybody is doing so I have pretended nothing. We're disagreeing on whether or not it is a good idea to do it.

I don't care whether you think it's a good idea. I'm amused that you're still confused by objective verse subjective things and how ultimately you rely on force to realize your political and economic desires without realizing it.

You've taken quite a few liberties at interpreting what I've been saying or what I meant. Precisely what you're always telling me I can't do with your comments.

Who knows what you're saying at this point? You don't know what is objectively real from what your feelings are.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Because you have all these thirsty questions about the argument I made to someone else.

Wrong. This line of dialogue is rooted in the "Fact of Life" back-and-forth that started over ten days ago between you and me.

You feel free to imagine my feelings all you like.

I didn't have to imagine anything. It's right there in your own words in black and white; a progressive tax on billionaires to generate more tax revenue for social safety nets which will, by happy coincidence, eliminate billionaires.

Rights aren't objectively real. Legal rights are subjective to the country you live in and made real through the use of force. I have a legal right to vote. I have no problem explaining these distinctions to you if you get confused.

Irrelevant. The subjectivity of rights being bestowed by law was mutually understood days ago. That being the case, rehashing the objectivism/subjectivism thing is redundant and pointless. In addition to that, it's hypocritical of you to keep pointing this out when I mention rights if you mention rights as well.

And?

And what difference does force make if you have just as much right to get rich as anyone else?

This isn't what you said previously which is that demand drives productivity. Demand does generate profit but it's only part of the equation when determining production. Production can also influence demand. Keeping production and availability of a product lower than demand can keep demand high.

You said: "Capitalism is a profit driven machine not a demand driven one."
It's true that capitalism is motivated by profit. But you won't get the profit without demand for the product.

Why not? How do people and companies come to even aquire private property in the first place of not through violence?

This has nothing to do with acquiring private property. We're talking about forcing companies to share profits with workers or employees who had no hand in the company's creation and investment.

I did all that work on the front end explaining to you what property even is and already you've forgotten.

I didn't forget, you just went off on an irrelevant tangent.

Besides, despite what you said before about force and property, not every transaction involving property is done with force or violence. In fact, most aren't.

I can't justify forcing a company to share profits they legally earned by paying for the resources, property and labor to produce their product just because current laws are enforced. That's a rather left handed and roundabout approach to your position on profit sharing.

Taxes, social safety nets, regulations for minimum wages, those exist already my guy. The only thing I'm suggesting changing is the extent of them.

Irrelevant. We're talking about forcing companies to share profits.

I need to explain to you how democracy works?

What I know or don't know about how democracy works is - you guessed - irrelevant. The point is, you have given no thought as to how this can be fairly achieved because you don't care if it is fairly achieved. That is plainly evident in the fact that you brought up your force-and-violence argument.

You're arguing as if I advocate for something experimental rather than the same thing every developed European and Asian country has already done.

Irrelevant. We're not a European country and in case you missed it, this country was founded in part on the principle that we would NOT do things the old European way. It was precisely what they wanted to get away from.

I never said anything any Utopia, just a better distribution of wealth.

Let me use your tactic here: "Better" is subjective. Then there's the question of how much should be shared and with who; does an employee with no investment in the company get a share?

Of course it matters what you value more. Labor is also an investment into the company, just of a different sort.

Labor is an investment for the company, not the laborer. The laborer only invests his time which he can choose to do any way he wishes. In any case, he is compensated for his time and labor with pay. If he contributed nothing to the creation and building of the business then he should not be entitled to profits.

But not against the government forcing a system of inequity through private property ownership. At least the libertarian understands that at the end of all these equations force is force. You don't.

The problem here is that I know when force is/was used. You don't.

As I mentioned before, no force or violence was used when I bought my house because I paid money for it. Pretty much everyone acquires their property through the exchange of money for property and without force and violence so I'm not completely on board the force-and-violence train.

If you don't want to live under a system ultimately governed by force then abandon society and live alone in the woods.

Why would I go to the woods when I paid good money for my house, the ownership of which is protected by law?

You're conflating the issue of force and my arguments about it. We have laws just like every other country on this planet and I have no problem with that in principle. I may disagree with some laws but who doesn't? But I simply cannot agree with the idea of forced sharing of wealth unless it can be achieved in a fair and equitable way. But all you see on the subject is: FORCE AND VIOLENCE.

I don't care.

If you're fine with giving away half the money you earn then I guess you don't.

Yep. I don't have to know what your opinions are to know that your opinions are opinions and not facts. Your feelings regarding billionaires are subjective, inherently. Moron.

I don't have any feelings about billionaires, dumbass. That's why I don't care that they exist.

Which is just you saying in other words that your opinion is an honest one rather than a lie. Moron.

What?

You don't and you've displayed that here hilariously!

I don't what?

All your opinions regarding billionaires, including whether they should exist or not, are opinions. Moron.

WRONG. There's your problem right there. I never said anything about whether billionaires should or should not exist, dumbass. I said I don't care that they do. By the same token, I wouldn't care if they didn't.

My opinions on this subject are entirely about your feelings and your arguments about billionaires. I don't have an opinion about billionaires but neither do I think they should be punished for being rich or be treated any differently than any other American citizen.

Fucking moron there is no private property or money or economy or billionaires without the force of law.

What does that have to do with whether or not a person has the right to be as rich as they choose?

It's your subjective feelings however that value capital more than you value labor.

Irrelevant. Again: It is an objective fact that companies and corporations contribute more capital to the system, pay more taxes and put more people to work than people like you and I ever will.

And what gave you the idea I value capital over labor?

Who's isn't, moron?

That's "whose isn't", dumbass.

Your idea of democracy sounds much more restrictive than mine. In fact, yours sounds suspiciously like socialism.

That's not to say socialism is a bad thing (though I don't agree with the idea in general), but it does mean that it's not democracy.

I just explained it to you, moron. You have the freedom in this country to be a wealthy as you want minus the taxes that you owe. It means that no matter how rich they want to be they will owe taxes. It wasn't that hard to figure out.

That's just stating the obvious, dumbass. Of course they're going to have to pay taxes no matter how rich they get.

I said: "People have a right to earn as much money as they want, which is as it should be in a democratic society."

You said: "The fact that the government can legally collect taxes at all proves that argument not to be true."
You appear to be arguing that the government collecting taxes means we don't have the right to be as rich as we choose. However, we do have that right and you acknowledged this fact yourself. What's more, it is irrelevant given the fact that people have and do get richer.

Minus taxes.

What's your point?

We don't mandate some level of success already? Food and housing vouchers, E.R. care...?

If you equate receiving food stamps and living in the projects as some form of success, I guess so.

Good because I don't care about your answer.

Then why did you say you didn't like my answer if you know I never gave you one?

I don't actually know what that means other than you being salty about people using their power and wisdom to regulate capitalism for more favorable outcomes.

You don't know what "who don't have the ability, intelligence and wisdom to make the right choices to become wealthy" means?

I don't care whether you think it's a good idea.

Irrelevant. You made the false claim that I'm pretending not to know that: "Organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth is what everyone is doing."
We never discussed this so I never pretended anything.

I'm amused that you're still confused by objective verse subjective things and how ultimately you rely on force to realize your political and economic desires without realizing it.

I'm amused that you're still confused that we had a mutual understanding that laws are subjective but you keep pretending we don't.

Who knows what you're saying at this point?

You knew we never discussed people "Organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth" and thus that I wasn't pretending not to know this; and you knew we never discussed the question of what and for who should enjoy favorable outcomes. But you said it anyway.

You made an entirely false claim about me and when I confront you with it, you say "Well, who knows what you're saying?".

So if you don't know what I'm saying, you just make shit up?

You don't know what is objectively real from what your feelings are.

Blah blah blah. Like I said, we had a mutual understanding that laws are subjective days ago so when you say "rights", I understand it's in the context of subjective law. When I say "rights" it's: "THAT'S SUBJECTIVE!!".

Despite our mutual agreement on the subjectivity of the law, you insist on pretending I don't know the difference or that I'm arguing as if it's objective. Neither is true.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wrong. This line of dialogue is rooted in the "Fact of Life" back-and-forth that started over ten days ago between you and me.

What? If you want to argue something I said was factually wrong then present it. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You make these so long and tedious.

I didn't have to imagine anything. It's right there in your own words in black and white; a progressive tax on billionaires to generate more tax revenue for social safety nets which will, by happy coincidence, eliminate billionaires.

Are taxes some fundamental change to our system? Don't we already have a progressive tax system?

Irrelevant. The subjectivity of rights being bestowed by law was mutually understood days ago. That being the case, rehashing the objectivism/subjectivism thing is redundant and pointless. In addition to that, it's hypocritical of you to keep pointing this out when I mention rights if you mention rights as well.

You're the one who asked what right I was referring to. I clarified. I was talking about the legal right to vote. It's okay to ask for context. You're the one unable to provide any for your arguments. What's fundamental that I want to change? You can't even explain what the fuck that means...

And what difference does force make if you have just as much right to get rich as anyone else?

Force is what creates private ownership of resources from which all wealth is derived.

You said: "Capitalism is a profit driven machine not a demand driven one."
It's true that capitalism is motivated by profit. But you won't get the profit without demand for the product.

Which still doesn't mean demand drives productivity. It's only a part of it.

This has nothing to do with acquiring private property. We're talking about forcing companies to share profits with workers or employees who had no hand in the company's creation and investment.

Of course it does. Companies and businesses use natural resources combined with labor to produce products. How does anyone come to own natural resources in the first place again? Force.

I didn't forget, you just went off on an irrelevant tangent.

You're just not bright enough to understand the relevance despite this tedious back and forth where it's been explained to you over and over.

Besides, despite what you said before about force and property, not every transaction involving property is done with force or violence. In fact, most aren't.

That's because the government is the agent of force. Your property rights are protected by the force of law. If they weren't who the fuck would respect your claim to them?

I can't justify forcing a company to share profits they legally earned by paying for the resources, property and labor to produce their product just because current laws are enforced. That's a rather left handed and roundabout approach to your position on profit sharing.

But you can justify force to impose private ownership of natural resources in the first place?

Irrelevant. We're talking about forcing companies to share profits.

We're talking about force. Apparently you think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone elses subjective use of force. Why?

What I know or don't know about how democracy works is - you guessed - irrelevant. The point is, you have given no thought as to how this can be fairly achieved because you don't care if it is fairly achieved. That is plainly evident in the fact that you brought up your force-and-violence argument.

What does fairly achieve mean? Who's idea of fair? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair is an objective measurement or a subjective one.

Irrelevant. We're not a European country and in case you missed it, this country was founded in part on the principle that we would NOT do things the old European way. It was precisely what they wanted to get away from.

I don't care what you feel the purpose of this country's founding was about.

Let me use your tactic here: "Better" is subjective. Then there's the question of how much should be shared and with who; does an employee with no investment in the company get a share?

Better is subjective, I didn't suggest otherwise and I consider an employee's labor to be investment in the company.

Labor is an investment for the company, not the laborer.

Yep.

The laborer only invests his time which he can choose to do any way he wishes.

Time and labor is a greater investment in my eyes than someone just investing money.

In any case, he is compensated for his time and labor with pay. If he contributed nothing to the creation and building of the business then he should not be entitled to profits.

He contributed hits labor and I don't care about your opinion about what they should get.

The problem here is that I know when force is/was used. You don't.

No you don't. You don't seem to understand that laws are force.

As I mentioned before, no force or violence was used when I bought my house because I paid money for it. Pretty much everyone acquires their property through the exchange of money for property and without force and violence so I'm not completely on board the force-and-violence train.

And as I mentioned before your property rights are protected by the force of law. Who would care what you claim to own without it?

Why would I go to the woods when I paid good money for my house, the ownership of which is protected by law?

Why should the masses accept rampant inequality when they could use the force of law to change it?

You're conflating the issue of force and my arguments about it. We have laws just like every other country on this planet and I have no problem with that in principle. I may disagree with some laws but who doesn't? But I simply cannot agree with the idea of forced sharing of wealth unless it can be achieved in a fair and equitable way. But all you see on the subject is: FORCE AND VIOLENCE.

Laws are force. Private ownership of resources requires force. I don't care if you're okay with force for one thing and not okay with force for the other, that's your opinion and I don't care about your opinion.

I don't have any feelings about billionaires, dumbass. That's why I don't care that they exist.


What?

I don't what?

WRONG. There's your problem right there. I never said anything about whether billionaires should or should not exist, dumbass. I said I don't care that they do. By the same token, I wouldn't care if they didn't.

All your feelings, your apathy, everything specifically related to your perspective on billionaires is your subjective opinion.

My opinions on this subject are entirely about your feelings and your arguments about billionaires. I don't have an opinion about billionaires but neither do I think they should be punished for being rich or be treated any differently than any other American citizen.

Your feelings on my feelings are still your subjective feelings, Dumbass.

What does that have to do with whether or not a person has the right to be as rich as they choose?

What does having the right to be as rich as they choose have to do with anything I'm talking about?

Irrelevant. Again: It is an objective fact that companies and corporations contribute more capital to the system, pay more taxes and put more people to work than people like you and I ever will.

What is this fact relevant to? They are able to do so through the ownership of natural resources.

And what gave you the idea I value capital over labor?

Your arguments.

Your idea of democracy sounds much more restrictive than mine. In fact, yours sounds suspiciously like socialism.

And? Our national defense is socialized, I'd just like to do the same to other areas of society like housing and Healthcare.

That's just stating the obvious, dumbass. Of course they're going to have to pay taxes no matter how rich they get.

I said: "People have a right to earn as much money as they want, which is as it should be in a democratic society."

You said: "The fact that the government can legally collect taxes at all proves that argument not to be true."
You appear to be arguing that the government collecting taxes means we don't have the right to be as rich as we choose. However, we do have that right and you acknowledged this fact yourself. What's more, it is irrelevant given the fact that people have and do get richer.

Minus the taxes they owe. I don't understand what you don't understand. Do you know what minus means?

What's your point?

They math is fundamental.

If you equate receiving food stamps and living in the projects as some form of success, I guess so.

You guess? These aren't favorable outcomes to starving or living on the streets?

You don't know what "who don't have the ability, intelligence and wisdom to make the right choices to become wealthy" means?

I don't know what it means to you. Some people are just born wealthy and organizing to vote and change the laws to enrich your life would fit that description to me.

Irrelevant. You made the false claim that I'm pretending not to know that: "Organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth is what everyone is doing."
We never discussed this so I never pretended anything.

You have been discussing it, you're just too stupid to understand where private ownership of resources even comes from. It comes from collective force.

I'm amused that you're still confused that we had a mutual understanding that laws are subjective but you keep pretending we don't.

You keep arguing as if you don't understand. Above you argued that I don't care if my goals could be fairly achieved as if you imagined fair to be some objective thing.

Despite our mutual agreement on the subjectivity of the law, you insist on pretending I don't know the difference or that I'm arguing as if it's objective. Neither is true.

If laws are subjective then so is the right to own natural resources.