CDZ redistribution of wealth

[Andylusion]

The largest is police, which benefits everyone.
Second is fire, which benefits everyone.
Third is judicial, which benefits everyone.

I disagree with the quoted portion.
How does the police benefit everyone? Seems they really only benefit the judicial. Granted there are very rare occurrences of individual officers rising to a hero status, though that is not necessarily because they are police, it is because they are heroic individuals.

Fire, granted, they do genuinely serve a good... especially the volunteer firemen, who are not compensated by extorted taxes.

Judicial?!? Now sir, you surely must be joking!


Actually, of all the items you mentioned...
Welfare probably serves the greatest good, in terms of numbers at least. Though there is this concept, called charity, which is vastly better suited for the purpose. I think maybe we agree on that?

Welfare allows criminals to remain criminals, and still survive. There is a reason why places with the largest welfare system, have the highest crime rates.

Of course police serve the greatest good to the greatest number of people. If you want to test that theory, let's remove all police, and see what happens.

Oh wait, we kind of already know. New York used to be the crime capital of the country. Then some crazy mayor decided to drastically increase police patrols, and shockingly crime went down.

Then there was Detroit. And because of declining income, policing was cut, and shockingly crime increased. Why this is a surprise to anyone, I don't know.

Yes, police is a benefit to everyone. Even the homeless benefit from police.

Yes, Judicial. Not joking. You have no idea what this country would be like, without a judicial system.

Your assumption is that everyone is a criminal... why does that change when you add police?
Oh yeah, it doesn't, it just lets parasites enslave everyone. This assessment is by your own construct mind you.
Yes that assessment of humanity, all being criminal, is that a revealing to your own character?
My own thought is that people in general are decent enough.
Maybe that is the difference between you and I?

I have quite a good idea what it would be like with no judicial system, most of the time I'm able to live my life without even thinking about it. Of course, then come tax season, then I think... why am I submitting to this extortion?
You see, I'm not a coward. I've never had to call the police to resolve a problem I have.
Maybe that is the difference between you and I?

Ok, many years ago, some kids went around and glued the locks of my parents home. Every single door around the entire house, with super glue. In order to get into the house, we had to break a window out.

The cost of replacing every lock on five doors, and the window, was well over $600.

We asked around, and several people identified the kids. But when contacted, 2 of the kids' parents, flat out refused to accept responsibility.

So do tell, how would you have handled this?

You have my curiosity.

For the record, our solution was to call the police, file a report, take it to court, and at the first hearing, and it was clear the evidence was against them, they settled out of court paying for all repairs in full.

Ok, so here's your chance. The kids' parents deny everything, even with all the witnesses saying it was their kids, and refuse to pay a penny for the damage.

No police, and no courts. What do you do?

 

[Geaux4it]

People must be cared for. That is the only truly important thing. It is, and should be recognized as, the raison d'etre for government and all human institutions. Agreed, that is best done by simple compassion and charity. Where and when it is not, it still must be done. If that involves government, so be it.
It is unfortunate that the word 'welfare' has taken on a pejorative nuance. We all fare well when all fare well. That is part of the connectedness of life and being human. To not feel that is to lack an important ingredient of humanity.

wow

Double wow

The thought police in 1984 would support this no doubt

-Geaux

 

[Camp]

Wealth redistribution begins the moment public resources are commercialized. The wealth owned by the public is given to private persons or business at some negotiated price or benefit to the public, but all the same, it represents a transfer of public wealth and hence a redistribution.

 

[Andylusion]

You DO realize that a larger police force is going to have to necessitate a larger government, right?

Or did that point fly over your pointed little head?

Friendly Reminder, you are in the CDZ area. Personal insults are not permitted here, and will be reported.

Yes, I do understand a larger police force requires a larger government.

Obviously, I can't speak for everyone, but most of the people on the right-wing would generally (with some exceptions) agree with what I'm about to say.

When we say we want smaller government, we don't mean specifically physical size.

We also mean fewer regulations and controls and mandates over every aspect of our lives.

For example, the requirement on citizens to have health insurance, or face a penalty. That specific law does not actually increase the number of government employees at all... but government is larger... in that this law gives government more power and control over our lives.

There should be far fewer laws.

Nevertheless... you are right that more police expands the physical size of government.

When we say we want smaller government, there is a difference between the things government should be doing, verses things they should not.

Expanding government in protecting the rights of the people, is exactly the fundamental purpose of government.

Even then, there is a limited aspect to that. For example, the Federal government has very limited need for a police force. The IRS with it's own fully militarized SWAT team, is beyond reasonable.

On the other hand, almost a 3rd of the City of Columbus Budget, is police. I have no problem a with that at all.

 

[Andylusion]

Wealth redistribution begins the moment public resources are commercialized. The wealth owned by the public is given to private persons or business at some negotiated price or benefit to the public, but all the same, it represents a transfer of public wealth and hence a redistribution.

Wealth owned by the public is owned by no one.

The only way people benefit from "wealth" is when it is privately owned.

Without private ownership, no one can build a home, and have a place to live. But hey it's "public wealth" right?

In Haiti, Charities showed up to help rebuild homes, but without proper ownership laws, they couldn't rebuild homes.

This is Haiti 2015. Missionary trip to Haiti snapped this shot.

Millions of dollars had poured into Haiti since the Earthquake. More than enough to build housing for all of these people. Instead, they live in shacks.

But at least the land is "public wealth". More like Public impoverishment.

Can't imagine what it would be like if they privatized the 'public wealth'. Oh wait, we can... right across the border in the Domeni

Modern apartments.

Here's another example.

The oil under ANWR. We've known the oil was there since the late 1950s. How much was the oil worth to anyone, still in the ground? Zero. How many people benefitted from that oil all the years we didn't get it? Zero.

That's the problem with "wealth". It's not a static concept. Wealth is dynamic. The only value something has, is the value it has being utilized.

By any measure, the former Soviet Union, should have been the most wealthy nation in human history. And they had the most "Public Wealth". Yet they were impoverished, and starving.

 

[danielpalos]

Not sure what you are pleading so specially to; socialism can build entire cities; the primary operative problem is social morals for free to accomplish, "from each according to their ability to each according to their need."

China s Ghost Cities In 2014 - Business Insider

There is no social justice need to be infidel, protestant, or renegade to a moral of "goodwill toward men"".

 

[there4eyeM]

"
Wealth owned by the public is owned by no one.

The only way people benefit from "wealth" is when it is privately owned."

The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc., etc. all represent unmeasurable wealth and everyone benefits from them.

 

[danielpalos]

US dollars, as a representation of the wealth of the nation can be owned by Everyone.

 

[Marxist]

I think everyone knows what I think of this...

 

[Andylusion]

"
Wealth owned by the public is owned by no one.

The only way people benefit from "wealth" is when it is privately owned."

The Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc., etc. all represent unmeasurable wealth and everyone benefits from them.

That is the dumbest thing you have said yet. Absolutely idiotic.

Do tell....

How many people have homes to live in and raise their families due to Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc?

Hmm?

How many people have food to eat, and clothes to wear due to Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc?

How many lives are saved by the services provided by Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc?

How many people have jobs due to Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc?

How many people have heat in the winter, AC in the summer, and all the things people enjoy everyday in their homes, due to Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc?

Huh?? How many? Thousands? Millions? ONE?!?

Do tell dude.... if you meet a homeless beggar, you take them to Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc? After all, you want people to be wealthy, and you of course want to help the poor and impoverished correct? So you just take them all to Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc, and boom.... they are now happy and wealthy?

Absolute STUPIDITY of this comment. Just plain retarded.

Go up a few posts.... you want to help those poor impoverished Haitian people... go dump them at Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Monument Valley, etc, etc.... That'll help them. Good job. Way to help humanity. Brilliant.....

Here I am trying to have an intelligent conversation, and people say the most idiotic things. Just plain stupid. Forest Gump would have had a better comment.

 

[there4eyeM]

One would have to understand the concept and meaning of 'wealth'. Thanks for all the polite praise, though.

 

[Andylusion]

One would have to understand the concept and meaning of 'wealth'. Thanks for all the polite praise, though.

Yeah one would. And most people can grasp that none of those things are even remotely "wealth". Are you telling me, that the pre-78 Chinese who had tons of beautiful land, were all earning less than $2 a day, living below the poverty level, were sitting around going "My aren't we wealthy?!?!"

Of course not. You are wrong. You claim is bogus and unsupportable.

If a politicians said "We're going to make the poor wealthy.... we're going to round them up on busses, and dump them at the Grand Canyon".... that person would be laughed off the planet. Same for you.

 

[danielpalos]

One would have to understand the concept and meaning of 'wealth'. Thanks for all the polite praise, though.

Should we insist the Right have "pride in ownership"?

 

[there4eyeM]

As was said, one would have to understand the concept, and word, 'wealth'. One could ask an economist and stop bothering someone as 'bogus' and laughable as this poster.

 

[danielpalos]

should we "make fun of the Right" for political fun and political practice by asking them to understand the wealth being created by our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[Andylusion]

As was said, one would have to understand the concept, and word, 'wealth'. One could ask an economist and stop bothering someone as 'bogus' and laughable as this poster.

Clearly I know more about the definition of wealth than you. The fact you can't even attempt to answer my questions that I gave you... shows you don't know what "wealth" is.

A hole in the ground, a rock wall, and some bubbling pond scum, is a natural treasure in some people's eyes. I grant you that. It's nice to have them. And privatizing them would not make them disappear, contrary to left-wing belief. In fact a private resort facility would likely put more money into maintaining those things, with more efficient and higher quality results, than the government. That's debatable, I agree.

But.... WEALTH, is something that benefits people. Food, is wealth. Homes, are wealth. Clothing, energy, heating and air, indoor plumbing, and numerous services that make our lives better, are wealth.

A hole in the ground does not benefit ANYONE. To prove that, take your homeless starving people, to the Grand Canyon, and drop them off, then report back how wealthy they all are.

Any intelligent rational reasonable person, will instantly know the difference between 'wealth' and some natural beauty. They are not the same.

Now if you can't be bothered with the truth, than you choose to be ignorant, and live in a fantasy world. The people who live in the real world, who actually are poor.... they are the ones laughing at you. I've worked at the homeless shelter. You tell those people how wealthy they are because of the Grand Canyon. We'll see who is laughed at then.

 

[there4eyeM]

Talk about worthless bubbling pond scum!

 

[Andylusion]

Talk about worthless bubbling pond scum!

Ok. You made the choice to remain ignorant, that's fine. Go give the poor and homeless the Grand Canyon, and see how thankful they are.

I'm done with this discussion, since you have made the choice to be willfully ignorant. Have a nice day.

 

[there4eyeM]

Now that the above has departed, just in case anyone else incapable of looking it up has a doubt about what 'wealth' means or thinks that Yellowstone National Park is worthless:

1.General: Tangible or intangible thing that makes a person, family, or group better off.
2.Accounting: Value of an entity's accumulated tangible cash, land, building, etc.) and intangible (copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.) saleable possessions minus liabilities.
3.Economics: Total of all assets of an economic unit that generate current income or have the potential to generate future income. It includes natural resources and human capital but generally excludes money and securities because the represent only claims to wealth. Two common types of economic wealth are (1) Monetary wealth: anything that can be bought and sold, for which there is market and hence a price. The market price, however, reflects only the commodity price and not necessarily its value. For example, water is essential for human existence but is usually very cheap. (2) Non-monetary wealth: things which depend on scarce resources, and for which there is demand, but are not bought and sold in a market and hence have no price. Examples are education, health, and defense.

 

[there4eyeM]

What if natural resources were though of as belonging to everyone?