Originally posted by WajomaIt's funny how you show true colours again. It's not economic or moral issues that form the foundation of your ideology, but your intense hatred of poor people. Rich people are lazy freeloaders? A-OK! Poor people are lazy freeloaders? Boo!
you are right
...it's none of your business.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAll freeloaders going for a ride on the backs of the unwilling BOOOO
It's funny how you show true colours again. It's not economic or moral issues that form the foundation of your ideology, but your intense hatred of poor people. Rich people are lazy freeloaders? A-OK! Poor people are lazy freeloaders? Boo!
Freeloaders voluntarily supported by some willing party IT"S NONE OF MINE OR YOUR BUSINESS
Originally posted by WajomaYou still don't understand that the method in which lazy freeloaders acquire their money is irrelevant. One way or the other, society is providing the resources for their survival. The "willing party" does not single-handedly support the lazy freeloaders. He abuses society for it by proxy.
All freeloaders going for a ride on the backs of the unwilling BOOOO
Freeloaders voluntarily supported by some willing party IT"S NONE OF MINE OR YOUR BUSINESS
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are right, the way the freeloaders came by their money is none of your business as long as all parties are voluntary. Society is not providing the resources. If housewife acquires some property, a diamond dog collar for the pekinese for example, society did not provide that diamond dog collar.
You still don't understand that the method in which lazy freeloaders acquire their money is irrelevant. One way or the other, society is providing the resources for their survival. The "willing party" does not single-handedly support the lazy freeloaders. He abuses society for it by proxy.
Originally posted by KazetNagorrano she doesn't. she is performing services for the husband and family in general. basically she is being employed by her husband.
So, if you change "housewife" by "person on benefits" and "husband" by "government", what is the fundamental change? The only difference is the money received by the housewife is not public money. But if you look at it on a fundamental level, she is doing the same as a person who is on benefits, can work, but is too lazy. Society is providing the resour ...[text shortened]... ed for him changes nothing to the moral issues for the person receiving the inheritance.
"society is providing the resources, and nothing is given in return"
yes it is. the labour of the husband is given in return. the labour of the ancestors of the rich heir is given in return. harm to society comes when nothing is being given in return for being lazy as you call it.
"He is buying goods and services. People need to work to make these goods and provide these services. Ergo, people work for him and he gives nothing in return"
you are being illogical. he is buying goods and services. with what money? with the money of his father. who worked for those money. people have worked for a certain amount of money, which is a symbol of that labour. which can be passed on to whomever you want.
lets look at it in another way. if i work 10 years for a VERY nice salary and invest it very successfully, do i have the right to not work anymore for the rest of my life? i have worked enough to allow me to live without any help, am i allowed to do so? or am i forced to work more and gain more money that i have no way of spending in 2 lifetimes? am i allowed to provide for a hot supermodel a certain lifestyle so her only job is to be a trophy wife for me and spend my money? am i allowed to pass whatever money i have left to a child or a homeless guy on the street? it is money, someone worked for those money and earned the right to use it as he sees fit.
your point is noted. it is each society's member to work until he drops. to acquire wealth that he cannot spend and cannot pass on because his heir would be required to work as well. do you also believe that a person smart enough to discover the cure to cancer but choosing to be a farmer is lazy?
Originally posted by WajomaWhat? How do you conjure diamond dog collars out of thin air?
You are right, the way the freeloaders came by their money is none of your business as long as all parties are voluntary. Society is not providing the resources. If housewife acquires some property, a diamond dog collar for the pekinese for example, society did not provide that diamond dog collar.
Originally posted by ZahlanziOnce again, your rights are your moral choices are not the same. If you invest money well and don't have to work again, it's your right to live off those profits. Of course it is! But the moral choice would be to continue working and make yourself useful in some way.
no she doesn't. she is performing services for the husband and family in general. basically she is being employed by her husband.
"society is providing the resources, and nothing is given in return"
yes it is. the labour of the husband is given in return. the labour of the ancestors of the rich heir is given in return. harm to society comes when nothing ...[text shortened]... a person smart enough to discover the cure to cancer but choosing to be a farmer is lazy?
Choice A: ride on the backs of others.
Choice B: help other people.
How can you seriously suggest B is not the morally better choice?!