@zahlanzi saidThis is the loser post of all time, I need not even (try to) respond. Idiocy, totally nonsensical hyper ventilation, hate billionaires, hate charities, predicts that the future would have no poor people....ignoring that some work harder than others.
"You do realize that none of you have responded to the fact that without rich people, there would be no contributions (by them) to the charities and 501c3s? "
Do you realize that without rich people there would be no need for charities? All that wealth wouldn't magically disappear. What am I saying, you probably think that's exactly what would happen. That somehow all the ...[text shortened]... like with the art scams. Giving to charity is not a justification for the existence of billionaires
"Poor people exist because rich people will not give the poor people their private money, their money." I sort of re-wrote that for you. Geez.
Hahahaha. Is that you Sonhouse? Off your rocker, as my granny would say.
@averagejoe1 saidbillionaires don't work a billion time harder than poor people. billionaires just steal more than poor people.
This is the loser post of all time, I need not even (try to) respond. Idiocy, totally nonsensical hyper ventilation, hate billionaires, hate charities, predicts that the future would have no poor people....ignoring that some work harder than others.
"Poor people exist because rich people will not give the poor people their private money, their money." I sort of r ...[text shortened]... that for you. Geez.
Hahahaha. Is that you Sonhouse? Off your rocker, as my granny would say.
2 edits
@averagejoe1 saidphi·lan·thro·pist NOUN
? Are they? Billionaires and the like? Asking for a friend
A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes:
Dear Joe - When you want the definition of a word, just do a google search. This can be accomplished by using those buttons on your keyboard, each button represents a letter in our alphabet. When you push each button, a letter appears on your screen, using this advanced knowledge, you can then type philanthropist definition then press enter (the enter button is generally on the right side of your keyboard) once this is done the definition will appear on your screen - this way, you won't have to ask people things that you can simply look up yourself.
Next week we'll work on your spelling and punctuation. 🙄
@averagejoe1 said"like philanthropy, create jobs, sell things that you want to you"
They 'just' steal? Why say just, when they do a lot of other things....like philanthropy, create jobs, sell things that you want to you, ......
all things done to enable more stealing.
oh sorry, that's too much of a concept for you. let me clarify: people have labour to provide, they put X amount of effort and Y gets done. We as a society have decided most of person working on X should only receive 0.01% of the value of Y and one, the "owner", should get like 95%. We call it capitalism.
And some say it is moral. I say it is stealing and it's not.
@mchill saidhe wants to sell the idea that it's good we have billionaires, because they give a million or two once or twice to charity.
phi·lan·thro·pist NOUN
A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes:
Dear Joe - When you want the definition of a word, just do a google search. This can be accomplished by using those buttons on your keyboard, each button represents a letter in our alphabet. When you push each button, a letter appears ...[text shortened]... that you can simply look up yourself.
Next week we'll work on your spelling and punctuation. 🙄
Who would give charity to the workers out of a job because the billionaire moved all their jobs overseas if not that billionaire
@averagejoe1 saidLike embezzlement. Like grift. Like lie. Like steal secret documents.
They 'just' steal? Why say just, when they do a lot of other things....like philanthropy, create jobs, sell things that you want to you, ......
@zahlanzi saidThe society decides? I don't even know what that means. Let's say you and I meet by chance in Iceland, and I tell you I really need to get to Newfoundland fast. You say you have a car and will take me there for $1000.0. I say that is too much, and run into Suzianne who overheard us, she says she will do it for $900. I say 'How about $800?" She says $850.00! I say 'Done!"
"like philanthropy, create jobs, sell things that you want to you"
all things done to enable more stealing.
oh sorry, that's too much of a concept for you. let me clarify: people have labour to provide, they put X amount of effort and Y gets done. We as a society have decided most of person working on X should only receive 0.01% of the value of Y and one, the "owner", s ...[text shortened]... et like 95%. We call it capitalism.
And some say it is moral. I say it is stealing and it's not.
Had I been desperate, she could have gotten $5000.
She and I struck a capitalistic agreement. Society had nothing to do with it. Could you please speak to this example?
BTW, morality is in the eye of the beholder. Witness Joe Biden not acknowledging his grandchild, or taking money from communist China, the immoral basterd.
Anyway, my query about my agreement with Suzianne?
I bet that you do not answer it.
@averagejoe1 saidYou can't look at a fish and ask me how the legs work.
The society decides? I don't even know what that means. Let's say you and I meet by chance in Iceland, and I tell you I really need to get to Newfoundland fast. You say you have a car and will take me there for $1000.0. I say that is too much, and run into Suzianne who overheard us, she says she will do it for $900. I say 'How about $800?" She says $850.00! I say ...[text shortened]... rd.
Anyway, my query about my agreement with Suzianne?
I bet that you do not answer it.
And that's what you're doing. You're using a hypothetical capitalist situation and asking how socialism would deal with that.
You have to comprehend that the situation wouldn't occur in socialism.
There would be a fixed rate and an escalation possibility for emergencies. So, that it doesn't matter how large someone's wallet is, they can't get ripped off and everyone has equal chances.
@shavixmir saidYes, there is no reason to look at a fish and ask why its legs won’t work, because the fish has no legs. Whew. . But back to the subject, if a person voluntarily cuts off his two arms, should there be some government program instituted to take care of that person, like there seems to be government programs now, to take care of trans people who voluntarily do what they do.
You can't look at a fish and ask me how the legs work.
And that's what you're doing. You're using a hypothetical capitalist situation and asking how socialism would deal with that.
You have to comprehend that the situation wouldn't occur in socialism.
There would be a fixed rate and an escalation possibility for emergencies. So, that it doesn't matter how large someone's wallet is, they can't get ripped off and everyone has equal chances.
Could you stick to that question. You are getting like marauder, Sonhouse makes more sense.
@shavixmir saidExcuse me...You are saying, quite simply and sure of yourself, that no citizen living under sociialism would cut off their arms? Put them in a table saw? You just say that?
You have to comprehend that the situation wouldn't occur in socialism.
This is one of the worst and obvious dodges that I have seen on the Forum.
So, I either have won this debate in just a few posts, or you will respond sensibly. Sonhouse is the only poster who does not dodge, as he only writes about one thing, in a take-it-or-leave-it manner. That is in itself a dodge, true, but he doesn't know he is dodging.
@averagejoe1 saidprice gouging is often illegal. especially for essential items.
The society decides? I don't even know what that means. Let's say you and I meet by chance in Iceland, and I tell you I really need to get to Newfoundland fast. You say you have a car and will take me there for $1000.0. I say that is too much, and run into Suzianne who overheard us, she says she will do it for $900. I say 'How about $800?" She says $850.00! I say ...[text shortened]... rd.
Anyway, my query about my agreement with Suzianne?
I bet that you do not answer it.
To take your example and actually make it mean something, in a civilized country there would be a public transportation system either owned by the government or privately owned (with price regulation imposed by the government) that would take you to newfoundland for 50$ saving you money and sparing Suzianne the pain of having to suffer your presence for the ride there. 850 is a lot of money but not enough in exchange for several hours of you.
You are free to go with suzianne of course, but you also have more than 1 choice (i would never offer you a ride anywhere).
"I bet that you do not answer it."
you lose
@shavixmir saidit's not hypothetical. Socialist countries already do that. You can ask a taxi to take you 1000 kilometres somewhere and pay out of the wazoo for out of town charges or you can get a train ticket for a small fraction.
You can't look at a fish and ask me how the legs work.
And that's what you're doing. You're using a hypothetical capitalist situation and asking how socialism would deal with that.
You have to comprehend that the situation wouldn't occur in socialism.
There would be a fixed rate and an escalation possibility for emergencies. So, that it doesn't matter how large someone's wallet is, they can't get ripped off and everyone has equal chances.
This dumb american just can't comprehend that a country might invest in public transportation. They have like 4 trains going coast to coast and that's it (one might have derailed though they are trying to remove safety regulations regarding freakin brakes)
@zahlanzi saidIs this an answer? I think we cons are too simple for y'all. By that I mean you read stuff into a post that is simply not there, and of course, insert the ever-present ad-hominem as you go.
price gouging is often illegal. especially for essential items.
To take your example and actually make it mean something, in a civilized country there would be a public transportation system either owned by the government or privately owned (with price regulation imposed by the government) that would take you to newfoundland for 50$ saving you money and sparing Suzianne ...[text shortened]... 1 choice (i would never offer you a ride anywhere).
"I bet that you do not answer it."
you lose
Golly, my use of $1000 or $800 was taken quite literally by you, wasn't it. If I re-write it and use any amount that you would like, would you then answer the question which you have not answered? I have no idea what would be a 'fair price' for said transportation, but man, you sure made that the issue. Why? It was about negotiating a ride, Zahlanzi. Is it that your society does not tolerate negotiating something of value, since that which you are negotiating over is something owned by all of society?
"Price gouging'. Did everyone get that. And for the record, to deal about paying for this ride does not fit the definition of price gouging. Look it up. I can see why you don't know what it means, because you do not have to negotiate where you live, where everything is free, price not being relevant.