Why even worry about transparency…

@AverageJoe1 said
You say in your first sentence that govt officials should work for 'the public good', and not look after their own prosperity.

Pitiful socialist. When AOC is president, she will make $400k a year, spend some of it, and maybe save $800K over 4 years in a savings account drawing 1.2%. After she leaves office, she will have accrued no growth through investments.

Sq ...[text shortened]... myself, seeing everyone makes their own pie, so I will regard any answer with a huge grain of salt.

Those primarily interested in "their own prosperity" should find some other line of work besides public service.

@no1marauder said
You believe in capitalism which is entirely based on persons profiting from the labor of another person so your insistence on asking such a question is odd.

And again, you are desperately trying to change the subject with such off-topic nonsense.

JesusH. You still have not answered my question. I didn't mention capitalism, profits, or economics. I asked you a very specific question: is any person entitled to the labor of another person?

A yes or no would answer it. If your answer is yes, tell me under what circumstances one person is entitled to another person's labor. If your answer is no, then we have some where to start our discussion. But telling me what I supposedly believe about capitalism does not answer the question.

You see marauder, you've answered a question I did not ask. You responded by attacking capitalism. Can you answer the actual question, yes or no?

@AverageJoe1 said
JesusH. You still have not answered my question. I didn't mention capitalism, profits, or economics. I asked you a very specific question: is any person entitled to the labor of another person?

A yes or no would answer it. If your answer is yes, tell me under what circumstances one person is entitled to another person's labor. If your answer is no, then we have some ...[text shortened]... I did not ask. You responded by attacking capitalism. Can you answer the actual question, yes or no?

Start another thread about it as it's off-topic here.

But I feel no obligation to answer questions "yes or no".

@no1marauder said
Those primarily interested in "their own prosperity" should find some other line of work besides public service.

Uhoh. Now you have to back up THIS statement. Are you interested in your own prosperity!??!!?
Yes or no again.

And yes, I AM interested in my own prosperity, and charitable giving, and philanthropy in my case, is quite normal in my world. Acually I am retired and fulo of public service, including my own foundation. People like this are all over, esp among Repubicans. It is my 'line of work'.

@no1marauder said
Start another thread about it as it's off-topic here.

But I feel no obligation to answer questions "yes or no".

OK.

Heads up.

@AverageJoe1 said
Uhoh. Now you have to back up THIS statement. Are you interested in your own prosperity!??!!?
Yes or no again.

And yes, I AM interested in my own prosperity, and charitable giving, and philanthropy in my case, is quite normal in my world. Acually I am retired and fulo of public service, including my own foundation. People like this are all over, esp among Repubicans. It is my 'line of work'.

I don't work in public service.

But no, I'm not primarily interested in my own prosperity if you are referring only to wealth. There are more important things in life.

@no1marauder said
I don't work in public service.

But no, I'm not primarily interested in my own prosperity if you are referring only to wealth. There are more important things in life.

????? Doing well , thriving, raising happy family in happy home making enough money to have no worries, doing good things, building assets and savings for the future.....thus, to do good things and prosper. Providing is to prosper.
It includes the savings, the wealth amassed over a lifetime, of course, who does not save? .....but I don't refer 'ONLY to wealth'. No ifs, please. Would not want you to accidentally modify the issue. Or, a word.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
everyone knows the pres should use his drug addicted son to strong arm countries to give a kickback dont we?

Yes Don jr. has a tendency to do that. Thanks for pointing that out.

@no1marauder said
Start another thread about it as it's off-topic here.

But I feel no obligation to answer questions "yes or no".

Let's try this.
Imagine two men living on an island. One man spends all day fishing and catches 20 fish. The other man spends the day doing nothing. The second man says I am entitled to five of your fish. Tell us what would give him that entitlement.?

@AverageJoe1 said
????? Doing well , thriving, raising happy family in happy home making enough money to have no worries, doing good things, building assets and savings for the future.....thus, to do good things and prosper. Providing is to prosper.
It includes the savings, the wealth amassed over a lifetime, of course, who does not save? .....but I don't refer 'ONLY to wealth'. No ifs, please. Would not want you to accidentally modify the issue. Or, a word.

You omitted the word I used.

no1: Those primarily interested in "their own prosperity" should find some other line of work besides public service.

You play these BS games all the time.

@AverageJoe1 said
Let's try this.
Imagine two men living on an island. One man spends all day fishing and catches 20 fish. The other man spends the day doing nothing. The second man says I am entitled to five of your fish. Tell us what would give him that entitlement.?

Off-topic.

@no1marauder said
You omitted the word I used.

no1: Those primarily interested in "their own prosperity" should find some other line of work besides public service.

You play these BS games all the time.

OK,,,,,'if you are primarily interested in your own prosperity' I should have said. That was your question at top of page2.
I did answer yes, and I answered yes with the same logic as a plane pilot telling us that adults should put on their oxygen masks BEFORE those of the children,
So I still answered it properly. Are YOU, Right Now, trying to change a topic that you say that I am trying to change????

@AverageJoe1 said
Let's try this.
Imagine two men living on an island. One man spends all day fishing and catches 20 fish. The other man spends the day doing nothing. The second man says I am entitled to five of your fish. Tell us what would give him that entitlement.?

The second man has the right to life which means he can legitimately take the fish if he has no other food.

@AThousandYoung said
The second man has the right to life which means he can legitimately take the fish if he has no other food.

Really!?!?! I see two separate claims here you are saying a man has a right to live. And then you are saying that therefore he has a right to take another man's fish. The first statement does not logically establish the second one. Your libs are bad about hooking things up, which are not connected.

A right to live ordinarily means that others may not arbitrarily kill you. It does not mean that you have a right to what another person has produced, that you need in 'order' to live. Ha, you have been hanging around Marauder too long.
My question isn't whether the second man has the right, to live, of course he does. My question is whether his right to live gives him a right to the labor of another person.

Geeeeez.

@AverageJoe1 said
Really!?!?! I see two separate claims here you are saying a man has a right to live. And then you are saying that therefore he has a right to take another man's fish. The first statement does not logically establish the second one. Your libs are bad about hooking things up, which are not connected.

A right to live ordinarily means that others may not arbitrarily kill ...[text shortened]... question is whether his right to live gives him a right to the labor of another person.

Geeeeez.

You are mistaken.

From Google AI overview (prompt: locke right to life starving)

In John Locke’s political philosophy, a starving person has a natural right to survival grounded in the right to life, which establishes a moral claim to take surplus resources from others to prevent extreme want.

Locke’s View on Preservation and Starvation

Law of Nature: God gave the earth to humanity in common to preserve life. No person has the right to let another starve if they have surplus.

Right to Subsistence: In the First Treatise of Government, Locke argued that charity gives a person in extreme want a valid title to a share of another's plenty to stay alive.

Limits of Property: Private property rights do not grant owners the moral right to hoard resources while another starves. Withholding vital relief in dire necessity violates natural law.