Originally posted by techsouthShould the state--who in order areas of provision wastes resources and acts in its own interests--be trusted monopolize the enforcement of law and order? Or should there be competition between different private enforcers, to lower costs and improve the quality of law and order provision?
This also shows the great difference between corporations and governments. Corporations start good, offer a product better or cheaper than competition, and if they do it well they'll grow. Eventually that corporation becomes corrupt and as a result is less able to offer new innovations or contain costs. As long as there's law and order, the corporation ...[text shortened]... liticians to help them. It is always the corrupt actions of the politicians that is the key.
Originally posted by rwingettA clear separation of the state and the economy>
But I won't get the financial support that big business channels into corrupt candidates who do their bidding. And most of the time money is what decides elections.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first to be bought and sold are the legislators" P J O'Rourke
Originally posted by whodeyThere are many, many Democrats who disgust me (rich or otherwise). You can overcome the stigma of being rich, however, by being sufficiently liberal. You would in effect be saying, "Yes, I'm guilty of being rich, but I'm willing to atone for that heinous sin by compensating society in return." So, from worst to best, it goes as follows:
I want you to verbally say the words, "Rich Democrat"
Say it!! You can't, can you? ðŸ˜
1. rich conservative (worst)
2. working class conservative
3. rich liberal
4. working class liberal (best)
Originally posted by rwingettIf someone with talent and insight took risks and worked hard to provide others with a good or service they valued, and ended up getting relatively wealthy as a result (the profit being a sign that they were producing what was valued), would they still need to compensate others for the "sin" of getting rich?
There are many, many Democrats who disgust me (rich or otherwise). You can overcome the stigma of being rich, however, by being sufficiently liberal. You would in effect be saying, "Yes, I'm guilty of being rich, but I'm willing to atone for that heinous sin by compensating society in return." So, from worst to best, it goes as follows:
1. rich conservative (worst)
2. working class conservative
3. rich liberal
4. working class liberal (best)
Originally posted by IshDaGeggYes. As long as there is one single starving person left in the world, being rich will remain an unpardonable sin. The rich would atone for that sin by willfully paying higher taxes into the common pool to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone. And they would willfully support a vastly higher estate tax to prevent great wealth from becoming hereditary. Anyone may become rich through their own efforts, but no one should become rich through the good luck of having a rich father.
If someone with talent and insight took risks and worked hard to provide others with a good or service they valued, and ended up getting relatively wealthy as a result (the profit being a sign that they were producing what was valued), would they still need to compensate others for the "sin" of getting rich?
Originally posted by rwingettIf one person is no longer starving, but lacks free healthcare, is being rich still an unpardonable sin?
Yes. As long as there is one single starving person left in the world, being rich will remain an unpardonable sin. The rich would atone for that sin by willfully paying higher taxes into the common pool to ensure a basic minimum standard of living for everyone. And they would willfully support a vastly higher estate tax to prevent great wealth from becoming ...[text shortened]... their own efforts, but no one should become rich through the good luck of having a rich father.
At what point does the sin of relative wealth become pardonable? At economic equality?
If X acted to make Y very poor, is it really the responsibility of every relatively rich Z to assist?
Is there no limit to rich Z's imperative to give, if there exists at least one very poor Y?
Originally posted by IshDaGeggWealth should be fixed to a relative scale. The richest person cannot make more than, say, 100 times that of the poorest. If the minimum wage was set at $30,000 then the maximum compensation would be $3,000,000. If more total wealth was generated then that figure could scale upward proportionally. There is still plenty of incentive for hard work and nobody starves.
If one person is no longer starving, but lacks free healthcare, is being rich still an unpardonable sin?
At what point does the sin of relative wealth become pardonable? At economic equality?
If X acted to make Y very poor, is it really the responsibility of every relatively rich Z to assist?
Is there no limit to rich Z's imperative to give, if there exists at least one very poor Y?
A high estate tax would ensure an equality of starting conditions. Nobody would be born into opulent wealth and nobody would be born into a ghetto. Whether a person remains at the $30,000 minimum or rises to the $3,000,000 maximum would depend totally upon their own efforts.
Originally posted by rwingettWhat if the poorest person is doing drugs and getting drunk every day.
Wealth should be fixed to a relative scale. The richest person cannot make more than, say, 100 times that of the poorest. If the minimum wage was set at $30,000 then the maximum compensation would be $3,000,000. If more total wealth was generated then that figure could scale upward proportionally. There is still plenty of incentive for hard work and nobody ...[text shortened]... $30,000 minimum or rises to the $3,000,000 maximum would depend totally upon their own efforts.
Are the rest of us obligated to deny college to our children so we can pitch in and provide booze money for those who won't work?
Most people I know who have been able to shake a drug addiction have had to hit
"rock bottom" first. Are we to make it illegal to even allow someone to hit
"rock bottom"?
Originally posted by rwingettIt's funny that in one post on this thread you advocate anarchy and in this post you advocate a central government strong enough to enforce your idea of equality.
Wealth should be fixed to a relative scale. The richest person cannot make more than, say, 100 times that of the poorest. If the minimum wage was set at $30,000 then the maximum compensation would be $3,000,000. If more total wealth was generated then that figure could scale upward proportionally. There is still plenty of incentive for hard work and nobody ...[text shortened]... $30,000 minimum or rises to the $3,000,000 maximum would depend totally upon their own efforts.
