 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It is not an accusation, it's a rebuttal.
Berzerker was trying to establish some kind of la-la land hypothetical, thus it is up to him to make it work. Distractors only need to point out the flaws in his model. |
Then perhaps you could start by pointing out at least some of the flaws, perhaps the most glaring of them. simply saying "everything you said is wrong" doesn't invite much discussion does it? And to be fair a quick look at his analogy showed portions that had obvious resemblance to portions of reality but I agree that this is insufficient to necessarily make for a useful analogy all by itself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
whoops tried to edit by quoting my own post how odd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:33
|
|
Kid - quote:
non-ideological? Is that what you think your little approach is? |
Yes, if I was to argue based on my ideological views, it would be about the immorality of legalised theft, not the pragmatic approach I offered.
quote:
One person is born into society as a property owner, and another person is born into the world with no means to provide the things he needs for himself. |
Babies don't own property other than what the creator gave them.
quote:
The capitalist wants to sit on his ass and think of ways to get more capital so he puts an add in the paper offering to pay someone a wage to do the work that he was doing before. |
How does a capitalist sit on his ass and start placing ads to hire people to do his job of sitting on his ass? Oh, you mean the capitalist wasn't really sitting on his ass, he was building a business. Otherwise, the person he hires would have no job to do... 
quote:
The poor person decides that he would rather work than starve so the only choice that he is left with is working for our soon to be capitalist. You say this is consent. |
Yup, the capitalist didn't create the poor person's need for food, nature or nature's creator did that.
quote:
Let's look down the road a little. Not working has paid off big for the capitalist. |
Don't you mean working to build a business has paid off? A capitalist who sits on his ass with no business is an oxy-moron.
quote:
He has found a way to get more wealth. |
Yup, and employ others so one day they can start a business of their own once they've learned a trade and accumulated capital.
quote:
Unfortunately for the worker it involves moving the capital to another country and hiring someone for cheaper than the worker was able to live on. |
When liberals aren't decrying capitalism here, they're complaining about poor people in other countries getting jobs so they can improve their lives too. 
quote:
So the worker still wants to eat. He asks the capitalist for help. The answer is no. |
The answer would probably be, "go ask the liberals who just destroyed your job with their taxes and regulations".
quote:
Now according to you the capitalist acted in an ethical way and owes the worker nothing because the worker gave his consent. |
Yup, but I can't say the same about the liberals.
quote:
THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE! After several 500 post threads on this, this is all you have - what you call 'consent.' |
I'm now responsible for several 500 post threads on consent? In case you haven't noticed, you're a participant in this thread and I only raise consent when liberals are trying to justify legalised theft.
quote:
Get a new argument. This one is so weak its incredible. |
I responded to your points and you ignored mine, weak is not a term I'd use to describe my position.
Geronimo - quote:
I do indeed suggest that people spend everything they have before they die. I even quoted carnegie earlier to the same effect. |
Why? Shouldn't that be their choice? After all, many older people are fiscally conservative and want savings to make sure they can deal with an emergency.
quote:
Your other main point appears to be that we should give post mortem transactions the same value as we give to our control of our property while alive because to do otherwise would be to show no respect to the dead. |
Sure, if I die and I have debts to pay off those debts get taken care of by my estate. Should we do away with post-mortem debt along with inheritance? And I have respect for them while they're alive. A dying person feels better when they know their life's work won't be consumed by politicians waiting at the door for them to die. I've seen what effect that can have on a dying person...
quote:
Well, I certainly agree that respect for the dead is a good thing and I also agree that it is nice for people who are facing imminent death to feel better. However I daresay that you think that giving food and shelter to hungry homeless people is a nice thing and that people starving and being homeless is bad. However I don't think you would allow that these considerations should receive the same weight as your right to control your own property. |
That's right, but it's the dying person's property and if they want it to go to their children or starving homeless people, I'll respect their wishes.
quote:
I maintain that the estate tax (while bad) is less bad than the income tax or sales tax or any other tax because it doesn't at any time constrain my control over my property. |
It's a constraint on your labor, you said the income tax was ~slavery. I agree, but the death tax merely enslaves a person while they were alive. If you spend 30 years saving money from your labor, it doesn't matter when I take it. The fact I'm taking it means I'm taking those years out of your life. You may not care once you're gone (or you might, who knows what happens then) but you care when you're alive.
quote:
So in summation I accept the death tax as the least of the the available evils while also agreeing that respect for the dead is a good thing. Did that help illuminate my position? |
Yes, you acknowledge it's evil and that's all I can expect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
From the article Vel posted:
quote:
Despite the rise of self-made millionaires, the growing fortunes of the wealthy highlight the extent to which wealth remains concentrated among the few. Even after the huge economic gains during the bull market of the late 1990s, the wealthiest 1% in the U.S. control more than a third of the nation's wealth -- the starkest such concentration among industrialized countries.
A new study by Edward N. Wolff, a wealth expert and an economics professor at New York University, shows that while average families made some gains in the late 1990s -- due mainly to rising income, real estate and stocks -- the concentration of wealth held in the U.S. remained largely unchanged. The wealthiest 5% controlled 59.2% of the nation's wealth in 2001, little changed from the 60.3% in 1995. |
quote:
Underscoring the concentration of wealth among the very rich, a study last fall by Arthur Kennickell of the Federal Reserve Board shows the nation's wealthiest 1% owned about $2.3 trillion in stocks, or about 53% of all individually or family-held shares. The wealthiest 1% owned 64% of bonds held by families or individuals, and 31% of total financial assets held by families or individuals, which includes everything from stocks to bonds to cash. |
Maybe people should read the whole thing they post, and not just cherrypick facts they think bolster their case....
Oh, and if "making millionaries" is that important, move to China, that bastion of freedom:
quote:
In Asia, India and China continued to set the pace for wealth creation. China's voracious demand for goods helped create new millionaires throughout the region, with South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia all benefitting. The number of high-net-worth individuals in Asia rose 8.4%, with 11.8% growth in China and 21.9% growth in India. After being plagued by a real-estate bust and plunging stock prices in 2002, Hong Kong's financial millionaires rebounded to 2001 levels because of rising asset prices, increased demand from China and foreign direct investment, according to the report. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
outsourcing is tough beans for americans. move to india if you want to stay ahead of the curve
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It's only in some la-la land where the rich becomes rich because they work hard and those who are poor are their own damn fault. |
UR! THANK YOU! This is what ive been waiting for. I question whether hard work is really all there is to life. Goddamn calvinist thinking!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
a man is rich in his happiness, not in what he possesses
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-07-2004 09:28
|