Greed

[schuylaar]

Did you mean access to food, water and healthcare or did you mean if person A has it, they are bound by some kind of duty to give it to person B ?

If they enter into a employee/employer relationship: yes.

If they don't pay their fair share (or none) taxes which makes person B have to pay more to help with the vacuum that person A created: yes.

I could go on..but why bother?

You always think you're so smart using double talk.

Some of us can see right through you, Rob.

 

[Rob Roy]

If they enter into a employee/employer relationship: yes.

If they don't pay their fair share (or none) taxes which makes person B have to pay more to help with the vacuum that person A created: yes.

I could go on..but why bother?

You always think you're so smart using double talk.

Some of us can see right through you, Rob.

Good morning Sky. That was quite a vitriol soaked fur ball you just coughed up.

I do think I'm smart, but that's not why your answer was hard to decipher.

On a person to person level if you worked hard at something, and I didn't, say I lazed around posting ridiculous memes to a website all day, should you be forced to feed me ? Is it my right to claim the fruit of your labor ? It's a pretty simple set of questions, I'm certain you can come up with a simple answer can't you?

 

[schuylaar]

Good morning Sky. That was quite a vitriol soaked fur ball you just coughed up.

I do think I'm smart, but that's not why your answer was hard to decipher.

On a person to person level if you worked hard at something, and I didn't, say I lazed around posting ridiculous memes to a website all day, should you be forced to feed me ? Is it my right to claim the fruit of your labor ? It's a pretty simple set of questions, I'm certain you can come up with a simple answer can't you?

Yes and you act as if you know it..clearly..no one can tell you anything with such perfection.

Who are YOU to JUDGE that a meme poster is worth any less than the job you do (what is it you do again, Rob?) therefore should have extra scrutiny for food, housing and medical..YOU?

I've got a lot of answers to simple and complex questions..but you're not ready for the answers.

There was your dataset of answers.

Did I get an 'A'? Class?

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes and you act as if you know it..clearly..no one can tell you anything with such perfection.

Who are YOU to JUDGE that a meme poster is worth any less than the job you do (what is it you do again, Rob?) therefore should have extra scrutiny for food, housing and medical..YOU?

I've got a lot of answers to simple and complex questions..but you're not ready for the answers.

There was your dataset of answers.

Did I get an 'A'? Class?

 

[Padawanbater2]

say I lazed around posting ridiculous memes to a website all day, should you be forced to feed me ?

Yes, because a civil society does not let its most vulnerable members suffer from preventable causes

If you feel like you're "forced" to provide for those that can't provide for themselves, in my opinion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of society. Society is a community, something we're all in together. What hurts you hurts me, what helps you helps me. If someone feels so inadequate that they resort to the fruits of others labor, something is fundamentally wrong. Normal, healthy people want to provide for themselves, they have no reason not to. If there is a group of people who don't, society at large needs to address why. Outside of that, every single individual that can't provide for themselves is entitled to care.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes, because a civil society does not let its most vulnerable members suffer from preventable causes

If you feel like you're "forced" to provide for those that can't provide for themselves, in my opinion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of society. Society is a community, something we're all in together. What hurts you hurts me, what helps you helps me. If someone feels so inadequate that they resort to the fruits of others labor, something is fundamentally wrong. Normal, healthy people want to provide for themselves, they have no reason not to. If there is a group of people who don't, society at large needs to address why. Outside of that, every single individual that can't provide for themselves is entitled to care.

Speaking of fundamental misunderstandings, are you implying that government and "society" are interchangeable ?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Speaking of fundamental misunderstandings, are you implying that government and "society" are interchangeable ?

Society is the civil space we share together. Government is the entity that is responsible for ensuring that space is protected against foreign and domestic enemies.

 

[schuylaar]

Class dismissed

 

[ttystikk]

Yes, because a civil society does not let its most vulnerable members suffer from preventable causes

If you feel like you're "forced" to provide for those that can't provide for themselves, in my opinion, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of society. Society is a community, something we're all in together. What hurts you hurts me, what helps you helps me. If someone feels so inadequate that they resort to the fruits of others labor, something is fundamentally wrong. Normal, healthy people want to provide for themselves, they have no reason not to. If there is a group of people who don't, society at large needs to address why. Outside of that, every single individual that can't provide for themselves is entitled to care.

Beyond this, the idea that somehow society is more productive by not providing health care is simply not borne out by the facts. A healthier population in fact underpins a much more productive society, making health care restrictions a drag on the economy. No one wins, not even those who'll pay less tax.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Beyond this, the idea that somehow society is more productive by not providing health care is simply not borne out by the facts. A healthier population in fact underpins a much more productive society, making health care restrictions a drag on the economy. No one wins, not even those who'll pay less tax.

He has a point about laziness though.

I don't mind paying for people who genuinely need it but if for example there was a person who just smoked pot and posted shit on the Internet all day while claiming welfare...should that person not be encouraged to get a job? Even if it's a crap job and welfare "tops it up" to a livable wage?

People should absolutely have the right to sit around and smoke pot all day, if they're fiscally self sufficient.

 

[schuylaar]

He has a point about laziness though.

I don't mind paying for people who genuinely need it but if for example there was a person who just smoked pot and posted shit on the Internet all day while claiming welfare...should that person not be encouraged to get a job? Even if it's a crap job and welfare "tops it up" to a livable wage?

People should absolutely have the right to sit around and smoke pot all day, if they're fiscally self sufficient.

You don't seem to understand that since Clinton's Welfare-to-Work, you must be employed minimally to receive benefits.

Your argument is old school.

 

[SneekyNinja]

You don't seem to understand that since Clinton's Welfare-to-Work, you must be employed minimally to receive benefits.

Your argument is old school.

You don't seem to understand that it's not that simplistic.

Whenever you reply to me I get the scent of New Car...it's weird.

 

[Rob Roy]

Society is the civil space we share together. Government is the entity that is responsible for ensuring that space is protected against foreign and domestic enemies.

If an entity assumes your consent without it actually being given, to the point of initiating violence to ensure your compliance, how can that same entity still be said to be the one that "protects" you?

 

[Rob Roy]

You don't seem to understand that it's not that simplistic.

Whenever you reply to me I get the scent of New Car...it's weird.

Borderline titillating, needs a touch more innuendo.

 

[schuylaar]

You don't seem to understand that it's not that simplistic.

Whenever you reply to me I get the scent of New Car...it's weird.

Actually it is, but please expand on why it is you think it's not that simple?

 

[MrRoboto]

That's an old statistic from the 1980s. NOWADAYS, most billionaires came by it from their forebears.

Bill Gate's folks were quite well off, giving him the chance to build a company instead of going to work as a electronics tech. The rest have similar stories.

Nice job picking out the famous.

How about the Walton clan? Sam built Walmart, but his half dozen odd kids are STILL near the top of the Forbes 400 list.

Why don't they need to pay taxes?

Answer us that, Mr Statistics.

The Walton family pays taxes.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/04/14/phantastical-nonsense-about-walmart-the-waltons-and-7-8-billion-in-tax-breaks/amp/

Our greed made Sam Walton rich. We want cheap toilet paper and a bunch of it. Sam Walton gave the customer what they wanted.

 

[MrRoboto]

I don't know where you get your information but Gates grew Microsoft and doesn't earn a billion dollars a year, same with Zuckerberg. In a report published in 2012, the top 25 richest hedge fund investors earned more than 29 billion dollars. I'd put Buffet in the same category as them. Private equity investment groups -- hedge funds specifically generate no added value. Most hedge funds suck value out of the economy and replace it with debt. The financial sector accounts for about 20% of all the people in the top 1% of earners. .

What especially doesn't add up with what you said is that the US has a low level of social mobility. People at the top or born in families at the top of the social ladder tend to stay there. Only about 8% of people in lower economic status actually break into the top earning groups replacing the few who manage to lose status.

Ah yes, hedge fund investments. Those come with a guaranteed return right?

 

[Fogdog]

Ah yes, hedge fund investments. Those come with a guaranteed return right?

and your point is?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Our greed made Sam Walton rich.

Manipulation of economies or the ignorant is not an adequate justification in order to profit. It's an excuse to justify getting away with taking advantage of the less fortunate.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Manipulation of economies or the ignorant is not an adequate justification in order to profit. It's an excuse to justify getting away with taking advantage of the less fortunate.

Selling cheap crap cheaply to Americans who can't afford branded shit is hardly immoral.

It let's people buy duct tape when they normally couldn't afford it...