Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

  • Total voters
    58
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Having the most toys makes getting there funner.
Click to expand...
That's not the point of this thread, and I feel most people who voted no did so using confused thinking that I wasn't talking about in the OP.

I don't want any gov. agency to be able to step in and say "this is the limit no matter how much more you make", that seems against liberty, another founding American value. The OP described how certain elite people use their unimaginable amounts of wealth to influence American politics, and in turn influence the rest of the world. It also shed a little light on why, which imo, is the more important issue to talk about. They stand to gain when the rest of us lose. Industries that make weapons, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc., industries that provide 'protection', private security industries like Blackwater or KBR.. Private prison industries, pharmaceutical industries, that type of shit. How can anyone of moral conscience sit there and say "well that's the American way, if a business or industry found a way to make money based on current issues, even if they affect everyone else in a negative way, it's their right"? "They have an obligation to the stockholders".. How can making money be more important than human life? Do any of you in complete opposition with me 100% of the time agree with this line of reasoning? If not, why don't you stand by me instead of against me?

If you make yourself a trillion dollars off the sweat of your brow and hard work, more power to you, you fucking earned every penny of it. Bill Gates is a textbook example of that. Who did he harm in the making of Microsoft? Sure his computer systems have been used to harm people, but he himself wasn't responsible for it and I'm sure he couldn't have envisioned such a future. The war on terror arguably couldn't exist how it is today without Microsoft, do I blame Bill Gates? Do I think he's an evil person? Of course not. I beg you to understand the distinction, put the partisan bullshit aside for one second and try to understand this point.

There are people to blame for the world we live in, there are people who make their living off of keeping the world in a state of ongoing conflict. These are the people I'm talking about, the ones all of us should be 100% united against because their actions equal our consequences while they reap the benefits of all of our labor, slavery and hardships. Once you get down to it, we're all really similar with similar interests, all of us. It's those in power who have the ability to manipulate the way we think and the way we understand the illusion of the objective reality they attempt to force upon us with things like organized religion against all of us. Getting this message across seems almost impossible. The manipulation and propaganda is so ingrained in most of us today that even real objective reality isn't enough to convince us otherwise.

Read history, read science, read philosophy, these are the things that will give you a way to fight back against the system.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's not the point of this thread, and I feel most people who voted no did so using confused thinking that I wasn't talking about in the OP.

I don't want any gov. agency to be able to step in and say "this is the limit no matter how much more you make", that seems against liberty, another founding American value. The OP described how certain elite people use their unimaginable amounts of wealth to influence American politics, and in turn influence the rest of the world. It also shed a little light on why, which imo, is the more important issue to talk about. They stand to gain when the rest of us lose. Industries that make weapons, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc., industries that provide 'protection', private security industries like Blackwater or KBR.. Private prison industries, pharmaceutical industries, that type of shit. How can anyone of moral conscience sit there and say "well that's the American way, if a business or industry found a way to make money based on current issues, even if they affect everyone else in a negative way, it's their right"? "They have an obligation to the stockholders".. How can making money be more important than human life? Do any of you in complete opposition with me 100% of the time agree with this line of reasoning? If not, why don't you stand by me instead of against me?

If you make yourself a trillion dollars off the sweat of your brow and hard work, more power to you, you fucking earned every penny of it. Bill Gates is a textbook example of that. Who did he harm in the making of Microsoft? Sure his computer systems have been used to harm people, but he himself wasn't responsible for it and I'm sure he couldn't have envisioned such a future. The war on terror arguably couldn't exist how it is today without Microsoft, do I blame Bill Gates? Do I think he's an evil person? Of course not. I beg you to understand the distinction, put the partisan bullshit aside for one second and try to understand this point.

There are people to blame for the world we live in, there are people who make their living off of keeping the world in a state of ongoing conflict. These are the people I'm talking about, the ones all of us should be 100% united against because their actions equal our consequences while they reap the benefits of all of our labor, slavery and hardships. Once you get down to it, we're all really similar with similar interests, all of us. It's those in power who have the ability to manipulate the way we think and the way we understand the illusion of the objective reality they attempt to force upon us with things like organized religion against all of us. Getting this message across seems almost impossible. The manipulation and propaganda is so ingrained in most of us today that even real objective reality isn't enough to convince us otherwise.

Read history, read science, read philosophy, these are the things that will give you a way to fight back against the system.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between using your hard work converted into $'s to help decide the election and using your ability to talk to win an election? Should we decide that maybe people aren't allowed to give speeches anymore since they sway elections?

A big part of your issue is that you seem to be measuring people in wealth only. Should we put a cap on how successful people can be or how pretty they can be? Maybe we should cut up someones face cause they are more attractive than us. Should happiness be restricted? Should pretty girls be forced to have sex with ugly men cause its not fair they don't get sexy bitches?


I always liked the quote in 'Enemy at the Gates':

"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
no, having more fun makes it funner
Click to expand...
Good point having more fun does make it funner. ...and if having more toys and not hurting anybody in the acquiring of them makes a person have fun....seems like there's room for both of you to be right. To each their own eh?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Carthoris said:
What is the difference between using your hard work converted into $'s to help decide the election and using your ability to talk to win an election? Should we decide that maybe people aren't allowed to give speeches anymore since they sway elections?

A big part of your issue is that you seem to be measuring people in wealth only. Should we put a cap on how successful people can be or how pretty they can be? Maybe we should cut up someones face cause they are more attractive than us. Should happiness be restricted? Should pretty girls be forced to have sex with ugly men cause its not fair they don't get sexy bitches?


I always liked the quote in 'Enemy at the Gates':

"I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love."
Click to expand...
Money and influence is used in backdoor, behind the scenes type situations, the general public isn't aware of or doesn't believe it happens. Total manipulation of the system. If you can talk your way into an elected office, have at it, at least the public knows exactly what you stand for, or say you stand for, and can therefore make up their own mind accordingly.

Remember when you were a kid and thought about being president? All of us did.. All you had to be was at least 35 and born in the country.. When you grow up it changes, now you need millions of dollars just to be looked at. It is impossible for your average person to become president of the US because the system has become so corrupted by greed. I remember hearing about candidates in elections past who couldn't afford to participate in national debates, which obviously means less views > less votes. We sit here and praise how our system is so much different than everyone elses yet it isn't, it's nearly the same as all the rest behind the scenes, the only difference is all of us buy the illusion. 2 parties, we might as well call the guy King. Something I always felt gave it away was that a person could become president, then one of his family members or relatives becomes president a few years later, ex. Adams', Roosevelt, Bush.. I wonder what the odds of that happening naturally, if the game were 100% fair, would be.. 3 times.. those that don't buy the theory of evolution because they believe the odds are stacked against it happening glaze over that type of stuff as if it's totally normal and natural for father/son presidential duo's to happen.. That's the type of stuff you see in Dark Age England where the bloodline ruled.

The American people are pretty stupid imo (by design) and could very easily be led to vote for someone with a slick voice, but at least they make that decision on their own, somewhat, instead of having absolutely no control over the outcome.

Attractiveness is genetic as well as subjective, that example doesn't hold weight in your analogy, imo. Same as being black or Chinese or Jamaican.. Happiness, also subjective, same deal.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
No, the power has to be decentralized away from Washington back to the states.

That will remove the incentive for corruption.
Click to expand...
You need to amend the lobbying clause in the Constitution to simply involve petitions and ban political donations too.

Otherwise you simply decentralise corruption from Washington to more of a "Boardwalk Empire" style local corruption.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
You need to amend the lobbying clause in the Constitution to simply involve petitions and ban political donations too.

Otherwise you simply decentralise corruption from Washington to more of a "Boardwalk Empire" style local corruption.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there is always going to be corruption.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's not the point of this thread, and I feel most people who voted no did so using confused thinking that I wasn't talking about in the OP.

I don't want any gov. agency to be able to step in and say "this is the limit no matter how much more you make", that seems against liberty, another founding American value. The OP described how certain elite people use their unimaginable amounts of wealth to influence American politics, and in turn influence the rest of the world. It also shed a little light on why, which imo, is the more important issue to talk about. They stand to gain when the rest of us lose. Industries that make weapons, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc., industries that provide 'protection', private security industries like Blackwater or KBR.. Private prison industries, pharmaceutical industries, that type of shit. How can anyone of moral conscience sit there and say "well that's the American way, if a business or industry found a way to make money based on current issues, even if they affect everyone else in a negative way, it's their right"? "They have an obligation to the stockholders".. How can making money be more important than human life? Do any of you in complete opposition with me 100% of the time agree with this line of reasoning? If not, why don't you stand by me instead of against me?

If you make yourself a trillion dollars off the sweat of your brow and hard work, more power to you, you fucking earned every penny of it. Bill Gates is a textbook example of that. Who did he harm in the making of Microsoft? Sure his computer systems have been used to harm people, but he himself wasn't responsible for it and I'm sure he couldn't have envisioned such a future. The war on terror arguably couldn't exist how it is today without Microsoft, do I blame Bill Gates? Do I think he's an evil person? Of course not. I beg you to understand the distinction, put the partisan bullshit aside for one second and try to understand this point.

There are people to blame for the world we live in, there are people who make their living off of keeping the world in a state of ongoing conflict. These are the people I'm talking about, the ones all of us should be 100% united against because their actions equal our consequences while they reap the benefits of all of our labor, slavery and hardships. Once you get down to it, we're all really similar with similar interests, all of us. It's those in power who have the ability to manipulate the way we think and the way we understand the illusion of the objective reality they attempt to force upon us with things like organized religion against all of us. Getting this message across seems almost impossible. The manipulation and propaganda is so ingrained in most of us today that even real objective reality isn't enough to convince us otherwise.

Read history, read science, read philosophy, these are the things that will give you a way to fight back against the system.
Click to expand...
You forgot to mention Mitt Romney should have his income capped.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Money and influence is used in backdoor, behind the scenes type situations, the general public isn't aware of or doesn't believe it happens. Total manipulation of the system. If you can talk your way into an elected office, have at it, at least the public knows exactly what you stand for, or say you stand for, and can therefore make up their own mind accordingly.

Remember when you were a kid and thought about being president? All of us did.. All you had to be was at least 35 and born in the country.. When you grow up it changes, now you need millions of dollars just to be looked at. It is impossible for your average person to become president of the US because the system has become so corrupted by greed. I remember hearing about candidates in elections past who couldn't afford to participate in national debates, which obviously means less views > less votes. We sit here and praise how our system is so much different than everyone elses yet it isn't, it's nearly the same as all the rest behind the scenes, the only difference is all of us buy the illusion. 2 parties, we might as well call the guy King. Something I always felt gave it away was that a person could become president, then one of his family members or relatives becomes president a few years later, ex. Adams', Roosevelt, Bush.. I wonder what the odds of that happening naturally, if the game were 100% fair, would be.. 3 times.. those that don't buy the theory of evolution because they believe the odds are stacked against it happening glaze over that type of stuff as if it's totally normal and natural for father/son presidential duo's to happen.. That's the type of stuff you see in Dark Age England where the bloodline ruled.

The American people are pretty stupid imo (by design) and could very easily be led to vote for someone with a slick voice, but at least they make that decision on their own, somewhat, instead of having absolutely no control over the outcome.

Attractiveness is genetic as well as subjective, that example doesn't hold weight in your analogy, imo. Same as being black or Chinese or Jamaican.. Happiness, also subjective, same deal.
Click to expand...
Being able to make money and use that money to influence the world is no different than being able to act, sing, or give speeches. They elected Bono, Arnold, and Ventura to political office based on being famous. No one seriously thinks they should not of been able to run and use their fame to gain power. Using your labor converted to $ is no different than using any other talent. It is a direct comparison. If you can't compare Napoleon, Franklin, Picasso, George Washington, Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky then you just don't understand human nature. Why should one person be allowed to use their talent to influence the world and not another? Your issue is that someone else controls the world, not how they control it. You don't see a path where you gain control and you hate everyone who can. Don't you see an issue with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top