American Dream!?

[Red1966]

Sort of. However many large corporations enjoy advantages that smaller more local companies do not and the advantages were created thru force. For instance a large company, say Walmart, uses the "economy of scale" to derive a profit. Yet, the roads they use are not funded by them, they are funded thru redistribution of the peasants earnings via taxation. I have nothing against rich people, but we should recognize many became rich thru protectionism or a perverse application of involuntary collectivism. To say in a blanket statement that rich people are "giving back" might be innacurate in total, some do, many don't.

The roads are funded by fuel taxes. Walmart trucks pay the same as everybody else. You should be complaining about those who drive electric cars. Tax money is given to them to buy the car and they pay no fuel tax. And the bastards look down on the rest of us for polluting, while they drive COAL POWERED cars. I have nothing against rich people who acquire their wealth legitimately, I hope to become one someday. The fact is, most become wealthy by providing others with jobs. Without the wealthy, our economy would collapse. We can't all "live off the land".

 

[Rob Roy]

at some point "taking" is needful.

if you only pay for roads YOU use, then the roads in urban centers will be flawless, but the roads in rural communities (where your food comes from) will be in disrepair.

rich communities will have lots and lots of well mannered cops with their minds on justice and justice on their minds, while poor communities will be lawless free fire zones.

rich kid's schools will be awesome, poor kid's schools will be dumps, worse than they are now (even without the graft and corruption that siphons off the federal cash for poor schools)

rich people will have well funded fire brigades, while poor folk's homes will burn.

society REQUIRES a little bit of sacrifice from those with much, to benefit those with far less, but it must be carefully controlled to ensure that those with much dont simply become an ATM machine for the populist demagogues and re-distributionists.

I see you've fired up your rationalization machine. It seems to go in a circle, perhaps that is why you are so dizzy. You claim to be for freedom and the first thing you do is endorse as part of this system, something that is anti-freedom.

All of the things that you want are possible thru voluntary interaction. Separating the "goods and services" from "bads and disservices" is an easy thing to do, but it CAN'T happen if you endorse and feed the present one, which is COERCION driven. It will only change when it is abandoned, not when it is only allowed to exist "a little bit". Coercion is like fungus, don't let a little bit hang around or it will inevitably grow. I submit as evidence, the world today.

Do you really think it is impossible to have goods and products UNLESS there is a coercive system ?

Before you can say 'Uncle Buck", I am not advocating free loaderism, I am advocating a free market, wherein if you want something, you pay for it, if you don't want something, you simply don't buy it and you aren't forced to pay for it. Pretty simple eh? Responsibility is an integral part of any just system, coercion, even "a little bit" is not.

 

[Red1966]

it's all about the pursuit of happiness. Some people believe that it exists in material wealth, those people almost never seem to find happiness.

Plenty of "wealthy" still commit suicide. Then again, it's hard to be happy when you're starving.

 

[Rob Roy]

The roads are funded by fuel taxes. Walmart trucks pay the same as everybody else. You should be complaining about those who drive electric cars. Tax money is given to them to buy the car and they pay no fuel tax. And the bastards look down on the rest of us for polluting, while they drive COAL POWERED cars. I have nothing against rich people who acquire their wealth legitimately, I hope to become one someday. The fact is, most become wealthy by providing others with jobs. Without the wealthy, our economy would collapse. We can't all "live off the land".

The roads were put on land that was taken by eminent domain. I'm not sure but the labor to build the roads, plow the roads etc may come from other than fuel taxes. Large corporations enjoy a form of protectionism that small business owners do not. I'm not "anti rich". I'm anti protectionism and coercion derived wealth.

Actually, we all DO, live off the land, some more directly than others. Eat any air lately?

 

[Red1966]

The roads were put on land that was taken by eminent domain. I'm not sure but the labor to build the roads, plow the roads etc may come from other than fuel taxes. Large corporations enjoy a form of protectionism that small business owners do not. I'm not "anti rich". I'm anti protectionism and coercion derived wealth. Actually, we all DO, live off the land, some more directly than others. Eat any air lately?

Roads are funded by the fuel tax. The land wasn't "taken", it was bought. Plowing the roads is funded by local property taxes. 330,000,000 wandering the countryside looking for food equals 329,000,000 dead within a month. Eat air?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

it's all about the pursuit of happiness. Some people believe that it exists in material wealth, those people almost never seem to find happiness.

Says our resident 1%er.

 

[Rob Roy]

Roads are funded by the fuel tax. The land wasn't "taken", it was bought. Plowing the roads is funded by local property taxes. 330,000,000 wandering the countryside looking for food equals 329,000,000 dead within a month. Eat air?

The term "bought" implies a willing transaction. If I come to your house and tell you I'm taking your possessions and then throw some money at you, the amount which was determined by me, did I "buy" something from you or did I steal it?

My comment about eating air, was to rebut your statement about we can't all be living off the land. Directly or indirectly all people DO live from natural resources or "off the land" and eating air alone won't cut it, plus I was bored and fucking with you. In between rooting around the forest seeking delicious grubs, I sometimes enjoy pointing out irony.

 

[Red1966]

"Taken" implies usurped without compensation. Most of the time, land "taken" by eminent domain is purchased at far above the market value. I'll let you go back to eating grubs now. Ewww!

 

[Rob Roy]

"Taken" implies usurped without compensation. Most of the time, land "taken" by eminent domain is purchased at far above the market value. I'll let you go back to eating grubs now. Ewww!

No, I think you are wrong and so does logic.

"Taken" in this context means "without consent of the owner". If the compensation or amount of it was the key element, you could go and fuck somebody and then tell them, hey that was about equal to that $50 whore I banged last week. Here, let me give you "fair market value" as you zip up and toss them a Ulyssess Grant. Consent and without consent seems to be a major comprehension issue in these environs. You're a pretty smart guy, but until you learn to tell the difference between willing and unwilling you're still rationalizing.

 

[abandonconflict]

Perhaps you are not.

However there exists an undeniable acceptance that to take from one party and "give" to another is a role of government. This acceptance is of course, something many will deny or once pinned down will rationalize, but it only goes to perpetuate the never ending back and forth. Some never escape this paradigm and are doomed to their two dimensional life. This is because many people don't question the system itself, they think by replacing a "leader" or two the leaky boat will become a Yacht.

I say get out of the water and walk on solid ground. Proliferate ideas of peace and freedom and in the meantime, ignore bad laws, live an honest life and never shit on the floors at Wendy's.

That is why the gov't protects private property.

 

[NoDrama]

Says our resident 1%er.

Wasn't always like that though, I spent the majority of my life in the bottom 50%.

 

[UncleBuck]

without a few rich people, most of us would starve!

 

[Rob Roy]

That is why the gov't protects private property.

Okay, not get all Dr. Kynes on you, but what is your definition of private property? I think it's important to define what is and what can be private property in order to have a discussion about it, yes?

Do you include a person's physical being in your definition of private property ? Possessions? Natural resources?

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Wasn't always like that though, I spent the majority of my life in the bottom 50%.

I hope your Ferrari is in the shop!

 

[abandonconflict]

Okay, not get all Dr. Kynes on you, but what is your definition of private property? I think it's important to define what is and what can be private property in order to have a discussion about it, yes?

Do you include a person's physical being in your definition of private property ? Possessions? Natural resources?

People should never be property. Most possessions the same unless they possess nuclear weapons or extremely rare medicine or stuff like that. I wouldn't include most natural resources either.

That doesn't sound like the way Kynes would have replied. It was a straight forward and civil query.

It's not up to me to dictate what should be property. I don't even think like that. I object to status quo and I am glad that the discussion goes there.

 

[Rob Roy]

I agree that people as property is a bad path. What I meant was, what in your opinion is possible to justly own as private property?

 

[abandonconflict]

I agree that people as property is a bad path. What I meant was, what in your opinion is possible to justly own as private property?

I use the term personal property to refer to it and private property to refer to what I oppose. I think that the nonaggression principal is a good guide. We need to have this discussion but with many more participants

 

[Rob Roy]

I use the term personal property to refer to it and private property to refer to what I oppose. I think that the nonaggression principal is a good guide. We need to have this discussion but with many more participants

Okay. Another time then.

 

[abandonconflict]

Okay. Another time then.

I don't think anyone else cares. I also don't think hereditary ownership of the means of production and resources reconciles with the nonaggression principal.

I don't know where to draw the line. I am inviting ridicule by admitting it but it is just honesty.

 

[Rob Roy]

I don't think anyone else cares. I also don't think hereditary ownership of the means of production and resources reconciles with the nonaggression principal.

I don't know where to draw the line.

An honest answer. Thank you.