- 29 Dec 2014 20:19
#14504216
Wealth commensurate with contribution.
A wage obtained by production, not privilege.
Since when does a libertarian believe that opposition to privilege and injustice is nothing but class envy?
First, ban the use of public airwaves for privately funded political campaigns. Next, provide equal publicly funded media access to all candidates.
A lot of rich people are getting richer off privilege and subsidies because they have bought Republicans. And you want more of that.
Rich, greedy takers get an order of magnitude more from government subsidies than the poor (roughly 40% of GDP vs 4%), and they number an order of magnitude fewer (1% vs 10%).
Did you ever consider that they have been systematically deceived about it?
They compromised plenty. Slavery is just one obvious example.
It's worse now, obviously. Statistics show that rich, greedy takers have basically taken everything working people have earned over the last 30-40 years.
Because the super wealthy are using government to rob me of what I have earned, so that they may get richer without earning it.
So, you agree with the Founding Fathers that only white male landowners should be allowed to vote....?
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.
"Achievers" is just feudal libertarian code for, "rich, greedy takers, parasites and crooks."
We recognize that the government is not our friend, yet many of us have overlooked the fact that unchecked accumulated wealth also isn't in our favor either.
Reason10 wrote:How would you define "properly checked accumulated wealth?"
Wealth commensurate with contribution.
Where in your statist opinion is a legal MAXIMUM WAGE?
A wage obtained by production, not privilege.
Since when does a libertarian believe in CLASS ENVY?
Since when does a libertarian believe that opposition to privilege and injustice is nothing but class envy?
How would YOU regulate the money in politics as the self appointed king?
First, ban the use of public airwaves for privately funded political campaigns. Next, provide equal publicly funded media access to all candidates.
Our elections are bought out by lobbyists and PACs.
A lot of people are on welfare and their votes are bought by Democrats. And you want more of that.
A lot of rich people are getting richer off privilege and subsidies because they have bought Republicans. And you want more of that.
Rich, greedy takers get an order of magnitude more from government subsidies than the poor (roughly 40% of GDP vs 4%), and they number an order of magnitude fewer (1% vs 10%).
Why isn't marijuana legalized yet?
Did you ever consider that the country as a whole doesn't want it legalized?
Did you ever consider that they have been systematically deceived about it?
Why aren't there compromises on gun control?
Could be that pesky...uh...SECOND AMENDMENT. Funny how the Founding Fathers weren't really in the mood to compromise.
They compromised plenty. Slavery is just one obvious example.
Politicians are not free to make decisions without the consideration of whether lobbyists will drop their funding for a certain act. The fact is that the top are playing us for their benefit, and most of us have been going along with it.
When has that ever been any different?
It's worse now, obviously. Statistics show that rich, greedy takers have basically taken everything working people have earned over the last 30-40 years.
Why can't the government be re purposed to counteract the influence of the super wealthy?
Why is that any of your business?
Because the super wealthy are using government to rob me of what I have earned, so that they may get richer without earning it.
Shouldn't SuperPACs and campaign contributions be limited, since fair elections are a right?
No one ever said fair elections were a right. The Founding Fathers certainly never said that.
So, you agree with the Founding Fathers that only white male landowners should be allowed to vote....?
Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that.
Why is net neutrality about to be abandoned, paving the way for the elite to destroy the last bastion of free speech?
You seem to be the one in this discussion wanting to curb the free speech of the achievers.
"Achievers" is just feudal libertarian code for, "rich, greedy takers, parasites and crooks."