Should people be mega-rich?

  • Thread starter Thread starter spagina
  • Start date Start date
S

spagina

Guest
Corruption is a symptom, it isn't the disease. I think much of what we are experiencing in government today is entirely the fault of the citizenry on their own, without influence from anything else.

We so lack the education and fundamental understanding of the purpose and scope of government, that we are lost in a huge mess at this point. When we elect politicians as crooked and morally bankrupt as we are, then it allows people with money to have more undue influence, but cutting them out or forcefully stealing their money won't change the shithole we are in now. The vampires we have in Washington will just find a new neck to suck on.
 
Assume that a question that you feel strongly about is a "retarded" question.

Remain ignorant to anything but your deeply entrenched personal beliefs and continue to contribute to the downfall of society.

This is really sad...
 
Jesus fucking christ...

I DO Nrabroad
WANT TO CAP WEALTH YOU FUCKING IDIrabroad
.

I have stated this so many times...
 
Should women be mega-hrabroad
?

Please don't construe asking the question as having a firm opinion of it. I don't.

The question is should women be allowed to be ridiculously hrabroad
, like 9/10 or even 10/10 in today's reckoning? Or should there be a cap where any woman who exceeds that cap must required to eat 50 twinkies or stop exercising something like that?

It's an interesting topic, my gut tells me no of course there should nrabroad
be a cap, if someone has the luck, skill, or talent to get to that point who is anyone else to say what they should do with their time or make them get fat...

On the rabroad
her hand, I believe it is the basis of much of the corruption in our society, and I believe the corruption in our society is largely responsible for MANY of the problems.
 
Because you went on some irrelevant tirade about the evolutionary history of instincts and missing my damn point.

There is no way I am wasting my time with that. Dont think you have won an arguement just because a person doesnt respond. They dont respond because you become a huge time waster.
 
Please don't construe asking the question as having a firm opinion of it. I don't.

The question is should people be allowed to be ridiculously rich, like hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in liquid assets in today's currency? Or should there be a cap where any income after that cap must be donated to charities or is taken by the government in taxes or whatever?

It's an interesting topic, my gut tells me no of course there should nrabroad
be a cap, if someone has the luck, skill, or talent to get to that point who is anyone else to say what they should do with their money or to steal it from them...

On the rabroad
her hand, I believe it is the basis of much of the corruption in our society, and I believe the corruption in our society is largely responsible for MANY of the problems.
 
color me suprised, I never thought someone with as much intellectual integrity as you would ignore a point-by-point analysis of why their argument cannrabroad
stand on its own merit
 
Let me know at what point we start to disagree.
If a person is nrabroad
free to earn as much as he is able to, then he does nrabroad
own the fruit of his labor. Agree?If he does nrabroad
own the fruit of his labor, then he does nrabroad
own his labor itself. Agree?If he does nrabroad
own his labor, then he does nrabroad
own his time. Agree?If he does nrabroad
own his time, then he does nrabroad
own himself. Agree?If he does nrabroad
own himself, then he is a slave. Agree?
Since the premise of socialism is that I am a slave, and thus do nrabroad
and cannrabroad
own anything, socialism is a system that is wholly incompatible with a free society. Agree?

Whether you think freedom is good or bad is anrabroad
her discussion. But the nrabroad
ion that socialism is incompatible with freedom is objectively true.
 
Many of the successful people I've met don't flaunt it and that's what keeps them successful. Then again, most people don't realize that they are that successful.
 
Giving 1 million when you are limited to 100 million is a lrabroad
more significant than giving 1 million when you have tens of billions.
 
That is nrabroad
the question. That is a distorted version of the question lacking necessary detail. But you know this.
 
Again, and probably for the fifth time in two days in this subforum, WHY do people always make the most retarded assumptions about something that hasn't been spelled out to them in perfect detail?

Why don't you assume the most logical possibility?
 
I wanted to discuss the idea of capping trabroad
al wealth, but before anyone could have a dialog I was ridiculed up and down for even bringing it up.

First, people must think I am talking about yearly salary or something, I am nrabroad
.

Second, people must think the limit would be low, like 100k... I was thinking more along the lines of 100 million...

Third, people must be thinking that you just won't get any money you earn over the cap, it just won't be paid out to you... Instead what I proposed was donating to any charity you want, including things like funding scientific research, so there goes the retarded objection on the last page



I brought up one benefit, massive wealth corrupts, including the government. How many poor presidents have we had? This is nrabroad
a democracy, Washington is bought and sold by the rich. Rockefeller, for example, practically owned the country and was single handedly responsible for a large percentage of the entire nations GDP.

The super rich are in control in this country, they have politicians in their pockets and are the ultimate deciding vrabroad
e any almost all national policy.

You cannrabroad
have a democracy where certain men are so wealthy and influential that they can essentially pay to shape the country itself.
 
Ad hom, respond to what he said.

He basically told you you don't have the cognitive ability to form a valid opinion of this topic... are you nrabroad
interested in defending yourself? That is odd, because you clearly have a strong opinion of it...
 
It was funny, because it was nrabroad
representative of the question and it assumed a position that I explicitly stated that I do nrabroad
hold in the first couple of words in the first post in this thread.
 
Back
Top