Eat The Poor

I have no problem understanding the privileged. I just place a pillow against the wall, bury the top of my head in it and perform a headstand. After a multi-minute lean against the wall, the blood rushing into my brain causes dizziness. Once I straighten back up, it's all clear to me. Now that I have looked at the world from what is to me the opposite perspective, I feel I can understand the silver spooned mentality.

After all, people who have had it easy their whole life are far more likely to find something amiss during tough times. All you need to do is look at the multitude of mega millionaire pads up for sale to know that something's wrong on the gilded side of the tracks. What I cannot figure out, however, is what the poor people are complaining about? Having grown up with a year round air conditioning system provided by the holes in my socks and pockets I just don't get it. Why don't they work harder? I starved (literally and figuratively) to earn a better life for myself and did. The excuses don't make sense to me. I think it that it is a great time to be at the bottom looking up. Improving your situation should be much easier during tough times, for those who are supposedly used to them.

Then again, when I read about what it really means to be "poor in America" it all makes much better sense. The American "poor" are a pathetic, pacified, prattle dependent little joke. They are privileged failures of sloth and incompetence whose living standards in the vast majority of the world's residences would be characterized as way-above-average, or to put it in uniquely American terms: the upper middle class.

Please read over the article linked and explain to me why I should give a shit about some eternal unemployment/welfare benefits recipient bitching to me about life being unfair. Sloth and ineptitude really have truly become so ingrained in mainstream American society that merely expecting people to get off their ass and do something with themselves must be supported by a combination PhD level dissertations, cattle prodding politics and of course, some sort of government subsidy... just to get a conversation started.

Let us consider the following:



80 percent of poor households have air conditioning

Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television

Two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR

Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers

More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation

43 percent have Internet access

One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television

One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo

L'Buffett and Sorosial Security can go ahead and continue their economic moat propaganda. I don't give a damn about the poor or the situations they choose to live in every day. Life's a bitch, you marry one and if you don't give her and yourself a good kick in the ass from time to time she will run you into the fucking ground. I'll keep my sour grapes, determination and reliance on nobody but fucking self. I suggest you do the same...or be like the poor unfortunate poor people rocking the Xbox on their plasmas while their TiVo records their favorite HBO series.

 

Isn't poor technically a household making less than ~$30,000? That's really not too bad in some areas. You're not living like a king, but you're not struggling like you think of when you think "poor".

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough. "There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.
 
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
I have no problem understanding the privileged. I just place a pillow against the wall, bury the top of my head in it and perform a headstand. After a multi-minute lean against the wall, the blood rushing into my brain causes dizziness. Once I straighten back up, it's all clear to me. Now that I have looked at the world from what is to me the opposite perspective, I feel I can understand the silver spooned mentality.

After all, people who have had it easy their whole life are far more likely to find something amiss during tough times. All you need to do is look at the multitude of mega millionaire pads up for sale to know that something's wrong on the gilded side of the tracks. What I cannot figure out, however, is what the poor people are complaining about? Having grown up with a year round air conditioning system provided by the holes in my socks and pockets I just don't get it. Why don't they work harder? I starved (literally and figuratively) to earn a better life for myself and did. The excuses don't make sense to me. I think it that it is a great time to be at the bottom looking up. Improving your situation should be much easier during tough times, for those who are supposedly used to them. Then again, when I read about what it really means to be "poor in America" it all makes much better sense. The American "poor" are a pathetic, pacified, prattle dependent little joke. They are privileged failures of sloth and incompetence whose living standards in the vast majority of the world's residences would be characterized as way-above-average, or to put it in uniquely American terms: the upper middle class.

Please read over the article linked and explain to me why I should give a shit about some eternal unemployment/welfare benefits recipient bitching to me about life being unfair. Sloth and ineptitude really have truly become so ingrained in mainstream American society that merely expecting people to get off their ass and do something with themselves must be supported by a combination PhD level dissertations, cattle prodding politics and of course, some sort of government subsidy... just to get a conversation started.

Let us consider the following:

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning

Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks

Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite television

Two-thirds have at least one DVD player and 70 percent have a VCR

Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers

More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation

43 percent have Internet access

One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD television

One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo

L'Buffett and Sorosial Security can go ahead and continue their economic moat propaganda. I don't give a damn about the poor or the situations they choose to live in every day. Life's a bitch, you marry one and if you don't give her and yourself a good kick in the ass from time to time she will run you into the fucking ground. I'll keep my sour grapes, determination and reliance on nobody but fucking self. I suggest you do the same...or be like the poor unfortunate poor people rocking the Xbox on their plasmas while their TiVo records their favorite HBO series.

I totally agree. Too many people think they deserve benefits from the government, and yet still want to live a easy life. If this goes on for another 10 years the US will be no different from Greece, or European countries in general.

 

the first thing any poor American should do - buy a device called TiVo. Freedom means nothing if you're a slave to regular programming. I promise you that.

Some of these things aren't exactly luxury items, although now that I think about it, I don't even have air conditioning.

Also, it's one thing to get yourself out of this type of situation when it's just you. It's a completely different situation when you're a single mom/dad trying to support 3 kids.

 

Midas, how could someone as smart as you use the Heritage Foundation's misleading talking points on this matter? I say this as someone who normally respects their work, but the fact is that they really misconstrue the situation here.

Back in college, I got to spend a week helping poor seniors do work around their homes.

It was deplorable. Yes, they have televisions and appliances. Those televisions had tarps laying on top of them so that they didn't get wet when it rained and water leaked through the roof.

Yes, they had two rooms per person. But it hit me that they weren't truly "rooms" when a friend stepped on a rotting floorboard and fell into a pool of water underneath the house. We later found out that the water had gotten there after leaking out of one of the pipes from the toilet.

It is very tough being poor in this country. The correct response isn't that these people don't deserve help- I'm not sure if they do or they don't. The correct response is that we are nearly bankrupt as it is and we can't afford to help them.

Midas, you want a drug intervention for a relative who drinks half a glass of light beer every night, when in reality, we need to have a Suze Orman moment where we lovingly tell them that WE'RE going broke and WE don't have the money to bail them out any more. The truth is that being broke is all the justification you need to stop giving money to other people.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
Midas, how could someone as smart as you use the Heritage Foundation's misleading talking points on this matter? I say this as someone who normally respects their work, but the fact is that they really misconstrue the situation here.

LOL. Somebody's been brushing up on his client facing skills. Good to have you back, my friend. I would happily quote SPUSA if their data was valid and pertinent. Is information invalid if we dislike the source?

IlliniProgrammer:
Back in college, I got to spend a week helping poor seniors do work around their homes.

It was deplorable. Yes, they have televisions and appliances. Those televisions had tarps laying on top of them so that they didn't get wet when it rained and water leaked through the roof.

Yes, they had two rooms per person. But it hit me that they weren't truly "rooms" when a friend stepped on a rotting floorboard and fell into a pool of water underneath the house. We later found out that the water had gotten there after leaking out of one of the pipes from the toilet.

Now now, who's the smart guy playing dumb. You know full well I am talking about healthy, physically and mentally capable adults who choose to pimp the system, often working under the table or using oblique forms of planned bankruptcy to sit at home and do nothing. Also, I have had a bit of experience with the impoverished and elderly, myself the television sets and everything else in their homes shines a light on their destitute station in life. My point (and I would argue that of the luxuries listed) is that a Plasma, an Xbox, a TiVo, etc are luxury items that many actually employed and hardworking Americans forego to save a buck or two. That buck or two coincidentally goes in the pockets of the people I am referring to.

It is very tough being poor in this country. The correct response isn't that these people don't deserve help- I'm not sure if they do or they don't. The correct response is that we are nearly bankrupt as it is and we can't afford to help them.

Agree wholeheartedly. But as in other discussions we have had: you say tomato, I say tomaeto. My point of view is that telling a spoiled child that daddy lost his job and can no longer afford to buy the nice toys is both a waste of time and nowhere nearly as effective as making the little brat get a paper route and learn on his own.

Midas, you want a drug intervention for a relative who drinks half a glass of light beer every night, when in reality, we need to have a Suze Orman moment where we lovingly tell them that WE'RE going broke and WE don't have the money to bail them out any more. The truth is that being broke is all the justification you need to stop giving money to other people.

You can't apply macro principles to specific cases. To some a keg of whiskey is a weekly habit which does not inhibit their workplace productivity. To some a lick of champale leads to a weak long blackout. I am exaggerating on both fronts to make the point that the vast majority of the poor in this country do not need help, it is simply more economically viable than the combination of their market value and willingness to work. There are also more than a few who are poor and broke because of their own poor decision making.

I am far from heartless, but there is a huge implicit assumption in our current policies that we need to carry the dead weight. The "we are broke and can't afford to drag your carcass" approach is precisely what leads to populism, banker blame and all the other avoidance of responsibility tactics which are at the core of leftist ideologies worldwide.

 
Midas Mulligan Magoo:
Agree wholeheartedly. But as in other discussions we have had: you say tomato, I say tomaeto. My point of view is that telling a spoiled child that daddy lost his job and can no longer afford to buy the nice toys is both a waste of time and nowhere nearly as effective as making the little brat get a paper route and learn on his own.
Midas, that's called projecting. We need to handle this with "I" and "We" statements. If you say, "You don't deserve it", the kid starts asking why. If you say "We can't afford it" (the classic middle-class Dad answer), that's pretty much the end of the discussion. The problem isn't on the poor's end. It's on the federal government's end. You can't argue with it; you can only move on.

The poor might or might not have a problem. I would imagine that every situation is different and there are as many welfare queens as poor grandmas who got DirectTV Christmas gifts from their grandkids but never got their floorboards replaced.

You know full well I am talking about healthy, physically and mentally capable adults who choose to pimp the system, often working under the table or using oblique forms of planned bankruptcy to sit at home and do nothing.
I think a majority of adults under the poverty line are seniors. It would be interesting to see how the numbers changed after you take out grandmas and grandpas getting Christmas gifts of appliances from their kids.
I am exaggerating on both fronts to make the point that the vast majority of the poor in this country do not need help, it is simply more economically viable than the combination of their market value and willingness to work.
True, but I was a moderate Democrat in college and now a moderate libertarian (AKA "RINO"), and there's a trick to catching independent votes. You have to be straightforward and as intellectually honest as possible- just focus on the things that are most favorable for your arguments.

The reason we need to stop spending money on the poor isn't that there's rampant abuse. The fact is that every story is different. The reason we need to stop spending money on poor people is that WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY LEFT! You can't spend money you don't have! (CC: Mayor Ed Koch.)

 
IlliniProgrammer:
It is very tough being poor in this country.
No it isn't. Those pensioners had a roof.

When you work in emerging markets your definition of "poor" changes. That quality of life you describe would place well into the middle class in several large countries which I won't name. Poor is when you walk down the street and people just sleep there night... and day. Just lying there without moving. When there are 6 to a 50 sq ft room (this is "normal" accomodation for taxi drivers, cooks, etc.), sleeping on the floor huddled together, when a fridge is a luxury item one saves for a year to purchase, which enables you to increase your income cos now you can go to the market just once a week instead of twice, when a TV is a status symbol that marks your topping your neighbourhood. Poor is half your family dying before the age of thirty from things like cholera outbreaks in the running water (if you have running water in your home that's already very good). REALLY poor is swapping the rice bag you received from an aid agency for an AK-47 and some ammo even though you are so starving your ribs are showing because it means you have a small chance of surviving an attack from the wandering psychos that plague your country. And except for the last part, I'm talking about countries with large trade surpluses and booming economies.

Illegals (arguably those living in the worst conditions) live pretty well in the US, compared to this. Without minimum wage laws and a welfare state, most of the unemployment bums would be washing dishes, waiting tables, cooking, basically providing the cheap unskilled labour that enables the rest of society to function. Quality of life would be vastly better for all involved, and as for the few unfortunates that were really unable to add value anywhere at any price, they would be helped just like in the olden days before FDR, by their local community. But no politician will have the balls to get through the transition period, so instead we will make token adjustments to welfare, screw everybody via inflating away the quality of life of all, until we run out of money and there's nobody bigger who needs to run a trade surplus to drag themselves out of the third world, and voila, Atlas Shrugged ending.

 

I had to go down to comcast to get my bill fixed and almost every person in line I would consider low-income, "poor" ppl. Funny thing is, most of them had 150 to $200+ per month cable bills! I had to completely cut out cable tv to save money (don't really have time to watch anyways was my logic and I hate comcast) and so all I pay for is internet.

Yet most of the ppl had cable bills 4x mine and I'm doing pretty good for myself imo. Worst part was, everyone in line was there to pay their bill except me, and they pretty much all paid with cash, and almost none that I saw could pay there full amount...but for some reason they still had a $160 cable bill...? Doesn't add up

 

I had to go down to comcast to get my bill fixed and almost every person in line I would consider low-income, "poor" ppl. Funny thing is, most of them had 150 to $200+ per month cable bills! I had to completely cut out cable tv to save money (don't really have time to watch anyways was my logic and I hate comcast) and so all I pay for is internet.

Yet most of the ppl had cable bills 4x mine and I'm doing pretty good for myself imo. Worst part was, everyone in line was there to pay their bill except me, and they pretty much all paid with cash, and almost none that I saw could pay there full amount...but for some reason they still had a $160 cable bill...? Doesn't add up

 

There are truly poor and there are lower income which the politicians use to inflate the poverty stats.

The government owes you nothing. I owe you nothing. Success comes from within.

I will absolute NOT work for another man. Last time I checked it was me being miserable for almost 7 years past high school while others enjoyed their life. Now that they have realized the errors of their way they expect ME to pay for them.

Only one way to fix this boys. Don't donate money. Do everything possible to minimize your tax roles. No sense donating when the people you are supposed to be helping only want to destroy you.

 
ANT:
There are truly poor and there are lower income which the politicians use to inflate the poverty stats.
Agree: I have sympathy for the truly poor. I'm not giving a handout to the low income.....work harder, I don't know what to tell you, that's all I've ever been told.
Get busy living
 

I love how TheKing whines on every post about the poor and how we all should pay more taxes when he could easily make a huge difference by personally donating his time and money. Unfortunately, this isn't about helping the poor, but controlling everyone else.

 

I would be happy if liberals would just put a limit on things. Like how much money do we have to give "poor" people before those who work can be left alone. Suppose I gave 10K personally to a poor family, could I be forever left alone by the bleeding hearts?

If we tripled spending on schools could we never hear "oh the children" anymore? How about quadruple?

At what point have we done enough? If the government takes 90% of what I work for can we finally stop hearing the pissing and moaning?

Guys, welcome to the new America. Nothing is your fault. No one works hard for anything. Whatever you earn is really just the governments which in turn will be given to someone else to buy votes.

 

Sure, but as human beings, we have a duty to correct the social injustice in front of us in our society. When we are in third world countries, that's when we can worry about injustice there.

I see a lot of distracting. The fact is that if I sleep soundly at night and I can put food on the table and I can save money and there is a 90 year old lady three blocks from me who has to avoid certain parts of her floor for fear of stepping through a rotted floorboard, that's something that- though I shouldn't be forced to do anything- I do bear some level of social responsibility to fix.

I do not have a responsibility to folks in Africa or Asia or South America. Those are injustices that I don't see on a daily basis. You take care of your immediate family first, your extended family and friends second, your neighbors third, and other folks in the community fourth. The travails of other countries are a distraction from the social responsibility we have in this country.

 

Exactly. Your community. Read up some tales of the Dust Bowl issues. People pooled up at the local grocery store to make sure the families most affected wouldn't starve; those people were pretty damn indebted and did their best to be productive as fast as possible. It was an incredible way of life, the community spirit was much tighter than it is now (honestly how many of you know your neighbours in whichever high rise you are living?). Now your money is siphooned away by a greedy government (who only keeps ~25%, I guess this is better than the 95% in India) and redistributed to people completely alien to you who are not thankful for it, on the contrary, feel injustice (rightly) and alienation and hate you for being charitable.

I disagree with "you have a duty to help those unfortunate". You have no duty whatsoever. You have the right to the pursuit of happiness and to have your individual rights upheld by the State, and that's where it ends. Now should you choose to share the happiness you have found in life with those less currently happy, then that's perfectly moral but it is not a higher value and it should be left to your choice. Altruism - that is the sacrifice of the self for the benefit of others - is a terrible, destructive philosophy, and I've seen so many people in finance or who have otherwise done very well in life who are destroyed from the inside by this philosophy that I feel the need to point it out.

You are comfortable in America because when you initially were not comfortable, some smart guys decided that it was best to focus on individual rights and enabling the success of any individual rather than designing yet another great new society with a big heart. Despite strong opposition, the rest became history. Compare and contrast the French and American revolutions; the French revolution sought to go further than to free the serves, it also wanted to uphold a new social order and put "social cohesion" ahead of individual rights (most visibly via the chopping of thousands of heads). Which rules the world now?

The proverbial sharing of the pie is so tempting most nations never make it past that stage. I find India most devastatingly depressing in that aspect - Gandhi and Nehru managed to make the country regress over 50 years, and only when they went bankrupt could they move out of communism.

 

Yes, but if we get the government out of the wealth redistribution process on bitterness, snark, and "you don't deserve it", we won't have a community when we're done. The feds are getting out of the welfare business because "It's not the government's job" and "we don't have the money." Whether poor people have entitlement complexes is something that can be determined on the individual and community level. We don't need to get into that right now.

 

That's why I say no politician will ever have the balls to go through the transition period (which might last a generation) and thus we will inevitably drive off the cliff.

I recommend Tanzi's "Argentina: an economic chronicle" for a detailed look at what it's like.

 

Well to be honest, I think we've been going through it really since Clinton's welfare reforms. Reagan's election in 1980 signalled the end of the expansion of the welfare state, and Clinton/Newt signalled the end of its increasing scope. Over the past ten years, non-entitlement domestic spending has come down on an inflation-adjusted basis. So I am not too pessimistic about this (though not optimistic either.)

There are going to be a lot of poor and hungry people in this country when we are done. Perhaps including even some of the bankers reading this. But the country will make it through. It will probably take another 10 years until our government has the scope (and better finances) of a pre-1900 democracy.

 

Dude, I remember building houses for the poor and they had to help us build to earn sweat equity. But when I went back in a year or two to check out my work, the house was a piece of shit.

You could give these people a $3MM home and they would still find a way to wreck the shit out of it. A lot of these people bring those horrible living conditions upon themselves by being lazy and not maintaining their homes and watching their spending habits.

Another story. I remember I asked this low-income family kid why he didnt try harder in school if he knew he could leave and work his way up to middle-class and even upper-class. He told me he wouldn't need to work harder if the korean immigrants never moved into his neighborhood. What kind of attitude is that?!

 
couchy:
Dude, I remember building houses for the poor and they had to help us build to earn sweat equity. But when I went back in a year or two to check out my work, the house was a piece of shit.

You could give these people a $3MM home and they would still find a way to wreck the shit out of it. A lot of these people bring those horrible living conditions upon themselves by being lazy and not maintaining their homes and watching their spending habits.

Another story. I remember I asked this low-income family kid why he didnt try harder in school if he knew he could leave and work his way up to middle-class and even upper-class. He told me he wouldn't need to work harder if the korean immigrants never moved into his neighborhood. What kind of attitude is that?!

Have had similar experiences. "If you give a man a fish..."

 
couchy:
Dude, I remember building houses for the poor and they had to help us build to earn sweat equity. But when I went back in a year or two to check out my work, the house was a piece of shit.

You could give these people a $3MM home and they would still find a way to wreck the shit out of it. A lot of these people bring those horrible living conditions upon themselves by being lazy and not maintaining their homes and watching their spending habits.

Another story. I remember I asked this low-income family kid why he didnt try harder in school if he knew he could leave and work his way up to middle-class and even upper-class. He told me he wouldn't need to work harder if the korean immigrants never moved into his neighborhood. What kind of attitude is that?!

People are poor many times because they can't do little things correctly. I used to manage a store years ago and cashiers would show up drunk, high, on their cell phones, not work, yell at people, let their friends steal. These people needed a job and this is how they treated it.

Liberals are about control, not helping anyone. This idea that they want to help the poor is comical. The poor are used like cannon fodder. Increasing taxes does one thing and one thing only, increase the size and power of government.

Let's face it. The people crying loudest for taxing the rich, punishing them and helping the poor are the poor. These people have the lowest educational attainment and cannot understand how $1.00 given to the government becomes $.05 cents by the time it reaches them. They also don't realize that if a business owner has to pay more in taxes they will just lay people off. No one is going to altruistically screw themselves and make less money.

I feel bad for these people. To dumb to get out of their own way.

 
ANT:
couchy:
Dude, I remember building houses for the poor and they had to help us build to earn sweat equity. But when I went back in a year or two to check out my work, the house was a piece of shit.

You could give these people a $3MM home and they would still find a way to wreck the shit out of it. A lot of these people bring those horrible living conditions upon themselves by being lazy and not maintaining their homes and watching their spending habits.

Another story. I remember I asked this low-income family kid why he didnt try harder in school if he knew he could leave and work his way up to middle-class and even upper-class. He told me he wouldn't need to work harder if the korean immigrants never moved into his neighborhood. What kind of attitude is that?!

People are poor many times because they can't do little things correctly. I used to manage a store years ago and cashiers would show up drunk, high, on their cell phones, not work, yell at people, let their friends steal. These people needed a job and this is how they treated it.

Liberals are about control, not helping anyone. This idea that they want to help the poor is comical. The poor are used like cannon fodder. Increasing taxes does one thing and one thing only, increase the size and power of government.

Let's face it. The people crying loudest for taxing the rich, punishing them and helping the poor are the poor. These people have the lowest educational attainment and cannot understand how $1.00 given to the government becomes $.05 cents by the time it reaches them. They also don't realize that if a business owner has to pay more in taxes they will just lay people off. No one is going to altruistically screw themselves and make less money.

I feel bad for these people. To dumb to get out of their own way.

you really cant help those people..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/17/opinion/blow-for-jobs-its-war.html?re…

 

ANT, and other republicans (not trying to label anybody) on WSO.. Where do you believe is the best place for social welfare programs in America? I am pro-free market, but if we eliminate a lot of welfare policies I don't believe children should be punished for their parents laziness when it comes to healthcare, and education. What are the counter-arguments to spending on those areas? (besides libertarian rhetoric)

 
Best Response

I usually just browse these forums, but felt compelled to respond after reading the comments in this posting. Saying that 'these people need to help themselves' is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Furthermore, saying that these poor people are in such a situation because of their laziness, ineptitude etc., is an oversimplification as well, and there is simply no way to test such a hypothesis. My parents, their parents, and myself did not come from wealth, and nor were any of us handed anything. We all worked incredibly hard for everything, as I'm sure many of the users of this forum have as well. But hard work is only one variable in the equation of success and wealth attainment. What do you say to a child being raised by a single mother, who for whatever reason doesn't have enough money to feed her son? Do you tell the kid 'Sorry, but your mom is just too damn lazy'? No, that's not what you tell her. You help her out if you have any bit of compassion. If you say 'F*** you' instead, you most likely end up with another child who grows up thinking the world doesn't give a shit about him, and he's right for thinking that. Is this going to help break the vicious cycle of poverty? What good does that do for our economy? I understand that people don't want higher taxes, etc., but please, do not insult poor people and their plight by saying how stupid and lazy they are. Such an argument only reveals your own stupidity and insecurity about your own future prospects.
Furthermore, please don't complain anymore about taxing the rich until you truly are one of the rich. The majority of you would not be wasting your time posting hateful comments if you actually were in the top 1% of wage earners.
Seriously--you'll never be truly rich until you stop caring so much about money and start caring more about what really matters.

 
econecon:
But hard work is only one variable in the equation of success and wealth attainment. What do you say to a child being raised by a single mother, who for whatever reason doesn't have enough money to feed her son? Do you tell the kid 'Sorry, but your mom is just too damn lazy'? No, that's not what you tell her. You help her out if you have any bit of compassion. If you say 'F*** you' instead, you most likely end up with another child who grows up thinking the world doesn't give a shit about him, and he's right for thinking that. Is this going to help break the vicious cycle of poverty? What good does that do for our economy? I understand that people don't want higher taxes, etc., but please, do not insult poor people and their plight by saying how stupid and lazy they are. Such an argument only reveals your own stupidity and insecurity about your own future prospects.
Furthermore, please don't complain anymore about taxing the rich until you truly are one of the rich. The majority of you would not be wasting your time posting hateful comments if you actually were in the top 1% of wage earners.
I'm quoting you as you are the most representative, but this post goes to all the wannabe Robin Hoods on this thread.

Who, out of a robber pointing a knife to my chest, or you, is on the higher moral plane? The robber is. Because he at least has the balls to go up to me and put the knife to my throat before taking my property. You prefer to go the sneaky way and guilt politicians and the public into voting into law mass looting "for the greater good".

What is money? It is your time and effort, the product of your mind and hard work. It is the struggles you have endured, the sacrifices you have made, the time you have spent away from your family and the relationships that have failed because you were up at 2am printing those damn documents for tomorrow's board meeting (or baking those loaves of bread at a Walmart factory). Money is a lot more than just money, it is your LIFE. The American concept (germinated in around 1776 or so) that a man should own his own life is the basis for every single ounce of happiness we are able to enjoy today. Those who wish to take it away would prefer to be benevolent lords ruling over grateful serves.

And that's where the problem is. Every man has a right to the pursuit of happiness. The PURSUIT. No man has a "right" to the time, work and money of others save via the taxation-funded defense of his individual rights (vs FDR's definition circa 1930s). What you are saying when you are asking me to pay - via the IRS' gun pointed at my head - is "you do not own your life; "the greater good" owns your life and we are putting it ahead of you".

If you want to take my property by force, at least be a man and come with a gun. Point it at my head and say "transfer this amount to this purpose". But don't use the backdoor of guilt and the supposed moral high ground to destroy everything America stands for.

Of course inheritance is unfair. Some people are born well. Others not so. Let me use two simple metaphors: the first, imagine you are not very good looking, overweight, and not very smart either. In fact you're one of those pot smoking larvae collecting welfare checks described earlier. What gives you the right to marry Angelina Jolie? Nothing. You will probably not even be able to breed. Breeding is a privilege which is earned. Those unfortunate physically at least have the chance to shine elsewhere to compensate - check out the number of high powered men with stunning wives who are very short, from Sarkozy to Kravis. When you argue for stealing from Peter to give to Paul, you are arguing for forcing Peter's girlfriend to sleep with Paul.

Now imagine you have achieved well in life, as you have, from a poorer background. You now have three children and you want the best for them, for example for them to go to Harvard. Should you sacrifice their education on behalf of it being unfair for those like you who did not have wealthy parents? Should there be a giant lottery and the taxpayer pick up the bill for the winners?

It used to work like this: you arrived as an unemployed, unskilled immigrant from Warsaw or Sicily. You started a small cloth shop. You encouraged your son to go to school and sacrificed your early life so that he could afford books. He graduated an accountant or a lawyer. If he was brilliant, he could start a law firm or a bank (as was the case in the 80s) and end up almost on top of society. His son could pretend to be President of the United States. Did Abraham Lincoln need a Harvard degree? (I think Lincoln is a scumbag for other reasons, but he fits this example well)

The fight is not at the pragmatic level ("what is for the best") but at the philosophical level ("what is moral"). By encouraging institutionalized looting, you are yourself a dishonest mind.

 

@Spencer - Anything that provides opportunity for those who want. I would like to see school budgets spent more on learning than on sports or other things to make kids feel better. I would like to see the school be year round and the days longer. The summer vacation crap started when kids used to be a part of the family farm. You needed kids to help harvest and work and in order to get as many kids to come to school then gave the summer off. This needs to stop. The school day needs to be extended, especially in inner city schools.

I support additional community colleges, state universities, tech schools. I would like to see a partnership with corporations, so you could have tech schools teaching skills that companies would like so you can have a semi skilled pipeline.

America is about opportunity. The only thing this country needs to provide is the chance, if you so choose. Just like you cannot get in shape without effort, you cannot be successful without effort. There will always be failures, but as long as people fail because they are lazy or give up vs. failing because they don't have a chance, this country will prosper.

@econ - Parenting is the single biggest determiner of a child's success. Making sure they do their homework, kicking their ass if they get in a fight, setting rules and making them know that education is #1, that is how success is created.

BAD PARENTING CANNOT BE SOLVED BY THE GOVERNMENT

Increasing taxes on the ever decreasing amount of people who actually pay taxes is stupid. When you pay nothing you have no right to complain about what another person complains. I think the tax base should be increased and tax rates should be decreased. Taking a mans earnings is a sacred thing. Life, Liberty and Property (as it should be). The government needs to make a beyond a shadow of a doubt case for increasing taxation. What I earn is fundamentally MINE.

I will continue to defend and stand up for what I consider wrong. Regardless of my socio-economic standing. Taxing the rich simply because they wont miss the money is a slippery slope and unethical. The rich pay enough so that 50% pay nothing. I don't expect the poor to pay taxes, but I DO expect them to shut the fuck up and realize that the USA is funded by people other than them.

Liberals are about power and control. Democrats always want to take the higher earners and the corporations more because they vote Republican. Liberals don't care about helping the poor, they don't want the poor near them and they never want to actually help the poor themselves. It is about taking money from people who vote against them and giving it to their slaves, who will do their bidding. The poor are being kept poor and used, to the detriment of the USA as a whole. This country was not built on punitive and vindictive tax policy. This hatred for those who produce is killing this nation. One day Atlas will Shrug.

 

Malthus's thesis was that unless we have really coercive birth control practices, population will always grow until people are marginalized.

As social creatures, we need to give and we need to make people feel that they are loved. That's what private charity is for and it's an indictment of our culture that we don't do enough on that front and the federal government has to get involved.

 

I agree in an aggressive birth control policy. With that said, American's are some of the most generous givers in the world. Problem is you have governments (state, federal, local) that are increasingly taxing the people for control programs masquerading as social programs. The earners and givers have less to give while at the same time feel less giving because of the class warfare.

Private giving is the enemy of the liberal elite. It cannot be controlled and cannot be funnel to people who will in turn reward this largess with their votes.

 

ANT, good point, but how parenting cannot be divorced from the need to provide food for your children, and or have the time to be there for your children, both of which are helped by welfare programs. Without taxes, i.e. without money to run the supposedly evil government, your jobs in finance would not exist and the banking system would be drastically smaller than it is now.
Saying that there is an ever decreasing amount of people who pay taxes is laughable...and again, I was talking about the top 1%, not yourself. Stop reading Ayn Rand and start thinking for yourself.

 

Sorry if that last sentence sounded argumentative ANT, I really don't want this to devolve into an argument. It is a good discussion as is...I just personally don't like Ayn Rand.

 

Listen buddy, how about you try and not insult me and tell me to think for myself. Please quote where I have ever said we should end every single social welfare program? There is a need for food stamps, heating assistance, etc.

People can eat well for very cheaply. Problem is people don't want to eat that way. Rice/pasta based diet, with normal portions and some chicken is all you need. Veggies are cheap also. Problem is people like to buy soda and tasty cakes. Once again, parenting is the issue. You cannot control what people want to eat.

I love how people read "increase the overall tax base and lower rates" and infer that I want zero taxation.

About 50% pay taxes now. The lowest in history (recent history). The % of the US population that pays Federal taxes has been decreasing for a long time now. How is that not "ever decreasing"? In fact, I think the definition of "ever decreasing" is a decreasing amount over a long time period.

I am in the top 10% of income. Not top 1%, but I am in the bracket that pays the lion share of the taxes for this country. So thanks, but no thanks, I will freely mention my displeasure at how this country is developing and the increasing taxes on a decreasing amount.

edited to remove excess cuntiness

 
ANT:
Listen buddy, how about you try and not insult me and tell me to think for myself. Please quote where I have ever said we should end every single social welfare program? There is a need for food stamps, heating assistance, etc.

People can eat well for very cheaply. Problem is people don't want to eat that way. Rice/pasta based diet, with normal portions and some chicken is all you need. Veggies are cheap also. Problem is people like to buy soda and tasty cakes. Once again, parenting is the issue. You cannot control what people want to eat.

I love how people read "increase the overall tax base and lower rates" and infer that I want zero taxation.

About 50% pay taxes now. The lowest in history (recent history). The % of the US population that pays Federal taxes has been decreasing for a long time now. How is that not "ever decreasing"? In fact, I think the definition of "ever decreasing" is a decreasing amount over a long time period.

I am in the top 10% of income. Not top 1%, but I am in the bracket that pays the lion share of the taxes for this country. So thanks, but no thanks, I will freely mention my displeasure at how this country is developing and the increasing taxes on a decreasing amount.

edited to remove excess cuntiness

look brotha you are just telling the truth that no one wants because it does not sound P.C. I am personally tired of paying taxes out the ass every pay check and especially worst when bonus time hits. We don't owe anyone shit, if they are not capable of earning a great living, well then you don't deserve it!!!

 

I didn't read most of the above, but poor is what I saw at the MIT-Wellesley bus stop.

A homeless couple with 6-7 bags of cans, plastic bottles, and blankets were on the bench, and it was raining. The man is slipping toward the edge, and then he falls on the ground head first, lying in a puddle. The woman calls his name repeatedly and implores him to get up. And he just ... gives up. He's lying there, and everyone is looking. He doesn't care anymore.

There is a difference between broke and poor.

 

Having a generous social welfare system keeps the poor, well, poor.

Take an average person currently receiving government aid. When your welfare check provides you with enough cash to afford your rent, food and a plasma TV complete with cable and NFL Sunday ticket, your incentive to work and improve your situation is greatly reduced. As an example of this type of situation, my dad owns an electrical contracting business in a certain island state, and he regularly runs into problems with his employees and their work ethic due directly to easily abused and excessively generous government programs. On several occasions he has had workers claim work-related injuries just weeks into being hired, and has caught them (it's a small town) literally sitting at home, smoking pot making just as much money on unemployment that they would be making working, while my dad is paying for their insurance and social security taxes, among other things. The idea that providing the poor with generous welfare through government programs will improve their situation and increase the overall affluence of this country, is both naive and directly opposed to what made this country so great in the first place. Give people a system in which they are incentivized to work hard and improve their lot in life, the majority of people will do just that. Give people a system that incentivizes sloth and abuse, and they will crack beers and eat Mickey D's on their couch while the government subsidizes their unfortunate situation.

 

I would never eat the poor, they are easily the most likely subset of the population to have some form of fungus or bacterial growth. I would eat Jennifer Aniston though

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 

@EURCHF "What is money? It is your time and effort, the product of your mind and hard work. " And the product of the physical infrastructure provided by the federal and state governments, the education system that reared you, the army that protects your country, the police that guards your street, the welfare system that maybe helped your ancestors (or you?) survive when they were in need, and generally the system that sustains a society that allows you to find the opportunities you exploited to now be here and claim you did it all on your own. Is it theft if this system asks you for a contribution to support it? I don't think so.

 
Jayjay12:
@EURCHF "What is money? It is your time and effort, the product of your mind and hard work. " And the product of the physical infrastructure provided by the federal and state governments, the education system that reared you, the army that protects your country, the police that guards your street, the welfare system that maybe helped your ancestors (or you?) survive when they were in need, and generally the system that sustains a society that allows you to find the opportunities you exploited to now be here and claim you did it all on your own. Is it theft if this system asks you for a contribution to support it? I don't think so.

"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

That's not to say I'd rather pay more taxes, but seriously people, stop making moral high-horse arguments equating taxation with theft. There would be no wealth without a government supported and protected consumer base.

 
Tracer:
Jayjay12:
@EURCHF "What is money? It is your time and effort, the product of your mind and hard work. " And the product of the physical infrastructure provided by the federal and state governments, the education system that reared you, the army that protects your country, the police that guards your street, the welfare system that maybe helped your ancestors (or you?) survive when they were in need, and generally the system that sustains a society that allows you to find the opportunities you exploited to now be here and claim you did it all on your own. Is it theft if this system asks you for a contribution to support it? I don't think so.

"No man is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."

Nice attempt at diverting the thread. For the benefit of those who haven't come across this argument yet and are blasted daily with this kind of BS, teamwork IS selfish and rational. Since the beginning of intelligent animals, living things have teamed together for better results. Lions hunt in packs. Bankers use monkeys to do Excel. These are mutually beneficial relationships which work well because there is an exchange of values taking place.

Actually never mind. I can't be bothered to explain such basic things as selfishness, values, and reason. Because at the end of the day:

That's not to say I'd rather pay more taxes, but seriously people, stop making moral high-horse arguments equating taxation with theft. There would be no wealth without a government supported and protected consumer base.
The proper role of government is the enforcement of individual rights. This is purely because to privatize this enforcement would lead to the destruction of the rights of those who cannot afford the best gangs. Thus, tax money should properly only fund: - the police, to enforce justice; - justice, to protect the rights of men, and arbitrate infringements of rights; - the Army, to protect against external attemps at the infringement of rights.

Any other government role is immoral, PERIOD. There is no compromise. I am willing and happy to contribute any amount of effort, time and money to the protection of individual rights. These legitimate functions of government stand at 26.4% of the 2012 Federal Budget, including Veteran Affairs, the War on Terror, Homeland Security, Disaster Relief and the Treasury. Defense can spike in times of war and I am happy to pay then as I am happy to pay less in times of peace, since victory is necessary at all costs. Tax is necessary, and so are temporary and/or permanent deficits (as capital structure optimization also applies to governments, and debt can lighten the burden on taxpayers especially at negative real rates - who funds themselves with 100% equity?). I do not hate tax, I hate being looted for morally despicable ends by incompetent, morally rotten criminals in Washington and elsewhere.

Jayjay: your argument is along the lines of "you were the recipient of the fruits of generalised looting. Therefore, stop trying to stop the looting, be grateful for receiving some, and allow me to loot you." I hold in the utmost contempt both the argument and those who make it, which I have unfortunately had to deal with considerably in the People's States of Europe (and increasingly also in the USA). However, like Roark, I don't think of you, which seems to have been a mistake since 52.9% of the United States became "you" by 2008.

I grew up in a socialist country, so I know the evil I talk of first hand. Most of you are college aged or in the first few years of your career. Do realise the immense privilege that American citizenship is, even with Obama & co in charge. One day, sitting in the empty first class of a spotless French TGV high speed train, going past bars of concrete welfare buildings covered in graffiti, in areas with over 80% of people on less than minimum wage (but full benefits and on paper, 8 wives), you will understand. A blue passport is certainly the one thing I crave more than anything on this Earth.

 

Taxation, beyond a certain level, IS theft. No one is talking about zero taxation, but lets look at the facts.

50% of this country, and growing, pay zero in Federal taxes.

Not talking about SSI, Medicare, etc, talking about tax money that goes to running this country. Yes, this is because of tax credits and crap, but when you have HALF the population getting something for nothing you have an issue.

Top tax bracket of 35%. Highest corporate taxation. Capital gains tax so you get taxed on what you save and invest, aka double taxed.

State taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, toll roads, cell phone taxes for 911, taxes on airplane tickets, surcharges, fees, tickets, on and on and on. We get milked all the time. And for what?

We have a government that continues to grow and bloat. It wastes so much money you can't imagine. There is no drive for efficiency, for saving money. No drive to get smaller, leaner, etc. Only to grow and take more.

Let's look at me for example.

I pay 4% state tax, 4% city tax. 30-35% tax bracket. When I add up all the taxes I pay, divide it by my gross income, I come out over 33% paid to the government. This isn't factoring in sales tax, the property tax I pay that is lumped into my rent, the tax in my cell phone bill, etc. Not counting traffic tickets I get that simply go to raising revenue for the city. Not counting capital gains on my already taxed money or anything else.

So at the conservative estimate, the government is taking 1/3rd or what I earn. What I went to school for almost 7 years for. What I paid for out of MY OWN POCKET.

Now they want more.

That is theft. Theft with a gun to my head (the IRS). To support and pay for someone else.

Taxes should go down and be spread across everyone. The poor can pay 100 bucks a year. It is about being part of the system.

 

The poor still pay state, local, sales, and property taxes if the jurisdictions they live in levy them. They also pay SSI and Medicare. It's not like they're getting a free ride. Since they rarely save money, their consumption fuels the profits of almost every corporation in the country.

Anyway, I think you're losing focus here. Government spending is not bloating because the poor demand more services. We had a thread about this a few months back where I posted the .xls of the federal government's itemized budget and welfare (non UI) handouts were less than 5% of the federal budget (might even be just 1-2%, I forget).

I would rather we stop spending our money building infrastructure in countries we blew up and the security theater bullshit that is the TSA.

 

See, this is a point of contention. Defense spending is about 20% of the budget. The majority is SSI, Medicare/caid, social programs, etc. Then there is another 20% that includes various agencies, etc.

If we focused on shutting down wasteful agencies. Ended Federal pensions and moved to a defined contribution plan and tried to reduce over spending and inefficiencies, I think we could all pay less and get more (and better) services.

 

I also have no issue with the poor not paying taxes. I DO have an issue when these people who are getting a free ride try and jack rates or penalize those who actually produce in this country.

When you are a free loader it is best that you shut your mouth and say thank you instead of complaining. Nothing worse than a complainer who contributes nothing.

 
ANT:
I also have no issue with the poor not paying taxes. I DO have an issue when these people who are getting a free ride try and jack rates or penalize those who actually produce in this country.

When you are a free loader it is best that you shut your mouth and say thank you instead of complaining. Nothing worse than a complainer who contributes nothing.

This was the post I was referring to.

When I read your second paragraph I can't help but think of hedge fund managers paying capital gains tax rates on their incomes.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/Is%20-Tax%20Day-%20Too%20Bu…

ANT, I think it is a mischaracterization to say the poor do not pay taxes, simply because their federal income tax is zero (or negative). Payroll taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, local taxes, etc.

If you look at that graph, it doesn't really look to me like the rich are getting all that screwed, especially when you consider their wealth on absolute terms (rather than relative) compared to tax burdens. You make it sound as though taxes have expanded drastically in the past decade or two- which is the complete opposite of reality.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."
 

Except that we operate in a democracy which affords us the right to vote on what services and functions the government provides (although these days within a fairly narrow spectrum).

 

Poor people do not pay FEDERAL TAXES. I don't know how I can be anymore specific in any of my posts. FEDERAL TAXES are what pays for defense, interest on debt, general social programs, DOE, etc. These programs benefit all of us and only half of us pay.

How am I characterizing anything?

You are looking at wealth and making the value judgement that they have "enough". I do not think that is ethically correct or consistent. The amount of money someone has is irrelevant. The rich pay the majority of the taxes in this country. The poor aren't paying for national defense, the agencies, the federal pensions.

Yet we want to continually take more and more of what someone earns, the sole justification being that they "have enough" (in your opinion).

The USA provides a myriad of safety nets, free public school, low cost state universities, guaranteed federal loans, free health care if you are poor, welfare, heating aid, food stamps, etc. People are free to move around a country the size of all of Europe. There are countless libraries, free internet, etc.

The USA is the land of OPPORTUNITY. Some take this and make millions. Some don't. That is cool. People are free to do whatever. Enough with this punitive taxation and attempts to force things to be "fair" which is really just screwing over people you think have too much and giving it to people who didn't earn the money.

Immigrants come to this country and become wildly successful with the opportunities the US provides. Our own citizens, who know the system, who have the citizenship, cannot do it. I say this is because of an entitlement mentality.

 

@EURCHF "Nice attempt at diverting the thread. For the benefit of those who haven't come across this argument yet and are blasted daily with this kind of BS, teamwork IS selfish and rational. Since the beginning of intelligent animals, living things have teamed together for better results. Lions hunt in packs. Bankers use monkeys to do Excel. These are mutually beneficial relationships which work well because there is an exchange of values taking place."

If you try to use scientific argument concerning this issue, please look at the biological research, not the silly stuff game theorists are digging up to justify their syllogisms. Natural selection operates at the genetic level, behaviour that is individually irrational because it leads to the death of the gene carrier can still be selected for because it ensures the survival of the gene. This insight can be in particular applied to many instances of teamwork and activities for the community. But I don't see why this would have any moral relevance in any case, the person going for the red herring in this case is you I'm afraid. Even if teamwork is often natural, how does that release you from moral obligations?

"The proper role of government is the enforcement of individual rights. This is purely because to privatize this enforcement would lead to the destruction of the rights of those who cannot afford the best gangs. Thus, tax money should properly only fund: - the police, to enforce justice; - justice, to protect the rights of men, and arbitrate infringements of rights; - the Army, to protect against external attemps at the infringement of rights.

Any other government role is immoral, PERIOD. There is no compromise."

I am glad to see you are so solid in your moral convictions but I fail to recognise any kind of argument that would support your fundamental opinions on the the proper scope of state activity and individual rights. "There is no compromise" as an argument is pretty much equivalent to "It is this way because I say so" which surely is suitably existentialist for a libertarian but not quite convincing for people who dont share your opinions yet.

"Jayjay: your argument is along the lines of "you were the recipient of the fruits of generalised looting. Therefore, stop trying to stop the looting, be grateful for receiving some, and allow me to loot you." I hold in the utmost contempt both the argument and those who make it, which I have unfortunately had to deal with considerably in the People's States of Europe (and increasingly also in the USA). However, like Roark, I don't think of you, which seems to have been a mistake since 52.9% of the United States became "you" by 2008."

I would really like to respond to this but as long as you don't give any justifications beyond proclamations for why taxation is looting and public education a crime, I fear I have to wait for your elaboration on the matter.

"I grew up in a socialist country, so I know the evil I talk of first hand. Most of you are college aged or in the first few years of your career. Do realise the immense privilege that American citizenship is, even with Obama & co in charge. One day, sitting in the empty first class of a spotless French TGV high speed train, going past bars of concrete welfare buildings covered in graffiti, in areas with over 80% of people on less than minimum wage (but full benefits and on paper, 8 wives), you will understand. A blue passport is certainly the one thing I crave more than anything on this Earth."

I do understand where you are coming from. Many social security systems are poorly constructed and lead to a certain amounts of waste. However, that does not mean social security measures are immoral in general. Plus, even if it includes some waste doesn't mean it's an evil. If the choice is between the most efficient system in which chunks of people regularly die on the sidelines versus a system with a couple of welfare scroungers in which nobody dies, I think the latter is still the superior option, even if it is a bit of a drag on performance.

 
Jayjay12:
Many social security systems are poorly constructed and lead to a certain amounts of waste. However, that does not mean social security measures are immoral in general. Plus, even if it includes some waste doesn't mean its an evil. If the choice is between the most efficient system in which chunks of people regularly die on the sidelines versus a system with a couple of welfare scroungers in which nobody dies, I think the latter is still the superior option.
I've visited more than 30 countries. In every country the socialism was the same. Change the language and the degree of rot but it is always the same patterns, the same people, the same arguments over and over again. It's all described fairly well in Atlas Shrugged. There's little point in having this argument. You will never change your mind. There is no value in you changing your mind except to yourself. You will continue to argue for more sharing, more tax, more welfare, the greatness of the poor, etc. There are thousands of flaws in your arguments (such as thinking that without a welfare state the poor "just die") but after years of shooting them down I don't care, anymore. Go live in Sweden. You'll love it. Great welfare state. No bonuses though. And 70% income tax. But it's a happy equalitarian society. Go. Try it. Hot blondes too and they all agree with you.
 

I mean this fight is really old. Cicero went on about it 2 millenia ago. There's little value add in taking part in it, except to stem back the advance of the rot. At least in Switzerland we have massive limits on government power, which means tax rates below 10%, everybody on medical insurance, people comfortable with firearms... your hell, my heaven, buddy.

 

@EURCHF "I've visited more than 30 countries. In every country the socialism was the same. Change the language and the degree of rot but it is always the same patterns, the same people, the same arguments over and over again. It's all described fairly well in Atlas Shrugged. There's little point in having this argument. You will never change your mind. There is no value in you changing your mind except to yourself. You will continue to argue for more sharing, more tax, more welfare, the greatness of the poor, etc. There are thousands of flaws in your arguments (such as thinking that without a welfare state the poor "just die") but after years of shooting them down I don't care, anymore. Go live in Sweden. You'll love it. Great welfare state. No bonuses though. And 70% income tax. But it's a happy equalitarian society. Go. Try it. Hot blondes too and they all agree with you."

Yeah, this is an internet forum, why would we bother discussing things here, that would be completely missing the point... And yes, I am sure your argument is flawless, how could it be anything else if its based on cult leader Ayn Rand's ravings, while egalitarians are all just stupid/crazy/deluded. How about you give it a try? I find objectivists a source of endless entertainment, so I would really appreciate it.

"There's little value add in taking part in it, except to stem back the advance of the rot."

Fell free to draw a line into the sand right here.

 

Government has a few true uses. What EURCH mentions are key ones. Anything else is basically one person deciding to do something because THEY think it is right.

Redistribution of wealth is done under the idea that someone else can decide how much money a person should have. Regardless of the circumstances, YOU are making a decision which will mean money being taken from someone who has the legal claim to it.

When people talk about everyone contributing and how we all got rich because this country allowed it, they are right. That is why I am fine paying for the true uses of government. That isn't 35% plus capital gains.

We pay so much and are in so much debt because government has expanded and we are expected to take care of everyone. When you provide entitlements you need to get the money somewhere else. Everyone can have a mediocre existence or some can be poor and some can be rich.

The biggest problem with tax and spend liberals is that they are not happy unless they are forcing everyone else to do what they think. 20% of this country call themselves liberal. Those 20% could volunteer or donate more. Instead they want to force everyone to support their agenda.

Being liberal is fine until you try and force that on everyone else. Then it becomes un American and down right criminal in my book.

 

Being "liberal" - as in wanting to loot from the productive to distribute to the unproductive - is never fine.

I wish we could do nationality swaps. I'll happily swap my European passport for Jay's US one. Both of us will be happier :P

 

@EURCHF Have I given the impression that I am American? I feel honoured but it was unintended. Blindly assuming you were American, I chose US examples to make my point. Oh well... ;-)

@ANT "Government has a few true uses. What EURCH mentions are key ones. Anything else is basically one person deciding to do something because THEY think it is right. "

And what criteria do you apply to decide that the true use is and what isn't. So far, you have provided a list but no argument for your selection.

"Being liberal is fine until you try and force that on everyone else. Then it becomes un American and down right criminal in my book." Though this is your last point, let me start of it because I sense a pattern. In this thread you read a lot about theft or acts that are down right "criminal". You are aware that both of those notions are legal categories which do not in fact apply to the acts you are criticising. (Unless you argue that a given tax is unconstitutional, it is hard to prove that tax law is illegal because its very existence creates legality) This might seem like nitpicking to you but I think is a vital consideration. The prevalence of crime talk in this thread is nothing but cheap rhetoric, trying to use an emotionally charged concept like crime to make a philosophical point unrelated to the concept as such. That is fine if you are aware of it but I get the impression that you actually believe there are on some bizarre layer of reasoning legal factors in play even though there aren't. We are talking ethics here, and nothing else. If you apply some form of natural law, fine, but make that clear please and take my laughter like a man. ;-)

"We pay so much and are in so much debt because government has expanded and we are expected to take care of everyone. When you provide entitlements you need to get the money somewhere else. Everyone can have a mediocre existence or some can be poor and some can be rich."

By "we" I assume you mean the US taxpayer? I do completely agree, the expansion of entitlement spending is a reason for the expansion of the federal budget, though the debt problem is of far more recent origin and might as well be attributed to the wars or Bush tax cuts. Now I keep looking at your last sentence and though I can see it is meant to shock, I cant quite feel it. Your phrasing is harsh but generally I would agree yes, I see nothing wrong with keeping people out of poverty even if it keeps the rich a bit poorer. Not that that is actually happening in the US, considering to what extent inequality and the earnings of the top few percent of the income distribution have massively expanded while the median household's income is in real terms today still at the level of 1996. I find it quite amusing to read your jeremiad in the context of an economic system that has produced a present more accommodating to rich people than any other period since the New Deal.

"The biggest problem with tax and spend liberals is that they are not happy unless they are forcing everyone else to do what they think. 20% of this country call themselves liberal. Those 20% could volunteer or donate more. Instead they want to force everyone to support their agenda."

The obvious answer is that we (well not me and you) are all in it together. If you allow some people to opt out, you make the others feel like suckers and if my memory is not misleading me, there is in fact social psychological research showing that even people who are inclined to behave altruistically are less likely to do so if it is blatantly exploited by the non-participation of others who still reap the benefits in terms of say... social peace, free education for example. (Not that that is a surprising finding...) So I'd say the behaviour of most liberals is quite understandable. They see the US as a community in which people support each other, not just as a mutual defence pact.

 

The US Constitution clearly defines the extent of government. Taking money to support these functions is within the shared agreement that all US citizens make in order for this to work. Redistribution of wealth, nanny state behavior, etc are not defined in the Constitution and now what this country is about.

You can manipulate my words all you want, but taking money that was earned through my effort and being citizen of the USA and spending it on things beyond the Constitutional function of government is theft. Theft being one man taking something that is not his, from another man. What you are taking is my property.

We are all in it together. We have to fight every day to see that the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the ideals that started this country, remain strong. Unfortunately, the USA is home to people who don't care about freedom or property, but only think that they know better. They have a magical right to take what someone earns, wash it through the waste which is over expanded burden and give to others what remains.

You contradict yourself all over the place. Liberals do not see the US as a community. If they did they would respect the people who carry the burden. Instead they milk the golden goose over and over. How is there a shared anything when half pay no Federal taxes?

You talk about income inequality and distribution, which is the classic justification for liberal theft. What does it matter? If someone works hard and earns more, yes, there will be a disproportionate amount of wealth. But it is not just. This is not early England with kings and slaves. We have all the tools for self advancement, yet personal decisions make some successful and some failures.

End of the day you think YOU know better. You want to reward people who YOU think deserve it. I prefer a government that does not make moral decisions and does what government should do, national defense, infrastructure, etc.

 

@ANT "The US Constitution clearly defines the extent of government. Taking money to support these functions is within the shared agreement that all US citizens make in order for this to work. Redistribution of wealth, nanny state behavior, etc are not defined in the Constitution and now what this country is about.

You can manipulate my words all you want, but taking money that was earned through my effort and being citizen of the USA and spending it on things beyond the Constitutional function of government is theft. Theft being one man taking something that is not his, from another man. What you are taking is my property. "

The US Constitution defines very little clearly, and that is why the "nanny-state" is not illegal. Or that is at least what judgements of the Supreme Court as final arbiter of the constitutions suggests. What you are talking about is your personal view which has little backing in the current state of US constitutional doctrine. Once more, nothing but rhetoric. What do you base your superior interpretation on?

"You contradict yourself all over the place. Liberals do not see the US as a community. If they did they would respect the people who carry the burden. Instead they milk the golden goose over and over. How is there a shared anything when half pay no Federal taxes?"

There is no contradiction. In a community, it is quite normal for the stronger to stand up for the weaker.

"You talk about income inequality and distribution, which is the classic justification for liberal theft. What does it matter? If someone works hard and earns more, yes, there will be a disproportionate amount of wealth. But it is not just. This is not early England with kings and slaves. We have all the tools for self advancement, yet personal decisions make some successful and some failures."

Oh please, now it is getting silly. I was not using the unequal income distribution as such as justification for redistribution. I simply used it to point out that your millenarianism is inappropriate because rich people are not in fact getting increasingly beaten up but are flourishing more than ever.

"We have all the tools for self advancement, yet personal decisions make some successful and some failures."

This is the fundamental libertarian conceit. We don't all have the same chances to progress in life, it is as easy as that. And declining social mobility in the US is the ultimate testament to that fact.

"End of the day you think YOU know better. You want to reward people who YOU think deserve it. I prefer a government that does not make moral decisions and does what government should do, national defense, infrastructure, etc."

I don't want to reward anybody, I just want to protect the vulnerable from the worst excesses of poverty.

 
Jayjay12:
There is no contradiction. In a community, it is quite normal for the stronger to stand up for the weaker. ... I don't want to reward anybody, I just want to protect the vulnerable from the worst excesses of poverty.
I have to say this is the first time I hear about the "excesses" of poverty :P

Silver banana to the first who guesses the book:

"Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need. We—what's the matter, ma'am? Why do you look like that?" "What was the name of the factory?" she asked, her voice barely audible. "The Twentieth Century Motor Company, ma'am, of Starnesville, Wisconsin." "Go on." "We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn't too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn't we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn't we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there's some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma'am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn't it? Well, that's what we saw and helped to make—and I think we're damned, every one of us, and maybe we'll never be forgiven. . . . "Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there's a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor's supper—for his wife's operation—for his child's measles—for his mother's wheel chair —for his uncle's shirt—for his nephew's schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you— it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end. . . . From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. . . . "We're all one big family, they told us, we're all in this together. But you don't all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day— together, and you don't all get a bellyache—together. What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings is all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can't? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he's replastered his living room? . . . Oh well . . . Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma'am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family,' and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need' —so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest among six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot? "But that wasn't all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory's production had fallen by forty per cent, in that first half-year, so it was decided that somebody hadn't delivered 'according to his ability’ Who? How would you tell it? 'The family' voted on that, too. They voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren't paid by tune and you weren't paid by work, only by need. "Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been human? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for 'the family,' it's not thanks or rewards that we'd get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who'd ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn't have to care, or through plain incompetence—it's we who'd have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.
 
EURCHF parity:
Jayjay12:
There is no contradiction. In a community, it is quite normal for the stronger to stand up for the weaker. ... I don't want to reward anybody, I just want to protect the vulnerable from the worst excesses of poverty.
I have to say this is the first time I hear about the "excesses" of poverty :P

Silver banana to the first who guesses the book:

"Well, there was something that happened at that plant where I worked for twenty years. It was when the old man died and his heirs took over. There were three of them, two sons and a daughter, and they brought a new plan to run the factory. They let us vote on it, too, and everybody—almost everybody—voted for it. We didn't know. We thought it was good. No, that's not true, either. We thought that we were supposed to think it was good. The plan was that everybody in the factory would work according to his ability, but would be paid according to his need. We—what's the matter, ma'am? Why do you look like that?" "What was the name of the factory?" she asked, her voice barely audible. "The Twentieth Century Motor Company, ma'am, of Starnesville, Wisconsin." "Go on." "We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn't too clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut—because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that this plan would achieve a noble ideal. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn't we heard it all our lives—from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn't we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there's some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan—and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know, ma'am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through the four years of that plan in the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil—plain, naked, smirking evil, isn't it? Well, that's what we saw and helped to make—and I think we're damned, every one of us, and maybe we'll never be forgiven. . . . "Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there's a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you pour it, and each bucket you bring breaks that pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours a week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six—for your neighbor's supper—for his wife's operation—for his child's measles—for his mother's wheel chair —for his uncle's shirt—for his nephew's schooling—for the baby next door—for the baby to be born—for anyone anywhere around you— it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures—and yours to work, from sunup to sundown, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end. . . . From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. . . . "We're all one big family, they told us, we're all in this together. But you don't all stand working an acetylene torch ten hours a day— together, and you don't all get a bellyache—together. What's whose ability and which of whose needs comes first? When it's all one pot, you can't let any man decide what his own needs are, can you? If you did, he might claim that he needs a yacht—and if his feelings is all you have to go by, he might prove it, too. Why not? If it's not right for me to own a car until I've worked myself into a hospital ward, earning a car for every loafer and every naked savage on earth—why can't he demand a yacht from me, too, if I still have the ability not to have collapsed? No? He can't? Then why can he demand that I go without cream for my coffee until he's replastered his living room? . . . Oh well . . . Well, anyway, it was decided that nobody had the right to judge his own need or ability. We voted on it. Yes, ma'am, we voted on it in a public meeting twice a year. How else could it be done? Do you care to think what would happen at such a meeting? It took us just one meeting to discover that we had become beggars—rotten, whining, sniveling beggars, all of us, because no man could claim his pay as his rightful earning, he had no rights and no earnings, his work didn't belong to him, it belonged to 'the family,' and they owed him nothing in return, and the only claim he had on them was his 'need' —so he had to beg in public for relief from his needs, like any lousy moocher, listing all his troubles and miseries, down to his patched drawers and his wife's head colds, hoping that 'the family' would throw him the alms. He had to claim miseries, because it's miseries, not work, that had become the coin of the realm—so it turned into a contest among six thousand panhandlers, each claiming that his need was worse than his brother's. How else could it be done? Do you care to guess what happened, what sort of men kept quiet, feeling shame, and what sort got away with the jackpot? "But that wasn't all. There was something else that we discovered at the same meeting. The factory's production had fallen by forty per cent, in that first half-year, so it was decided that somebody hadn't delivered 'according to his ability’ Who? How would you tell it? 'The family' voted on that, too. They voted which men were the best, and these men were sentenced to work overtime each night for the next six months. Overtime without pay—because you weren't paid by tune and you weren't paid by work, only by need. "Do I have to tell you what happened after that—and into what sort of creatures we all started turning, we who had once been human? We began to hide whatever ability we had, to slow down and watch like hawks that we never worked any faster or better than the next fellow. What else could we do, when we knew that if we did our best for 'the family,' it's not thanks or rewards that we'd get, but punishment? We knew that for every stinker who'd ruin a batch of motors and cost the company money—either through his sloppiness, because he didn't have to care, or through plain incompetence—it's we who'd have to pay with our nights and our Sundays. So we did our best to be no good.

Unfortunately, quoting Atlas Shrugged can explain nothing to a looter.

 

@EURCHF "I have to say this is the first time I hear about the "excesses" of poverty :P"

No surprise there, after all, I assume you have spent most of your life living in countries that provide reasonably decent social security. I do realise though that it could be read as a contradiction in terms. Got carried away by my own rhetoric for once, but you get the meaning. ;-)

 

Strong standing up for the weak assumes a physical weakness or that the weak somehow, through no cause of their own, got weak. I call these people the strong, but with temporary misfortune. Like hard working people who get cancer or get into a car accident and can't work. These are the people who you take care of. The former producers who can't do it anymore.

What you don't take care of or coddle is the people who are lazy, drugged out, criminal, etc. These people were never producers and much more akin to parasites on the system.

The USA provides all the tools of success. The results differ person to person because of effort and determination. Poverty, in most of the circumstances, is someones reward for doing wrong.

Might be a dick thing to say, but becoming a productive member of society is rather easy. Show up to class, don't be disruptive, do your homework, go to a state school (while working part time to minimize debt), study something relevant and employable, don't get anyone pregnant until you can afford a child, etc. Real simple.

People get screwed because of individual choice. They get pregnant at a young age and that screws them. They get arrested for doing dumb shit. They blow off school or don't want to put in the effort. They don't like college or don't want to learn a trade.

Years ago people used to be poor because they had to leave school to take care of a sick parent or work a job. Now people just blow off school. Even when you provide all the safety nets and opportunity, people still fail.

Also, if you want to support people, you do so. I fail to see how it is your right or business to tell me what to do with my money. Liberals control others through their tax policy. In reality, Liberalism is only about control and influence. This helping the poor bullshit is just a mask for increasing government and decreasing personal charity and spending. The poor people are offered some scraps in exchange for their obedience.

Liberalism is the antithesis of what the USA is all about.

 

@ANT "Strong standing up for the weak assumes a physical weakness or that the weak somehow, through no cause of their own, got weak. I call these people the strong, but with temporary misfortune. Like hard working people who get cancer or get into a car accident and can't work. These are the people who you take care of. The former producers who can't do it anymore. What you don't take care of or coddle is the people who are lazy, drugged out, criminal, etc. These people were never producers and much more akin to parasites on the system."

Excellent, so you agree at least to a basic level of social security provision for some, that is a start. Now, I wonder, how do you distinguish between the deserving and the lazy? Most proponents of a welfare state would generally agree with you that the undeserving should not be subsidised (though they might be more inclined to forcing them to work than to letting them die).

"The USA provides all the tools of success. The results differ person to person because of effort and determination. Poverty, in most of the circumstances, is someones reward for doing wrong."

What do you tell children who have grown up in a poor family, having never received the opportunities to develop the skills that come naturally to an upper-class child? It is always easy to point to some of the few poor people that make it out of poverty, but that seems hardly like sufficient explanation, so refrain from citing some individual examples to contradict me and look at the brute numbers instead. If you are comfortable middle class, you are more likely to be successful in life. Does that mean you are somehow innately diligent and hardworking? If you are a child born to a family clearly at the low end of the income distribution, you are considerably less likely to be similarly successful. Now why is that? Is that because these children are born lazy? Or maybe because they are educated in a manner that leads them to remain where they were. You are talking of choice, choice, choice, but how about you consider context. It is pretty easy for the children of well-off to make the right choices because they have great examples in front of them all the time, are encouraged etc. Not so for the poor. So is it solely their fault if they do not succeed while the middle-class child is utterly praiseworthy because it does precisely what everybody tried to make it do all along. It like cheering the hare for beating the turtle in the race. And note, so far I have only spoken of cultural differences, how about the material advantages you can buy like schooling, tuition, university, books, summer camps etc.? Doesn't seem very meritocratic to me. Fact of the matter is, many poor people had the odds massively stacked against them, so blaming their state on their decisions only is absolutely ridiculous, especially if you are the same time praising those who made it though that was to be expected from their social position. But why stop here? How would you deal with the disabled for example? Not hard-working, cannot be restored, just let them die? Look at your lists of the determinants of success. Why do I fail to see natural endowment. There is a considerable correlation between IQ and professional success as far as I am aware. And surely, you can't blame anybody for their genes right? And at the same time, why do you praise people for their intelligence even though they are born with it? I will stop here listing more ways in which the libertarian conceit is wrong. Feel free to address my points though, I am very interested in seeing your response.

"Also, if you want to support people, you do so. I fail to see how it is your right or business to tell me what to do with my money. Liberals control others through their tax policy. In reality, Liberalism is only about control and influence. This helping the poor bullshit is just a mask for increasing government and decreasing personal charity and spending. The poor people are offered some scraps in exchange for their obedience.

Liberalism is the antithesis of what the USA is all about."

Now this would lead to a discussion of the nature of property rights. I'd be up for it, go ahead and tell me why you have a 100% unbreakable claim to the things you own.

 
Jayjay12:
Now this would lead to a discussion of the nature of property rights. I'd be up for it, go ahead and tell me why you have a 100% unbreakable claim to the things you own.
No time for the rest, will just address this.

No, YOU tell ME why YOU have ANY kind of claim of ANY of the things I own. The onus is on YOU, the thief, not ME the man who earned and bought these things.

Don't you see how fucking ridiculous it is for a murderer to say to his victim "prove to me why I shouldn't have a right to kill you"?

 

And this one:

Jayjay12:
If you are comfortable middle class, you are more likely to be successful in life. Does that mean you are somehow innately diligent and hardworking?

I can tell you're a student because you still think, like you are taught at school, that everybody is equal.

The world doesn't work that way. It's not about being just diligent and hardworking. It's about your genes going down if they are superior and the richer kids had better parents. I happen to think a struggle makes a man so the less fortunate kids are in a way in a better position to reach for happiness; but that depends on your definition of succes and is another argument altogether. I have a right for my kids to have a better life than the kids from the ghetto should I be able to earn enough for them to have it. If you do not agree with this, and you have a profitable job, I suggest you swap your own kids with those from a ghetto family with no means and educate the poor kids. I find your suggestion that a man should not be allowed to raise his own kids almost more offensive than your constant attempts at justifying government-backed theft.

PS: "boohoo hoo Ayn Rand/libertarians/Republicans/"The Right Wing" is ridiculous" is not a form of counter argument.

 

@EURCHF "No time for the rest, will just address this." No surprise there because the rest undermines the core assumptions of your argument. Nice cop out.

"No, YOU tell ME why YOU have ANY kind of claim of ANY of the things I own. The onus is on YOU, the thief, not ME the man who earned and bought these things."

Ehm, no, not really. As I see it, when the human civilisation began the world was completely unowned. And some time people began acquiring stuff. Thus, the onus is on you describing how that process was (and still is) legitimate.

"Don't you see how fucking ridiculous it is for a murderer to say to his victim "prove to me why I shouldn't have a right to kill you"?"

Again, your metaphor presupposes a right (to absolutely property) you haven't proven yet to exist in the first place. It is easy to do for the right to life but not for the right you are claiming. Your are just trying to cut short this discussion by saying: "It is this way because I say so and who doesn't agree is stupid". So, once more, I await your reasoning.

"I can tell you're a student because you still think, like you are taught at school, that everybody is equal."

Oh please, spare me your condescension. Your performance in this debate hardly merits that attitude.

"The world doesn't work that way. It's not about being just diligent and hardworking. It's about your genes going down if they are superior and the richer kids had better parents. I happen to think a struggle makes a man so the less fortunate kids are in a way in a better position to reach for happiness; but that depends on your definition of succes and is another argument altogether. I have a right for my kids to have a better life than the kids from the ghetto should I be able to earn enough for them to have it. If you do not agree with this, and you have a profitable job, I suggest you swap your own kids with those from a ghetto family with no means and educate the poor kids. I find your suggestion that a man should not be allowed to raise his own kids almost more offensive than your constant attempts at justifying government-backed theft."

Finally we are getting somewhere and you are revealing your true colours. This is what really pisses me off about libertarians of the Randian kind in the public arena. They are hiding behind a language of rights and only when pushed really hard reveal themselves as merciless Darwinians. I am sure if people just provoked them more often, they would lose a lot of their attractiveness in the eyes of the general population. You are probably aware that most libertarians would disown you for what you just said, though they might secretly agree.

"The world doesn't work that way. It's not about being just diligent and hardworking. It's about your genes going down if they are superior and the richer kids had better parents. I happen to think a struggle makes a man so the less fortunate kids are in a way in a better position to reach for happiness; but that depends on your definition of succes and is another argument altogether."

Better parents? How about luckier parents? You are aware that much of what happens in life is completely out of our control? To give an extreme examples, did the children of American slaves before the Civil War have worse parents? (Now, incidentally, a slaveholder would probably agree) No wonder you decided to avoid the main bulk of my argument that dealt with this point. In any case, you are not actually answering any questions with that statement. What you describe is a fact, i.e. the world is unfair and benefits the strong. For once, that doesn't fit in with your meritocratic philosophy as you have stated it so far. Moreover though, in a discussion about what ought to be, it is a meaningless statement. Just because something IS a certain way doesn't mean it HAS TO BE a certain way in an ethical sense. (and yes, property rights is ethics) So even if the rich have huge advantages, there is no moral reason why that should be so that is justified ONLY by the current state of the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) This is all the more curious because in other respects, you are arguing normatively. Reasoning along your lines I could simply say: The state can and is taking your money, thus it is right.

"I have a right for my kids to have a better life than the kids from the ghetto should I be able to earn enough for them to have it. If you do not agree with this, and you have a profitable job, I suggest you swap your own kids with those from a ghetto family with no means and educate the poor kids. I find your suggestion that a man should not be allowed to raise his own kids almost more offensive than your constant attempts at justifying government-backed theft."

I never suggested that. I just took it as example to show how your ideology is intellectually bankrupt because it is based on extremely flawed assumptions about the nature of human society and its operating principles. Re-read what I wrote, and not what you want to see written to confirm prejudices about liberals.

 
Jayjay12:
Again, your metaphor presupposes a right (to absolutely property) you haven't proven yet to exist in the first place. It is easy to do for the right to life but not for the right you are claiming. Your are just trying to cut short this discussion by saying: "It is this way because I say so and who doesn't agree is stupid". So, once more, I await your reasoning.

...

Finally we are getting somewhere and you are revealing your true colours. This is what really pisses me off about libertarians of the Randian kind in the public arena. They are hiding behind a language of rights and only when pushed really hard reveal themselves as merciless Darwinians. I am sure if people just provoked them more often, they would lose a lot of their attractiveness in the eyes of the general population. You are probably aware that most libertarians would disown you for what you just said, though they might secretly agree.

Your inability to distinguish libertarianism from objectivism shows you have studied neither seriously. Your dismissal of the concept of individual rights shows that you do not consider individuals to exist or have an importance. It's hard to be more general and abstract than that, really. At the end of the day there is no difference between you, Stalin, King Louis the XIVth or Gengis Khan, making any kind of argument impossible. You will keep stating your "views" or lack thereof like a broken record, question everything, say nothing really exists... it's like arguing with a robber who is justifying why he just raped your wife ("there's no such thing as property, especially not of people - she was free for me to take"), killed your kids ("who are you do say that this kid had a right to live?") and taken your money ("there's no such thing as property - I am just taking what was mine in the first place"). The mere fact that you deny the concept of property or the individual makes it impossible to talk to you, so that's it for me with this BS. Please do consider my suggestion of moving to a country that more adequately supports your views, from the least to the most extreme: Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Venezuela, Northern Cali, Cuba. I took this suggestion, and moved from one of the aforementioned to Switzerland. Now I am much happier as the proportion of insane people like you is much lower.

And dude... you're coming onto a FINANCE forum, populated by BANKERS and TRADERS and those trying to become such, and you're saying there's no such thing as property rights? I mean, wow.

Better parents? How about luckier parents? You are aware that much of what happens in life is completely out of our control? To give an extreme examples, did the children of American slaves before the Civil War have worse parents? (Now, incidentally, a slaveholder would probably agree)

Are we living in pre-Civil War times? Incidentally, whilst the war recategorised blacks as humans, it also allowed Lincoln to push through epic federalization of the States thus finishing Hamilton's work and beginning that which you are continuing so eagerly today. By the way, Republicans were the party of the blacks.

What you describe is a fact, i.e. the world is unfair and benefits the strong.

For once, that doesn't fit in with your meritocratic philosophy as you have stated it so far.

Beautiful. A world that benefits the smarter and harder working is not meritocratic. The confusion is epic.

Moreover though, in a discussion about what ought to be, it is a meaningless statement. Just because something IS a certain way doesn't mean it HAS TO BE a certain way in an ethical sense. (and yes, property rights is ethics) So even if the rich have huge advantages, there is no moral reason why that should be so that is justified ONLY by the current state of the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) This is all the more curious because in other respects, you are arguing normatively. Reasoning along your lines I could simply say: The state can and is taking your money, thus it is right.

Just leaving this in because it is so beautifully convoluted. Don't use big words my friend, unless you understand them. And by the way, your problem is one of epistemology ;)

I never suggested that. I just took it as example to show how your ideology is intellectually bankrupt because it is based on extremely flawed assumptions about the nature of human society and its operating principles. Re-read what I wrote, and not what you want to see written to confirm prejudices about liberals.

You are not a liberal. To quote the website you quoted earlier, liberals are "committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.". You are closer to a communist, of the anarchist variety (think Proudhon), since you deny the existence of individual rights. That is why I cannot have an argument with you, and this will be my last word on the matter. Our disagreement is so fundamental there is literally no value in talking further.

 
Jayjay12:
You are aware that much of what happens in life is completely out of our control?
It is PRECISELY because I believe that I control the outcome of my life that I am more successful and more profoundly happy in every aspect of life than the majority of the kids I went to primary school with. Excuses are what people use to feel comfortable about themselves. Here's something for others to chew on: http://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/applications-of-financial-…
 

When did everything start having to be referred to in absolutes? EDUCATION IS A CRIME, TAXATION IS THEFT, etc. How about 'I disagree with the way our education system functions.'

Some of you really need a hobby,

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
 
Your inability to distinguish libertarianism from objectivism shows you have studied neither seriously. Your dismissal of the concept of individual rights shows that you do not consider individuals to exist or have an importance. It's hard to be more general and abstract than that, really. At the end of the day there is no difference between you, Stalin, King Louis the XIVth or Gengis Khan, making any kind of argument impossible. You will keep stating your "views" or lack thereof like a broken record, question everything, say nothing really exists... it's like arguing with a robber who is justifying why he just raped your wife ("there's no such thing as property, especially not of people - she was free for me to take"), killed your kids ("who are you do say that this kid had a right to live?") and taken your money ("there's no such thing as property - I am just taking what was mine in the first place"). The mere fact that you deny the concept of property or the individual makes it impossible to talk to you, so that's it for me with this BS. Please do consider my suggestion of moving to a country that more adequately supports your views, from the least to the most extreme: Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Venezuela, Northern Cali, Cuba. I took this suggestion, and moved from one of the aforementioned to Switzerland. Now I am much happier as the proportion of insane people like you is much lower.

And dude... you're coming onto a FINANCE forum, populated by BANKERS and TRADERS and those trying to become such, and you're saying there's no such thing as property rights? I mean, wow.

...

You are not a liberal. To quote the website you quoted earlier, liberals are "committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.". You are closer to a communist, of the anarchist variety (think Proudhon), since you deny the existence of individual rights. That is why I cannot have an argument with you, and this will be my last word on the matter. Our disagreement is so fundamental there is literally no value in talking further.

I have no idea why you are responding to Strawman-me instead of what I really write but so be it: Show me where I claimed there are no property rights!! You won't be able to because my denial of these only exists in your imagination. I asked you to justify your belief in a very specific set of property rights that is so divine that nobody could ever break it for any reason without being labelled a thief or looter. For that kind of property rights, your justification is still lacking and every time I ask for it you just throw more abuse at me. I do believe in property rights like any sane person in this world. I just don't think they are so unlimited that they make all taxation for the provision of a minimal welfare state theft.

Are we living in pre-Civil War times? Incidentally, whilst the war recategorised blacks as humans, it also allowed Lincoln to push through epic federalization of the States thus finishing Hamilton's work and beginning that which you are continuing so eagerly today. By the way, Republicans were the party of the blacks.

This is getting seriously annoying. How about you answer to what I really write instead of throwing one ridiculous red herring after the other. Here, look at it again: "Better parents? How about luckier parents? You are aware that much of what happens in life is completely out of our control? To give an extreme examples, did the children of American slaves before the Civil War have worse parents? (Now, incidentally, a slaveholder would probably agree)" Why do you think I brought this up? Here are the two options a) to discuss the American civil war (that seems to be what you think because all of your answer is referring to that point b) give an example of how our fate in the world can be completely dependent on luck and how that undermines your belief in meritocracy I really don't understand how you can completely misunderstand the most basic points I am making. At every thing I say, you just blast empty rhetoric instead of responding to my arguments.

Beautiful. A world that benefits the smarter and harder working is not meritocratic. The confusion is epic.

As you mentioned earlier the core of your meritocratic philosophy is that most people can make it in life if they work on it. There is a clear contradiction between that and your belief that those accidentally born smart should collect all the spoils, a contradiction you seem utterly unable to recognise.

Just leaving this in because it is so beautifully convoluted. Don't use big words my friend, unless you understand them. And by the way, your problem is one of epistemology ;)

I understand perfectly well every single word I said and concept I discussed. Feel free to dissect this statement of mine and tell me where I am in error. Here it is once more for your convenience. Why do I think you will shy away from that task... "Moreover though, in a discussion about what ought to be, it is a meaningless statement. Just because something IS a certain way doesn't mean it HAS TO BE a certain way in an ethical sense. (and yes, property rights is ethics) So even if the rich have huge advantages, there is no moral reason why that should be so that is justified ONLY by the current state of the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) This is all the more curious because in other respects, you are arguing normatively. Reasoning along your lines I could simply say: The state can and is taking your money, thus it is right."

You also did not respond to my charge contained in this paragraph, namely that you try to combine bizarre normative claims derived out of thin air (your theory of property rights) with a similarly arbitrary normative conclusion drawn from the real world facts. ("The rich rule, thus they should")

That is why I cannot have an argument with you, and this will be my last word on the matter. Our disagreement is so fundamental there is literally no value in talking further.

Our disagreement is fundamental but throughout this discussion, you have refused to even discuss the fundamentals of your view which makes your claim that we cannot possibly agree on them rather elusive. Not once have you responded to my demands to make clear what you base your theory of property rights on.

Nice attempt at a cop out though, as everybody reading our discussion can see that you are simply ignoring my most basic points and spouting propaganda and red herrings in response to everything I say. Better run before you make yourself look like even more of a fool, unable to sustain or even comprehend the most basic philosophical discussions.

 

Jay Jay - You have no right to what someone else has earned.

People pay taxes as a way of showing that we all benefit from this country. That being said, anything past what it takes to build roads, fund a military and sign treaties is beyond what government is required to do.

Taking what you have not worked for is called theft and people who do it are criminals. Whether you do it with a gun or through legislation, it is still a crime.

Also, your arguments are rather weak. I think EURCH did a fine job refuting your points. The onus is on YOU to tell me why you have a right to something that is not yours.

 

This is why every good libertarian and Republican should take full advantage of their 2nd Amendment Right. When people come for what you have earned it is your right and duty to repel them with extreme prejudice.

 
IlliniProgrammer:
And this is why I sometimes worry that we are heading for civil war.

Honestly, there are days when I hope we are. It is long overdue and this country might just benefit from a little house cleaning.

This is what entitlement breeds.

 

I love how people equate America to pre revolution France or something.

In the old days there were a few super rich and the poor were their slaves. There was no education, no healthcare, no right to travel, nothing. The King and Queen ruled with an iron fist.

Nowadays the poor pay no FEDERAL taxes, get plenty of benefits and everyone has free K-12 and low cost state colleges. Even private colleges are need based so you can go for free if you are smart.

The USA is home to more millionaires than anywhere else. We have a strong and large middle class. Our poor are the fattest and richest around the world. We have every freedom and advantage you could want.

Yes somehow it is evil rich people holding us down.

Materialism holds the poor down. They don't want to do without because they watch TV and think they need something. So they piss their money away or go into debt while the rich save, invest and grow their money.

America breeds this sickness, this mentality. Immigrants come here, with all of our tools, but without our thought process, and in one generation they are college educated and well off. No one ever talks about this.

Why do natural born Americans fail when immigrants succeed. And dont tell me all the immigrants are supermen. They drive cabs, work in newsstands, wash dishes and save, while their kids go to school free and get an education.

Maybe it is that they don't have an ENTITLEMENT mentality.

 

You don't want to hope for that. If one of your family members were kidnapped and you knew with 100% certainty that you could pay all of your material possessions to get them back, wouldn't you do it? (Naturally I'm not worth enough to make my family smart kidnapping targets.).

Material wealth is not worth losing friends and family to a civil war. It's true that what's right is right, but you can always start over in a new country if you've got the people you care about.

Slavery was worth going to war over. Some very far-right Christians will make the case that abortion might be. Money just isn't important enough to kill over.

 

Or how about just leave for Australia or New Zealand?

It's just not worth it. There are things worth fighting for- like the first and fifth amendment. There are many things more important than money.

Many people jumped into the Civil War with your gusto- they also thought it would end quickly and in their favor (on both sides), but after four years of fighting and losing loved ones, they wished they could take it back. An end to slavery was the consolation prize for the north, but it was little consolation after the bloodiest war in US history took 7 million people.

We don't want a civil war. We want a country where most of the voters work for a living and want to keep most of what they make. But money in and of itself is not something worth killing for.

 

Well of course. I would leave or minimize taxes or stop working. Hence the whole "Atlas Shrugged" statement. The only people who wont leave are those who cannot leave, the poor, the needy, etc. Without the well off, the middle class and the educated to pay for them this country will implode.

You see IP. Socialism is never peaceful. It is about control and force. That is why they cannot allow people to stop working or to leave. You need a cow to milk.

 

Agree on that. Government is always run by force, and socialism is excessive goverment.

I am staying loyal to this country until I'm paying 70% in income taxes between the state and the feds. That's when I'm either leaving or quitting. Money isn't worth burying your family over, though. It would take more than taxes for me to participate in a bloody civil war.

 

Well IP we aren't that far off from 70%.

Don't worry about a civil war though. The people will be thrown a symbolic bone and go back to buying Ipods or something.

700 people arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. All with clothes, a full stomach and electronics. This is what we compare to the Arab Spring.

Disgusting.

 
ANT:
Well IP we aren't that far off from 70%.
You are very far from 70%.

When like in some European countries you see people not having kids because the tax rate is so high they can't afford to, whilst families on welfare have 7 or 8 because they get extra welfare for every extra kid, then you will see 70%. I call it doing a cuckoo - it's a bird that lays its eggs into the nest of other birds, and chucks their eggs out. Eventually it will run out of nests.

That really is the key to the rot. What was initially a minor inconvenience (which is part of why it went through initially), like a mosquito sucking on your blood, rapidly breeds (in one or two generations) into a third of your population. The next generation is what worries me.

 

Few points: - there's no place to leave. Australia will turn socialist faster than Texas. - there won't be a civil war. Revolution happens only when people are starving (Tunisia last year was triggered by food prices x4, not any concern about dictators), which won't happen in the West for a very long time. Even today with the tightest supply/demand imbalance in years the poor eat to their hunger (too much, actually, which is part of the problem) - those who would grab the most are also the most unable to get into the street, both physically and spirit-wise. Ask yourself if they are like a starving sailor of the Potemkin forced to eat meat gone bad... ANT makes the point well about Brooklyn Bridge. There's no tear gas here, in Athens even within the buildings workers were crying because of the masses of tear gas used in the streets. "Protest" in the USA means sitting on a street and occasionally holding up a banner. Which is why in Europe we look and think "what are you complaining about, they didn't burn anything".

Now I could fully see civil war in places like Eastern Europe, starting with Greece, which has indoctrinated thousands of children over the last decades into hardline communism in USSR Balkan countries, has a high number of illegal weapons on the territory, no state to speak of, an economy almost entirely black market... Should be fun when they run out of the Germans' money. But secession won't happen yet, and if it does, this time around the balance of financing AND the moral case will be on the South's side.

 

Totally agree with you, but we actually are pretty close to 70% when you look at it.

Top tax bracket is 35%. NYC tax and NYS tax will push you near 45%. You get some capital gains and that will be another couple points. Now you are near 50% and this is ignoring sales tax which is VAT's baby brother. NYS has about 8% sales tax. Before you know it, the amount of income you spend on taxes gets over 50%.

AND people are pissed that the top tax brackets aren't higher.

 

@ANT

People pay taxes as a way of showing that we all benefit from this country. That being said, anything past what it takes to build roads, fund a military and sign treaties is beyond what government is required to do. ... The onus is on YOU to tell me why you have a right to something that is not yours.

You are claiming the existence of something. The burden of proof is on you. Otherwise I might as well claim that there is Santa Claus and stick to my opinion as truth until you ultimately disprove it.

Also, your arguments are rather weak. I think EURCH did a fine job refuting your points.

Please do me the favour of going through my last posts and showing me how EURCHF refuted what I said. Especially look at my very last one and tell me that you actually thing that his arguments were any good. I outlined specifically how he did not even respond to what I said. Show me how my explanation of his refusal is wrong and how his answers were actually relevant. To me it seems as the moment as if you were just covering for a poor debater because you happen to agree with his conclusions.

This is why every good libertarian and Republican should take full advantage of their 2nd Amendment Right. When people come for what you have earned it is your right and duty to repel them with extreme prejudice.

Not really. In the American legal system the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the constitution and it definitely does not consider taxes to be illegal. Thus you would be acting in breach of normal as well as constitutional law.

 

Ok kid. Real cool trick.

I work, I get a pay check, it is mine. My labor provided it. I pay taxes which go to roads, defense, etc, all things that make my job possible. Past that is you and your opinion taking from me. That is theft.

If you want to take money or goods from another person the burden of proof is on YOU.

Regardless of your little attempt at philosophical debate, you want to take something from another person. The burden of proof is on you.

 
I work, I get a pay check, it is mine. My labor provided it. I pay taxes which go to roads, defense, etc, all things that make my job possible. Past that is you and your opinion taking from me. That is theft.

If you want to take money or goods from another person the burden of proof is on YOU.

Alright, finally we are getting somewhere. You work, you earn money, it is your property. Completely agree with that statement. Now where I disagree are your further conclusions, namely that just because you have a claim to that property, a claim acquired by your own work, nobody can have any claims on the wealth you have produced. People cannot just come and take it because they want to buy a fancy car, a new house, or the latest MacBook, On that we agree. But let's look at a more extreme example: Assume that a number of people, co-nationals for the sake of argument, are threatened with death because of some illness and that they cannot pay for treatment on their own. (Examples for that in the underinsured US are surely not hard to come by) Now why should your right to property outweigh the lives of, say, 10 people?

 
Jayjay12:
I work, I get a pay check, it is mine. My labor provided it. I pay taxes which go to roads, defense, etc, all things that make my job possible. Past that is you and your opinion taking from me. That is theft.

If you want to take money or goods from another person the burden of proof is on YOU.

Alright, finally we are getting somewhere. You work, you earn money, it is your property. Completely agree with that statement. Now where I disagree are your further conclusions, namely that just because you have a claim to that property, a claim acquired by your own work, nobody can have any claims on the wealth you have produced. People cannot just come and take it because they want to buy a fancy car, a new house, or the latest MacBook, On that we agree. But let's look at a more extreme example: Assume that a number of people, co-nationals for the sake of argument, are threatened with death because of some illness and that they cannot pay for treatment on their own. (Examples for that in the underinsured US are surely not hard to come by) Now why should your right to property outweigh the lives of, say, 10 people?

They are uninsured by their own decision. You take a risk, you live with the outcome...or in the case of those 10 people, die.

 

Because we live in a country that provides all the opportunity for someone to succeed and take care of themselves. If someone makes choices and they find themselves in a lesser position than I am, it is not their right to take what I have earned.

Your thinking might be correct in a totalitarian society where wealth limited to those in power, but in the USA anyone can get rich. Anyone can have a good life.

We have police and the 2nd amendment. I challenge you to apply your thinking in this country. The results will not be favorable.

 

@txjustin "They are uninsured by their own decision. You take a risk, you live with the outcome...or in the case of those 10 people, die."

Are they now? How about if they can't afford insurance for no fault of their own? Say, young children of poor parents.

@ANT "Because we live in a country that provides all the opportunity for someone to succeed and take care of themselves. If someone makes choices and they find themselves in a lesser position than I am, it is not their right to take what I have earned.

Your thinking might be correct in a totalitarian society where wealth limited to those in power, but in the USA anyone can get rich. Anyone can have a good life."

I hope you don't mind that I just copy my response to EURCHF from the last page who made the precisely the same claim.

"What do you tell children who have grown up in a poor family, having never received the opportunities to develop the skills that come naturally to an upper-class child? It is always easy to point to some of the few poor people that make it out of poverty, but that seems hardly like sufficient explanation, so refrain from citing some individual examples to contradict me and look at the brute numbers instead. If you are comfortable middle class, you are more likely to be successful in life. Does that mean you are somehow innately diligent and hardworking? If you are a child born to a family clearly at the low end of the income distribution, you are considerably less likely to be similarly successful. Now why is that? Is that because these children are born lazy? Or maybe because they are educated in a manner that leads them to remain where they were. You are talking of choice, choice, choice, but how about you consider context. It is pretty easy for the children of well-off to make the right choices because they have great examples in front of them all the time, are encouraged etc. Not so for the poor. So is it solely their fault if they do not succeed while the middle-class child is utterly praiseworthy because it does precisely what everybody tried to make it do all along. It like cheering the hare for beating the turtle in the race. And note, so far I have only spoken of cultural differences, how about the material advantages you can buy like schooling, tuition, university, books, summer camps etc.? Doesn't seem very meritocratic to me. Fact of the matter is, many poor people had the odds massively stacked against them, so blaming their state on their decisions only is absolutely ridiculous, especially if you are the same time praising those who made it though that was to be expected from their social position. But why stop here? How would you deal with the disabled for example? Not hard-working, cannot be restored, just let them die? Look at your lists of the determinants of success. Why do I fail to see natural endowment. There is a considerable correlation between IQ and professional success as far as I am aware. And surely, you can't blame anybody for their genes right? And at the same time, why do you praise people for their intelligence even though they are born with it? I will stop here listing more ways in which the libertarian conceit is wrong. Feel free to address my points though, I am very interested in seeing your response."

 

It is not about whether you give a beggar a dime, it is about whether you are allowed to live if you do not give the beggar a dime.

I.e. what I object to is not helping the destitute but you forcing me to.

There's not much point in me saying this because as far as you are concerned by virtue of having more property than others I am no longer an individual but a cow to be milked.

 

Nobody is gonna kill you unless you physically try to fight off the agents of the government. And that applies to every single law, also the ones you cherish like those providing for defense, policing etc so it is hardly an argument against specific laws.

 

Poor immigrants raise successful children. Why? Because of parenting. Money can provide classes, tutors, etc, but unless you have parents to emphasize education and children who listen to their parents, it will be wasted. This is why not all middle class or wealthy children are smart or independently successful.

Unfortunately you cannot change poor parenting through government.

We, as a country, provide all citizens with the necessary ingredients for success. Some have it easy, some have it hard. That is life. Some people are born with good looks, some ugly, some slow, some fast, that is nature, that is life. We have advanced as a society where every child can and should go to school. They do.

http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/actguid/truancy.html

Truancy is a major issue in this country. So is dropping out of school. You need to show up to get an education. The poor might have a harder time becoming middle class, but that hard time becomes impossible when you do not even show up for the free education we provide.

Years ago kids would drop out of school to help on the farm or support a family. Now they drop out to get high or play video games. Parenting eliminates truancy (largely).

You cannot change parenting through government.

I am a libertarian. This country was founded on the principal that people should have maximum liberty and personal responsibility. When government starts taking away your liberty, they start thinking for you, telling you what to do, acting as if they know best. These are all baby steps towards totalitarian control.

Other people believe that liberty is nice in concept, but we really need to "help" some people. Help is really a code work for lets control everyone because we have good intentions and want to help a small group of people. In reality this altruism is a mechanism for control.

If you want to eliminate poverty, cut taxes, maximize liberty, but control the poor 24/7. You don't need to control the middle class or rich because they know what to do. They show up to school, study, spend within their means, etc. The poor are the ones who don't get it.

Unfortunately this is not the goal of the left. Controlling only the poor will not do. They want to increase the size of the Federal government until it is in every part of the individuals life. Telling parents what to teach their kids, what to believe, what is socially accepted. The poor are just the blind foot soldiers, too afraid to stand on their own and too addicted to the hand outs that they think they are entitled to and why not? They have been told that it is someone elses fault for so long that they now believe it.

I reiterate and will reiterate until the day I day, you control your life. Some people have it better, some worse, but at the end of the day, you have to wake up and live each day. You can choose to go to school or sleep in. You can choose to go out on a Wednesday and party hard vs coming home and getting to work early. You can choose to have a kid at 18 or 28. Your choice.

Choice is what this country is all about. Some choose to do bad things, some don't.

 

Aperiam rerum quibusdam qui fugiat. Animi repellat corporis id non dolor rerum omnis.

Laboriosam nobis ea sit labore. Odio temporibus aliquid autem qui sequi repellat dolorem facere. Aut culpa pariatur veniam facere et non. Cumque voluptatem qui et tenetur accusantium voluptatem. Dolor magni sint est. Officiis pariatur dolores consequatur aut est odit officia.

CBV
 

Doloribus eveniet fugiat omnis commodi id eum. Aperiam dolorem ut deleniti dolores. Libero est omnis eius expedita voluptatum ut. Et sunt nobis eligendi rerum inventore perspiciatis neque odio.

Eveniet quam molestiae veniam ab. Est minima perferendis ducimus quisquam dignissimos vitae commodi. Adipisci nihil suscipit consequatur.

Porro velit reprehenderit et quo eum assumenda. Est sequi eaque molestiae debitis cum culpa voluptas non. Incidunt nulla ut sequi. Distinctio aut et dolor non nisi nulla.

Voluptatem sed quaerat sit ut. Doloribus optio labore explicabo. Incidunt nihil quo blanditiis ut eaque dolorem architecto.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”