A Tale of Two Cows

[Ravi]

It was amusing to follow the rightwingloon circle jerk that served no purpose but to confirm their own confirmation bias.

Locke did believe property ownership was an inherent right and that a government could not take someone's property arbitrarily and without their consent. He also believed that having more property than you needed was an abomination against nature. So he became a fan of money, which he believed would not spoil or go to waste as too many cows were capable of doing.

But he failed to take into consideration that the government guarantees monetary value and therefore without this government guarantee money can spoil and become worthless.

In effect, he has created a hypocritical philosophy embraced by the rightwingloons that believe they are self made "men" that owe no allegiance to their country in return for said guarantees.

He also failed to consider that by agreeing to not renounce your American citizenship and moving to a country with no government protections, for instance Somalia, you are giving a tacit agreement to be taxed.

I wonder how he would feel about tax breaks for people that have children. Would he believe that would just encourage people to keep having children to benefit off of Americans that didn't?

Notice how the scenario functions on two over-played stereotypes: the hardworking rich person, and the gluttonous foolish poor person. It's those stereotypes that inform and reinforce the Reganomics sycophancy of many on the right.

Yeah...quite honestly, it would have been a good thing for the country if Ronnie dropped dead after he was elected. I do not think there was a worse hatemonger in the history of America.

He made poor people evil. What a coward he was.

 

[Sheldon]

Bravo. You just won a small Christmas turkey.

I think we can all agree that there are those who acquire their wealth through unethical or dishonest means. Saddam Hussein would be an excellent example for that.

Riche however acquired his honorably through time, patience, hard work, risk taking, and personal sacrifice.

Still, there are some among us who think there is a limit to how much wealth Riche should be able to accumulate, and that the governor should take the 'excess' and distribute to people like Pauvre who have so little.

Come on, Fox. Like that wasn't obvious from your OP?

I'm curious to know who those people are that want to put a limit on how much wealth someone can have.

It comes from several different threads, usually in a non sequitur context, Sheldon, and what people think about wealth or the accumulation of it, or who should be taxed for whose benefit is all part of the governor's decision, or should be, in the minds of those who think there should be a limit to how much wealth one should accumulate or even be allowed to accumulate.

Those all look like strawmen based on what you think others think. I've seen no mainstream liberal advocate for placing a limit on how much wealth someone can accumulate. I'm not even sure if they do that in socialist-utopia Sweden.

Analogies are poor form for argument. If you want to argue policy, stick to the real world.

 

[Ravi]

Come on, Fox. Like that wasn't obvious from your OP?

I'm curious to know who those people are that want to put a limit on how much wealth someone can have.

It comes from several different threads, usually in a non sequitur context, Sheldon, and what people think about wealth or the accumulation of it, or who should be taxed for whose benefit is all part of the governor's decision, or should be, in the minds of those who think there should be a limit to how much wealth one should accumulate or even be allowed to accumulate.

Those all look like strawmen based on what you think others think. I've seen no mainstream liberal advocate for placing a limit on how much wealth someone can accumulate. I'm not even sure if they do that in socialist-utopia Sweden.

Analogies are poor form for argument. If you want to argue policy, stick to the real world.

Why do you hate strawmen?

 

[Ravi]

btw...if there really is a hell, Ronald Reagan is currently suffering from hot monkey sex with Bonzo, and he will be for all time.

 

[saveliberty]

Truth is often hidden from view. Particularly in political arenas.

 

[Foxfyre]

Come on, Fox. Like that wasn't obvious from your OP?

I'm curious to know who those people are that want to put a limit on how much wealth someone can have.

It comes from several different threads, usually in a non sequitur context, Sheldon, and what people think about wealth or the accumulation of it, or who should be taxed for whose benefit is all part of the governor's decision, or should be, in the minds of those who think there should be a limit to how much wealth one should accumulate or even be allowed to accumulate.

Those all look like strawmen based on what you think others think. I've seen no mainstream liberal advocate for placing a limit on how much wealth someone can accumulate. I'm not even sure if they do that in socialist-utopia Sweden.

Analogies are poor form for argument. If you want to argue policy, stick to the real world.

If I say it is what people think, it is because that is what they have said that they think in their posts. Not straw men at all. The fact that you haven't seen it does not mean that it does not exist. Your attempt to divert the discussion to whether others think this or that or whatever, however, is a red herring and I would prefer to not go there. Thank you so much for understanding.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Come on, Fox. Like that wasn't obvious from your OP?

I'm curious to know who those people are that want to put a limit on how much wealth someone can have.

It comes from several different threads, usually in a non sequitur context, Sheldon, and what people think about wealth or the accumulation of it, or who should be taxed for whose benefit is all part of the governor's decision, or should be, in the minds of those who think there should be a limit to how much wealth one should accumulate or even be allowed to accumulate.

Those all look like strawmen based on what you think others think. I've seen no mainstream liberal advocate for placing a limit on how much wealth someone can accumulate. I'm not even sure if they do that in socialist-utopia Sweden.

Analogies are poor form for argument. If you want to argue policy, stick to the real world.

The more you make the higher your taxes are.
Pelosi got a millionaire tax passed. You make a million you are punished by paying a seperate tax


Are you honestly claiming the left does not want to take more from those that earn more and "Spread the wealth around". Why did I put that in quotations? hmm

 

[Samson]

Disclaimer. The example here is fictitious and any comparison to any USMB member is entirely unintentional.
_______________________________________

Riche started out with one cow. He gave up many pleasures and worked long hours to nurture, groom, feed, care for, and breed the cow .......?

Um.... wouldn't he need another cow (bull) to breed with the cow?


UNLESS.....

 

[Samson]

By the way, would it be questioning mod action to inquire why this thread got put into general discussion? I can see it being reassigned to economics or taxes or congressional policy, but 'general discussion'???????

Its a Vast Mod Conspiracy.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yes, very good advice Mr. H, but if you are governor and a fair man, you should provide a rationale for why Pauvre should work for his cow, and why he won't make Riche give him a cow.

As I see it, Both men had an equal opportunity to build a large herd of cattle. Rich did and his farm provides jobs, pays taxes and provides a source of food for many.
Pauvre squandered his opportunity. To reward him for contributing nothing to society other than a party. is ludicrous and would encourage others to be unproductive.
Taking cows away from Rich penalizes his industriousness and reduces his ability to provide meat and milk, reduces his need to retain workers, and would necessitate increasing his tax rate in order to keep revenue constant. Raising his taxes would discourage others from being productive.

 

[dilloduck]

It was amusing to follow the rightwingloon circle jerk that served no purpose but to confirm their own confirmation bias.

Locke did believe property ownership was an inherent right and that a government could not take someone's property arbitrarily and without their consent. He also believed that having more property than you needed was an abomination against nature. So he became a fan of money, which he believed would not spoil or go to waste as too many cows were capable of doing.

But he failed to take into consideration that the government guarantees monetary value and therefore without this government guarantee money can spoil and become worthless.

In effect, he has created a hypocritical philosophy embraced by the rightwingloons that believe they are self made "men" that owe no allegiance to their country in return for said guarantees.

He also failed to consider that by agreeing to not renounce your American citizenship and moving to a country with no government protections, for instance Somalia, you are giving a tacit agreement to be taxed.

I wonder how he would feel about tax breaks for people that have children. Would he believe that would just encourage people to keep having children to benefit off of Americans that didn't?

Notice how the scenario functions on two over-played stereotypes: the hardworking rich person, and the gluttonous foolish poor person. It's those stereotypes that inform and reinforce the Reganomics sycophancy of many on the right.

Change it then-----two people apply for a job. One gets it and one doesn't. Is the one who gets it obliged to give part of his earnings to the other one ?

 

[Sheldon]

It comes from several different threads, usually in a non sequitur context, Sheldon, and what people think about wealth or the accumulation of it, or who should be taxed for whose benefit is all part of the governor's decision, or should be, in the minds of those who think there should be a limit to how much wealth one should accumulate or even be allowed to accumulate.

Those all look like strawmen based on what you think others think. I've seen no mainstream liberal advocate for placing a limit on how much wealth someone can accumulate. I'm not even sure if they do that in socialist-utopia Sweden.

Analogies are poor form for argument. If you want to argue policy, stick to the real world.

The more you make the higher your taxes are.
Pelosi got a millionaire tax passed. You make a million you are punished by paying a seperate tax


Are you honestly claiming the left does not want to take more from those that earn more and "Spread the wealth around". Why did I put that in quotations? hmm

That is not the same as placing a *limit* on how much money someone can earn.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those all look like strawmen based on what you think others think. I've seen no mainstream liberal advocate for placing a limit on how much wealth someone can accumulate. I'm not even sure if they do that in socialist-utopia Sweden.

Analogies are poor form for argument. If you want to argue policy, stick to the real world.

The more you make the higher your taxes are.
Pelosi got a millionaire tax passed. You make a million you are punished by paying a seperate tax


Are you honestly claiming the left does not want to take more from those that earn more and "Spread the wealth around". Why did I put that in quotations? hmm

That is not the same as placing a *limit* on how much money someone can earn.

No it is not the same though it can have something of the same effect if the more you make, the bigger the percentage of your earnings is taken in taxes by the government.

As for the few folks who decry and/or condemn the disparity between rich and poor, a relative few do think there should be a limit placed on how much wealth a person should be able to acquire or at least how much wealth a person should b allowed to keep. Read through the Class Warfare thread. You'll find some of it there as well as in other places here and there on USMB. At least one person actually put a dollar amount on the maximum a person should be able to earn.

This thread was not intended to re-debate those issues, however, as they are being adequately discussed there and elsewhere.

I am still looking for the core principle of why the government should be able to or should not be able to take one or more of Riche's cows, as Riche has many cows, and give one or more to Pauvre who has none.

One or two have come oh so close to that principle, but nobody has actually spelled it out yet.

 

[Sheldon]

At least one person actually put a dollar amount on the maximum a person should be able to earn.

That would be stupid and not something I support.

One or two have come oh so close to that principle, but nobody has actually spelled it out yet.

Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland.

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

 

[Foxfyre]

At least one person actually put a dollar amount on the maximum a person should be able to earn.

That would be stupid and not something I support.

One or two have come oh so close to that principle, but nobody has actually spelled it out yet.

Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland.

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

So you DO think the governor should take one or more of Riche's cows and give them to Pauvre because Pauvre is entitled to a minimum standard of living? Is that regardless of whatever life choices Pauvre has made?

 

[Sheldon]

At least one person actually put a dollar amount on the maximum a person should be able to earn.

That would be stupid and not something I support.

One or two have come oh so close to that principle, but nobody has actually spelled it out yet.

Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland.

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

So you DO think the governor should take one or more of Riche's cows and give them to Pauvre because Pauvre is entitled to a minimum standard of living? Is that regardless of whatever life choices Pauvre has made?

See my last sentence in the quoted post, then apply to your last question.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would be stupid and not something I support.




Let's be real. This isn't about cows. It's about wealth redistribution through progressive taxation.


I support that policy, within reason of course, because my moral compass says we live in a relatively very-wealthy society. Because we have amassed so much wealth, aka cows, I believe there should be, and is, a minimum standard of living all citizens are entitled to by virtue of being a citizen of America. Or Cowland.

This doesn't, however, mean I support unregulated welfare4life, or TANFF for anyone who wants it, or unending unemployment compensation. There needs to be strings attached; I think most people realize that.

So you DO think the governor should take one or more of Riche's cows and give them to Pauvre because Pauvre is entitled to a minimum standard of living? Is that regardless of whatever life choices Pauvre has made?

See my last sentence in the quoted post, then apply to your last question.

No. Your comment had to do with strings needing to be attached to welfare recipients which presumably means that you support there being federal welfare recipients.

But I want to know specifically. With or without strings attached, do you or do you not support the governor taking one or more of Riche's cows to give to Pauvre?

It's a simple question that can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no' even if you choose to qualify the answer.

 

[Sheldon]

So you DO think the governor should take one or more of Riche's cows and give them to Pauvre because Pauvre is entitled to a minimum standard of living? Is that regardless of whatever life choices Pauvre has made?

See my last sentence in the quoted post, then apply to your last question.

No. Your comment had to do with strings needing to be attached to welfare recipients which presumably means that you support there being federal welfare recipients.

But I want to know specifically. With or without strings attached, do you or do you not support the governor taking one or more of Riche's cows to give to Pauvre?

It's a simple question that can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no' even if you choose to qualify the answer.

My position on wealth redistribution and progressive taxation is nuanced, but you want some simpleton answer about cows. I already provided my moral justification.

 

[Ravi]

1. The government can't take a cow.
2. The government can't take a cow.
3. The government can't take a cow.

btw, there are strings attached to welfare and food stamps and there are limits in place thanks to President Clinton.

 

[Foxfyre]

See my last sentence in the quoted post, then apply to your last question.

No. Your comment had to do with strings needing to be attached to welfare recipients which presumably means that you support there being federal welfare recipients.

But I want to know specifically. With or without strings attached, do you or do you not support the governor taking one or more of Riche's cows to give to Pauvre?

It's a simple question that can be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no' even if you choose to qualify the answer.

My position on wealth redistribution and progressive taxation is nuanced, but you want some simpleton answer about cows. I already provided my moral justification.

So in other words you won't answer the question because you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't? I don't really know your sociopolitical ideology, but I am finding it so easy for modern American conservatives to say "Yes" or "No" to a question like that because it will be based on a concrete principle.

I have found those who consider themselves modern American liberals, however, don't have as easy a time with it. Ravi finally answered the question concretely and I acknowledge that.

But I'm still looking for the principle involved that determines whether Pauvre should or should not be entitled to or receive one or more of Riche's cows.

And if Ravi (or anybody else) says Pauvre can't have one of Riche's cows but that Paurve is entitled to a minimum standard of living, how will that be accomplished without taking one or more of Riche's cows?