Adam Smith was a Marxist

[PaintMyHouse]

Adam Smith was not an American. This is the primary mistake most leftist make. He did not write from the perspective of the libarte' in Boston, but as a Scot in 18th century Edinburgh. The second mistake that the meme reciters from the leftist hate sites make is in thinking that a passage from "Wealth of Nations" expresses the desires or edicts of Smith. An 1800 page tome, "Wealth of Nations" is an expectoration of market mechanics, not a prescription for a Utopian society.

Utopias don't work. They were even tried here. Now you know.

Yet, all you liberal turds keep insisting you can create one in America.

Nope, not possible. All we can do is make society better, once we're rid of people who think like selfish infants of course.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Keep at it:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

Really? Can you quote him supporting a tax on luxury goods?

I see the problem now: "What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?"

I thought we were discussing your claim that Marx supported a tax on luxury goods.

Nope, Smith. I used the wrong name.

 

[bripat9643]

You failed to show anything of the kind. What you really showed is that you lack the ability to commit logic.

Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.

Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.

Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

 

[BluesLegend]

Meh, modern liberals covet, they foment envy, they seek to confiscate the wealth of others vs earning their own wealth, they pretty much sicken me.

 

[bripat9643]

Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.

What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

Really? Can you quote him supporting a tax on luxury goods?

I see the problem now: "What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?"

I thought we were discussing your claim that Marx supported a tax on luxury goods.

Nope, Smith. I used the wrong name.

We already know Smith supported such taxes. However, you claimed that made him a Marxist. They implies that Marx also supported such taxes. So where is your proof that he did?

 

[bripat9643]

Adam Smith was not an American. This is the primary mistake most leftist make. He did not write from the perspective of the libarte' in Boston, but as a Scot in 18th century Edinburgh. The second mistake that the meme reciters from the leftist hate sites make is in thinking that a passage from "Wealth of Nations" expresses the desires or edicts of Smith. An 1800 page tome, "Wealth of Nations" is an expectoration of market mechanics, not a prescription for a Utopian society.

Utopias don't work. They were even tried here. Now you know.

Yet, all you liberal turds keep insisting you can create one in America.

Nope, not possible. All we can do is make society better, once we're rid of your kind that is.

Why do liberals sound just like Nazis every other time they submit a post?

 

[Contumacious]

Adam Smith never met American Parasites and demagogue welfare state politicians.


He never dreamt that demagogue politicians would be corrupt enough to provide welfare benefits in order to acquire power.


.He never dreamt that the populace would demand to be fed, clothe, insured, educated and their thirst quenched in exchange for votes.

So if he were alive today he would be an armed to the teeth Libertarian.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ilar and Bripat are obviously cognitively deficient FuckWits.

PMH has out argued them, out evidenced, and basically peed all over them.

Evidence must be impartially applied, FuckWits, and PMH has done that.

All you have done is sit there with your mouths open.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?

Really? Can you quote him supporting a tax on luxury goods?

I see the problem now: "What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?"

I thought we were discussing your claim that Marx supported a tax on luxury goods.

Nope, Smith. I used the wrong name.

We already know Smith supported such taxes. However, you claimed that made him a Marxist. They implies that Marx also supported such taxes. So where is your proof that he did?

Smith would be a Marxist in your minds, since he didn't mind the rich paying more, among other radical things.

 

[bripat9643]

Ilar and Bripat are obviously cognitively deficient FuckWits.

PMH has out argued them, out evidenced, and basically peed all over them.

Evidence must be impartially applied, FuckWits, and PMH has done that.

All you have done is sit there with your mouths open.

Fakey, the orderlies are looking for you. They have a new straight jacket they want you to try on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Adam Smith never met American Parasites and demagogue welfare state politicians.


He never dreamt that demagogue politicians would be corrupt enough to provide welfare benefits in order to acquire power.


.He never dreamt that the populace would demand to be fed, clothe, insured, educated and their thirst quenched in exchange for votes.

So if he were alive today he would be an armed to the teeth Libertarian.


.

No, he wouldn't be. Unlike your lot he had morals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.

Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.

Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

No, my scenario requires small children to be small children, and moral adults to jump in, but that's not you now is it? You won't give up your life for that of another unrelated to you, or even related to you in most cases I would bet. To you, you are all that matters my little infant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ilar and Bripat are obviously cognitively deficient FuckWits.

PMH has out argued them, out evidenced, and basically peed all over them.

Evidence must be impartially applied, FuckWits, and PMH has done that.

All you have done is sit there with your mouths open.

Fakey, the orderlies are looking for you. They have a new straight jacket they want you to try on.

Your stubborn immorality is obvious yet once again. Your irrational nature and your immorality are astounding.

You are failing here, you have failed in the Civil War thread, and all you do is to keep on like a mindlessly chattering chipmunk.

 

[Paperman299]

Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.

Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.

Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

I never knew any action taken in a statistically unlikely scenario was rendered morally inert!

 

[Agit8r]

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive."
-- J.B. Say; from 'Political Economy'

So not really more than a fair share--an equitable share.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again: "should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive."
-- J.B. Say; from 'Political Economy'

 

[bripat9643]

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive."
-- J.B. Say; from 'Political Economy'

So not really more than a fair share--an equitable share.

It's probably what Smith meant? What makes Say any more of an expert on what Smith meant than I am?

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

[bripat9643]

Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.

Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.

You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."

There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.

It's irrational for an adult to allow a small child to wander near a busy street. In the first place, where are the child's parents? Why aren't they supervising him? The first thing a responsible adult would do is pick up the child and take him to the most likely place to find his parents. Not doing that would be irresponsible. That is, it would be irrational. Your scenario requires a whole series of irrational decisions to occur. That's why it virtually never happens.

I never knew any action taken in a statistically unlikely scenario was rendered morally inert!

It's not that the even it unlikely. It's the fact that an entire series of immoral decisions prior to the final circumstance are required for it to happen. In the first place, the child's parent allowed it to wander off unattended. Then another adult had to watch it approach a busy street and to nothing until the child is about to get run down by a car.

Pure idiocy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive."
-- J.B. Say; from 'Political Economy'

So not really more than a fair share--an equitable share.

It's probably what Smith meant? What makes Say any more of an expert on what Smith meant than I am?

The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

His only appeal is that Smith said more was okay, and J.B would go even beyond that. As for what makes him a better judge, well, he both read and understood him apparently, something we cannot say for you my little infant.

 

[JakeStarkey]