Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[Ghost of a Rider]

What? If you want to argue something I said was factually wrong then present it. I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You make these so long and tedious.

I wasn't going to go back and copy/paste every quote from the dialogue string. But rest assured, I did backtrack the string and found that the origins of it go back ten days (eleven days now).

You claimed I had "all these thirsty questions" about something you said to someone else. But you didn't address it him in that particular post, you addressed it to me and it was a continuation of the dialogue string that started eleven days ago about capitalism being a fact of life.

Are taxes some fundamental change to our system? Don't we already have a progressive tax system?

Irrelevant. The point was not progressive tax, the point was you saying: "I was responding to your strawman suggesting that I thought eliminating billionaires was necessary for social safety nets."
I then cited your quotes saying you want higher taxes for social safety nets. You also want progressive and higher taxes on the rich. I can only assume that since you want higher and progressive taxes on the rich and higher taxes for social safety nets, that some of this higher tax revenue for social safety nets will come from the rich.

Am I wrong?

You're the one who asked what right I was referring to. I clarified. I was talking about the legal right to vote. It's okay to ask for context. You're the one unable to provide any for your arguments. What's fundamental that I want to change? You can't even explain what the fuck that means...

Wrong. That had nothing to do with rights. I said it was not necessary to eliminate billionaires for more social safety nets. You said that was not what you were saying. So I then asked if it was necessary for the spreading of wealth. You said Nope. So I cited multiple quotes from you saying you wanted to eliminate billionaires (or make it impossible to become one) for the purpose of spreading resources and wealth.

It's no wonder you can't follow what I'm saying, you can't even follow what you're saying.

Force is what creates private ownership of resources from which all wealth is derived.

Right. So I'll ask again: What difference does force make if you have just as much right to get rich as anyone else?

Put another way, if you have used or have taken advantage of this same force to acquire or keep your private property, why bring it up?

Which still doesn't mean demand drives productivity. It's only a part of it.

If you have little or no demand, how much are you going to produce?

Of course it does. Companies and businesses use natural resources combined with labor to produce products. How does anyone come to own natural resources in the first place again? Force.

First of all, you said sharing profits. You've also said sharing resources. But profits and resources are not the same thing, especially if you're talking about natural resources as you said above.

Secondly, companies pay for the natural resources (raw materials) they acquire to produce their products.

You're just not bright enough to understand the relevance despite this tedious back and forth where it's been explained to you over and over.

You're not bright enough to answer a yes or no question with "Yes" or "No".

I asked the question if you wanted to force companies through violence to give profits to workers that had no part in the initial investment or work to create and build the company. All you said was that the company acquired their resources through force.

1.) As I mentioned above, profit and resources are two different things.
2.) Companies purchase the resources to make their products, they don't take them by force.

That's because the government is the agent of force. Your property rights are protected by the force of law. If they weren't who the fuck would respect your claim to them?

The law is there to preclude force and violence, dumbass. They are meant to deter the kind of actions you would have the government do.

You seem to be arguing that because our property is protected by the force of law, that property can be taken and shared with undeserving others through force of law. Again, that is not democratic.

But you can justify force to impose private ownership of natural resources in the first place?

If a company purchases natural resources - and they do - then I don't see any "force to impose private ownership of natural resources" to justify.

We're talking about force. Apparently you think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone elses subjective use of force. Why?

You think your subjective use of force is more justified than someone else's so what's your point? You've been arguing for days why you think it's justified to force companies to share profits.

It does not behoove you to point an accusing finger for what you've been doing for days. It makes you look like a floundering hypocrite.

What does fairly achieve mean? Who's idea of fair? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair is an objective measurement or a subjective one.

Don't be an idiot.

I don't care what you feel the purpose of this country's founding was about.

You don't care about anything but the government giving you what you didn't earn.

Better is subjective, I didn't suggest otherwise and I consider an employee's labor to be investment in the company.

"What does fairly achieve mean? Who's idea of fair? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair is an objective measurement or a subjective one."

I didn't suggest otherwise either but you nevertheless took yet another opportunity to quote objectivism/subjectivism scripture at me.

Having said that, labor is an investment insofar as it is necessary to produce product. The laborer is compensated with pay and that is the company's investment. The laborer is not building the company or contributing in any way other than performing his job. He is not entitled to profits unless he is financially invested.

Yep.

"Yep"? Do you understand what this means? It means the company is investing in the labor, not the laborer.

Time and labor is a greater investment in my eyes than someone just investing money.

He invests his time and labor and his pay is his "profit".

He contributed hits labor and I don't care about your opinion about what they should get.

"I don't care! I don't care!"

You sound like a kindergartner.

No you don't. You don't seem to understand that laws are force.

I understand that laws were made to protect life and property for the most part. You want laws that take property.

And as I mentioned before your property rights are protected by the force of law. Who would care what you claim to own without it?

People who care about such things. Apparently, you don't.

Laws are there to protect life and property from those who would take it without asking. But most people would not, me included.

Even without laws, I have no desire to take someone's property that I know was paid for with their own labors just as mine was. That's called empathy and trust, two more traits you apparently lack.

You seem to have this idea that without laws, everyone would be after your shit. But this kind of thinking can only come from someone who wants to take everyone's shit without asking. The only difference is, you want the government to do it for you.

Why should the masses accept rampant inequality when they could use the force of law to change it?

"What does fairly achieve rampant inequality mean? Who's idea of fair inequality? Yours or mine? What I've given thought to and what you haven't is whether fair inequality is an objective measurement or a subjective one."

Laws are force. Private ownership of resources requires force. I don't care if you're okay with force for one thing and not okay with force for the other, that's your opinion and I don't care about your opinion.

"I don't care! I don't care! So nyah!"

I'm okay with force to protect what is mine. I'm NOT okay with force to take what is mine to give to someone else.

Like I said, you're conflating the issue of force and my arguments about it.

All your feelings, your apathy, everything specifically related to your perspective on billionaires is your subjective opinion.

Irrelevant. You mischaracterized my position about billionaires as an assertion that they should exist. I said nothing of the sort.

Your feelings on my feelings are still your subjective feelings, Dumbass.

No shit. It still means I am not arguing feelings for billionaires, I am arguing feelings against your opinions of what we should do with them. I'm arguing in the interest of fairness and personal accountability and responsibility. You're arguing in the interest of punishing the rich and taking what is not yours.

What does having the right to be as rich as they choose have to do with anything I'm talking about?

Duh. If YOU have the right to choose to be rich just like any rich person, why should I consider your arguments for sharing wealth?

What is this fact relevant to? They are able to do so through the ownership of natural resources.

Which they purchase with income from the business.

Your arguments.

You're gonna have to do better than that. What, specifically did I say to give you the idea I favor capital over labor?

And? Our national defense is socialized,

We are not a socialist state, a few social programs notwithstanding.

This is yet another misconception by you "Let's share the wealth and sing 'Kumbaya'" people. People like me have no problem with common sense social programs and some are probably necessary. But having social programs does not make a country socialist. That's where we draw the line.

I'd just like to do the same to other areas of society like housing and Healthcare.

And I would like to see more people take responsibility for their actions and take only what they earned.

Minus the taxes they owe. I don't understand what you don't understand. Do you know what minus means?

You've already said this and I've already acknowledged it. It's a non sequitur anyway; it does not follow that because the rich pay taxes, they haven't the right to get as rich as they want. So why do you just keep repeating this?

They math is fundamental.

"They" math is fundamental? Okay, I don't know why you're bringing up "they" math when we're talking about the right to get rich.

You guess? These aren't favorable outcomes to starving or living on the streets?

You didn't say "favorable outcomes", you said "success". Certainly food and a roof over their heads is a favorable outcome for those of modest means but I wouldn't call it "success".

I don't know what it means to you. Some people are just born wealthy and organizing to vote and change the laws to enrich your life would fit that description to me.

Most people are not born wealthy but some become wealthy anyway.

So you want to change the laws because the affluent provide good homes and better education for their children just as you would do?

You have been discussing it, you're just too stupid to understand where private ownership of resources even comes from. It comes from collective force.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You said I was pretending not to know that everyone is organizing politically to use the collective force of government to affect the distribution of wealth. Again, WE DID NOT DISCUSS THIS so I pretended nothing.

At best you made an erroneous assumption. At worst you made a false claim.

You keep arguing as if you don't understand.

No, I don't. I'm arguing as if I'm disagreeing with you. Dumbass.

Above you argued that I don't care if my goals could be fairly achieved as if you imagined fair to be some objective thing.

Did you imagine "rampant inequality" to be objective?

If laws are subjective then so is the right to own natural resources.

You DO have the right to own natural resources. You just have to pay for them.

 

[0311]

Politicians don't actually believe in equal outcomes. Lip service for the rubes.

How is extending the Child Tax Credit marxist