Govt"redistribution of wealth" is no more than theft and distribution of stolen goods

[bripat9643]

SO basically you are omitting Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece, etc as prime examples of private ownership and transaction that were subject to taxes and legislation; sound familiar?.

The rules in those societies differed significantly from what we would call private ownership. For instance, in the Roman Empire powerful Senators were often able to simply appropriate the land of small free-holders.



All the major collapses were caused by government meddling in the economy.

Unfettered Capitalism doesn't work in the long run, or shall we say the gas usually runs out after 2-4 years.
Never has, never will.

Unfettered capitalism works beautifully. The United States has had the closest thing to it, and as a result we are one of the richest countries in the world.

The gas runs out when government starts imposing price controls and regulations that restrict drilling.

We have Eminent Domain; no society has ever lacked such a concept..

I assume you're referring to my remarks about Rome. That had nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The Senators confiscated the properties simply to add them to their personal estates.

In terms of unfettered, you really should start reading some magazines on a weekly basis for a consistent 3 year span.
In fact, see if the WSJ has subscriptions with access to archives and start reading from Jan 2006 onward.
Unfettered...Never worked for more than 3-4 years, never will.

We have never had "unfettered" capitalism, and it has been heavily fettered ever since about 1914 when the Wilson reign began. Government has caused virtually every financial panic or economic downturn we have experienced, so that doesn't support your theory very well.

Perhaps you should read some books on economics since you obviously don't understand the slightest thing about the topic. You also have a very limited knowledge of history, despite your pretensions of superiority.

 

[bripat9643]

In the US, the government is by and for the people. The government creates all rights and laws.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, right. That's why the government sent troops to the Southern states to kill their citizens, burn their cities, loot their homes, rape their women and destroy everything within eyesight.

Lincoln has to be the biggest comedian that ever lived.

Your knowledge of history is wretched...for god's sake, You thought Hitler was a leftist.

You think state's rights trump the constitution.

You think taxes are theft.

You think Social Security is a ponzi scheme.

What's one more asinine proposition by you?

All you have left is your pathetic anti-gov. ramblings about how things should be under your undereducated view and how gov. makes a pussified victim of you through taxation.

Give it a rest, grow a spine and crack a book. You might be surprised at just how wrong you are..all the time.

ROFL! What I don't "know" is your non-facts. Apparently, everything you know is wrong.

It must be tough to go through life when you're so stupid.

 

[Indeependent]

The rules in those societies differed significantly from what we would call private ownership. For instance, in the Roman Empire powerful Senators were often able to simply appropriate the land of small free-holders.



All the major collapses were caused by government meddling in the economy.



Unfettered capitalism works beautifully. The United States has had the closest thing to it, and as a result we are one of the richest countries in the world.

The gas runs out when government starts imposing price controls and regulations that restrict drilling.

We have Eminent Domain; no society has ever lacked such a concept..

I assume you're referring to my remarks about Rome. That had nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The Senators confiscated the properties simply to add them to their personal estates.

In terms of unfettered, you really should start reading some magazines on a weekly basis for a consistent 3 year span.
In fact, see if the WSJ has subscriptions with access to archives and start reading from Jan 2006 onward.
Unfettered...Never worked for more than 3-4 years, never will.

We have never had "unfettered" capitalism, and it has been heavily fettered ever since about 1914 when the Wilson reign began. Government has caused virtually every financial panic or economic downturn we have experienced, so that doesn't support your theory very well.

Perhaps you should read some books on economics since you obviously don't understand the slightest thing about the topic. You also have a very limited knowledge of history, despite your pretensions of superiority.

Uh huh.
Can I copy this response when I need an ad hominem?

 

[francoHFW]

iF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY CORRUPTION IN GOV'T AND BUSINESS in the meltdown of 2008, or for that matter the Pub collapse of 1929, Reagan's S and L scandal etc etc, you're a perfect dupe of the greedy rich- as usual...

 

[National Socialist]

This is one of the more common fibs that socialists use to justify the theft that's at the core of their agenda - the silly notion that bosses do nothing.

The socialists and other liberals in this thread, are finding an amazing number of ways to change the subject and not talk about the actual topic of the thread.

Back to the subject:
Government redistribution of wealth is where the govt takes money from people who earn more, and give it to people who did not earn it.

If a government has no authorization to spend tax money by handing it to people who did nothing to earn it, is the act of doing that, any different from "theft and distribution of stolen goods", in any important way?

If the workers are the ones selling the stuff they should get a large part of the profit instead a lousy minimum wage while their "supervisors" who did less of the work get nice bonus's and higher wage.

According to what theory of ethics is that the case? How did the workers become entitled to the profits as well as their wages?

Common sense. Also profits are their wages therefore they need to be paid more or the fat cats need to take HUGE pay cuts come down to their workers wages and try and make it.

 

[Antares]

How about wind and solar, or maybe there isn't sufficient profit in metering the sun?

Neither has proven to be a viable alternative on a macro scale, pretty simple.

Neither has received billion$ in taxpayer subsidies over the past century, unlike fossil fuels.
Even simpler.

Sorry, that's a lie.

 

[bripat9643]

We have Eminent Domain; no society has ever lacked such a concept..

I assume you're referring to my remarks about Rome. That had nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The Senators confiscated the properties simply to add them to their personal estates.

In terms of unfettered, you really should start reading some magazines on a weekly basis for a consistent 3 year span.
In fact, see if the WSJ has subscriptions with access to archives and start reading from Jan 2006 onward.
Unfettered...Never worked for more than 3-4 years, never will.

We have never had "unfettered" capitalism, and it has been heavily fettered ever since about 1914 when the Wilson reign began. Government has caused virtually every financial panic or economic downturn we have experienced, so that doesn't support your theory very well.

Perhaps you should read some books on economics since you obviously don't understand the slightest thing about the topic. You also have a very limited knowledge of history, despite your pretensions of superiority.

Uh huh.
Can I copy this response when I need an ad hominem?

You mean you think your post wasn't an ad hominem?

 

[bripat9643]

If the workers are the ones selling the stuff they should get a large part of the profit instead a lousy minimum wage while their "supervisors" who did less of the work get nice bonus's and higher wage.

According to what theory of ethics is that the case? How did the workers become entitled to the profits as well as their wages?

Common sense.

Apparently not because most people disagree.

[Also profits are their wages therefore they need to be paid more or the fat cats need to take HUGE pay cuts come down to their workers wages and try and make it.

Duh . . . Wrong! Profits are not their wages. Profits are profits, and wages are wages. Employees are entitled to whatever they agreed to when they were hired, and not a thing more. That's how a free contractual society works. If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to find employment elsewhere.

 

[bripat9643]

iF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY CORRUPTION IN GOV'T AND BUSINESS in the meltdown of 2008, or for that matter the Pub collapse of 1929, Reagan's S and L scandal etc etc, you're a perfect dupe of the greedy rich- as usual...

It might help if you quoted what you were responding to because otherwise no one has a clue what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Indeependent]

I assume you're referring to my remarks about Rome. That had nothing to do with Eminent Domain. The Senators confiscated the properties simply to add them to their personal estates.



We have never had "unfettered" capitalism, and it has been heavily fettered ever since about 1914 when the Wilson reign began. Government has caused virtually every financial panic or economic downturn we have experienced, so that doesn't support your theory very well.

Perhaps you should read some books on economics since you obviously don't understand the slightest thing about the topic. You also have a very limited knowledge of history, despite your pretensions of superiority.

Uh huh.
Can I copy this response when I need an ad hominem?

You mean you think your post wasn't an ad hominem?

My post was addressing history, not you.
Capitalism is NOT an economic policy.

 

[bripat9643]

Uh huh.
Can I copy this response when I need an ad hominem?

You mean you think your post wasn't an ad hominem?

My post was addressing history, not you.
Capitalism is NOT an economic policy.

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

 

[National Socialist]

According to what theory of ethics is that the case? How did the workers become entitled to the profits as well as their wages?

Common sense.

Apparently not because most people disagree.

[Also profits are their wages therefore they need to be paid more or the fat cats need to take HUGE pay cuts come down to their workers wages and try and make it.

Duh . . . Wrong! Profits are not their wages. Profits are profits, and wages are wages. Employees are entitled to whatever they agreed to when they were hired, and not a thing more. That's how a free contractual society works. If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to find employment elsewhere.

That's because most people are brought up in the educational system that shoves the lies down their throats. Of course they don't think that what I say is correct. They enjoy being exploited and that is proof of the brainwashing they received in at least 12 years of indoctrination in this system.

The wages are paid from the profits are they not? Oh and the "voluntary contract" goes like this,either take this job at minimum wage so you can provide a little bit of what you need to pay bills and feed your kids or don't take anything and starve completely. Real voluntary there...more like blackmail and exploitation.

 

[Indeependent]

You mean you think your post wasn't an ad hominem?

My post was addressing history, not you.
Capitalism is NOT an economic policy.

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

You do need to do some reading because you are making statements that are clearly contradicted by hundreds of MNC CEOs interviewed between 2004-2008 in the WSJ, Forbes, Fortune, Money, etc...
What's the big deal?
I didn't state that you were INCAPABLE of understanding what you should read.
If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't have made the suggestion.

You also seem to KNOW that corporations never hire lobbyist to create anti-American workforce legislation.
Another contradiction based on the ever present fact of off-shoring and business visas.

The REAL issue is that you are a Libertarian living under the US Constitution, and you want to excise the "General Welfare" clause from said document.
OK, fine...get a following and do it.

In fact, if your platform can eliminate Civil AND Corporate corruption, I'll join your team.

 

[bripat9643]

Common sense.

Apparently not because most people disagree.

[Also profits are their wages therefore they need to be paid more or the fat cats need to take HUGE pay cuts come down to their workers wages and try and make it.

Duh . . . Wrong! Profits are not their wages. Profits are profits, and wages are wages. Employees are entitled to whatever they agreed to when they were hired, and not a thing more. That's how a free contractual society works. If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to find employment elsewhere.

That's because most people are brought up in the educational system that shoves the lies down their throats. Of course they don't think that what I say is correct. They enjoy being exploited and that is proof of the brainwashing they received in at least 12 years of indoctrination in this system.

Whatever the reason, if the majority of people don't believe it, then it can't properly be called "common sense," now can it?

Since your original explanation obviously fails, you need to come up with another one. Otherwise we can all just disregard it as the Marxist blather it is.

The wages are paid from the profits are they not? .

Nope. Wages are paid from gross revenues. Profits are what you have leftover after you have paid wages and all other costs of doing business.

Oh and the "voluntary contract" goes like this,either take this job at minimum wage so you can provide a little bit of what you need to pay bills and feed your kids or don't take anything and starve completely. .

Really? Then how come so many people make far more than the minimum wage?

Real voluntary there...more like blackmail and exploitation.

Nope. If the employer wasn't offering any jobs, how would this poor schmuck survive?

Am I "blackmailing" someone if I offer to pay them $80/month to mow my lawn? How much would constitute "blackmail" or "exploitation?"

 

[bripat9643]

My post was addressing history, not you.
Capitalism is NOT an economic policy.

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

You do need to do some reading because you are making statements that are clearly contradicted by hundreds of MNC CEOs interviewed between 2004-2008 in the WSJ, Forbes, Fortune, Money, etc...
What's the big deal?
I didn't state that you were INCAPABLE of understanding what you should read.
If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't have made the suggestion..

What does a survey of CEO's have to do with whether capitalism has been "unfettered" since 2004?

You also seem to KNOW that corporations never hire lobbyist to create anti-American workforce legislation. Another contradiction based on the ever present fact of off-shoring and business visas.

Where have I said anything of the sort? I think CEO's are nothing but sleazy politicians who would gladly sell out to politicians if that would give them an advantage over their competition. I happen to know that CEO's like Bill Gates lobbied the Clinton Administration to open the flood gates and allow millions of foreigners into this country on H1-B vises. When I go to the office, all I see is a sea of brown faces. All these high tech workers imported from India have seriously undermined the wages of indigenous Americans. CEO's did it because they wanted cheap labor.

The REAL issue is that you are a Libertarian living under the US Constitution, and you want to excise the "General Welfare" clause from said document.
OK, fine...get a following and do it..

In fact, if your platform can eliminate Civil AND Corporate corruption, I'll join your team.

All "corporate corruption" is the result of getting special favors from government. Eliminate the power of government to grant these favors, and you eliminate corporate corruption.

 

[National Socialist]

Apparently not because most people disagree.



Duh . . . Wrong! Profits are not their wages. Profits are profits, and wages are wages. Employees are entitled to whatever they agreed to when they were hired, and not a thing more. That's how a free contractual society works. If they don't like the terms of the deal, they are free to find employment elsewhere.

That's because most people are brought up in the educational system that shoves the lies down their throats. Of course they don't think that what I say is correct. They enjoy being exploited and that is proof of the brainwashing they received in at least 12 years of indoctrination in this system.

Whatever the reason, if the majority of people don't believe it, then it can't properly be called "common sense," now can it?

Since your original explanation obviously fails, you need to come up with another one. Otherwise we can all just disregard it as the Marxist blather it is.



Nope. Wages are paid from gross revenues. Profits are what you have leftover after you have paid wages and all other costs of doing business.

Oh and the "voluntary contract" goes like this,either take this job at minimum wage so you can provide a little bit of what you need to pay bills and feed your kids or don't take anything and starve completely. .

Really? Then how come so many people make far more than the minimum wage?

Real voluntary there...more like blackmail and exploitation.

Nope. If the employer wasn't offering any jobs, how would this poor schmuck survive?

Am I "blackmailing" someone if I offer to pay them $80/month to mow my lawn? How much would constitute "blackmail" or "exploitation?"

True enough its not COMMON sense but it should be. People know things aren't right.Far from marxist blather,its truth and facts and I am not a communist. You know that. Either way wages are paid from whats made from people buying things.People make more than the minimum wage because their employer threw them a bone and allowed them to be paid more,we shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to make ends meet.EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US should have a job that allows us to make ends meet no matter what and move up from there.You should pay them more. If that is their chosen job or only job they can find its horrible to only pay them 80$ a month to cut your lawn,either pay them more or cut it yourself.

 

[Indeependent]

Your post was addressing me. You told me I needed to do some reading.

And, yes, capitalism is an economic policy. For instance, Obama's policy is anti-capitalism.

You do need to do some reading because you are making statements that are clearly contradicted by hundreds of MNC CEOs interviewed between 2004-2008 in the WSJ, Forbes, Fortune, Money, etc...
What's the big deal?
I didn't state that you were INCAPABLE of understanding what you should read.
If I thought you were stupid, I wouldn't have made the suggestion..

What does a survey of CEO's have to do with whether capitalism has been "unfettered" since 2004?

You also seem to KNOW that corporations never hire lobbyist to create anti-American workforce legislation. Another contradiction based on the ever present fact of off-shoring and business visas.

Where have I said anything of the sort? I think CEO's are nothing but sleazy politicians who would gladly sell out to politicians if that would give them an advantage over their competition. I happen to know that CEO's like Bill Gates lobbied the Clinton Administration to open the flood gates and allow millions of foreigners into this country on H1-B vises. When I go to the office, all I see is a sea of brown faces. All these high tech workers imported from India have seriously undermined the wages of indigenous Americans. CEO's did it because they wanted cheap labor.

The REAL issue is that you are a Libertarian living under the US Constitution, and you want to excise the "General Welfare" clause from said document.
OK, fine...get a following and do it..

In fact, if your platform can eliminate Civil AND Corporate corruption, I'll join your team.

All "corporate corruption" is the result of getting special favors from government. Eliminate the power of government to grant these favors, and you eliminate corporate corruption.

Not CEO surveys...interviews.

OK, I can go with you on the Wall Street/Congressional corruption thing.
I was going to vote for Ron Paul simply because he had the intestinal fortitude to be honest.

The next issue to deal with is that it's almost impossible for anyone to quell this corrupt relationship without knowing all the permutations of the economy.
We have a Demand Economy, which is, of course, far superior to a Command Economy.
How do we know what's going on where?
How do we know when a corporation is suppressing the innovation of it's up and coming competitor(s).
I would ask how we know if a representative is simply pushing a bill to collect some pork, but the answer to that is always "Yes.".

 

[National Socialist]

Germany?s Freedom From International Debt Slavery | Christ Conquers

 

[bripat9643]

That's because most people are brought up in the educational system that shoves the lies down their throats. Of course they don't think that what I say is correct. They enjoy being exploited and that is proof of the brainwashing they received in at least 12 years of indoctrination in this system.

Whatever the reason, if the majority of people don't believe it, then it can't properly be called "common sense," now can it?

Since your original explanation obviously fails, you need to come up with another one. Otherwise we can all just disregard it as the Marxist blather it is.



Nope. Wages are paid from gross revenues. Profits are what you have leftover after you have paid wages and all other costs of doing business.



Really? Then how come so many people make far more than the minimum wage?

Real voluntary there...more like blackmail and exploitation.

Nope. If the employer wasn't offering any jobs, how would this poor schmuck survive?

Am I "blackmailing" someone if I offer to pay them $80/month to mow my lawn? How much would constitute "blackmail" or "exploitation?"

True enough its not COMMON sense but it should be. People know things aren't right.Far from marxist blather,its truth and facts and I am not a communist. You know that.

So far you haven't given anyone any reason to believe it. It's just your prejudice. And your theory that labor has some intrinsic value is a Marxist theory.

Either way wages are paid from whats made from people buying things. People make more than the minimum wage because their employer threw them a bone and allowed them to be paid more. .

According to economists they are paid more because their skills are in demand. It has nothing to do with charity on the part of their employer.

[we shouldn't have to jump through hoops just to make ends meet..

What do you consider "jumping through hoops," doing actual useful work?

[EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US should have a job that allows us to make ends meet no matter what and move up from there..

You mean even if they have no skills? Even if they are lazy, shiftless and incompetent?

[You should pay them more. If that is their chosen job or only job they can find its horrible to only pay them 80$ a month to cut your lawn,either pay them more or cut it yourself.

60 to 80 other customers also pay him $80. He makes a good living. Why should I pay any more than he's willing to do the job for?

 

[National Socialist]

Whatever the reason, if the majority of people don't believe it, then it can't properly be called "common sense," now can it?

Since your original explanation obviously fails, you need to come up with another one. Otherwise we can all just disregard it as the Marxist blather it is.



Nope. Wages are paid from gross revenues. Profits are what you have leftover after you have paid wages and all other costs of doing business.



Really? Then how come so many people make far more than the minimum wage?



Nope. If the employer wasn't offering any jobs, how would this poor schmuck survive?

Am I "blackmailing" someone if I offer to pay them $80/month to mow my lawn? How much would constitute "blackmail" or "exploitation?"

True enough its not COMMON sense but it should be. People know things aren't right.Far from marxist blather,its truth and facts and I am not a communist. You know that.

So far you haven't given anyone any reason to believe it. It's just your prejudice. And your theory that labor has some intrinsic value is a Marxist theory.



According to economists they are paid more because their skills are in demand. It has nothing to do with charity on the part of their employer.



What do you consider "jumping through hoops," doing actual useful work?

[EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US should have a job that allows us to make ends meet no matter what and move up from there..

You mean even if they have no skills? Even if they are lazy, shiftless and incompetent?

[You should pay them more. If that is their chosen job or only job they can find its horrible to only pay them 80$ a month to cut your lawn,either pay them more or cut it yourself.

60 to 80 other customers also pay him $80. He makes a good living. Why should I pay any more than he's willing to do the job for?

Then the government should have programs like Hitler's Germany did that allowed EVERYONE to work. Races weren't meant to mix and mingle like we have here,the laziness of the black race has rubbed off on the white race here and its slowly destroying this country.