Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wealth, meaning material resources, certainly is finite.They suffer from the erroneous belief that wealth is finite,
There is an important difference between wealth and excessive wealth. There is nothing wrong with accumulating reasonable wealth. But the accumulation of excessive wealth (hoarding) has a disruptive effect on the economic stability of a society and should not be permitted.that if one person has wealth, another cannot.
When the first automobiles were marketed those who bought one had a perfect right to drive it as fast as they wished to -- mainly because those early cars couldn't go that fast, anyway (15 mph). But as engine performance and transmission designs improved, speed levels increased and collisions were more common so it became necessary to restrict that right. Thus we no longer have the right to drive our cars as fast as we'd like to.Highway speed limits are not a restriction on rights.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to restrict certain individual rights for the overall benefit of society.
Wealth, meaning material resources, certainly is finite.They suffer from the erroneous belief that wealth is finite,
There is an important difference between wealth and excessive wealth. There is nothing wrong with accumulating reasonable wealth. But the accumulation of excessive wealth (hoarding) has a disruptive effect on the economic stability of a society and should not be permitted.that if one person has wealth, another cannot.
You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.
The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.
1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.
2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.
3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.
4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.
The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.
Dear PredFan
The way to "sell" it is similar to Christianity:
1. practice it yourself
2. fund the charity programs yourself
3. demonstrate it works so well that
other people CHOOSE to join, participate and contribute FREELY
4. GROW the program naturally where
participation and development is by FREE CHOICE not coercion
5. WHAT A CONCEPT, Right?
a. People *choosing* to join and follow a belief
by free will instead of being forced by govt? What? No way!
Is that like, religious freedom or some "foreign" concept??
b. Programs growing to serve more and more people
because they are proven to work, just like other
nonprofits or businesses that EARN and maintain good service reputations.
Is that the opposite of FAITH based?
Isn't it the liberals who insist that things be proven BEFORE
demanding that people follow and fund them?
What is this? This sounds like the right to choose.
Can you really expect that to work in a free society?
Maybe Socialism could work if some real wise people ruled the world.You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.
The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.
1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.
2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.
3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.
4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.
The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.
And when someone is given a business license are there not rules associated with it? Do you have a right to do business or is it a privilege?When the first automobiles were marketed those who bought one had a perfect right to drive it as fast as they wished to -- mainly because those early cars couldn't go that fast, anyway (15 mph). But as engine performance and transmission designs improved, speed levels increased and collisions were more common so it became necessary to restrict that right. Thus we no longer have the right to drive our cars as fast as we'd like to.Highway speed limits are not a restriction on rights.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to restrict certain individual rights for the overall benefit of society.
Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.
Maybe Socialism could work if some real wise people ruled the world.You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.
The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.
1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.
2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.
3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.
4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.
The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.
Theorically a country with zero class differences would be beautiful and all people could feel really equal before the law but theory is so different from reality...everytime somebody wants to build up a Socialist society the results aren't so good...
And when someone is given a business license are there not rules associated with it? Do you have a right to do business or is it a privilege?When the first automobiles were marketed those who bought one had a perfect right to drive it as fast as they wished to -- mainly because those early cars couldn't go that fast, anyway (15 mph). But as engine performance and transmission designs improved, speed levels increased and collisions were more common so it became necessary to restrict that right. Thus we no longer have the right to drive our cars as fast as we'd like to.Highway speed limits are not a restriction on rights.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to restrict certain individual rights for the overall benefit of society.
Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.
So you pay for the privilege of operating a business and you don't have a right to harm others. Got it.And when someone is given a business license are there not rules associated with it? Do you have a right to do business or is it a privilege?When the first automobiles were marketed those who bought one had a perfect right to drive it as fast as they wished to -- mainly because those early cars couldn't go that fast, anyway (15 mph). But as engine performance and transmission designs improved, speed levels increased and collisions were more common so it became necessary to restrict that right. Thus we no longer have the right to drive our cars as fast as we'd like to.Highway speed limits are not a restriction on rights.
Sometimes it becomes necessary to restrict certain individual rights for the overall benefit of society.
Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.
I have a business license, there are no rules associated with the license itself, just a fee which is wrong, imo. The kind of business I want to engage in might have rules but those are safety concerns and no, you do not have a right to place others in danger.
Bill Gates created his wealth by exchanging something of value with a vast number of individuals, including you and me. A certain amount of your wealth and mine was transferred, through a variety of transactions, to him.Wrong and wrong.
You attempt to redefine wealth to something you think supports your view but doesn't really. Wealth is not finite. Who did Bill Gates and Take money from when he went from broke college student to the wealthiest man in the US? No one, he created wealth. Wiealth is not finite. That is why your whole belief system doesn't hold water.
Government likes to say I am granted the "privilege" of driving my car on public roads. But unless you have done something to invalidate that privilege you have the same right to drive as do I and millions of others.Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.
Do you agree there is a major difference between a socialist society and a capitalist society which is regulated by certain socialist policies?abe Socialism could work if some real wise people ruled the world.
Theorically a country with zero class differences would be beautiful and all people could feel really equal before the law but theory is so different from reality...everytime somebody wants to build up a Socialist society the results aren't so good...
Bill Gates created his wealth by exchanging something of value with a vast number of individuals, including you and me. A certain amount of your wealth and mine was transferred, through a variety of transactions, to him.Wrong and wrong.
You attempt to redefine wealth to something you think supports your view but doesn't really. Wealth is not finite. Who did Bill Gates and Take money from when he went from broke college student to the wealthiest man in the US? No one, he created wealth. Wiealth is not finite. That is why your whole belief system doesn't hold water.
He found himself in an opportune situation which he was able to capitalize on via a number of exploitative and manipulative transactions.
Government likes to say I am granted the "privilege" of driving my car on public roads. But unless you have done something to invalidate that privilege you have the same right to drive as do I and millions of others.Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.
If Government were to deny your eligibility to drive a car because of your race would that be denial of a civil "privilege" or a civil right?
I would suggest that allowing a visiting foreigner to drive a car on our streets and highways is a privilege. But any fully accredited American citizen who has done nothing to relinquish it has as much right to drive a car as any other citizen -- regardless of what noun or adjective Government chooses to assign to it.
For Government to say it is granting you the "privilege" of driving a car is in fact rather arrogant. The fact that you so readily accept and agree with it is says a lot about you. And with that in mind, just how do you feel about Bill Gates (and others) being able to accumulate such monumentally excessive wealth?
Wealth was not created. It was redirected, which was possible only because it existed within the American economy. The same thing could not have happened in any other nation because the finite wealth resource of other nations does not compare with ours. You bought your first computer only because you had enough money to redirect to that purchase.And a whole lot of wealth was created. Businesses became more efficient, people started on-line businesses, computer and tech jobs were created, and the economy boomed. Wealth was created, not taken. Wealth is not finite.
If you truly believe greed is the impetus behind great intellectual endeavor it is you who is stupid.
Spoken like a true Loyalist.Wrong again. No one has a right to drive a car. Period.
Racial discrimination is a violation of one's civil rights.If they denied it to me because of my race it would be racial discrimination, which is against the law.
You believe that because it's been drilled into your mind over the years.Still no right to drive.
No one has a right to drive a car.
It has nothing to do with me, it's just a fact.
And there was a time when it would have been his right (and yours) to own slaves.It is Bill Gates' right to gain as much wealth as he can. As it is for all of us.
Translation: as a typical liberal I'm far too stupid to understand that if one man becomes wealthy it does not mean that another man is made poor. It s not zero sum.This topic is really over your head.
Government likes to say I am granted the "privilege" of driving my car on public roads. But unless you have done something to invalidate that privilege you have the same right to drive as do I and millions of others.Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.
If Government were to deny your eligibility to drive a car because of your race would that be denial of a civil "privilege" or a civil right?
I would suggest that allowing a visiting foreigner to drive a car on our streets and highways is a privilege. But any fully accredited American citizen who has done nothing to relinquish it has as much right to drive a car as any other citizen -- regardless of what noun or adjective Government chooses to assign to it.
For Government to say it is granting you the "privilege" of driving a car is in fact rather arrogant. The fact that you so readily accept and agree with it is says a lot about you. And with that in mind, just how do you feel about Bill Gates (and others) being able to accumulate such monumentally excessive wealth?
Wrong again. No one has a right to drive a car. Period.
If they denied it to me because of my race it would be racial discrimination, which is against the law. Still no right to drive.
No one has a right to drive a car.
It has nothing to do with me, it's just a fact.
It is Bill Gates' right to gain as much wealth as he can. As it is for all of us.
No such natural right exists.It is Bill Gates' right to gain as much wealth as he can. As it is for all of us.
The hoarding of money (wealth) is comparable in its effect on a national economy to reduced circulation of blood through your arteries, veins and capillaries. It's a blockage. It reduces growth potential -- and it should not be permitted.
