How to sell me on socialism.

[MikeK]

1) a desire to make money is not greed.

True. But the desire to hoard excessive amounts of money is greed.

2) and obviously the promise of great wealth encourages rather discourages the invention of cancer cures and self driving cars.

No great artistic or scientific achievement was motivated by the objective of great wealth. Genius is its own engine.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But there needs to be a limit on the level of wealth any citizen should be permitted to remove from circulation by hoarding it.

100% stupid!!! putting it a bank is the opposite of hoarding it you just lack the IQ to know it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No great artistic or scientific achievement was motivated by the objective of great wealth. Genius is its own engine.

we are talking about the development of the economy and most do it for the promise of great wealth. Why not grow up??

 

[MikeK]

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.

There is nothing wrong with wealth. It is excessive wealth that is a problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

No great artistic or scientific achievement was motivated by the objective of great wealth. Genius is its own engine.

we are talking about the development of the economy and most do it for the promise of great wealth. Why not grow up?? nobody invented anything in the USSR or Red China or Cuba because their was no incentive to do so

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

There is nothing wrong with wealth. It is excessive wealth that is a problem.

problem???????? Why not tell us why??????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.

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.

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.

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.

our country is based on right to private property acquired in peaceful voluntary transactions. Also based on right not to engage transactions with those whom you deem too rich to prevent them from becoming richer.

But there is no right to steal from the rich at gunpoint as violent liberals want.

 

[Tehon]

Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.

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.

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.

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.

our country is based on right to private property acquired in peaceful voluntary transactions. Also based on right not to engage transactions with those whom you deem too rich to prevent them from becoming richer.

But there is no right to steal from the rich at gunpoint as violent liberals want.

Steal from the rich at gunpoint? No, no, no. Simply revoke their privilege to conduct business.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Simply revoke their privilege to conduct business.

and you would do that at gunpoint in perfect libnazi fashion???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.

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.

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.

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.

our country is based on right to private property acquired in peaceful voluntary transactions. Also based on right not to engage transactions with those whom you deem too rich to prevent them from becoming richer.

But there is no right to steal from the rich at gunpoint as violent liberals want.

Steal from the rich at gunpoint? No, no, no. Simply revoke their privilege to conduct business.

cool so Bill Gates could no longer sell software and we have buy all new stuff?????????? HOw stupid id that?????????

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

The money you and I spent on our first computers was redirected from either savings or other objectives. It was circulated to Microsoft. And circulation is the pivotal factor in this discussion.

Circulation of money throughout a national economy is analogous to and every bit as important as is the circulation of blood throughout a living organism. 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.

I'm not saying Bill Gates should not be permitted to accumulate wealth. But there needs to be a limit on the level of wealth any citizen should be permitted to remove from circulation by hoarding it.

Bull shit, and that is why you believe the things you do. Wealth is created and it is not finite. Argue all you want to, that fact won't change.

 

[PredFan]

Wrong again. No one has a right to drive a car. Period.

Spoken like a true Loyalist.

Provided we demonstrate competence and do nothing disqualifying, why should any qualified citizen be denied the right to drive a car?

If they denied it to me because of my race it would be racial discrimination, which is against the law.

Racial discrimination is a violation of one's civil rights.

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.

You believe that because it's been drilled into your mind over the years.

It is Bill Gates' right to gain as much wealth as he can. As it is for all of us.

And there was a time when it would have been his right (and yours) to own slaves.

Again, no one has a right to drive a car. The roads, the bridges, the licenses, the lights, the signs, all of it is owned by the state or the fed. They make the rules, you have to abide by them or you don't drive. They can do that because there is no right to drive.

 

[PredFan]

Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.

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.

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.

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.

"Natural right?, Natural rights aren't the only rights.

 

[Tehon]

Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.

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.

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.

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.

"Natural right?, Natural rights aren't the only rights.

Correct, those rights not deemed natural are granted by law and are not immutable.

 

[PredFan]

Wrong. There is no right to drive. Driving is a privilege. You agree to follow the rules when you get your license.

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.

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.

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.

"Natural right?, Natural rights aren't the only rights.

Correct, those rights not deemed natural are granted by law and are not immutable.

But those right afforded to us by the constitution include the pursuit of happiness.

I'm just glad you lunatics aren't in charge.

 

[Tehon]

. Simply revoke their privilege to conduct business.

and you would do that at gunpoint in perfect libnazi fashion???

Sure, if necessary. They use their wealth to infringe on our rights.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Simply revoke their privilege to conduct business.

and you would do that at gunpoint in perfect libnazi fashion???

Sure, if necessary. They use their wealth to infringe on our rights.

so you want your Nazi police force to stop everyone from doing business and what would happen to our jobs and the products we need to survive? 1+1=2

 

[MikeK]

Again, no one has a right to drive a car. The roads, the bridges, the licenses, the lights, the signs, all of it is owned by the state or the fed. They make the rules, you have to abide by them or you don't drive. They can do that because there is no right to drive.

The roads, the bridges, the lights, signs, etc., are administered by the state or federal governments. But they are owned by the People.

You need to adjust your thinking to accommodate that reality. It will help you to view these things with greater clarity.

 

[MikeK]

Bull shit, and that is why you believe the things you do. Wealth is created and it is not finite. Argue all you want to, that fact won't change.

In spite of the erroneous choice of words by various officials and reporters, wealth is not "created." It is accumulated by one means or another.

Unlike the kind of inflationary ersatz wealth which is created by printing money when there is nothing to back it up, real wealth is acquired. Not "created."

 

[MikeK]

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.

There is nothing wrong with wealth. It is excessive wealth that is a problem.

problem???????? Why not tell us why??????????????

Review Message #55 for a simple lesson in very basic economics. Then read a few books and you might be ready to participate in this discussion. Because as of now you aren't.