The founding fathers were slave owners

Owned, past tense please. No I was never in the top 5%, I just scrimped and saved until I could afford to purchase what I wanted most without the need of paying interest on a loan I could not afford.

 

Sorry, but a $50,000 boat on the used market is hardly eking out anything; and from what I understand about boats, I know people who live on less than it costs to own and use that boat.

The cost of your lifestyle that the rest of us pay is not acceptable to us, though.

Everybody "takes" from society, that's what it's there for. You get paid for your work and investments, you get assistance when you need it, you have the use of common facilities and infrastructure, and access to the marketplace.

Everybody should also contribute to the extent they can. Working a job as part of the social and market structures, paying taxes, and giving to charity and social needs.

The complexities of today's world, the population, and resources that are dwindling, shift many of the costs of a lavish lifestyle to everyone. For example, the wealthy use a disproportionate amount of the nation's available energy (part of the pie), particularly oil products. Because of this, the poor have to pay higher gas and heating costs on a budget that is already stretched beyond it's capacity.

The lower income workers already work themselves to death, the onus, as you put it, is on the wealthy to pay a decent wage. I doubt that your job was more valuable to society than that of a fire fighter or a school teacher, yet they cannot afford a 30' sailboat. Why do you think you have the right to earn more than a cop or the person who cooks your children's meals at school? Why do you have the right to see a doctor when you need one and my friends, who probably work harder than you did, have to suffer?

If this was good for you, why is it not good for a nation?

.

 

So what's the point?

My lifestyle has not cost you one red cent, or even a zinc penny.

You're making an irrational claim the everyone "takes" from society. Do you look at society as a means of filling a pot which everyone is entitled to take from equally? Are we already into stage two of Marxism? Stage one being "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" and stage two being "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".
Those of us who work and pay taxes provide the funding for the government to build an infrastructure, roads, highways, bridges, etc. and provide protection that we all benefit from, including those who do not work, nor pay taxes.

To the extent they can? Or to the extent you feel they should?

Earlier, you or someone else told me that population was not a problem and that resources are more than adequate for all.

If the pay is not adequate don't take the job.

I was referring to my self sufficiency, and it would be good for a nation to be comprised of more self sufficient individuals.

 

Indie

OH no, not more slogans, its really boring and not very enlightening.

Anyway I see once again you are not answering questions I see.

It doesn’t matter if you are elite or not the problem is that ‘free market systems’ favour elites something I notice you don’t dispute and you seem to favour an extreme form of free market system that would tremendously increase the power and influence of wealth.

Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

This has been explained to you several times and you have not disputed the argument in any substantial way. I think the reason for that is because you can’t actually dispute it.

Thing is you ideas don’t seem to be ‘real’ solutions they would seem to make things worse and the other thing is that you don’t seem able to defend your ideas from that charge.

*

Slogans

In what way would the elite be ‘enslaved’ I mean enslaved is a pretty strong term can you back it up?

What is ‘true freedom’ or ‘true rights’ there meaningless its like saying ‘true cheese’ unless you can explain what you mean - and you seem unwilling or unable to do so – its just nonsensical gibberish.

The same goes for ‘If all are not free then none can be’ it might sound rousing to you but its rubbish unless you explain what you mean and you don’t so it hangs there like a fart in a lift.

*

In my form of government – please explain what you think is my form of government?

Oppression, what oppression?

And what do you think I define as ‘rights’?

You seem to be saying I’m wrong but seem unable to actually explain why I’m supposed to be wrong, there is no substance to it. You don’t seem to have any rational reasons as to why I’m supposedly wrong you just seem to be telling me am wrong because I don’t totally agree with you.

*


Basically this isn’t rational argument it’s an emotional response based on belief rather that thought – you seem to see yourself as some type of libertarian champion of ‘true freedom’ fighting against the enslaving and oppressive heretics.

It’s simplistic and rather juvenile and in fact the more you pumps out these trite and slogan laden missives the more an image of a teenage boy who’s just read Atlas Shrugged comes to mind.

*

 

Try putting your ideas forth and I'll question them for a while.

 

You stated: "my friends and I have been able to eke out pretty descent lives."

The wealth that is required to own and maintain a 30' sailboat is more than just a pretty decent life. I doubt there is a boat of that size in the entire county where I live. My point is, you are downplaying your position on the economic ladder. Don't let my Opie Taylor appearance fool you, I'm not that naive.

Not true. Your lifestyle put a cost on everyone. When you use the PRIVATE space to dock your boat you are taking up beech space that is no longer open to the public. The surrounding properties rise in value and ordinary citizens can no longer use those resources. When you haul that boat you use a disproportionate amount of fuel, making it more expensive for everyone else. When you take a bigger salary, others must take a smaller one. Your bigger home uses more energy, leaving less and more expensive heating costs for everyone else. If I knew what your job classification was I could likely expand this list.

At the family reunion Aunt Alice cuts the cherry pies so everyone has one piece. Fat Uncle Buba sits down and scoops up 5 pieces, which means 4 people don't get cherry pie. If you had any regard for others, you would understand this; but, for some reason, you, and Fat Uncle Buba, think you deserve more of the pie than others.

My claim is very rational. In a world of limited resources, the pie, you take more and everyone else gets less.

Sadly, no.

I agree. Everyone who doesn't make a decent wage should stop working today. The entire pay structure of this nation would change within a month or society would collapse.

Do you grow all of your own food, make your own fuel, clothes and everything else you use? I know that you have a computer that was made by someone else. You use the internet, which is composed of millions of $ of equipment that is not yours, you take a SS check and you said that you have a means of generating income; all of which are dependent on other people. You are still "taking" from society and bitching about having to give back to it.

.

 

The sailboat was one of several possessions that represented the wealth I was able to accrue over my life. You ignore the fact that I also had to pay property tax, including school tax on the boat. My income, another thing entirely from my wealth was adequate to support the costs of maintaining possession of my wealth, and was probably quite similar, or slightly greater or less than the income you receive. I did, at times take on additional work, as necessary when normal income was insufficient. I painted houses, did landscape work, and various other odd jobs to EARN the income necessary to produce the lifestyle I desired. When you drive through Atlanta, look at the Capitol dome, I did the calculation of the surface area to determine the amount of gold leaf required when a friend and his business re-leafed it some years back.
Although you may not find many boats of that size in your county, there may be several in your county who own boats of that size or larger. Most likely they are docked on Lake Lanier as mine was.

You can't dock a sailboat on a beech, you need deep water or you run aground.
You seem intent on focusing on me as an individual, if you really want to make some points, try focusing on the likes of George Soros, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, nearly any movie star, popular singer/musician, or professional athlete.

I assume that Aunt Alice was not charging for the pie? When you provide something for free and don't carefully control its dispersal you create a situation which promotes greed and corruption. Actually Fat Uncle Buba was just taking a Liberal serving of pie. I don't look at the world and think "what portion do I deserve" but instead look at what is available, decide what it is I wish to acquire, and work towards earning what is required to purchase what I want within the limitations of my abilities. Many things I would like to have are beyond my capacity to acquire, but I accept that and go on.

For me to accept your claim to be rational, you would have to provide a clear and concise definition of what you are calling resources. You use the word "take" as though you wish to imply theft.

That clears up everything.

Interesting, instead of "workers of the world unite" the slogan could be "non-workers of the world unite".

We do grow much of our food, and have only minimal monthly bills. We live quite simply. I have purchased computers and other products I find useful with the money I had earned during my working life. I pay for the Internet service I make use of, I also pay for the fuel I use, the clothes we wear, and every other product or service we avail ourselves of. I now receive S.S. which was mandated upon me when I began working, essentially a deferred payment for my labors. I can easily generate additional income if I wished, but then you would claim that I was taking a job away from someone who needed it more than I. You continually use the word "take" with the implication as an act of theft. What you present as your view of a society is what communism set out to achieve, but fails miserably when put into practice.

 

Not really, I'm using your situation vs. my friend to demonstrate the inequities of American Capitalism. Don't take it so personally. Individually, you are insignificant in the big picture. George Soros, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey and the likes are the epitome of your system.

The word take does not imply theft, nor do I.

I do not promote Communism, nor Socialism; and I do not promote the extermination of Capitalism. I promote the restructuring of Capitalism to make it beneficial to all.

.

 

But those are some of the staunchest supporters of your philosophy.

Do you equate it to "purchase"?

Backing away from Marx, or have you another name for it? Exactly how would restructure Capitalism in a way beneficial to all? Impose a maximum wage? Or simply tax the hell out of those who make over a predetermined amount you feel to be enough?

 

Doesn't this mean my philosophy has a lot of merit and doesn't stifle business interests?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/take
"to get into one's hands or into one's possession,"

A maximum and a minimum wage and a national sales tax that would exempt medical, food and primiary family home purchases or leases.

.

 

I'm sure your philosophy has merit for those with the greatest wealth as they support laws which allows them to retain and increase their wealth by limiting or eliminating others from doing the same. A classless society is one in which the ruled are essentially of the same class, but the ruling are not.

In that both theft and purchase accomplish the same results, am I to assume that your philosophy is firmly based on "the ends justify the means"?

Who would decide what the maximum and minimum wages would be? Who would own businesses? Who would invest in new technology if possible gains were no greater when taking a risk than investing in existing and already proven technology?
What would you call this form of government?

 

Indie

This is just more evasion, could you please just answer the questions?

As to my ideas they have been stated many times; in threads that you have participated in and in threads I’ve linked to (for fuck sake ones in the damned post of mine you actually quote) so please stop this dishonest misdirection?

 

Us, through our representatives.

The same people who own them now.

The same ones who do it now. Are you going to say that investors will close shop and make no profits if they are not allowed to make obscene profits? Will the CEOs go home if they can't make $50 million a year?


What would you call this form of government?

Regulated Capitalism, or maybe Compassionate Government.

.

 

That's humorous, and you really think that voters and the representatives are intelligent enough to make such decisions?

Even if they could find other areas to invest their money more wisely and profitably?

What is obscene about profit? A businessman creates a product or service in order to make a profit, consumers respond by ignoring or purchasing the same. Business primarily operates on supply and demand. Let the consumers regulate and let government take care of what little it does best.

Why do you omit the word Socialist? or Democracy? I prefer justice to compassion.

 

Indie

But the problem is that if unregulated some ‘businessman’ will happily make dangerous products or promote ideas and take risks that can end up hurting anything from a few to most of the people in their society.

A consumer can not always know in advance if a product is good or bad, regulation is there to try and stop substandard products being sold in the first place.

So does a crack dealer J but putting flippancy aside, the problem is that –“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”



If supply can be controlled (by cabal or monopoly) then they can demand what they want.

And the best way for people in a democratic society to regulate against those that might do harm to that society is through laws brought in by their elected government.

 

I didn't say that rational regulations should be eliminated where found necessary, or that business should not be held responsible for any injuries or harm they create.

Buyer beware AND read the products warranty or guarantee prior to purchase. Check the BBB and other sources of information before purchasing to see if there have been numerous complaints, or ask friends who may be more knowledgeable.
Most of all accept the fact that you have to take some responsibility for your own life failures and successes.

Have some evidence? take them to court.

Just who are we now talking about?

I might agree, if the order is representatives at the local, state, and as last resort federal government. Agreeable solutions to similar problems are not always identical. Individual liberty is of great importance in a "free" society.

 

You're either insufferable, or you just have no clue. Anti-freeze in toothpaste, poison pet food, poisons and bacteria in food from improper handling, exploding pintos, and more recently, glasses from McDonalds with poison painted on the glass.

Before you brush your teeth again you might want to have a lab test the toothpaste, and do a complete background check on your doctor. You could go from the grocery store to the local lab and have all of your food tested before you eat it.

You're just blowin smoke here, there's no way we all can check every product we purchase and no way we can check out every individual and company we deal with. So, collectively, we give that job to the government so all of us can be safer.

.

 

You're really going off on a tangent. Known dangerous substances can be prohibited by laws as to where they can be used. Some laws are necessary you know, and I haven't suggested the elimination of all laws.

Why should I? You're the one who thinks everyone is out to harm you.

Therefore we're entirely safe? I really feel safer relying on private, non-political entities than I do on government. They can be held responsible for their actions or inactions.

 

Tangent??????????? I'm responding to your statement that we are all responsible for the choices we make. Remember this statement: "Buyer beware AND read the products warranty or guarantee prior to purchase. Check the BBB and other sources of information before purchasing to see if there have been numerous complaints, or ask friends who may be more knowledgeable."

.

 

Yes, and I stand behind it. I'm for less government, not the elimination of government. I'm for less government controls, not the elimination of government controls where absolutely necessary. I'm for people being allowed to make their own choices, right or wrong. The greater government becomes involved in providing things the greater it becomes intrusive in what choices are allowed the individuals. Take health care as an example. If government is going to be the source of paying for health care costs of the nation, it then assumes the right to control the lives of everyone in ways it feels limit health risks. Limit salt, fat, and sugar consumption, perhaps an obesity tax next. Government is becoming God-like, in creating what it wishes to define as sins, and where unable to eliminate it taxes instead.
I'm not aware of any businesses who knowingly produce products with intent to harm their consumers. Perhaps I should tell my wife to check the hairspray cans to verify they do not contain cyanide? The McDonalds glasses you mention were a product from China weren't they? And if not mistaken they were pulled once it was determined the paint on the outside of the glasses contained cadmium. Even so, I think it was not as big a risk as presented in the news. Danger lurks all around us, and it would be impossible to eliminate every bit of it. Awareness of what is dangerous is the best preventative in most every case. Of course there may be some who would scrape the paint off the glasses and consume it, and I suppose it is those you feel need protection?