False equivalence but you operate in that realm.
The right has been redistributing wealth up the income scale for 50 years, the equities are totally out of whack.
False equivalence but you operate in that realm.
Who forces you to give your money to the wealthy?
That's how the conversation got started. You're now using circular reasoning.
nothing circular.
bad system leads to inequitable results. the existence of the super billionaires like bezos is the clearest example of that. my fixation is not on bringing out the guillotine and redistributing bezos' personal wealth. its about addressing the roots of the issue, ie through a more aggressive tax scheme to benefit the broader public
You're using the statement you're trying to prove as proof. At best you're begging the question.
Rent, debt, education, health care, transportation and taxes
Which of those is going to the wealthy?
"Debt" is too general a statement. Why do you owe? Who do you owe?
Healthcare costs go to a lot of people, many who work in the HC industry have to get paid.
You're saying everything you use is forcing you to give money to the wealthy. That's not a valid argument.
Taxes?![]()
Aren't you arguing for more taxes?
Also, the government that gives owners, lenders and employers rule and subsidy based advantages over me.
So you want to better yourself at their expense?
Yes, but not into a black bag, but into public goods like education, healthcare, transportation, banking/credit that reduce the costs of production and the burden that employers and workers disproportionately bear.
what i'm arguing for is a solution. seems you're stuck on whether the problem exists.
The equities are too skewed in favor of the wealthy, I think that should change. YMMV.
You're arguing for more than more taxation. You're arguing for an overthrow.
I don't believe it's a problem. I just think it's low hanging fruit that's an easily assignable cause that has little to no affect on what you're trying to achieve.
They can afford it unlike the poor and middle class that they have been used at their expense by the rich. The income gradient over time is what it is.
ARe you arguing the an rust laws and their application is an overthrow? They are literally talking about dismantling oligarchy.
only if the assumption is that im only interesting in policy that redistributes the net worths of specific people with net worths in the tens of billions
I can see how using political power to prioritize public goods in the national interest might look like a revolution to you. It isn't and it needn't be. You're ting you pants over commonplaces of political reform *not necessarily favorable* to short term profit.
My argument is that state support of certain public goods is good not only for the public, but for industrial compe iveness and productivity.
He seems to think shifting money off the throne of power and putting the public interest there is VIOLENT REVOLT AND OVERTHROW.
DMC has argued in the past that society is a fiction and the common interest is ersatz. There's only individuals against a doctrinally evil state. The essential problem is how to spirit what one can to make a tolerable life for oneself from an immutably oppressive order.
Cheap cynicism fused with personal greed, elevated to a principle.
There's a reason so many objectivists end up killing themselves.
That would explain a lot, but much of objectivism is common to various flavors of libertarianism. DMC's streak of blithe cruelty reminds me of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, but who knows where he got it. Asshole libertarianism has a thousand fathers.
So the answer is yes.
Of course, who doesn't want to change rules to better themselves?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)