Originally Posted By: sinij
Originally Posted By: Derid

The principle of taking from one who earned and giving to another who did not still stands.


I really don't understand right's obsession with "mine, stay away, mine!". Do bank CEOs earn multimillion dollar bonuses while taking bailouts? This might be extreme example, but nobody earns anything in a vacuum. As exploitative as they might be, our society made these bonuses possible, not efforts of these CEOs. Society, in its entirety, from welfare queens to cure-for-cancer inventors, make your earning possible.

Whatever you do for living, imagine you are moved to Somalia. Do you see your life drastically changing and your ability to earn entirely disappearing as a result of absence of society enabling you to earn?



See this is where you veer off the cliff, rationally speaking. Society in its entirety certainly did not and does not make things possible, only certain aspects do.

Also, you know Somalia is a very silly comparison. You are trying to mix arguments.

So lets pick this apart.

First, Capitalism is self-evidently responsible for the wealth that has been created in our society. Socialism does not create wealth it spreads it around, I am pretty sure even you agree with this. Central economic planning simply doesn't work.

Secondly, we all agree that banks should not have gotten bailouts - but that is not Capitalism at work. That is Interventionism, a close cousin to Socialism. Also in this case throw in a good dose of cronyism, not sure how or why you insist on confusing that for Capitalism but that seems to be something all the "99percenters" like to do... and it makes absolutely zero sense.

Third, CEOs - that is people who lead and organize enterprise certainly can contribute to wealth generation. So can many others. Something that welfare queens certainly do not do is contribute to wealth generation.

Society as a whole just "is", if you want to create an accurate statement you have to consider the component parts and examine the details of how the wealth is actually created and flows. I think this is Jet's problem as well when he posts here. Its something endemic with the left, the left just does not understand in many cases that wealth even CAN be created by human action... and thinks it is something that occurs on its own, which is simply not true.

Sorry, creating wealth is hard. Making money if you get the govt on your side is not. But there is a very profound difference between the two.

Capitalism sans govt Intervention is a meritocracy. Socialism and Interventionism are bureaucracies. One system pays out profits fairly based on the services and goods provided. The other two pay out profits based on politics. I am sure you do not understand why anyone objects to having govt leeches who provide nothing and have no stake in your life or business telling you how to run your business or how to spend your money, but it irks the rest of us greatly.

And I am glad you do not understand the " mine, mine,mine". Please Paypal me all the money receive above and beyond what you need for survival. I am a part of society, and you couldn't have gotten it without me anyway. LOL

The "Mine , mine , mine" mentality is simply that having other people ( who did not work for your money ) tell you who to give it to, when those people you must give it to are not using it to provide services in your interest (like a military for ex. ) is very irritating. Especially when they preach down to you about their false morality as they do so.

In fact, the the Bank Bailouts are actually analogous to this. People who did not earn money receiving it from the govt because of politics. As mad as you get because a few Banks got bailed out, I get because of the govt trying to micromanage my finances and health care and taxing me to dole out money on the basis of crony politics. Whether it is Dems buying Union votes, Dems or GOPers handing cash to bankers, or either party handing out subsidies to their favorite industries. Its all the same.

That being said, some level of safety nets are acceptable as long as they are below the threshold of providing undue drain on my wallet or danger to the economy. If the left had left off where we were in 2000 I would have myself been content. But instead of being happy that we had created a more or less sustainable society that still contained safety nets and forced retirement programs ( SS, Medicare) the left wanted yet more.

My biggest objection to the left any more and the reason I now flat out reject them in all manners is because of this. It is clear that it will NEVER be enough. If I still have a penny of my own left to spend, there will be leftists waiting to spend it for me. If I have a choice left in what food I eat or what I choose to do with my time, there will be a leftist wanting to use force to make me abide by their way. Once they take over completely I can kiss any property I own goodbye as well, so says history.

I get really depressed whenever I think about how far socialism has progressed in this country, and statist group-think.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)