Inccome inequality is the defining challange of of our generation??

PMZ said:

A term that conservative extremists repeat like parrots is "collectivist big government types".

I'm not sure what a collectivist even really is, though I think that all humans and many animal species could be called that in place of the word, "social".

I know of nobody in favor of big Goverment. Adequate government, perhaps. Responsible government. Problem solving government.

Click to expand...

Just look in the mirror. We can all see what you are.

Our government should only perform those tasks that were delegated to it by the people and the states. All other tasks are unconstitutional.

Obviously income inequality isn't the defining challenge of our day since the Obama administration is now arguing that Ocare is given the working poor the "economic freedom" to work less.

If they can choose to make less money willingly then obviously I have no need to give a crap about income inequality...

TurtleDude said:

socialism appeals to losers and power hungry control freaks. Capitalism appeals to winners

Click to expand...

Depending on what the definition of "is" is, right? Socialism appeals to those who feel entitled to what others have and those who believe nobody is entitled to what they have earned. Capitalism appeals to those who value liberty, unalienable rights, choice, options, opportunity, and unlimited boundaries.

Socialism looks to government as the supreme authority to control all the assets, assign the rights the people will have, order the proper society that will be allowed to be, provide complete security, and provide all that the people need. Capitalism looks to the people as the power and to the individual for potential, creativity, ingenuity, productivity, and possibilities.

The 'loser' in this scenario looks to government as a sort of all benevolent, all powerful God to rule the people. The 'winners' value liberty and look to government to secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to form whatever sort of society they want to have. Anything less is servitude the Constitution was intended to free us from.

MTAtech said:

That's a rather simplistic view. There isn't a nation on Earth that doesn't have a mixed economy. While capitalism is an efficient means of production, there are market failures it can't solve, such as pollution reduction.

Click to expand...

The role of the central government should be to enforce such regulation that is necessary in order for the several states to function as one nation and to secure our rights. The role of the central government should be ONLY that. And our rights should be defined as that which requires no participation or contribution by any other. All else is privilege, not rights, and is subject to informal or formal contracts and/or the law.

Your polluting the air, water, or soil, food supply etc. that I must use is a violation of my rights, and therefore control of that is a valid function of government at the state and local level and of the federal government when the pollution affects people across borders or state lines.

The property that we have acquired lawfully and ethically should be considered an unalienable right. And nobody else should be given ability to take that with impunity.