• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The divide between the rich and the rest

How serious a problem is the divide between the wealthy and the rest of us?

  • Not a problem at all.

    Votes: 32 29.4%

  • A problem, but not a serious one.

    Votes: 8 7.3%

  • A fairly serious problem.

    Votes: 34 31.2%

  • It's not just a "problem." It's a catastrophe that is only getting worse.

    Votes: 35 32.1%

  • This divide does not exist.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    109
cpwill said:
Quite the contrary. For example, I would wager that between the two of you, you are far more likely to use violence than he is to force your opinion of the proper amount I should be giving to charity, to healthcare for the elderly, etc.
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion on the proper amount YOU should be giving to charity etc ....

And you'd be wrong about the likelihood of me using violence as well.... I have never seen that as an effective means to resolve conflict.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
I don't have an opinion on the proper amount YOU should be giving to charity etc ....
Click to expand...

Really? So you do not, for example, think that I should be forced to take the money I earn and give it to people in the form of food stamps, TANF checks, or Medicare payouts?

And you'd be wrong about the likelihood of me using violence as well.... I have never seen that as an effective means to resolve conflict.
Click to expand...

Ah. So you, too, are a libertarian? Why don't you have it as your lean?
 
marywollstonecraft said:
the important phrase is that bolded above ... in your opinion there is somehow a connection with interpersonal violence, but I don't see that.

This probably indicates that you are far more likely than I to use violence in trying to resolve differences. :)
Click to expand...

No, cpwill had it right. I was referring to the nanny-staters in my original post:

Federalist said:
Or perhaps he has to much invested in his own ability to control his own person and property. The hand wringing ninnies, as he calls them, inevitably want control over our person (making us do things) and our property (taking things from us).
Click to expand...

The nanny staters are those who endorse the use of interpersonal violence in order to control their fellow man and in order to take his property.

For example, let's say that there is some guy who plants some seeds in his garden, grows the plants, and then consumes the final product. Oh, and the plants are Cannibis sativa.

There are those who would use interpersonal violence to punish his for these acts, despite the fact that his acts harmed no other person.

Of course I abhor all interpersonal violence, but in this case I was specifically talking about the interpersonal violence initiated by agents of the State.
 
cpwill said:
Quite the contrary. For example, I would wager that between the two of you, you are far more likely to use violence than he is to force your opinion of the proper amount I should be giving to charity, to healthcare for the elderly, etc.
Click to expand...

You would be right. :)
 
cpwill said:
Really? So you do not, for example, think that I should be forced to take the money I earn and give it to people in the form of food stamps, TANF checks, or Medicare payouts?



Ah. So you, too, are a libertarian? Why don't you have it as your lean?
Click to expand...

I think you should have the same range of choices as others do.

No, I am not a libertarian ... after coming to forums like this I thought that was an Americanism for a self centred and selfish individual.

In general, such people are not necessarily opposed to violence.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
libertarian ... after coming to forums like this I thought that was an Americanism for a self centred and selfish individual.

.
Click to expand...

AKA -- teenager who just found their new religion at Lewrockwell dot com.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
I think you should have the same range of choices as others do.
Click to expand...

That is not a way of saying much. Are you in favor of using the coercive power of the state to force me to give my money to others under the threat of state violence or not?

No, I am not a libertarian ... after coming to forums like this I thought that was an Americanism for a self centred and selfish individual.
Click to expand...

No, libertarianism, by and large (there are a few exceptions), is the radical notion that perhaps you are best suited to make decisions about your own life, and government should therefore not interpose it's preferences upon you.

In general, such people are not necessarily opposed to violence.
Click to expand...

:shrug: in general people are not opposed to violence. However, Hobbes was right - the single greatest repository of violence - of terror - in a country is the government itself. Those who argue for an expanded role for governance are arguing for an expansion of this use of violence against their fellow citizens.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
I think you should have the same range of choices as others do.

No, I am not a libertarian ... after coming to forums like this I thought that was an Americanism for a self centred and selfish individual.

In general, such people are not necessarily opposed to violence.
Click to expand...

Well then you don't know much about libertarianism. One of their core principles (if not THE core principle) is that it is wrong to INITIATE violence against others or their property.

You might want to read this: Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The libertarians actually see non-libertarians as self-centered and selfish, since those sorts are willing to initiate violence (or outsource this job) against others in order to have their own selfish ends satisfied.
 
cpwill said:
That is not a way of saying much. Are you in favor of using the coercive power of the state to force me to give my money to others under the threat of state violence or not?



No, libertarianism, by and large (there are a few exceptions), is the radical notion that perhaps you are best suited to make decisions about your own life, and government should therefore not interpose it's preferences upon you.



:shrug: in general people are not opposed to violence. However, Hobbes was right - the single greatest repository of violence - of terror - in a country is the government itself. Those who argue for an expanded role for governance are arguing for an expansion of this use of violence against their fellow citizens.
Click to expand...

Of course, "governments" in modern democracies operate in the same way as they did in the 17th century, during the English civil war.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: in general people are not opposed to violence. .
Click to expand...

have somebody beat you over the head repeatedly, and see if you can still say you are not opposed.

It's all perspective, or lack thereof, I guess.
 
Gardener said:
have somebody beat you over the head repeatedly, and see if you can still say you are not opposed.

It's all perspective, or lack thereof, I guess.
Click to expand...

The libertarian opposes the INITIATION of violence not self-defense.
 
Federalist said:
Well then you don't know much about libertarianism. One of their core principles (if not THE core principle) is that it is wrong to INITIATE violence against others or their property.

You might want to read this: Non-aggression principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The libertarians actually see non-libertarians as self-centered and selfish, since those sorts are willing to initiate violence (or outsource this job) against others in order to have their own selfish ends satisfied.
Click to expand...

interesting.

considering that so many self identified libertarians sound like candidates for anger management classes, and express opinions that would not be out of place from the most self centred adolescent.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
interesting.

considering that so many self identified libertarians sound like candidates for anger management classes, and express opinions that would not be out of place from the most self centred adolescent.
Click to expand...

Not sure to whom you're referring, but I believe you have a mistaken notion of libertarianism. They are the ONLY political philosophy that, across the board, opposes the initiation of interpersonal aggression. So, in fact, they are the exact opposite of your characterization.
 
The middle ground for a so-called middle of the roader.
Number four choice ....for the extremist
Number five choice....for the man whose head is in the sand
Number one.....for the concrete head...
In all honesty, I do not think that the problem is that bad...I think that things have always been this way..
Proof ?
none, a gut feeling...
But, no doubt, things can be better....
 
Dapper Andy said:
Sure, if they have the right skill set.

How many labors went out and got degrees in computer science?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I've seen people try to do jobs they just can't handle. In fact, I've taught many how to do a skilled labor job and some that simply could not learn it. It's not just a matter of skill set, it's a matter of talent, too, in most cases. I've seen dumb-ass programmers with degrees and I've seen good programmers with little formal training. Again, it's often a matter of talent, not just learning.

Of course, we're always left with the simple fact that even if everyone got degrees in good jobs someone would still have to sweep the floors, organize files, and enter numbers into a computer. There simply isn't room at the top for everyone regardless of how skilled or talented they are.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
why is it right whingers are so anti education and anti fact?

why are they so prone to conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...
That's the only question here. The other two follow naturally given a lack of education. ;)
 
Federalist said:
I made no statements regarding economics. I was commenting on those who feel justified in controlling other people's behavior and taking their property.
Click to expand...
Another person who believes government can exist without taxes? That is what you're talking about, isn't it, taxes?


As for controlling other people's behavior, that's called "civilization". We don't allow people to kill or maim each other. We don't allow people steal from each other. We don't allow a lot of things so that order is kept.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Another person who believes government can exist without taxes? That is what you're talking about, isn't it, taxes?

As for controlling other people's behavior, that's called "civilization". We don't allow people to kill or maim each other. We don't allow people steal from each other. We don't allow a lot of things so that order is kept.
Click to expand...

Libertarians advocate minarchism, not anarchism.

The important thing for a so-called relatively free society is that government do only what is minimally necessary and with just cause in order to disallow killing, stealing, enslaving, etc. Minimally necessary would mean it enforces contracts that are brought to the legal system because of breach, not manhandle everyone's freedom to deal with one another in the first place. It would mean incarceration in response to crime, not to preempt it. It means you demonstrate that a suspension or termination of liberty or deprivation of property be shown to a court and put through due process, case-by-case, to be justified.

The federal government, all three branches (four if you count the shadow branch of the central bank), has done many, many things in recent history that fly in the face of those principles.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Libertarians advocate minarchism, not anarchism.

The important thing for a so-called relatively free society is that government do only what is minimally necessary and with just cause in order to disallow killing, stealing, enslaving, etc. Minimally necessary would mean it enforces contracts that are brought to the legal system because of breach, not manhandle everyone's freedom to deal with one another in the first place. It would mean incarceration in response to crime, not to preempt it. It means you demonstrate that a suspension or termination of liberty or deprivation of property be shown to a court and put through due process, case-by-case, to be justified.

The federal government, all three branches (four if you count the shadow branch of the central bank), has done many, many things in recent history that fly in the face of those principles.
Click to expand...

Rand Paul expressed the view that a restaurant owner should be able to deny a black man service simply because he is black. Paul wouldn't eat there (he claims), but the owner should have that right. Is that a view shared by most Libertarians or is Paul in the minority among Libertarians?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Sorry, I've seen people try to do jobs they just can't handle. In fact, I've taught many how to do a skilled labor job and some that simply could not learn it. It's not just a matter of skill set, it's a matter of talent, too, in most cases. I've seen dumb-ass programmers with degrees and I've seen good programmers with little formal training. Again, it's often a matter of talent, not just learning.

Of course, we're always left with the simple fact that even if everyone got degrees in good jobs someone would still have to sweep the floors, organize files, and enter numbers into a computer. There simply isn't room at the top for everyone regardless of how skilled or talented they are.
Click to expand...

I would have agreed up until that bolded part. Those that address the administrative aspect are just as much 'at the top' as the P, the VP and the rest, if they know their job and do it well. Without them, no business functions well. Just about every sole prop will tell you running the business and keeping the numbers straight are two very separate jobs, both with equal value.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Another person who believes government can exist without taxes? That is what you're talking about, isn't it, taxes?


As for controlling other people's behavior, that's called "civilization". We don't allow people to kill or maim each other. We don't allow people steal from each other. We don't allow a lot of things so that order is kept.
Click to expand...

As I have already pointed out, libertarians oppose the initiation of violence against person and property. So a libertarian would agree with you that those who kill, maim, or steal from others should be stopped and/or punished.

However, libertarians (unlike other political philosophies) hold agents of the state to the same standard. Thus, if an agent of the state were to accost a person for growing a plant, a libertarian would regard that as common assault. Essentially, there is one standard of human behavior, not one for the mundanes and then another for agents of the State.
 
windowdressing said:
Rand Paul expressed the view that a restaurant owner should be able to deny a black man service simply because he is black. Paul wouldn't eat there (he claims), but the owner should have that right. Is that a view shared by most Libertarians or is Paul in the minority among Libertarians?
Click to expand...

I don't know for sure but I believe that yes most libertarians would agree with Rand Paul on this issue.

Want another scenario that involves trade and race? Let's say I have two auto mechanics in my town, one Hispanic, one white. I'm white, so with which mechanic should I be required to do business when it comes to fixing my car?

The point of this exercise is mostly rhetorical, and it shows that it doesn't really make sense to have the federal government meddling in people's bargaining with one another to make sure they don't have racist motives. I think there are some situations in the world that can be addressed by the people and/or smaller levels of government than federal, and that was specifically the level of government Rand Paul was referencing when explaining the nature of his objection to the CRA, so don't take him out of context.

With that said, I believe there have been some major upsides to the CRA in spite of the fact the federal government got involved in it all. Ideally we would have crushed the idiot-racism of the last couple centuries organically, without federal legislation, but if the CRA helped in that regard, fine. Libertarians have much bigger fish to fry than their purely technical objections to the CRA.
 
GottaGo said:
I would have agreed up until that bolded part. Those that address the administrative aspect are just as much 'at the top' as the P, the VP and the rest, if they know their job and do it well. Without them, no business functions well. Just about every sole prop will tell you running the business and keeping the numbers straight are two very separate jobs, both with equal value.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
 
Federalist said:
As I have already pointed out, libertarians oppose the initiation of violence against person and property. So a libertarian would agree with you that those who kill, maim, or steal from others should be stopped and/or punished.

However, libertarians (unlike other political philosophies) hold agents of the state to the same standard. Thus, if an agent of the state were to accost a person for growing a plant, a libertarian would regard that as common assault. Essentially, there is one standard of human behavior, not one for the mundanes and then another for agents of the State.
Click to expand...
People are accosted for gardening? Wow - where do you live 'cause I don't want to ever go there, not even to visit.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Sorry, I've seen people try to do jobs they just can't handle. In fact, I've taught many how to do a skilled labor job and some that simply could not learn it. It's not just a matter of skill set, it's a matter of talent, too, in most cases. I've seen dumb-ass programmers with degrees and I've seen good programmers with little formal training. Again, it's often a matter of talent, not just learning.

Of course, we're always left with the simple fact that even if everyone got degrees in good jobs someone would still have to sweep the floors, organize files, and enter numbers into a computer. There simply isn't room at the top for everyone regardless of how skilled or talented they are.
Click to expand...


There are an innumerable jobs in this world and nearly all of them are held by someone of average intelligence.

Saying that these people are incapable of finding work outside of unskilled labor is completely liberal bull****.

As I asked before:

How many laborers went out and got degrees in computer science?
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to find work when you're unqualified for anything and unwilling to become qualified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom