• 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!

Real Wealth is Decreasing

phattonez said:
There's more to life than accumulating as much material wealth as possible. If your society makes basic human activities like getting married and having kids prohibitively expensive, then that society has failed. This is why I made that "have some condoms" remark. It's a banal existence, yet if that's what gets you ahead monetarily, then according to libertarian ethics it's a good thing. We are made for higher ends.
Click to expand...

The purpose of life is up to each person, not you. That why it says "pursuit of happiness" in our founding documents. The purpose of society is not to make having a family cheap, its to protect each individuals life and freedom so they can pursue happiness.

SO, money has nothing to do with libertarian ethics. What increases your liberty is a good thing. What you do with your liberty, whether that collecting property or giving it away, is a good thing.
 
phattonez said:
if that's what gets you ahead monetarily, then according to libertarian ethics it's a good thing.
Click to expand...

libertarian ethics is about freedom from govt, not getting ahead monetarily. I'll pay you $10,000 if this is not true. Back to school for the liberal!
 
Pretty much proven fact at this point. And its because all the wealth is going to such a tiny few that it leaves the vast majority of use struggling with less. But hey righties, keep blindly worshipping the rich that take all the wealth, and worse, fight to get even more wealth they don't even need
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Pretty much proven fact at this point. And its because all the wealth is going to such a tiny few that it leaves the vast majority of use struggling with less.
Click to expand...

wrong of course, its not zero sum game. If Bezos earns money it does not mean you cant. Where did you get that absurd idea????
 
Sampson Simpson said:
, keep blindly worshipping the rich that take all the wealth,
Click to expand...

how do you take wealth in a free society?? If you don't want Bezos to have your wealth you are free not to buy from him and even to tell others not to buy from him! You want to give him your wealth and then accuse him of taking it. See why we say liberalism is based in pure total ignorance?
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Pretty much proven fact at this point. And its because all the wealth is going to such a tiny few that it leaves the vast majority of use struggling with less. But hey righties, keep blindly worshipping the rich that take all the wealth, and worse, fight to get even more wealth they don't even need
Click to expand...

Technically they earn 1% of the wealth. Thats why they are the 1%.
 
jonny5 said:
Technically they earn 1% of the wealth. Thats why they are the 1%.
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate, ALL the wealth does not go to a tiny few. 20% of the wealth does (if by tiny you mean 1.5 million people) Almost all of the wealth goes to the bottom 99% of earners. In 2016 they earned 8.2 trillion in wealth. Compared to 2 trillion for the top 1%.
 
jonny5 said:
Just to reiterate, ALL the wealth does not go to a tiny few. 20% of the wealth does (if by tiny you mean 1.5 million people) Almost all of the wealth goes to the bottom 99% of earners. In 2016 they earned 8.2 trillion in wealth. Compared to 2 trillion for the top 1%.
Click to expand...

and the beauty of living in a free country is that if you don't want Bezos to have so much wealth you are free not to buy from him with your wealth, and you can even encourage others to do the same. But to buy from him and then try to use govt to steal the money back at gunpoint is low class.
 
James972 said:
and the beauty of living in a free country is that if you don't want Bezos to have so much wealth you are free not to buy from him with your wealth, and you can even encourage others to do the same. But to buy from him and then try to use govt to steal the money back at gunpoint is low class.
Click to expand...

Ideally yes, though of course govt regulation tends to steer you towards monopolies. Air travel for example is heavily regulated such that entry into the market is costly. Or mortgage loans, utilities, education, and on and on.
 
jonny5 said:
Ideally yes, though of course govt regulation tends to steer you towards monopolies. Air travel for example is heavily regulated such that entry into the market is costly. Or mortgage loans, utilities, education, and on and on.
Click to expand...

Entry into the air travel market is going to be costly no matter what. Or with utilities, having multiple suppliers of water and electricity would be wasteful. We really ought to be breaking up large companies that hold near monopolies to increase competition.
 
jonny5 said:
The purpose of life is up to each person, not you. That why it says "pursuit of happiness" in our founding documents. The purpose of society is not to make having a family cheap, its to protect each individuals life and freedom so they can pursue happiness.
Click to expand...

This is where we fundamentally disagree. The basic unit of society is not the individual, it is the family. An individual cannot create the next generation. It takes a couple, and the ideal place to be making and raising the next generation is in a family. So if I want my society to last longer than this present generation, then I should be looking at what makes living conditions best for the family, not the individual. On the time scale of society, the individual is irrelevant.
 
phattonez said:
The basic unit of society is not the individual,
Click to expand...

this is very true. Liberals killed the America family.Its time to reverse their deadly influence on America.
 
phattonez said:
We really ought to be breaking up large companies that hold near monopolies to increase competition.
Click to expand...

you mean liberal govt ought to do it at gunpoint as if they can do it faster than capitalism? Remember IBM? Before the case got through liberal courts MicroSoft took care of it with no liberal guns. Name even one that you would break up with your libNazi govt.
 
James972 said:
this is very true. Liberals killed the America family.Its time to reverse their deadly influence on America.
Click to expand...

I'm in full agreement. These cultural Marxist, Freudian ideologues are killing whatever good is left in society.
 
phattonez said:
This is where we fundamentally disagree. The basic unit of society is not the individual, it is the family. An individual cannot create the next generation. It takes a couple, and the ideal place to be making and raising the next generation is in a family. So if I want my society to last longer than this present generation, then I should be looking at what makes living conditions best for the family, not the individual. On the time scale of society, the individual is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, its the individual. And it has nothing to do with creating the next generation. THIS society was founded to protect individual life and liberty. So that individuals could pursue a family or not.
 
jonny5 said:
No, its the individual. And it has nothing to do with creating the next generation. THIS society was founded to protect individual life and liberty. So that individuals could pursue a family or not.
Click to expand...

People who choose not to start a family have no future. I'm not going to sacrifice the future of my children just to satisfy the whims of the individuals in this generation. My child's future is more important than your individualism.
 
phattonez said:
Entry into the air travel market is going to be costly no matter what. Or with utilities, having multiple suppliers of water and electricity would be wasteful. We really ought to be breaking up large companies that hold near monopolies to increase competition.
Click to expand...

Competition for electricity certainly isnt wasteful, no more than having 100 cellular phone companies is. Competition creates innovation and variety, so that people can choose the best service that works for them. I have 4 electric companies around me with varying prices, sources of energy, and service levels. But I am forced to use the city one which operates in a way I dont like.
 
phattonez said:
People who choose not to start a family have no future. I'm not going to sacrifice the future of my children just to satisfy the whims of the individuals in this generation. My child's future is more important than your individualism.
Click to expand...

It isnt. Its EQUAL under the law.
 
jonny5 said:
Competition for electricity certainly isnt wasteful, no more than having 100 cellular phone companies is. Competition creates innovation and variety, so that people can choose the best service that works for them. I have 4 electric companies around me with varying prices, sources of energy, and service levels. But I am forced to use the city one which operates in a way I dont like.
Click to expand...

It certainly is! If I have to have 4 different sets of power lines running by my house because there's competition, when I could instead of just one set of power lines running efficiently by a public utility, then to have the 4 sets is wasteful. It would be like having 4 freeways between two cities when 1 would work just fine.
 
phattonez said:
It certainly is! If I have to have 4 different sets of power lines running by my house because there's competition, when I could instead of just one set of power lines running efficiently by a public utility, then to have the 4 sets is wasteful. It would be like having 4 freeways between two cities when 1 would work just fine.
Click to expand...

You dont need 4 lines, no more than you need 4 internet cables or 4 wireless towers or 4 roads. Competition creates efficient delivery methods, with varying service providers. Maybe they share infrastructure costs or innovate different delivery methods, similar to how wireless and wired and VOIP communications services work. When you have govt monopolies you get it one way, their way.
 
jonny5 said:
You dont need 4 lines, no more than you need 4 internet cables or 4 wireless towers or 4 roads. Competition creates efficient delivery methods, with varying service providers. Maybe they share infrastructure costs or innovate different delivery methods, similar to how wireless and wired and VOIP communications services work. When you have govt monopolies you get it one way, their way.
Click to expand...
If I'm competing with you I'm not going to let you share my infrastructure.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
 
phattonez said:
I'm arguing political theory, not what the Constitution states.
Click to expand...

Same thing. The constitution is based on the idea that everyone is equal. Your self interest in family and future is equal to my self interest in self enrichment. Such that neither of us can force our interests on each other. Your op is arguing that 'something' has to be done about one person having more wealth than another. Which is certainly not equal. You put your wealth into your family. I put mine into myself.
 
phattonez said:
If I'm competing with you I'm not going to let you share my infrastructure.

Sent from my phone. Instaurare omnia in Christo.
Click to expand...

Except thats exactly how it works. Companies own towers and cables and lease access to competitors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom