Why not make the rich compete?

[cincymma79]

It does take huge balls, if the consequence is life in prison or death.

Or you could just not purposefully target little girls and only little girls, with no intention of hitting anyone but little girls.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Or you could just not purposefully target little girls and only little girls, with no intention of hitting anyone but little girls.

Sure, and I would advise people the same, but it comes across as disengenuous when you say pussies will never do shit, and then vilify them when they do.

FYI, before I read from Dictatorship to Democracy, I was seriously considering engaging in economic terrorism.

 

[cincymma79]

Sure, and I would advise people the same, but it comes across as disengenuous when you say pussies will never do shit, and then vilify them when they do.

FYI, before I read from Dictatorship to Democracy, I was seriously considering engaging in economic terrorism.

Getting a gun and fighting soldiers or at lest police takes balls. Blowing yourself up around little girls is pathetic. Planning it is pathetic.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Getting a gun and fighting soldiers or at lest police takes balls. Blowing yourself up around little girls is pathetic. Planning it is pathetic.

It is stupid to attack a professional fighting force head on.

 

[cincymma79]

It is stupid to attack a professional fighting force head on.

Attacking little girls makes you a big floppy pussy though

 

[VivaRevolution]

Attacking little girls makes you a big floppy pussy though

No, it makes you an amoral piece of shit.

 

[Necromantic]

FFS, can we have one thread where people don't talk about Roy Moore?

Yeah, imagine a thread where we couldn't talk about regimes that murdered 10s of millions of people...we would never be able to talk about socialists.

 

[panamaican]

No, it makes you an amoral piece of shit.

Attacking little girls makes you a big floppy pussy though

You guys are way off topic. Dial it back.

 

[cincymma79]

You guys are way off topic. Dial it back.

We aren’t talking about each other. We’re takign about people that suicide bomb


Technically he’s agreeing with me

 

[VivaRevolution]

You guys are way off topic. Dial it back.

Why don't you go......

Wait, this is how I got double yellows.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah, imagine a thread where we couldn't talk about regimes that murdered 10s of millions of people...we would never be able to talk about socialists.

Solid post.

When I saw you joined the day after the United States elected a toddler, I was expecting shit posts. But you proved me wrong.

 

[Thycidides]

I never claimed that such an example existed. I said that equal playing fields are an acceptable goal, equal outcomes are not.

What are you talking about? This seems like a way to give lip service to the idea of equal rights, and while refusing to do anything that would result in equal rights.

Complaining about equal outcomes sounds as if you think a program that eliminated child poverty would be bad, or it would be bad if lower class kids were just as likely to have decent jobs as the children of the elite. Or if poor people accused of crimes were just as likely to be punished as the rich.

It isn't desirable to have part of the population in poverty, uneducated , sick or in jail .

Polices that did the most to eliminate those problems focused on outcomes like social security, medicare etc

 

[TheGreatA]

I definitely agree that the monopolization of industries stifles competitive drive and creates a sense of contentedness among the "elite" which prevents change and progress. There is a reason why Jefferson said what he did about revolutions.

If only people could see that point of view when it comes to the federalization of sovereign states.

 

[Renard]

I don't see how an egalitarian playing won't lead to an egalitarian outcome? I don't think this distinction exists.

I'm unfamiliar with a policy that crated a equal playing field that also didn't create an equal outcome or vice versa.

Don't you mean equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome? A policy based in equality of opportunity would be for example, to offer cheaper university education so that smart students from poor backgrounds can get an education, they still have to work for it. Cheaper education increases a country's economic mobility. A policy based on equality of outcome would be a company administration that hires an unqualified black woman because they have a "people of colour" quota to fill, even though she'll bring the team down.

 

[Thycidides]

A policy based on equality of outcome would be a company administration that hires an unqualified black woman because they have a "people of colour" quota to fill, even though she'll bring the team down.

See that actually isn't a good example of a policy that focuses on the outcome. That's more like " trying to make the playing field level" by screwing up a labor market and making everything worse.

This is why Hayak prefers the Universal basic income instead of welfare to work.

 

[Renard]

See that actually isn't a good example of a policy that focuses on the outcome. That's more like " trying to make the playing field level" by screwing up a labor market and making everything worse.

This is why Hayak prefers the Universal basic income instead of welfare to work.

Then you don't like equality of outcome policies. Universal basic income isn't an equality of outcome policy, it's a safety net. People are still free to out-compete others as much they want, but they're guaranteed to not starve if things turn for the worst.

 

[panamaican]

What are you talking about? This seems like a way to give lip service to the idea of equal rights, and while refusing to do anything that would result in equal rights.

Complaining about equal outcomes sounds as if you think a program that eliminated child poverty would be bad, or it would be bad if lower class kids were just as likely to have decent jobs as the children of the elite. Or if poor people accused of crimes were just as likely to be punished as the rich.

It isn't desirable to have part of the population in poverty, uneducated , sick or in jail .

Polices that did the most to eliminate those problems focused on outcomes like social security, medicare etc

I don't think you understand the difference between opportunities and outcomes.

Let me give you a simple example - Equal opportunities would mean every student goes to a school with the same funding and the same overall quality of teachers. Equal outcomes would mean every student gets the same grades.

You can't eliminate child poverty because different parents have different incomes (outcomes). You can give children in poverty an equal opportunity to get an education, 3 nutritious meals a day, etc.

 

[ultramanhyata]

A more egalitarian playing field is a very different goal and supportable. Egalitarian outcomes aren't.

The exact opposite is true.

A society cannot somehow keep one human being from having a higher IQ or better jump shot than another.

But it absolutely can control the amount of wealth that one person's talents can extract from the collective economy relative to another's.

 

[panamaican]

The exact opposite is true.

A society cannot somehow keep one human being from having a higher IQ or better jump shot than another.

But it absolutely can control the amount of wealth that one person's talents can extract from the collective economy relative to another's.

Can, should, and how much are very different.

 

[Thycidides]

Then you don't like equality of outcome policies. Universal basic income isn't an equality of outcome policy, it's a safety net. People are still free to out-compete others as much they want, but they're guaranteed to not starve if things turn for the worst.

I think you are kind of caught up in semantics and playing language games.

Its pretty clear that UBI would dramatically reduce many forms of inequality and be more effective than welfare to work. Wealth that would go to the super rich like Bill Gates goes to house wives instead. The income gap would close, so would the gini index, poverty etc

Bill Gates still makes a lot more money than the house wife even with UBI, limited patent rights, and medicare for all and I don't think that is a problem.