mandatory earning a living is outdated and barbaric

[norseamd]

Perhaps you are seeing a pattern? I think the liberals are hoping that this time we can try to avoid all the bloodshed? The conservatives are really against that idea though. I assume that is why they want to keep the guns legal also.

You realize that without guns citizens are outmatched on a massive scale in comparison to the government.

 

[crashtech]

You realize that without guns citizens are outmatched on a massive scale in comparison to the government.

And WITH guns at this point, for that matter. If there is ever some sort of unrest, the victors will be the ones who have the military on their side.

 

[BoberFett]

The French Revolution.
The American Revolution.
The American Civil War.
Bolshevik Revolution
Chinese Communist Revolution.

Perhaps you are seeing a pattern? I think the liberals are hoping that this time we can try to avoid all the bloodshed? The conservatives are really against that idea though. I assume that is why they want to keep the guns legal also.

LOL, you think the wealthy lost money at those events? A few lost their heads. The rest got wealthier.

Government concentrates wealth as much as corporations do. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

 

[Abwx]

The one thing I admire about communism is that it unites society together to work for the greater strength of the nation. Each according to his ability, each according to his need. Which means you don't get to sit around watching the View all day. Unlike western socialists, who seems keen on wallowing in mediocrity, entitlement, sloth, and victimhood. It's all pablum that's only served to make people poorer and more dependent. The sooner we crush that sort of thinking, the better.

You want to get rich, you gotta make your own wealth. The government does not have your best interests at heart. Just need to look at Detroit, or try working with a government agency on a regular basis to see that. A lot of greed and selfishness from the lowest ranks of the civil service right up to the powers that be.

While I don't approve of wealth redistribution, we definitely need to stop outsourcing capital to foreign nations. If an American can do the job, we should not be sending it to China or India. There should be big tax implications for companies that do that. Put the citizens of your own nation first. Bring that opportunity back here and foster the entrepreneurial spirit that once made us great.

All this is shortsighted, the US is a communist society by the definition, it s just that this communism is reserved to the wealthy, common people are just the necessary counterpart that gives actual liquidity to the wealthies wealth...

Now find a man who managed in isolation to accumulate a lot of wealth without interacting with other men, set apart cases like finding a goldmine all wealthy people became so by using wealth transfert mechanisms that extend from simple utilisation of labor in construction work up to financial manipulations in markets of the same name.

LOL, you think the wealthy lost money at those events? A few lost their heads. The rest got wealthier.

Government concentrates wealth as much as corporations do. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

In the case of the Soviet revolution it s likely that the russian elite was ruined, consequently this class has disappeared from history, there s no old family that is influencial in Russia like it could be the case in the US with some Rockfellers like families.

 

[norseamd]

All this is shortsighted, the US is a communist society by the definition, it s just that this communism is reserved to the wealthy, common people are just the necessary counterpart that gives actual liquidity to the wealthies wealth...

Nice insight on the egotistical spoiledness of the establishment of the rich.

 

[norseamd]

late 18th century (originally dialect in the sense ‘cobbler&#8217: of unknown origin; early senses conveyed a notion of ‘lower status or rank,’ later denoting a person seeking to imitate those of superior social standing or wealth. Folk etymology connects the word with Latin sine nobilitate ‘without nobility’ but the earliest recorded sense has no connection with this.

Snobbery surfaced more strongly as the structure of the society changed, and the bourgeoisie had the possibility to imitate aristocracy. Snobbery appears when elements of culture are perceived as belonging to an aristocracy or elite, and some people (the snobs) feel that the mere adoption of the fashion and tastes of the elite or aristocracy is sufficient to include someone in the elites, upper classes or aristocracy.

 

[werepossum]

In other words, you're just too fucking lazy to get a job...and want someone else to support you.

Got it in one.

You already failed by limiting your thinking to just our planet. We're going to parasite this whole fucking universe in the next couple hundred thousand years buddy. We're bigger than AIDS baby.

Frankly, I doubt it. We're breeding more and more entitled useless feeders every generation. I'm betting that way before we have the technology to colonize even our own solar system, all our resources are allocated to feeding, housing and entertaining the stupid and lazy. Science and capitalism will be crowded out, and the 1% will be even fatter because they'll be making the money feeding, housing and entertaining the stupid and lazy.

Course, they'll also likely be Chinese and German.

 

[werepossum]

LOL, you think the wealthy lost money at those events? A few lost their heads. The rest got wealthier.

Government concentrates wealth as much as corporations do. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.

More so. A corporation can always be taken down from the peak by a leaner competitor with a better business plan; a government can send men with rifles to prevent that from happening.

 

[norseamd]

Well in the Francias Revolution the aristocrats did lose not just their money but also their lives so even worse on that consideration. Now the Republican politicians certainly did gain a lot of money and power from the shit but I bet the overall redistribution of resources might have still been in favor of the poor so they probably still supported it. The poor can tell when they lost money even when being pandered to but how can they tell they would be 50% more rich instead of 40% if they were not sufficiently learned and aware about the sociological and economical type possibilities and shit.

 

[Subyman]

I like some of the responses to the OPs question:

1.) Don't like it here? Move out.
2.) You are "fucking lazy."
3.) We are going to space-mine the planets
4.) Tittie sucker
5.) Couple quotes from random politicians
6.) Meme pics
7.) Someone says they'd like to be a tittie sucker

Sounds about right.

 

[piasabird]

Let them eat cake.

 

[piasabird]

Someone has to make the money. We send a lot of money to China.

 

[Matt1970]

There's more than enough wealth at the top

No, there really isn't. Income redistribution on a global level will equal about $10,000 per person.

 

[Naer]

No, there really isn't. Income redistribution on a global level will equal about $10,000 per person.

That is why we embrace ephemurization. Do more with less as technology is making this possible

 

[nickqt]

... I'm betting that way before we have the technology to colonize even our own solar system, all our resources are allocated to feeding, housing and entertaining the stupid and lazy. Science and capitalism will be crowded out, and the 1% will be even fatter because they'll be making the money feeding, housing and entertaining the stupid and lazy.

So, there will be so many poor people that they'll use up all the resources, except for the fact that the rich will be even richer.

Think about that for a minute.

 

[norseamd]

No, there really isn't. Income redistribution on a global level will equal about $10,000 per person.

Actually I did run through this calculation in my head at least for just redistributing the cash of Warren Buffet to the rest of America and ended up with some mere thousands of dollars or some other shit. However there is still tons of trillions of dollars in the businesses themselves and their offshore bank accounts and the other ways they are embezzling resources.

 

[Matt1970]

That is why we embrace ephemurization. Do more with less as technology is making this possible

If you are fine with doing more with less, then be happy with your slice of the pie.

 

[BoberFett]

Actually I did run through this calculation in my head at least for just redistributing the cash of Warren Buffet to the rest of America and ended up with some mere thousands of dollars or some other shit. However there is still tons of trillions of dollars in the businesses themselves and their offshore bank accounts and the other ways they are embezzling resources.

You're an idiot. Stop talking.

 

[werepossum]

So, there will be so many poor people that they'll use up all the resources, except for the fact that the rich will be even richer.

Think about that for a minute.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. By "resources" I mean all possible societal spending.

Actually I did run through this calculation in my head at least for just redistributing the cash of Warren Buffet to the rest of America and ended up with some mere thousands of dollars or some other shit. However there is still tons of trillions of dollars in the businesses themselves and their offshore bank accounts and the other ways they are embezzling resources.

So as an American you are entitled to Warren Buffet's assets simply because you exist but people in Bangladesh or Sierra Leone you survive on less than you waste somehow aren't?

If you bankrupt "the businesses themselves" to get a bigger handout, where are you going to spend that bigger handout?

Aren't the people working in those businesses similarly entitled to become parasites? Why should you be entitled to their stuff, and if you got it, why would they work to provide you anything else?

 

[norseamd]

So as an American you are entitled to Warren Buffet's assets simply because you exist but people in Bangladesh or Sierra Leone you survive on less than you waste somehow aren't?

No i was doing the calculation to see how much the net worth of Warren Buffet would actually benefit the rest of America. Turns out $50000000 is only going to give every American less than $200. So just using the calculator now shows that it is even less than I thought would end up for every American. So the idea of redistributing just the bank accounts of the rich is not going to do much for the rest of the world let alone just America.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

mandatory earning a living is outdated and barbaric

I agree, all of us that's over 55 should be able to stop working and let those in their 20's, 30's, and 40's pay taxes to support us so we can retire 10 years ahead of time, sounds like a loverly idea.

 

[brianmanahan]

I agree, all of us that's over 55 should be able to stop working and let those in their 20's, 30's, and 40's pay taxes to support us so we can retire 10 years ahead of time, sounds like a loverly idea.

i plan to retire at 45, out of the goodness of my heart for all those up and coming whippersnappers :wub:

 

[Annisman*]

There's more than enough wealth at the top

Ever think about just trying to get to the top ? Too much work I know

 

[werepossum]

No i was doing the calculation to see how much the net worth of Warren Buffet would actually benefit the rest of America. Turns out $50000000 is only going to give every American less than $200. So just using the calculator now shows that it is even less than I thought would end up for every American. So the idea of redistributing just the bank accounts of the rich is not going to do much for the rest of the world let alone just America.

Oh.

Well, now I just feel silly.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What do you propose we do to stabalize the country?

Get rid of the lackee's that have impaired genetics to post threads saying Switzerland has high taxes on the rich?

I mean, it's a start, amirite?