Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Available to anyone does not equal available to everyon
Oh yes it does. Success and prosperity are open to EVERYONE. Provided they are in good health and willing to pay the price in terms of doing the hard work necessary to increase their value to others. It's all about the VALUE TO OTHERS. They are the ones who will be happy to pay you, IF YOU ARE WORTH IT.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Oh yes it does. Success and prosperity are open to EVERYONE. Provided they are in good health and willing to pay the price in terms of doing the hard work necessary to increase their value to others. It's all about the VALUE TO OTHERS. They are the ones who will be happy to pay you, IF YOU ARE WORTH IT.
Don't be daft, you know what I mean, everyone can't be rich, it is somewhat a zero sum hierarchy.
This country would look like Brazil with that philosophy, is that what you want? Favellas everywhere?
No, it's starting to look like Brazil now. Or even worse, Greece. Listen, stop being afraid of freedom. You have no right to take anyone's stuff without asking for it and trading for it. THAT'S CALLED MORALITY. Ask for it. Trade for it. But no stealing it, even if you form a mob and do it under the guise of "society". It's still theft.
Nonsense. Most people are WORTH exactly what they have done with their lives. And the few that inherit wealth have a right to it and are just lucky. However they are rare. And most who inherit it lose it if they don't do something valuable with their lives.
Nonetheless, it is an injustice to "redistribute" aka steal, the wealth of others because you think you need it or just want it.
Conservatives want people to be free to build their value. There is no value without action and progress. You are not valuable by simply existing. And you have no right to steal the wealth of others because you choose not to be valuable yourself.
We live in a just country in a just world, where, if you decide that you are going to make yourself valuable, and take the logical and disciplined steps to execute a rational plan, it will probably happen. In fact, it will almost always happen to a good degree.
Forget the failure mongering of the Left, success and prosperity are available to anyone who wants it, and is willing to make himself valuable enough to earn it through focus, discipline, and rational steps from a rational plan.
I have formulated a term to describe this situation. I call it: $REALITY
Don't be daft, you know what I mean, everyone can't be rich, it is somewhat a zero sum hierarchy.
True, everyone can't be rich. Some are more talented than others. But everyone can be successful and satisfied. You don't need to be very wealthy to be very happy. In fact, it is quite possible that having enough is better than being too wealthy. Great wealth comes with great complications, loss of privacy, loss of control over your free time, and other nastiness. And everyone can acquire "enough", even if their lack of talent prevents becoming highly valuable.
I mean, who doesn't want to bust their a$$ their entire life to build a nice fortune to hand down to their kids only to have liberal policies "spread the wealth" through theft and dish it out to those who didn't.
I don't have a problem with it. I've been lucky to been born to good parents in good circumstances and benefit from a good economy and infrastructure. I don't mind repaying some of that to help others.
I've also read enough history to see that government can either help alleviate conditions for poor folks with little opportunity, or it can marginalize and push them aside to the point where they have nothing left to lose and really bad things can start happening. We contribute to our own security by helping the less fortunate, so it's not even all about altruism in every case.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
No, it's starting to look like Brazil now. Or even worse, Greece. Listen, stop being afraid of freedom. You have no right to take anyone's stuff without asking for it and trading for it. THAT'S CALLED MORALITY. Ask for it. Trade for it. But no stealing it, even if you form a mob and do it under the guise of "society". It's still theft.
Your father was wrong. Reject his teachings.
I am a liberal of my own volition. And nice gotcha phrase "afraid of freedom". With no redistribution, nothing would get done because no one would take a job that didn't pay enough to afford what you need. So goodbye restaurants, goodbye movie theatres, goodbye gas stations, goodbye grocery stores, etc etc
The only way "freedom" as you put it would work is for someone living like the Amish
I don't get it either. I would even advocate they only allow people who have donated to use whatever service they are providing.
See, that is why they demand that the force of the government be required to implement their social programs. They know that liberals are not about funding programs they deem important, so they HAVE to rely on "taxation" or theft of others' income or those projects would be handled by religious or private organizations which is historically how these programs were handled.
Liberals are secular humanists who want to remove religion from society so they cannot abide charity from religious organizations to be recognized as the outlet for compassionate giving. That's why liberals vilify the tax deduction for charitable giving; they know that conservatives donate WAY more to charitable organizations and they try to deflect that fact by claiming that conservatives ONLY give to charity because of the tax deduction.
The reality is, Conservatives walk the walk, liberals just talk.
You're trying to say in order to have markets free of goverenment interference we need government interference.
I have never understood this circular argument by the left. The reason there is crony capitalism is BECAUSE of government intervention. Microsoft never had lobbyist until the DOJ investigation in the 1990's by the Clinton administration. None of the other tech companies came under the same scrutiny, and if you looked at how much they paid politicians and their lobbying activities, you would understand why. It was right after that DOJ investigation that Microsoft moved a Government Affairs department to DC and started funding lobbyist to get access to the process.
If government got out of the business of picking winners and losers based on what pays them the most, maybe corporations wouldn't have to keep politicians in their pockets to make sure they are the winners!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
