(September 8, 2017 at 3:28 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

Quote:The fact that he uses medieval knights bossing everyone around as an example is priceless as well.

Why is that example wrong, exactly? They were trying to stop people from being violent by having knights (=police) go everywhere and by having insane torture methods. Yet, the violence was very high. Today, police intervenes much less often and is much less cruel. But, the violence is much lower than it was in the Middle Ages. By that logic, there would be the least crime if there was no government trying to stop crime at all.

If you think that knights = police, and that their job was to 'stop people from being violent', I have to wonder about the quality of your education. This is one of the more nutty non-theism-related threads I've seen in a while on here.

(September 8, 2017 at 3:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 1:28 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: You aren't responding much to my arguments about the governments causing violence among people either, are you?

You didn't exactly explain why you think insurance companies couldn't exist without a government.

Because there would be no mechanism for redressing breach of contract except taking your business to another company which may well do the exact same thing. In the meantime, the patient's still dying.

---

(September 8, 2017 at 3:17 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But people haven't really explained WHY and HOW capitalism is bad for poor people, just that it is.

I guess I just haven't been able to understand what it is about Capitalism that causes this gap between classes that some folks disagree with.

Because the more money you have, the more you're able to invest, and the more you earn, meaning you've got more money to invest, meaning you earn more ...

And that is greatly simplified.

If I start my own business which turns out being super successful and I make a lot of money, and then I invest that money wisely, and make more money... how is that bad for poor people? Again, it seems like a freedom thing. A person should have the legal right to make money and use that money wisely as to get more money out of it. I don't see what it is about this that is unfair. What exactly am I missing?

(September 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 3:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because there would be no mechanism for redressing breach of contract except taking your business to another company which may well do the exact same thing. In the meantime, the patient's still dying.

---

Because the more money you have, the more you're able to invest, and the more you earn, meaning you've got more money to invest, meaning you earn more ...

And that is greatly simplified.

If I start my own business which turns out being super successful and I make a lot of money, and then I invest that money, and make more money... how is that bad for poor people? Again, it seems like a freedom thing. A person should have the legal right to make money and use that money wisely as to get more money out of it. I don't see what it is about this that is unfair. What exactly am I missing?

What if instead of starting your own business you simply are born into a big trust fund? Seems to me like you neither need to employ anyone, and you've got quite the headstart.

I'm not saying either case should be illegal, but it sure doesn't strike me as a level playing field, nor does it seem that the trust-funder did much work for his station in life.

(September 8, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If I start my own business which turns out being super successful and I make a lot of money, and then I invest that money, and make more money... how is that bad for poor people? Again, it seems like a freedom thing. A person should have the legal right to make money and use that money wisely as to get more money out of it. I don't see what it is about this that is unfair. What exactly am I missing?

What if instead of starting your own business you simply are born into a big trust fund? Seems to me like you neither need to employ anyone, and you've got quite the headstart.

I'm not saying either case should be illegal, but it sure doesn't strike me as a level playing field, nor does it seem that the trust-funder did much work for his station in life.

I mean, if I make a ton of money through hard work or whatever and my child/grandchild/great grandchild is born into it, I think it's a great thing that I was able to provide that for my next few generations to come. And if they are wise about it, it can keep going down the line. I don't see how that is unfair.  

I also don't see what the alternative would be - not let people have trust funds or inherit their parent's money?

(September 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 3:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because there would be no mechanism for redressing breach of contract except taking your business to another company which may well do the exact same thing. In the meantime, the patient's still dying.

---

Because the more money you have, the more you're able to invest, and the more you earn, meaning you've got more money to invest, meaning you earn more ...

And that is greatly simplified.

If I start my own business which turns out being super successful and I make a lot of money, and then I invest that money wisely, and make more money... how is that bad for poor people? Again, it seems like a freedom thing. A person should have the legal right to make money and use that money wisely as to get more money out of it. I don't see what it is about this that is unfair. What exactly am I missing?

I've heard of objections to what people call crony capitalism.  The knowledge I have on that is very vague but I think it involves things such as giving donations to people in the government who might help them in some way.

Companies in the past have given money to science labs to present research as favorably as possible for their product, I think this happened with tobacco.

But for situations like people having more money that other people, that's not a bad thing in itself.  People sometimes work harder than other people, take lucrative risks, some people want to give their children a lot of the money they've earned.  That's not fair to the children who didn't get anything off their parents, and it's not fair on the child who got money but got less money than someone else off their parents.  But I think there's a level of unfairness in a lot of outcomes that are acceptable.

(September 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I also don't see what the alternative would be - not let people have trust funds or inherit their parent's money?

A high tax rate on any inheritance.

(September 8, 2017 at 1:28 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 1:15 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: I like how he completely ignored me once I brought up Medicare and Medicaid.  Pretty hilarious, actually.

You aren't responding much to my arguments about the governments causing violence among people either, are you?

You didn't exactly explain why you think insurance companies couldn't exist without a government.

Protip: assertions aren't arguments.  Show your work.

Your argument for no government is that power corrupts? What the fuck do you think will happen without one, that there will be no structure of power and everybody will be equal? Come on now.

(September 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 4:03 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: What if instead of starting your own business you simply are born into a big trust fund? Seems to me like you neither need to employ anyone, and you've got quite the headstart.

I'm not saying either case should be illegal, but it sure doesn't strike me as a level playing field, nor does it seem that the trust-funder did much work for his station in life.

I mean, if I make a ton of money through hard work or whatever and my child/grandchild/great grandchild is born into it, I think it's a great thing that I was able to provide that for my next few generations to come. And if they are wise about it, it can keep going down the line. I don't see how that is unfair.  

I also don't see what the alternative would be - not let people have trust funds or inherit their parent's money?

I don't know what the easy answer is.

I do know that wealth flows to the wealthy, which answered your question. I also know that it is much harder for the poor to get a quality education -- which becomes a negative feedback loop as well.

I also know that the poor get much worse representation in our political system because even those who claim to fight for the working class are taking enormous sums of money from corporations -- and the wealthy. That money has an impact on laws regulating the taxation, investment potential, and other legislative projects for amassing wealth.

I'm not sure about fair or unfair -- because life ain't fair -- but this inequity is not only obvious, it is a positive danger to any society practicing it. Read up about the French or Russian Revolutions, or the general unrest in Europe in 1848.

This idea that you can pull yourself up by the bootstraps is much easier to attain when you inherit an endowment than it is when you have to work to support your family.

(September 8, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I also don't see what the alternative would be (...)

Not really on topic, but finding alternatives is what makes us humans. Just because you can't see, it doesn't mean there isn't an... altenative.