How would you like to see taxpayers' money spent?

Originally posted by caleb: So its not possible rich people EARNED their money?

NO!
Thats what they just like you to think, and what they like to think.
No one is self-made. It is our social being that makes our private selves possible. All of us benefit from and contribute to society and its institutions. The large variations in wealth among individuals are not due to inherent differences between individuals. At best, the differences are mainly in the different ways individuals are able to access and use society's resources. At worse, the differences are wholly arbitrary.

[caleb]

And at best they used their brains and ambition to start a business that was highly successful. Then they also give a lot to charity and community programs. Sure they dont give 70 percent of their checks but neither does anyone else.

"The large variations in wealth among individuals are not due to inherent differences between individuals" Yes they are. Lazy people will settle for low paying jobs or sit back and collect welfare.

[ 06-01-2002, 06:49 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

Originally posted by caleb: And at best they used their brains and ambition to start a business that was highly successful. Then they also gave a lot to charity and community programs. Sure they dont give 70 percent of their checks but neither does anyone else. "The large variations in wealth among individuals are not due to inherent differences between individuals" Yes they are. Lazy people will settle for low paying jobs or sit back and collect welfare.

No they don’t, poor people give more of their income on a relative scale, than rich people.
The concept of a formal private ownership that takes precedence over
social obligation is based on the myth that society has little or
nothing to do with the production of wealth, i.e. all millionaires are
supposedly "self-made men" who got their wealth "the old-fashioned
way, by earning it."
What ever you choose to say, the free market is fundamentally flawed
since you can only make people better off, when you make others worse
off. But there is no such thing as the free market even, since all
markets operate in uneven fields of power that have an impact on
transactions between buyer and seller.
Nor is the free market desirable, since market forces are destructive
to both social and environmental issues. Markets, which are guided by
proactive intelligence (to a certain extent), however, can be a
dynamic and creative force.

Originally posted by caleb: Yes they are. Lazy people will settle for low paying jobs or sit back and collect welfare.[/QB]

No, they’re not. That is an astoundingly ignorant and over simplistic view of the matter.Unfortunately, the world is rarely that simple.

[ 06-01-2002, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

[caleb]

So that 21 year old single mother that decided to drop out of school, pop out kids and be a house wife to her boyfriend the fry cook instead of hitting the books, going to college, and majoring in a field that will get her lots of money like the rich guy did earned her welfare check and that rich guy is a parasite?

Originally posted by caleb: So that 21 year old single mother that decided to drop out of school, pop out kids and be a house wife to her boyfriend the fry cook instead of hitting the books, going to college, and majoring in a field that will get her lots of money like the rich guy did earned her welfare check and that rich guy is a parasite?

Why does she have to drop out of school? Why does she get pregnant?
Because of the rich poor gap, that is so evident in America.
The reason why the rich guy gets a major is because his parents were already rich, thus perpetuating the cycle of oppression.

POWAR TO THE PEOPLE!

[caleb]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: No, they’re not. That is an astoundingly ignorant and over simplistic view of the matter.Unfortunately, the world is rarely that simple.

Well you wanted to use "the at worst" example of rich people.Of course not all people on welfare are lazy but it is unlikely that they need to remain on it if they put some work in to it. When I was 15 my dad was injured and he could no longer work double shifts to pay the bills and we went on welfare for a month. Me and my sisters went out and got jobs and a month later we were off while in school I listened to kids talking about their parents strategy to cheat the state like they were proud of it. "heh heh free money man why not"

Originally posted by caleb: Well you wanted to use "the at worst" example of rich people.Of course not all people on welfare are lazy but it is unlikely that they need to remain on it if they put some work in to it. When I was 15 my dad was injured and he could no longer work double shifts to pay the bills and we went on welfare for a month. Me and my sisters went out and got jobs and a month later we were off while in school I listened to kids talking about their parents strategy to cheat the state like they were proud of it. "heh heh free money man why not"[/QB]

Welfare is necessary to create a Socialist state, thereby generateing a fair and equitable future.
The reason why people feel the need to cheat the state, is because it is not representative of them nor does it embodies them, It is merely an instrument of the dominant class, i.e the rich, in Americas case, and the middle classes in Europe.

[caleb]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Why does she have to drop out of school? Why does she get pregnant? Because of the rich poor gap, that is so evident in America. The reason why the rich guy gets a major is because his parents were already rich, thus perpetuating the cycle of oppression. POWAR TO THE PEOPLE!

B.S. sir. Most of my friends were poor and now that most of them busted their ass in school and sports they have scholarships. Some of them even got a full ride and they were completely self made. We had over 30 students to a class and shared textbooks from the 70's so dont use that rich poor gap as a excuse.

[ 06-01-2002, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: caleb ]

Originally posted by caleb: B.S. sir. Most of my friends were poor and now that most of them busted their ass in school and sports they have scholarships. Some of them even got a full ride and they were completely self made. We had over 30 students to a class and shared textbooks from the 70's so dont use that rich poor gap as a excuse.[/QB]

Yeah, thats what they all say,The common view of ownership is that it is an institution of power. Capital is a social pattern of value. Since it is collectively produced and depends on the organization of society for its effective use, it is reasonable to limit what individual, private owners can do with capital. This is not a necessarily a new idea; both eminent domain and product liability laws are based on this notion.
If I own something, I have decisive power over that object. I should be able to do with it what I want. This can cause problems, since many of the things which can be owned can also be used in ways that society must restrict. One example is product liability law. If I produce and market a product which is later shown to be harmful to my customers, I can be held responsible for the damages and forced to compensate the victims.
but the fundmental fact is that In bourgeois society, individual liberty and the private ownership of property are the fundamental values. Prior to the bourgeois revolution, most power and wealth belonged to the church and the throne. Individual privacy, to the extent that it could be defined at all, was wholly subordinate to autocracy and theocracy. The rising bourgeoisie had to assert the primacy of private property into order secure the wealth it was amassing through the slave trade, manufacture and the looting of the new world. It wanted to multiply this wealth by recycling it as capital and thus liberating the productive forces from the restrictions of medieval or despotic society. Private property in this sense was a revolutionary force undermining the old order.
While this view of private property has some historical justification, the concept of a formal private ownership that takes precedence over social obligation does not. The latter is based on the myth that society has little or nothing to do with the production of wealth

[ 06-01-2002, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]