-
I said what I did because I spent hours drudging through a thread on welfare where Consumariat was calling us callous pricks (not in this language) for opposing redistribution. Now he's here defending Block's 175k salary from criticism. He's an idiot and a hypocrite. [quote]What's wrong with him earning lots of money? I don't like
-
No one cares what you think about his politics, Consumariat.
-
[quote] I usually personally prefer reading about someone and their work rather than the work itself, and it gives me the same knowledge one would obtain by reading that particular work . [/quote] With respect to SM, I agree with JJ on this point. He is right. With respect, I'm kinda confused at your first post to SM, Wheylous. Why would you mock
-
Great post, Z. [quote] Documentation to that effect? I've heard people say things like this a lot and never saw much to back it up; I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, but it sounds like a thing people say because they want it to be true and they vaguely suspect it to be true. I'll consider sources. [/quote] I mean, what else do you
-
The State in Norway practically runs people’s lives with the amount of control it has over economic outcomes. If you prefer a universalization of living standards, you have some serious issues. It's a country of 5 million. It's not hard to provide for 5 million. Get an economic system to provide a decent standard of living for hundreds
-
To make my point less abstract, think of something like this. Many poor families are single-parent households. This is a failing of a historically extrememly important institution - the two parent family. What does the state do? It provides welfare to the mom, subsidizing this extremely inefficient arrangment. Further, children from single-parent households
-
You have to get over these relatively miniscule objections. Think of the grand scheme. Relatively capitalist economies have lifted hundreds of millions from destitute poverty to having standards of living on par, if not superior to royalty of past. Welfare is now only a consideration because we are so much richer than ever before in history. And look
-
What a shame - this sounded pretty awesome.
-
It's a rejection of anything falsely called a "contract" which involves aggression. The two are mutually exclusive. Contracts are voluntary. The "social contract" as commonly explained is not voluntary, regardless of its various forms. No gov't rules by some kind of contract with its people. It rules by simply proclaiming
-
You can't debate old people (40+). Their brains are mush, and when a tragic event like this happens, they see no fault in readily using emotions (which are especially strong, considering most of them have children) to come to their conclusions, even if it's blatantly at odds with reason.