The New Nobles

[Spiffor]

I wonder why I continue, but...

You continue to believe the poorest are the modern equivalent of the nobles. So of course, the only resistance CEOs could oppose is a peasant revolt !

It is unfathomable the CEOs use their media to attack welfare and progressive taxation. We have never seen a news network attacking those in the US ! After all, all news networks and opinion-making emissions are all pushing for more welfare. Especially this Rush Limbaugh one. You should get rid of this socialist.

We cannot imagine one second the CEOs and big businesses will use their extensive relation networks in the white house and the congress to push against the oppressive poor. It's not like your politicians are good acquaintances with them, nor do they come from their milieu. Your politicians all come from the poor and only think about defending their egoistical interests, like old Kings.

By the same token, your politicians, corrupted by the poors, will never dismantle welfare for the greater good of opressed big businesses. They will not send the police to break strikes, but they will rather burn corporate offices to the ground.

I have been swayed by your strong arguments. The police, the military, the media, the government. Everybody will staunchly defend the poor against the opressed ig businesses. CEOs better prepare their forks if they want to revolt now...


Oh, and to answer your question seriously, I do think the police and the military will crush riots, should they happen. But it is more likely the media will be successful in its brainwashing campaign on how better for the poor the disappearance of welfare will be, thus hindering riots to emerge.

[SKILORD]

CEOs better prepare their forks if they want to revolt now...

milieu. Your politicians all come from the poor and only think about defending their egoistical interests, like old Kings.

Thy want to be reelected, they view the majority as poor, though this is far from true.

It is unfathomable the CEOs use their media to attack welfare and progressive taxation. We have never seen a news network attacking those in the US ! After all, all news networks and opinion-making emissions are all pushing for more welfare. Especially this Rush Limbaugh one. You should get rid of this socialist.

Well, you see, each side of the political spectrum views the opponents as controlling the Media. I won't say which side is right, because i don't now.

Rush Limbaugh is awesome, it will fall to unsurprised ears that i am subscribed to his magazine.

Ayn Rand wrote an essay on this subject: Big Business: America's Persecuted Minority. I'll read it, I'm sure I have it somewhere, and reply tomorrow to whatever you may have chosen to post while I sleep.

I no longer hope this thread dies. No, to Compile my ponts we shall go, to ensure that you have plenty to whine about:

Q: do you think it is better for the society to let a lone mother raise her 2 kids, or is it better to have her work all day, thus leaving the children without parental monitoring ?

A: She could very easily form some sort of Mothership Union, a 'Coalition', if you will, of like troubled persons working for the benifit of the group, since they each are inherintly equal (to a negligable degree) they would be able to divide time between mothering and working, doing so in shifts.

-

Q:Too bad she isnt a mother. Their problems were financial, and welfare kept them from total poverty long enough for her husband to get back on his feet.

A: Anyway, why couldn't he get a part time job and eke out for a little while on that? Jobs aren't so hard to find, i mean my god, we have illegal immigrants piling up at the border filing our jobs, maybe if we were protected from them as our government should do he would have been able to find a job more quickly. Maybe he would have been able to get a small job to fill his mouth and that of his family while he searched for a career.

-

Q: Uh, we have taxation with representation. Read what I wrote about being part of a representative Democracy. And what do you mean "elite few?" Everyone benefits from what taxes pay for, ya know. The government does offer services to all taxpayers. They all get military protection, public education, social security, medicare, etc.

A: No, we don't all get welfare. Who would give unemployment benefits to the employed?

-

Q: There are plenty of unneccessary government programs that benefit the rich as well. Remember that senators and congressman are constantly greasing up their donors with the old quid pro quo. Ever heard of corporate welfare?

A: Get rid of that too then! I don;t care which elite few benefits, i just want them to stop benefitting from me.

I won't do anything with the nonsence on this page, last page was fun though. :nogistalia:

Good Night,

-SKILORD

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SKILORD
Well, you see, each side of the political spectrum views the opponents as controlling the Media. I won't say which side is right, because i don't now.

Rush Limbaugh is awesome, it will fall to unsurprised ears that i am subscribed to his magazine.

Ayn Rand wrote an essay on this subject: Big Business: America's Persecuted Minority. I'll read it, I'm sure I have it somewhere, and reply tomorrow to whatever you may have chosen to post while I sleep.

So much for the

monopoly

. But you'd tell your reasoning isn't inconsitant.

[SKILORD]

Can you explain that in more detail, without jarbled quotes?

[Spiffor]

You assumed the poor had a monoply of military, police, economic and media powers. In this quote :

Media of course.
What you see here is that all the powers have been greatly weakened over the years which is nice. I would rather they awere abolished from monopoly.

And one post after, you argue how both sides claim the opposite controls the media. You don't hesitate to say you are a listener of Rush Limbaugh and a reader of Ayn Rand.

Do the poor have a "monopoly" over the media then ? Does your reasoning have any bit of consistence ?

[Az]

A small revelation: I am not a big fan of welfare which doesn't go to the old or the disabled.

*prepares to be exectuted by stoning in the communist thread*

[Ramo]

This guy is better than CivNation.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: The New Nobles

Originally posted by SKILORD
I never said there should be no taxation, i simply opposed Taxation without representation, Taxation in which only an elite few reap rewards while everyone foots the bill. If you wish to have a government they must offer services for all taxpayers, not just a few.

I don't know about you, but from where I can see, the rich in the US is over-represented, not under-represented. Let me just point to one example, the DMCA, which was mainly pushed through by RIAA and MPAA. The DMCA clearly violates the spirit of the copyright law, as it erodes fair use. What about the Sonny Bono Act that extended copyright another 20 years, just right when Mickey Mouse was about to fall into public domain? If you don't think the rich has the upperhand, you are not seeing reality.

Originally posted by SKILORD
I think half the stuff our government offers is totally uneccesarry, governments are designed to provide freedoms and maintin them (and, i will concede) grant those things out of the individual's reach, not to serve the poor, not to do anything other than simply protect rights and help everyone not a select few, every taxpaying citizen.

So, what are freedoms to you? Is freedom from dying of starvation not a good thing? Do you think keeping the poor relatively healthy by providing socialised medicine not a lofty goal?

OTOH, why do you think of corporate welfare, farm subsidies, and the like?

Originally posted by SKILORD
As for the CEO's that's sad, but you know what? It's nothing to with me. I don't pay their salaries. I pay the salaries of everyone on welfare.

Okay, but sometimes the government sees that letting a large corporation go belly up will send shockwaves across the economy, so it is bailed out. For example, the whole Savings and Loans fiasco, why did these companies go kaput, and who ended up footing the bill for saving their skins? You have this strange, skewed view that the rich is being robbed. It's not that simple. The rich end up with more breaks than the poor ever could. I heard that Bill Gates doesn't have to pay income taxes...

[Az]

This guy is better than CivNation

I thought that his views were standart Libertarian-capitalist views... oh wait.

[Ramo]

I haven't met any this deluded. Comparing CEO's to serfs...

[MRT144]

quality of life never boards a libertarian's train of thought. sure the poor do benefit from the rich, but they certainly dont live better than the rich because of it.

[Urban Ranger]

Hence, a Utilitarian (hi Azazel ) will support social welfare.

[SKILORD]

quality of life never boards a libertarian's train of thought. sure the poor do benefit from the rich, but they certainly dont live better than the rich because of it.

Thank you for explaining things for them. No, it never does board my train of thought.

I'm not saying, did not say, that they lived better than the wealthy, only that they don't deserve what they get from this corrupt system.

A small revelation: I am not a big fan of welfare which doesn't go to the old or the disabled.

*prepares to be exectuted by stoning in the communist thread*

Good for you! Thank you for the small show of middle ground support.

My point is simply this: The Government, in order to have the Social Equity the rest of you want, has to turn a blind eye to the wealth factor of it all, there cannot be equality and sight. The blind alone can ignore appearances, if you could see and dated ugly chicks that wouldn't make them any less ugly, just torturing yourself and them because you likely don't care much for them, since this example requires you to be shallow, and are only doing it out of some perceived debt.

The metaphor isn't very good, i will admit, but it's simple enough for you to understand what i mean in some crude way.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Spiffor

So much for the

monopoly

. But you'd tell your reasoning isn't inconsitant.

I only halfway understand this, but i'll try to make a go at it.

I said the word monopoly, which means what here? I meant the monopolizing of those three social aspects, not absolute control of any of them, simply control of each of them.

[SKILORD]

Ayn Rand is dead, for 20 years now, not out publishing magazines.

Rush is not the entire media, he exists, I did not say that the poor had absolute control over the media, only that they had control of each of the three social aspects that i mentioned.