lol, so...regular workers in capitalism cant pay the rent haha regardless of them being socialists or capitalist lovers
Income Inequality
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Founded in 1935..... that's quite a long "experiment".
According to the USDA, 14 percent of households in America were food insecure in 2014. Mississippi, a state that did not seek an extension for the waiver, has one of the highest rates in the countries with 22 percent of households being food insecure, the Washington Times reports.
newfie
Well-Known Member
its a shame they can not collectively starve as part of their experiment.
you dont need to have an experiment to starve in america as my previous post shows
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Why do suppose the United States owns around 25% of the world's wealth with just 4.5% of the world's population?
The system the you bash created it. It's not because America has superior human beings. It's the Constitution and its principles that this country was founded on. THAT'S the difference between us and everyone else. And you and half this country want to tear it down.
The system the you bash created it. It's not because America has superior human beings. It's the Constitution and its principles that this country was founded on. THAT'S the difference between us and everyone else. And you and half this country want to tear it down.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Could it possibly be because we have no morality when it comes to cheating?
Yet, you argue the opposite. Our Constitution is not original, nor unique.
That is absurd. We just have different ideas on what would be a 'perfect society'. Some want equality for all, some want oligarchy.
Look within.
very few people in the US actually own that wealth lol. you have a good portion of the worlds oligarchs
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
LOL. Ummmm, ya, I can think of a few things other than capitalism and the constitution that might have had a little bit of an influence on America's rise to wealth.
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
We're all just a bunch of cheaters?
What do you mean I argue the opposite?
And yes, the US Constitution is original and unique. Care to name its equivalent?
There can't be a perfect society. What's absurd is the concept of "equality for all" in terms of income or outcome in life. Face it, we are all quite different. Some born brilliant, others not so much. How would you suggest we equalize it? Would it be better if the individuals that created Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. make just a little more than those in the ghetto that choose not to work? Should they expect the same outcome? Those that complain about "inequality", why didn't you create Google?
This whole liberal premise is completely senseless.
Last edited:
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
We have one of the highest median income levels in the world.
We have many of the world's rich because these individuals have created a majority of the world's biggest brands and companies.
regarding the second line: maybe. if your really rich, id say its not a bad country to be in.
you have one of the highest median incomes because you work so much more than the EU countries and probably not because you know any better. you do not have the highest real wages.
alot of countries have constitutions lol. ive never heard the argument that americas is better than the others. im guessing it doesnt really matter.
get back to me when you find out who invested all the money into research and development for decades for computers and who created the internet. clue, its none of those corporations you listed.
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Who said other countries don't have constitutions? You keep making up things I say. Most countries do. Many with very good ones. None are equivalent to the US's though. Not recognizing that is your major problem.
why because they dont have slave labor in their prisons still?
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Huh?
well thats permitted in the US constitution. i was being sarcastic, and i dont know what other EU countries allow slave labour in jails
regarding your beloved constitution:
The main designer, furthermore, was an astute political thinker James Madison, whose views largely prevailed. In the debates on the Constitution, Madison pointed out that if elections in England" were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," giving land to the landless. The Constitutional system must be designed to prevent such injustice and "secure the permanent interests of the country," which are property rights.
Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that "the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period," delivering power to a "better sort" of people and excluding those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power (Lance Banning). The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today.
In public discussion, Madison spoke of the rights of minorities in general, but it is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind "the minority of the opulent." Modern political theory stresses Madison's belief that "in a just and a free government the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded." But in this case too it is useful to look at the doctrine more carefully. There are no rights of property, only rights to property that is, rights of persons with property. Perhaps I have a right to my car, but my car has no rights. The right to property also differs from others in that one person's possession of property deprives another of that right if I own my car, you do not; but in a just and free society, my freedom of speech would not limit yours. The Madisonian principle, then, is that government must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, property owners.
Madison foresaw that the threat of democracy was likely to become more severe over time because of the increase in "the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." They might gain influence, Madison feared. He was concerned by the "symptoms of a leveling spirit" that had already appeared, and warned "of the future danger" if the right to vote would place "power over property in hands without a share in it." Those "without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights," Madison explained. His solution was to keep political power in the hands of those who "come from and represent the wealth of the nation," the "more capable set of men," with the general public fragmented and disorganized...
JL 0513
Well-Known Member
Typical of a liberal to be sympathetic of criminals. I think I'd rather be doing some work in prison then be locked in a cell.
Plus, you're technically not working for free. They supply your shelter, food, medical needs, clothes, and activities. All the things we work for outside of prison. If they were paid on top of getting everything for free that would be quite a deal!
Similar threads
