No I'm in the "who ****ing cares about giving rich kids a leg up the size of a skyscraper when 99.999% of the rest of the world are eating rocks and mud" camp. I'm just calling blank's unborn children losers.

Well, we're talking inheritance. They would get the money after my death. So unless I die before their 18 they don't get a penny. But if I made that money off of a business, I'd go the Vince McMahon/Henry Ford route where they have to work up through the company starting at the bottom.

Just for the record, this situation is lose lose.

We're talking about all money being distributed after your death. And obviously underage children are their own category who'd need consideration, but I don't see why they need to preserve that silver spoon just because they won the birth lottery. I mean ideally I'd be with OH and say **** all of this capitalist nonsense, but I'm at the very least willing to entertain this notion.

Because who are you to tell me what I or anyone else can do with my money. You know what, fuck you for even saying that my money should be given to the government. I'll be buried with my money if I want. I decide who's entitled to my shit after I die.

That’s what Stalin said but they took all his **** down to the buttons on the clothes he was buried in.

Didn't he believe in redistribution of wealth? I don't.

He believed in redistributing all wealth to himself and killing anyone who looked at him funny.

I don't believe in giving myself all the monies! I believe my money is mine, your money is yours, and Charlie Sheen's money is Charlie Sheen's.

Okay. Well just to make it clear: when i said how does 200 grand sound I wasn't espousing a limit. I was not talking esoterically. I was explaining how much my life insurance policy will pay out. And I'm entitled to will that to whomever I wish. I think you agree with me in this case? If not, **** off: you're not getting a penny. In fact, I'm writing you right out of my will. Now you've done it.
I already said this. Hermano! :beer:
They stalin his stuff? Oh christ that's a bad one, isn't it?
A sound basis for a workable government. Ask Trump, he knows.

Why? What's so special about you and your money?

Sane thing that's special about your money.

There's nothing sane about money.

I came here for the Goof vs. Elph and am now disappointed.

Elph probably still has his foot stuck in the capitalist machine.

Elph is a Libertarian... apparently.

Do you have a problem with wealthy people getting to choose who gets their wealth or a problem with wealthy people keeping their wealth within the family?

Pretty hypocritical to take the position of: wealth can be redistributed, but only to charity or some other arbitrary entity I deem a worthy recipient.

If people are too stupid to govern themselves, than surely they can not govern others.. which means both anarchy and structured societies will never work.. only one thing left to do:

Train was delayed.

DWV, spoiler that thing willya? It's giving me seizures, and I don't even have epilepsy! :yikes:

lol, sure.. its been obnoxious long enough i suppose.

Thanks. Appreciate it. Now if I can just get these flashing white spots to stop dancing in front of my eyes...
:thumb:

Now that's more like it.

I'm going to type that I am a communist but not a capitol C one.

I'm a commie now.

Welcome to the fold, comrade. We’ve been waiting. We love you.

Communism isn't a front for unaccountable collective ownership, is it? Because I don't support that comrade.

Oh no no no

You buy timeshare slots to the intentional living space from elph. We keep everything in tip top shape and our yearly upkeep fees low by hiring illegals to supervise the free labor we get from the local for profit prison.

https://media.tenor.co/images/60c5c1...5ac1d27b08/raw

You literally couldn't say Libertarian Socialism and define it without an internal contradiction.

It’s the socialism side that doesn’t work with it. Considering socialism requires force and and a violation of the NAP for anyone who doesn’t want to partake in the distribution of their wealth.

I’m sure there are many forms of Libertarianism that don’t necessitate a contradiction but that does.

It’s capitalism that’s impossible to align with libertarianism. Capitalism is predicated on the theft of natural resources by assigning the rights of control to people who have documents recognized by the capitalist power structure. Property is theft.

Socialism is, at least, an attempt to correct the inherent injustice of capitalism. Neither system can be truly libertarian but socialism has its sails set in the direction of freedom whereas capitalism is sailing further into the depths tyranny and oppression.

Church

The Pueblo Indians lived for at least two centuries in a completely classless and politically non-hierarchical social structure. They didn’t number in the millions but they did number in the thousands.

I'm of the unpopular and very un-American opinion that one person can only own so much money before it becomes unethical. Hoarding billions while others are starving does not fit within my idea of "right".

I agree it's not right.

Bread costs as much as it does because of the average income of the everyday regular person and their collective agreement on how much they are willing to pay at that time.

Spread the wealth, raise the bottom and lower the top (in terms of numbers) and guess what? Bread will still cost the same relative to the new average wealth distribution and the new agreed upon price people are willing to pay for it.

You know about concepts like supply and demand and inflation right?

Yeah, I could have just said that instead but cheers for simplifying by rambling post. Time to sleep.

But elph, that guy worked harder for those 6 pieces. Don't be a hater. Those other people deserve to starve.

That works if it's natural wealth growth or maybe in the short run - the other alternative being price hiking. But essentially all that would happen is that wealth would be transferred back to those corporations who supply the goods people want and we are back to square one.

I’d like to find some common ground

In order to simplify things I’m going to use a hypothetical

Big Air, a corporation the builds large passenger jets and was founded in Arizona in 1960 becomes became unprofitable for the first time in 2002. Big Air has guaranteed in signed written contracts to pay out pensions equal to the salary earned at 20 years with the company if they retire after 25 years and live to the age of 65. Unfortunately, in 2005, Big Air files for bankruptcy. Under the new conditions after the bankruptcy the corporation is no longer legally bound to pay out the pensions. The factory workers stop receiving their pensions and have no legal recourse. The machinery in the factories is seized and sold by the government but instead of using the assets from these sales to go toward the pensions the machinery is actually sold at sweetheart prices to another industry this time based in California and the entire program is hyped as a job saving measure and a boon to the stagnating Californian economy. However, the top five CEOs from Big Air also own controlling shares in the beneficiary industry in California now known as Cal Air. In the meantime, in the 2006 election a new governor with an aggressive jobs program is elected in Arizona. He works out a bailout deal for Big Air with large federal subsidies. The CEOs never officially lost their jobs so they are now receiving large salaries and bonuses from both Cal Air and Big Air. In 2010 the corporations are both profitable but the denied pensions still haven’t been reinstated.

I know that’s a lot to read but in your opinion what, if anything, should be done with the people who lost their pensions?

Dunno mate.

lol

I don’t know if you’re trolling me just to have a laugh at me writing all that out

But if you really don’t know I can pretty confidently say that we have no common ground to base a conversation about economics on.