What did you do to justify a piece of Donald Trump’s action?

Well, I don’t think I’m as big a prick as he is. That must be worth something.

What if I could get a majority of the people who want some of your stuff to say it is alright to take it?

You mean like imminent domain? Happens all the time.

And yet, AO seems to think we don’t understand how taxation works.

Duros – fair question. I have a couple of immediate thoughts. The first is that it just isn’t how we do it in this country – from the first post-military outpost European presence, the Americas (especially those run by corporations) were sold to immigrants by disingenious speculators and land dealers as a place to come and make a bundle. That attitude, I feel, has largely persisted today.

Secondly the sorts of people who immigrated to the Americas pre-revolution were largely individualistic natural libertarians, looking to escape the still-highly stratified and tightly held land situation in Europe – especially those who expanded to settle beyond the Applachians. Working for somebody else was almost tantamount to Chattel status – if you didn’t have your piece of land and your farm you were basically nothing, and if you made it by God you kept what you got. I see a little of the same attitude that spurred the Whiskey Rebellion in the attitudes taken by modern conservatism, even though they seem to me to be defending a system that supports and encourages steep wealth consolidation.

Trump can gold plate his toilet if he wants. I’m not as interested in a ceiling as in a floor, a rising standard of living for the lowest. Japan, for instance, has a law that CEOs can’t make more than around 60 times the amount of the lowest paid worker, while in the unregulated US it’s somewhere more along the level of 400 to 1.

As I suggested before, it seems self-evident to me that a higher ceiling benefits everyone. Suppose you, I, Quaker and Observer are in a society together and none of us can speak, and I can’t read. If it costs 20 bucks to teach me to read, and I only have seventeen, it makes sense to me that it’s in the interest of you three to kick in a buck each so I can communicate and you can benefit from having more productive members in your society. Obviously there’s a subjective limit to this idea, but I’m fairly certain the ideal limit lies well beyond where current conservative ideas would put it.

Of course not, you just think that the government should work for free.

A state of complete anarchy isn’t exactly what I had in mind. But given the proposed conditions I imagine if I lasted the first day I’d last far longer than a week.

Fixed.

But let’s try Amused Observer’s ideas. Let’s get rid of ALL government programs! No public schools, no road maintainance/construction, no police, no prisons, no fire department, etc. Of course, if you don’t want to put your money where your mouth is, that’s fine. After all, if all that were to happen, you’d be dead in a week.

While I wait for you to serve, you may
peruse this. It is obliquely relevant to our discussion.

Proceed at your peril.

Nor does yours.

That’s rather presumptuous.

the celebration of the creation of an unprecedented society based on the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the individual appears to be beyond your grasp.

Is not.

That it existed at the time of it’s founding in no way diminishes the accomplishment the creation of The United States represents.

Wait. We kidnapped people from their homes, held them against their will through brutal suppression of anything resembling human rights, exploited their labor to enrich an aristocratic class, and countenanced buying and selling them the way we do cattle–and that in no way diminishes the creation of the United States?

Holy crap, dude.

Basically at heart you appear to be a socialist,

Sez you. I already told you I don’t accept the labels you choose to put on things. That includes the labels you apply to me.

And you think that is a good thing.

One tries one’s best.

I don’t call it “wealth redistribution.” Our government–the “of The People, by The People, for The People” one–undertakes activities which further the aims of our society, that “promote the general welfare,” etc.

The government imposes taxes to this end. Then they spend the money. When they spend it, somebody gets that money. That’s what you’re calling “wealth redistribution.” Sorry. I won’t go along.

“Why are you entitled to something that doesn’t belong to you.”

I’m not. That distorted perception is your invention.

“Why can’t I come over and get some of your stuff? Would it be ok?

If you mean “Can the federal government demand a share of my wages?” then yes, it’s OK. If you mean “Can I have your car?” then no.

What if I could get a majority of the people who want some of your stuff to say it is alright to take it?

It happens. It happens legally and it has happened since the founding of the Republic. To undertake a change at this time would be, well, revolutionary. Why do you hate America?

Right there is all that needs to be said. You have finally stated “wealth redistribution” accurately.

Liberals want the government to help people out; I get it. Liberals want rich guys to pay more so normal people can pay less; I get it. Liberals favor spending lots of other people’s money to help people; I get it. Most of you guys want the government to give you more than you give the government; I get it. I don’t particularly care for real rich guys but I think everyone should be treated equally. I just don’t see where anyone is entitled to somebody else’s property. What did you do to justify a piece of Donald Trump’s action? What I don’t get is why you people think you are entitled a free lunch on somebody else’s dime.

But isn’t that the stick in the craw of conservatism and/ or libertarianism in general? “Why should I have to pay for everybody else?” they whine. “I got mine, screw you.” Forgetting entirely that society as a whole is a collective proposition.

And thus I just can’t understand why Republicans, conservatives and libertarians alike will defend to the point of exhaustion the kind of excess of today’s multi-millionaires.

If you don’t make x amount of money, you don’t have to pay taxes, because you’re already dirt fucking poor.
I get that part.
If you make in excess of y amount of money, you don’t have to pay taxes, because you’re so stinking filthy rich that….

I don’t get that part.

somebody tell me why Donald Trump’s wealth shouldn’t be redistributed. Nobody needs a gold plated toilet.

Not esoteric. Precisely the point.