Income Inequality

[Speaker to Animals]

He sees libertarians as godless vice chasers devoted only to their own depravity, so when liberty comes up, he needs to shoehorn a definition of liberty that includes restrictions on immoral behavior

Correct.

Liberty does not mean without moral restraint no matter how much the progs and lolbergs wish it were so.

[SilverEagle]

He sees libertarians as godless vice chasers devoted only to their own depravity, so when liberty comes up, he needs to shoehorn a definition of liberty that includes restrictions on immoral behavior

Correct.

Liberty does not mean without moral restraint no matter how much the progs and lolbergs wish it were so.

I see someone loves his his chains.

[apeman]

He sees libertarians as godless vice chasers devoted only to their own depravity, so when liberty comes up, he needs to shoehorn a definition of liberty that includes restrictions on immoral behavior

I see. He views us as godless heathens that jackoff to monkey porn while fling poo out of a slingshot at passing cars.

Freedom is the devil!

Ah, the dream!

[jbird4049]

So under your assumption the American people might be better off if the USD was not the world's reserve currency? The Fed could still print money for the government but it would have great/terrible implications. This is not a complete fix by no means but it's and interesting angle for sure.

Orthodox economics for hundreds of years assumed sound money was a necessary precondition to a good economy. IT is only relatively recently that policy makers believe that it is OK to have spending permanently outpace taxable receipts. Nowadays, any belief in orthodox econ makes you a weirdo.

This scam will continue to work as long as we have the biggest military, which is what truly backs the currency.

We might well be into printing too much money, but chaining a currency to a fixed standard like gold creates problems of its own.

The biggest reason, I think, for the mass printing of dollars is to impoverish the lower classes in order to enrich the wealthy elites while keeping the merry-go-round turning.

[jbird4049]

I agree with most of what is being said in the thread so far. I think you are missing one difference though when it comes to the US.

I live in a country with a lot less income inequality even though we have the same problems with globalization and immigration. A couple of things are different, though. We don't have minimum wage laws. Instead we have central negotiations between employee organizations and unions and clear laws regulating labor conflicts. Our policy is that government shouldn't interfere in the prizing of the labour market and making the parties equally strong makes it unnecessary.

We need high wages because we are mostly funded by taxes and we have laws regulating how much deficit there can in the state's budget. We usually aim for a surplus.

In the US the government can just print money and borrow it from themselves. Tax income seems divorced from spending. The population is being reduced to plebs. They don't need to work. If they don't make money they can borrow it cheaply. If they don't pay back the bank will get money from the government instead. Indentured slaves is a good description, indeed. You aren't work slaves anymore, just consumer slaves. The cheap credit also makes the prices for education and healthcare skyrocket. (Things that are tax funded in Sweden, btw).

I am again being reminded of the late era Roman Republic where the rich got richer, work was being done, cheaply, by imported slaves and loyal freedmen while the lower classes descended into poverty and debt.

It is fertile soil for demagogues and populists as long as the citizens have the ability to vote. We will have to see what happens to that..

Just like in the Roman Republic there are plenty of people who want to work. Just as in that republic, the people in this republic are losing their livelihood while the wealthy get wealthier both in relative, and absolute, terms.

There are plenty of people who want to work, many who have the skills needed, and there is enough work undone, and more than enough money. That would make the wealthy less wealthy at least compared to everyone else.

No, I am convinced that some rather have a bigger slice of a smaller pie instead of smaller slice of a lager pie.

[apeman]

chaining a currency to a fixed standard like gold creates problems of its own.

I am aware of downsides, but await your explanation of these problems.

[Speaker to Animals]

I would rather tie the currency to a basket of precious metals measured in fractions of a troy ounces.

And when people start shit with us in the future, we should invade the place, wreck it, and seize their precious metals as compensation for our troubles. No rebuilding. Nada. Tie the currency to precious metals and start taking precious metals from people when they misbehave. The euro is fucking done. There exists no other alternative to the USD except gold itself. Let's preempt that.

And if you want to grow the money supply, guess what, time to get serious about space mining..

[PartyOf5]

No, absence of moral restraints is literally licentiousness.

Definition of licentious
1
: lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints licentious behavior licentious revelers
2
: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness

It's common for people in our age to confuse licentiousness with liberty.

I said as long as people did not infringe on others liberty. Murder would be infringing on someones liberty and a law would make murder illegal. Therefore my definition of freedom would not be licentious. BTW do you love to argue over semantics? I find it a GIANT waste of time as well as a thread derail-er.

In this case semantics are important to understanding your position.

You definition opens society up to things like justifying Pedophilia. If both parties consent, then they are both just living out their freedoms. Right?

[SilverEagle]

No, absence of moral restraints is literally licentiousness.




It's common for people in our age to confuse licentiousness with liberty.

I said as long as people did not infringe on others liberty. Murder would be infringing on someones liberty and a law would make murder illegal. Therefore my definition of freedom would not be licentious. BTW do you love to argue over semantics? I find it a GIANT waste of time as well as a thread derail-er.

In this case semantics are important to understanding your position.

You definition opens society up to things like justifying Pedophilia. If both parties consent, then they are both just living out their freedoms. Right?

Seriously WFT?! It absolutly does not! In your absolute fucking insane example you leave out the child's rights. And in a case like that the child cannot decide therefore a child is off limits until adulthood to make that choice (when spoiler alert....it's not pedophilia because they are now and adult), nobody, not even the parents can make that call. Why in the fuck do I even have to point that out you sick fuck!

[Speaker to Animals]

So you think moral restraints should be placed on others, but just not yourself.