Income Inequality

[apeman]

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

Sure, pretty hard to get there from here, Moldbug put forth a pretty good case on how to do it without picking winners and losers, but it would require the parties/branches of govt to want it to happen, so nope.

[SilverEagle]

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

One should only be restrained if they are hurting others liberty. It's not that hard to grasp you mooseknuckle.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Watching another interesting thread lean dangerously on one rail. StA as usual is scampering about laying morality straw men all over the tracks...

[Speaker to Animals]

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

One should only be restrained if they are hurting others liberty. It's not that hard to grasp you mooseknuckle.

It's a lie that that your immoral behavior doesn't hurt other people's liberty. Birth control and abortion have bankrupted our nation, and set us upon the path to the demographic winter. That affects me and everybody else. I know leftists understand this concept because they readily identify it when it comes to environmental damage. Your unrestrained immoral behavior has a social impact upon society that is not unlike unrestrained environmentally damaging behavior inflicts negative impacts upon society.

When you arbitrarily limit restraints to things you personally find morally objectionable, you only make a hypocrite of yourself. You can't pick and choose when damages to other people should matter and when they should not.

What you are discussing here is *not* liberty. It was never conceived as such until very recently in our history. For most of the history of the United States, the idea that liberty = no moral restraints would have been seen as laughable.

The fact is, progressives and libertarians are essentially the same thing. These are groups of people who have lost all moral restraint. They have identified freedom from morality as synonymous with liberty, which is false. It's totally false. If you want licentiousness as a civic virtue, at least own up to it, even though I am pretty sure you would quickly see it's untenable when you use the correct word for it.

[Martin Hash]

Morals are for churches. You can take your morals & shove them up your ass.

Sanctimonious asshole.

[TheReal_ND]

Morals are for the lumpin proles :snicker:

[SuburbanFarmer]

Morals are for churches. You can take your morals & shove them up your ass.

Sanctimonious asshole.

[Speaker to Animals]

Morals are for churches. You can take your morals & shove them up your ass.

Sanctimonious asshole.

See. That's not an argument. I was not judging people or being sanctimonious, and this response belies the intellectual poverty behind this attitude that liberty is really just licentiousness.

[Speaker to Animals]

What world have we created for ourselves when a person pointing out that immoral choices have consequences that can affect all of society is met with accusation of being a sanctimonious asshole?

That's not even rational. This poster told me that it's okay to disregard moral restraints as long as the immoral act doesn't harm other people. But most if not all immoral acts harm other people, if not directly, certainly indirectly, no differently than environmental pollution harms the rest of society indirectly. This is why these acts are defined as immoral in the first place.

His entire premise is falsified. But that makes me a sanctimonious asshole? Whatever. No argument coupled with insult speaks for itself.

[SuburbanFarmer]

What world have we created for ourselves when a person pointing out that immoral choices have consequences that can affect all of society is met with accusation of being a sanctimonious asshole?

That's not even rational. This poster told me that it's okay to disregard moral restraints as long as the immoral act doesn't harm other people. But most if not all immoral acts harm other people, if not directly, certainly indirectly, no differently than environmental pollution harms the rest of society indirectly. This is why these acts are defined as immoral in the first place.

His entire premise is falsified. But that makes me a sanctimonious asshole? Whatever. No argument coupled with insult speaks for itself.

Elaborate on how an immoral act is 'indirectly harming' someone else.

Extra points if you don't point and screech "But the childrennnN!"