Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
tarl: what the founding fathers did not imagine as necessary in the late 1700s--in the context of a largely agrarian economy--makes no difference whatsoever in the 21st century. even during the period when tocqueville was researching "democracy in america"--the late 1830s--the agrarian model for the american economy was not really dominant--capitalism was taking shape in the cities--the civil war pretty much determined which general mode of economic activity would dominate in the states. so the world jefferson wrote about is long gone, tarl. it does not matter what they found horrifying--their was a different place.
|
One that had no poor people?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
on your third "point"---capitalism has a history, tarl. you could read about it.
then maybe we could have an interesting conversation. right now, this is nonsense.
|
I took a college course on US History since 1865, so I consider myself educated on the subject, your opinion notwithstanding.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
on your john birch society views of the un--read the last part of the longer post above...around the "world peace=world communism" bit.
|
I've read it. And if you don't want your opinions to be referred to as "Karl Marx views," you might want to knock off the "john birch" references.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the rest of your post--your "examples"---operate on assumptions that are absurd, so there is no way to respond.
|
I'm unaware of any "examples," with the possible exception of the hypothetical I posted. I also notice that you suggest reading for me, but you apparently missed my questions. So I'll repeat them here:
1. What is the basis for what you think is your (okay, anyone's) right to confiscate wealth from others?
2. What is the income level which should trigger wealth confiscation by the government?
3. How has capitalism survived without your guidance, if it's as fragile as you say? Okay, you probably think you answered that one. Free pass.
4. Is a person automatically entitled to receive enough largesse to live wherever they want? Worded another way, is a jobless person in southern California entitled to enough money from other people to remain there, or would it be acceptable to provide enough money for a two-bedroom apartment in southern Mississippi? (Hint: That means the recipient might have to move if he wants to receive free shelter.)
Oh, one more thing:
Let's take a hypothetical. A child is born on a Florida farm, the seventh of fourteen children. No phone. No electricity. He plows fields behind a mule. His shirts are made from flour sacks.
After he graduates from high school, he goes back to work on his parents' farm, but for no pay.
How much government assistance (i.e. other people's money) should we start giving him?