Countries with the most wealth inequality

submitted by magnora7 from zerohedge.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (13 children)

Socialists want me to know they are my moral superiors because they insist it is the only moral system. I bet they feel great about their moral inequality.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Everyone thinks their system is best, this is not something unique to socialists

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

But only certain special "everyones" insist they are morally entitled to force me to participate in their system. Socialism is authoritarian at every level.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I agree, but socialism is far from the only type of political system that leads to authoritarianism.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Socialism doesn't "lead to" authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is embedded in Socialism's implementation, and explicitly its end goal.

If you're implying "but Capitalism blah blah Imperialism blah blah" then fuck you. Free enterprise is entirely voluntary from top to bottom in the context of a Libertarian society. No force is required to cause any individual to do what serves their own best interest, assuming they own their own bodies and the liberty I believe all humans deserve.

Don't ever assume that America is a Capitalist country. The actions of our government are hostile to Capitalism, Free Enterprise, and Individual Liberty. I'm eternally frustrated by the lack of discussion on how to fix that without killing millions of people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppPZOK0_WXQ

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Authoritarianism is the result of many political systems... I can point to many historical examples of authoritarian governments that aren't socialist. That's all I'm saying.

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you watch the video, then I'll be satisfied with our exchange here. Hopefully you'll understand where I'm coming from.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Capitalism cannot exist without socialism.

Taxes that pay the government and police and military that enforce the capitalism are entirely socialist. They claim to "protect" you but won't protect your health or education or rights to shelter, food, and work while civilized countries would.

Socialism cannot exist without capitalism on some level, whether it's the individual level, business level, community level, or state level.

More balanced countries are more stable and happier, but they are far from fair and "equal".

All governments are authoritarian to some degrees and feature socialist and capitalist elements to some degrees.

[–]sawboss 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Taxes that pay the government and police and military that enforce the capitalism are entirely socialist.

I don't entirely disagree. To the extent that they are "Socialist", we ought to do what we can peacefully diminish their power in society.

Everything else you wrote is bullshit commie propaganda, so I'm not investing any time to rebut it.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Depends what you mean "Socialist".

Capitalism needs some balance. Democrats are not that, nor are their brainwashed SJWs. Serving the coporatocracy/technocracy (NeoCons/Globalists/Zionists/Freemasons/NWO), they are merely pawns sheep herding the left-leaning masses into their delusional Hegelian dialectic.

Those "socialists" can go to hell for all I care.

Everything else you wrote is bullshit commie propaganda, so I'm not investing any time to rebut it.

Because you can't.

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Depends what you mean "Socialist".

No, it depends on what you mean when you claim our police are "socialist". Sounds to me like you are making the bullshit commie assertion that "we already have socialism and people should just accept it". To the degree that we do have socialism we have corruption. Our rulers don't care for the poor, they create more of them to justify their own will to power.

Capitalism needs some balance.

Sounds to me like "your individual liberty must be constrained". I'm not going to accept that.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, it depends on what you mean when you claim our police are "socialist".

Police and firemen and roads are paid by taxes and neither are not optional. That is socialism in action. Every country has some socialism.

Sounds to me like you are making the bullshit commie assertion that "we already have socialism and people should just accept it".

Sounds to me like you should check your hearing.

We already do have socialism AND capitalism and people should just BALANCE it.

To the degree that we do have socialism we have corruption.

The same can be said for capitalism. "To the degree that we do have capitalism we have corruption."

Same shit, other side of the coin. Hegelian dialectics man.

Our rulers don't care for the poor, they create more of them to justify their own will to power.

Doesn't matter which "side of the aisle" you're pointing to. They're both corrupt ideologies and the more power they get the more they merge into plain old totalitarianism. The less power they get the more they simply become anarchism. As I've said, I'm for anarcho-minarchism.

Sounds to me like "your individual liberty must be constrained". I'm not going to accept that.

I want maximum liberty all around but enough minimal government to keep harmful crooks in check, whether individuals or gangs or collectivists.