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 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.

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

enough minimal government to keep harmful crooks in check

Tell the truth. You want the power to punish your enemies ans reward your friends.

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

LOL

I have no enemies and I want to reward all of humanity fairly (not equally) without the excessive poverty nor excessive wealth nor the violence that builds excessive wealth.