The Rich Don't Work Anymore—Working Is For Poor People
Options
Comments
-
which is where the belief of equality of opportunity comes from, which is an ideal that this nation was founded on. so you are agreeing with me
No i said it was being ruined by liberals, liberals want to enforce equality but equality is not an american value.
The american value systems revolves around liberty, the primary ideal of this society is liberty not equality. Ideally you are given just enough EQUALITY before the law to ensure your liberty. The ideals of Modern europe revolve around equality So leftism fits their ideals better only now they are finally seeing that it does not work. It's too bad that so many americans want to go left and i don't think they understand what they are getting this nation into
America does not always reach it's ideals but generally speaking the goal of this society is liberty.
The problem black people have is we don't understand the society we are living in, we don't know what americanism is and increasingly even white americans don't know what americanism is.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
If we're talking about ideals, then you are just wrong.. Equality of opportunity is one of the main ideals of this nation and the backbone of the "American Dream". And probably, why you chose to move here
The "american dream" that people talk about was created over a century after this nation was founded and as the populace thinks of it it was created in in 1930's. but in any case don't misunderstand me equality is important however the supreme american value has always been LIBERTY NOT EQUALITY.
I did not come here for equality i came here for money and to build wealth and i knew that america would provide me with the greatest chance to get that wealth because it takes liberty to attain wealth. If i was focused on equality i would have chosen to go to england or canada like many other jamaicans do.
Equality of opportunity only applies before the courts before the law there should be no class system as we are all equally under it but this is only so to ensure our liberty. the law is to ensure liberty not equality
Liberty comes from basic equality -
@AggyAF
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
ACTUALLY read what i write i said you are given equality to ensure liberty it's liberty that is the goal. Equality is just a means to that end once a poor person is just as free before the law as a rich person then that's the end of the equality that the government considers a self-evident truth.
i understand, you said equality is not an American value when it is and it is used as a basis for other values. Can't have liberty and pursuit of happiness without basic equality
It's not an american value it's a constitutional utility if you actually real the consistution and bill of rights it's focus is not equality it's liberty. liberty before and above equality
all you have to do is read the ? pledge to see this
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »America was not built on equality and this society is not about equality
It was built on equality for land owners vs kings that claim dominion over all. It was also built on equality for religions and an escape from central government ran religious authority (see Church of England). Then reality happened and the old silly ideological government was scrapped for a more reasonable one.
No those landowners wanted liberty from the kings and fairness and as time went on america has generally pursued increasing levels of liberty as it's goal.
it's not equality of religion, it's liberty of religion, freedom of religion. In a democracy there can never really be true equality because there will always exists THE pressure of numbers
Basically, there was no freedom because the state ran ? or a central entity ran ? . What's the difference between the state and a single corporate body running ? ? You can't have liberty without equivalence because someone will always infringe on that liberty do to limits in resources. Liberals don't want more central overreach, they want more laws to protect from overreach from all parties and they want equal access. Religious laws establishing the inherent right for limiting peoples access is an affront to liberty. The rich consuming limited resources and limiting peoples access to them is an affront to liberty.
For there to be liberty there must be some measure of equality but only before the law it's not the place of government to enforce equality outside of it's bounds.
the difference between the government and a corporate body is that one is made up of private people doing whatever fits them best with and the other is created to administer public services that help private citizens run their affairs.
liberty wants more law more government and that in itself is overreach
How exactly are the rich limiting peoples access to resources????? The resources of rich people are there's and not the governments. the resources my grandfather left me are mine who the ? are you or the government to take it from me and why should i give it to you????? I don't understand where religious laws limiting access to resources comes into this debate -
which is where the belief of equality of opportunity comes from, which is an ideal that this nation was founded on. so you are agreeing with me
No i said it was being ruined by liberals, liberals want to enforce equality but equality is not an american value.
The american value systems revolves around liberty, the primary ideal of this society is liberty not equality. Ideally you are given just enough EQUALITY before the law to ensure your liberty. The ideals of Modern europe revolve around equality So leftism fits their ideals better only now they are finally seeing that it does not work. It's too bad that so many americans want to go left and i don't think they understand what they are getting this nation into
America does not always reach it's ideals but generally speaking the goal of this society is liberty.
The problem black people have is we don't understand the society we are living in, we don't know what americanism is and increasingly even white americans don't know what americanism is.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
If we're talking about ideals, then you are just wrong.. Equality of opportunity is one of the main ideals of this nation and the backbone of the "American Dream". And probably, why you chose to move here
The "american dream" that people talk about was created over a century after this nation was founded and as the populace thinks of it it was created in in 1930's. but in any case don't misunderstand me equality is important however the supreme american value has always been LIBERTY NOT EQUALITY.
I did not come here for equality i came here for money and to build wealth and i knew that america would provide me with the greatest chance to get that wealth because it takes liberty to attain wealth. If i was focused on equality i would have chosen to go to england or canada like many other jamaicans do.
Equality of opportunity only applies before the courts before the law there should be no class system as we are all equally under it but this is only so to ensure our liberty. the law is to ensure liberty not equality
Liberty comes from basic equality
ACCORDING to the consistution liberty comes from ? -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »America was not built on equality and this society is not about equality
It was built on equality for land owners vs kings that claim dominion over all. It was also built on equality for religions and an escape from central government ran religious authority (see Church of England). Then reality happened and the old silly ideological government was scrapped for a more reasonable one.
No those landowners wanted liberty from the kings and fairness and as time went on america has generally pursued increasing levels of liberty as it's goal.
it's not equality of religion, it's liberty of religion, freedom of religion. In a democracy there can never really be true equality because there will always exists THE pressure of numbers
Basically, there was no freedom because the state ran ? or a central entity ran ? . What's the difference between the state and a single corporate body running ? ? You can't have liberty without equivalence because someone will always infringe on that liberty do to limits in resources. Liberals don't want more central overreach, they want more laws to protect from overreach from all parties and they want equal access. Religious laws establishing the inherent right for limiting peoples access is an affront to liberty. The rich consuming limited resources and limiting peoples access to them is an affront to liberty.
For there to be liberty there must be some measure of equality but only before the law it's not the place of government to enforce equality outside of it's bounds.
the difference between the government and a corporate body is that one is made up of private people doing whatever fits them best with and the other is created to administer public services that help private citizens run their affairs.
liberty wants more law more government and that in itself is overreach
How exactly are the rich limiting peoples access to resources????? The resources of rich people are there's and not the governments. the resources my grandfather left me are mine who the ? are you or the government to take it from me and why should i give it to you????? I don't understand where religious laws come into this debate
The line is blurring between private ownership and public services. If corporations are in it for themselves, how does that benefit the public? The resources i am talking about are the natural resources of the earth like land, water, minerals and pretty much the building blocks to all we use as a society. Money is a tool to access resources, it's not a resource. Was the bold a Freudian slip? Liberals want accountable and functional government for the people and not corporate lapdogs. They want laws that increase liberty, not laws limits people's access and rights by decree of religious freedom and corporate personhood. -
Sorry that was a typo I meant liberals want more government
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »America was not built on equality and this society is not about equality
It was built on equality for land owners vs kings that claim dominion over all. It was also built on equality for religions and an escape from central government ran religious authority (see Church of England). Then reality happened and the old silly ideological government was scrapped for a more reasonable one.
No those landowners wanted liberty from the kings and fairness and as time went on america has generally pursued increasing levels of liberty as it's goal.
it's not equality of religion, it's liberty of religion, freedom of religion. In a democracy there can never really be true equality because there will always exists THE pressure of numbers
Basically, there was no freedom because the state ran ? or a central entity ran ? . What's the difference between the state and a single corporate body running ? ? You can't have liberty without equivalence because someone will always infringe on that liberty do to limits in resources. Liberals don't want more central overreach, they want more laws to protect from overreach from all parties and they want equal access. Religious laws establishing the inherent right for limiting peoples access is an affront to liberty. The rich consuming limited resources and limiting peoples access to them is an affront to liberty.
For there to be liberty there must be some measure of equality but only before the law it's not the place of government to enforce equality outside of it's bounds.
the difference between the government and a corporate body is that one is made up of private people doing whatever fits them best with and the other is created to administer public services that help private citizens run their affairs.
liberty wants more law more government and that in itself is overreach
How exactly are the rich limiting peoples access to resources????? The resources of rich people are there's and not the governments. the resources my grandfather left me are mine who the ? are you or the government to take it from me and why should i give it to you????? I don't understand where religious laws come into this debate
The line is blurring between private ownership and public services. If corporations are in it for themselves, how does that benefit the public? The resources i am talking about are the natural resources of the earth like land, water, minerals and pretty much the building blocks to all we use as a society. Money is a tool to access resources, it's not a resource. Was the bold a Freudian slip? Liberals want accountable and functional government for the people and not corporate lapdogs. They want laws that increase liberty, not laws limits people's access and rights by decree of religious freedom and corporate personhood.
The problem with big government is that is doesn't work.The line is starting to blur between public and private services because in many instances the corporations do a better job. and that proves big government doesn't work. Granted corporations do what they do for selfish reasons but the outcome is still a public good.
The resources are better used when in private hands.while corporations are legal entities people make up corporations and people benefit from the selfish actions of corporations.
You think we would have all this technology if corporations did not want to out compete and be rich.
As for the religious debate, it sounds like you want to put your acess to my resources ( or a corporations legally owned resources) above my religious freedom or the freedom of business owners -
go ask the people in portugal or spain better yet ask the people of greece how big government and forced equality has helped them. The socialist ? does not work.
-
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »America was not built on equality and this society is not about equality
It was built on equality for land owners vs kings that claim dominion over all. It was also built on equality for religions and an escape from central government ran religious authority (see Church of England). Then reality happened and the old silly ideological government was scrapped for a more reasonable one.
No those landowners wanted liberty from the kings and fairness and as time went on america has generally pursued increasing levels of liberty as it's goal.
it's not equality of religion, it's liberty of religion, freedom of religion. In a democracy there can never really be true equality because there will always exists THE pressure of numbers
Basically, there was no freedom because the state ran ? or a central entity ran ? . What's the difference between the state and a single corporate body running ? ? You can't have liberty without equivalence because someone will always infringe on that liberty do to limits in resources. Liberals don't want more central overreach, they want more laws to protect from overreach from all parties and they want equal access. Religious laws establishing the inherent right for limiting peoples access is an affront to liberty. The rich consuming limited resources and limiting peoples access to them is an affront to liberty.
For there to be liberty there must be some measure of equality but only before the law it's not the place of government to enforce equality outside of it's bounds.
the difference between the government and a corporate body is that one is made up of private people doing whatever fits them best with and the other is created to administer public services that help private citizens run their affairs.
liberty wants more law more government and that in itself is overreach
How exactly are the rich limiting peoples access to resources????? The resources of rich people are there's and not the governments. the resources my grandfather left me are mine who the ? are you or the government to take it from me and why should i give it to you????? I don't understand where religious laws come into this debate
The line is blurring between private ownership and public services. If corporations are in it for themselves, how does that benefit the public? The resources i am talking about are the natural resources of the earth like land, water, minerals and pretty much the building blocks to all we use as a society. Money is a tool to access resources, it's not a resource. Was the bold a Freudian slip? Liberals want accountable and functional government for the people and not corporate lapdogs. They want laws that increase liberty, not laws limits people's access and rights by decree of religious freedom and corporate personhood.
The problem with big government is that is doesn't work.The line is starting to blur between public and private services because in many instances the corporations do a better job. and that proves big government doesn't work. Granted corporations do what they do for selfish reasons but the outcome is still a public good.
The resources are better used when in private hands.while corporations are legal entities people make up corporations and people benefit from the selfish actions of corporations.
You think we would have all this technology if corporations did not want to out compete and be rich.
As for the religious debate, it sounds like you want to put your acess to my resources ( or a corporations legally owned resources) above my religious freedom or the freedom of business owners
In Many instances, pockets are lined and corporations take over businesses and end up doing a worse job with little oversight. Businesses overfish, pollute the environment, create things with no concern for human health, waste limited earth resources that humanity needs for financial gain. Have you not heard of the Gilded Age? Businesses compete for government contracts and the government monitors the work to make sure it's done responsibly. Businesses need government oversight and the government needs the oversight of the people because that's what it's created for, the people.
I know i would have all this technology because in many instances the government created it, regulated it, and gave it to businesses to monetize, like the internet. Access to basic necessities and resources should not be blocked for religious protection. Not pursuing the public good is inherently selfish. If there was only one store in town, i guess i person would have to move huh. Well, what if all the stores said you couldn't enter because you're black? You damn sure couldn't enjoy the equality of the pursuit of liberty in this country if liberals didn't change the laws. -
FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »FuriousOne wrote: »America was not built on equality and this society is not about equality
It was built on equality for land owners vs kings that claim dominion over all. It was also built on equality for religions and an escape from central government ran religious authority (see Church of England). Then reality happened and the old silly ideological government was scrapped for a more reasonable one.
No those landowners wanted liberty from the kings and fairness and as time went on america has generally pursued increasing levels of liberty as it's goal.
it's not equality of religion, it's liberty of religion, freedom of religion. In a democracy there can never really be true equality because there will always exists THE pressure of numbers
Basically, there was no freedom because the state ran ? or a central entity ran ? . What's the difference between the state and a single corporate body running ? ? You can't have liberty without equivalence because someone will always infringe on that liberty do to limits in resources. Liberals don't want more central overreach, they want more laws to protect from overreach from all parties and they want equal access. Religious laws establishing the inherent right for limiting peoples access is an affront to liberty. The rich consuming limited resources and limiting peoples access to them is an affront to liberty.
For there to be liberty there must be some measure of equality but only before the law it's not the place of government to enforce equality outside of it's bounds.
the difference between the government and a corporate body is that one is made up of private people doing whatever fits them best with and the other is created to administer public services that help private citizens run their affairs.
liberty wants more law more government and that in itself is overreach
How exactly are the rich limiting peoples access to resources????? The resources of rich people are there's and not the governments. the resources my grandfather left me are mine who the ? are you or the government to take it from me and why should i give it to you????? I don't understand where religious laws come into this debate
The line is blurring between private ownership and public services. If corporations are in it for themselves, how does that benefit the public? The resources i am talking about are the natural resources of the earth like land, water, minerals and pretty much the building blocks to all we use as a society. Money is a tool to access resources, it's not a resource. Was the bold a Freudian slip? Liberals want accountable and functional government for the people and not corporate lapdogs. They want laws that increase liberty, not laws limits people's access and rights by decree of religious freedom and corporate personhood.
The problem with big government is that is doesn't work.The line is starting to blur between public and private services because in many instances the corporations do a better job. and that proves big government doesn't work. Granted corporations do what they do for selfish reasons but the outcome is still a public good.
The resources are better used when in private hands.while corporations are legal entities people make up corporations and people benefit from the selfish actions of corporations.
You think we would have all this technology if corporations did not want to out compete and be rich.
As for the religious debate, it sounds like you want to put your acess to my resources ( or a corporations legally owned resources) above my religious freedom or the freedom of business owners
In Many instances, pockets are lined and corporations take over businesses and end up doing a worse job with little oversight. Businesses overfish, pollute the environment, create things with no concern for human health, waste limited earth resources that humanity needs for financial gain. Have you not heard of the Gilded Age? Businesses compete for government contracts and the government monitors the work to make sure it's done responsibly. Businesses need government oversight and the government needs the oversight of the people because that's what it's created for, the people.
I know i would have all this technology because in many instances the government created it, regulated it, and gave it to businesses to monetize, like the internet. Access to basic necessities and resources should not be blocked for religious protection. Not pursuing the public good is inherently selfish. If there was only one store in town, i guess i person would have to move huh. Well, what if all the stores said you couldn't enter because you're black? You damn sure couldn't enjoy the equality of the pursuit of liberty in this country if liberals didn't change the laws.
The facts are that corporations are responsible for the wealth and high standards of living we enjoy, What you are saying only makes sense in certain industries but for most industries government only creates trouble. Business overfish but only because people want to eat. In creating products that people want businesses sometimes pollute, if business did not create these things then somebody would be unemployed.
all businesses ultimately do is provide people with what they desire. I know about the gilded age and it's responsible for the great industry that built up modern america even so i don't want to revert to such extremes. for government contracts there should be oversight because the government would be just another client that kind of oversight i have no problem with
No, you would not have all this technology because while governments sometimes do create technology it's the private sector that actually makes it useable and pushes it to improve.
I would not live in a town that would not let me in it's stores i have the liberty to move or start my own store and build my own little economy i don't want to force myself on anyone and neither should you. and how is practicing the freedom of religion blocking others from access to basic necessities???? are religious people stoping anyone from drinking water or buying bread or living in homes. -
go ask the people in portugal or spain better yet ask the people of greece how big government and forced equality has helped them. The socialist ? does not work.
It can, but not in every country -
Wealth last forever, being rich is practically ephemeral.
-
why work when you can steal
-
You can be an employee working for a company you believe in that has competent management while making money on the side or become an entrepreneur. Always learn everyday.
