Individual Wealth Cap

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

Man, stop feeding the trolls. If they pretend they can’t understand simple points and context, and if they turn around what you actually say, they are not engaging in honest debate. They are feeding their fragile, attention dependent ego at your expense. In real life you could smack them around a bit. On here you just have to ignore them, or engage in kind. There’s no actual reasoning going on there.

a reply to: DBCowboy
up is down
war is peace
right is left

a reply to: DBCowboy

explain how it's not equal for someone to have a limit to their money, and that limit is identical to everyone else,

are you suggesting ONE PERSON not having a limit, and everyone else having a limit is a more fair setting?


You have yet to even explain why this isn't equal despite claiming it so many times.

And now you're going to dispute that things as basic as laws exist, because you have the 'freedom' to break them.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: DBCowboy
up is down
war is peace
right is left

It is Orwellian!

a reply to: pexx421

In real life you could smack them around a bit.

telling that is your go to when your words fail

nothing but air and opportunity bub

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
a reply to: DBCowboy

explain how it's not equal for someone to have a limit to their money, and that limit is identical to everyone else,

are you suggesting ONE PERSON not having a limit, and everyone else having a limit is a more fair setting?


You have yet to even explain why this isn't equal despite claiming it so many times.

And now you're going to dispute that things as basic as laws exist, because you have the 'freedom' to break them.

We're not even on the same planet, Broseph.

You actually think that freedom is restricting EVERYONE's rights equally.

So, all I can do (honestly) is laugh at you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

"You actually think that freedom is restricting EVERYONE's rights equally."

What the # do you call a speed limit sign, an equal opportunity to break the law?

Pretty sure equality ends at being criminal. Sorry chief.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

What the # do you call a speed limit sign

you do understand those are set by the states and not the federal governments?
do you even understand our government at all?
it appears you do not

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

So you equate infringements, criminality with making more money than others.

Again, you lost.

You just lost.

*shrugs*

*walks away*

a reply to: DBCowboy
having the monies is bad
bad people have the mostest monies

a reply to: DBCowboy

A speed limit sign is a pretty much perfect examaple that the freedom you have is limited in a way that is equal to everyone.

The idea it isn't is incorrect.

No one is complaining about the speed of their car verses the limit.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere

A speed limit sign is a pretty much perfect examaple that the freedom you have is limited in a way that is equal to everyone.

nope
your facts are askew again
www.caranddriver.com...

Montana increases its speed limit to 80 mph on the interstate for both day and night.Dec 29, 2017

www.drivinglaws.org...

55 miles per hour on divided highways in non-residential districts.

state laws may vary in the united states of america
have you noticed the laws on cannabis recently?

originally posted by: idiotseverywhere
The last sentence gives the first sentence the non-literal anecdotal context.

No, it doesn't. Try again.

a reply to: shooterbrody

no # they vary, the question is if you recognize that it's a limit directly effecting your 'freedom' to drive at any speed you want. This is mutually agreed on by the community, and is not freedom, and instead a law you're not allowed to break.

"Freedom" doesn't give you exemption from laws.

a reply to: idiotseverywhere
by that token laws against any crime are a limit on freedom
that is not the issue
your issue is taking peoples possessions when they acquire to many
they do that in communist nations
for some reason you wont admit that

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, it does. The single time I expressed it as anecdotal should actually be the entire end of it.

an·ec·do·tal
/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

AKA, Yes, I know it's not literally true, and is instead a generalization "based on personal accounts rather than facts or research." And rather, my opinion of what it means to be born with Millions.

The idea you demand statistics against that, and then continue down this path of literal meaning is honestly evidence you don't understand basic words like 'anecdotal' or something.

When you own and control everything you can decide when and who can eat, sleep, or do pretty much anything including life itself.

Whether it's the government or a few uber rich individuals, the result is the same. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can come up with a system that limits the power of both the government and the uber rich.

It would likely require a brand new constitution, because it's through constitutions that you limit the power of government.

Point is we need a new system, and the do as though wilt, accumulate as much power and influence as you can, and dominate as much of the world as you can with no limits and no repercussions is neither freedom, nor acceptable, it's just another path to tyranny.

It’s not a large leap for the “taxes are theft” group to think laws are infringement on freedoms. They see no further than how something effects them. Forget about effects on society or social cohesion.

a reply to: shooterbrody

omfg, no #.

-Proposed money cap "ARGH MY FREEDOM"
-Proposed Speed cap "oh thats just a law"

they are literally the same thing, you denying you accept limits is the fallacy.
You do.
You accept the speed limit.

They can’t even recognize that the only functional difference between Venezuela and Norway is us aggression.