2 ms·

Why should the public profit from the successes undertaken by a self-selected few people? There's no inherent right of people to take other people's money and b

Why should the public profit from the successes undertaken by a self-selected few people? There's no inherent right of people to take other people's money and burn it to the ground in pursuit of some particular ideological end or material goal. If you want to take from the winners then you need to cover the losers. Now we could have a nice balance (reasonable taxes spent well for the public good) where both sides benefit but if you want to go extreme at the top then don't expect everything to work out. Either way, nobody has yet answered the question I've asked a dozen times: How does a govt poorly spending trillions get fixed by spending a few more billion?

lidHanteyk 7y ago
Oh, you're an Objectivist! I see. Unfortunately, I do not respect you. Recall that rights are social constructions. Then, there is no inherent right to private property, personal belongings, or peculiaria. It is granted by the public ("people") to members of the public ("other people"). The question you want answered is hopelessly uninformed. The government's spending appears poor because it is done publically, transparently, and by committee. You are complaining about the fact that sausage comes from sausage factories. In contrast, you might think that a corporation is good at spending money, but in fact, corporations are only good at appearing to be good at spending money. Let me spell that lesson out more clearly for you: Corporations are not good at anything besides appearances. So I would say that your question is begged; the government is doing the best that it can do under the circumstances. If you don't like how it's happening, elect better representatives.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Corporations need to make a profit and voluntarily be paid by people for delivering value. Governments force people to pay and can spend as much as they want. They are diametrically opposed in how they spend. But that wasn't the question, and as expected you haven't provided an answer although you hinted at what I've been saying all along near the end. The reality is that the more taxes won't make a difference, only a change in incentives.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

Oh, you're an Objectivist! I see. Unfortunately, I do not respect you. Recall that rights are social constructions. Then, there is no inherent right to private property, personal belongings, or peculiaria. It is granted by the public ("people") to members of the public ("other people"). The question you want answered is hopelessly uninformed. The government's spending appears poor because it is done publically, transparently, and by committee. You are complaining about the fact that sausage comes from sausage factories. In contrast, you might think that a corporation is good at spending money, but in fact, corporations are only good at appearing to be good at spending money. Let me spell that lesson out more clearly for you: Corporations are not good at anything besides appearances. So I would say that your question is begged; the government is doing the best that it can do under the circumstances. If you don't like how it's happening, elect better representatives.

manigandham 7y ago
Corporations need to make a profit and voluntarily be paid by people for delivering value. Governments force people to pay and can spend as much as they want. They are diametrically opposed in how they spend. But that wasn't the question, and as expected you haven't provided an answer although you hinted at what I've been saying all along near the end. The reality is that the more taxes won't make a difference, only a change in incentives.