4 ms·
I'll take the 3 metres, thanks. I hate this kind of framing. People use it all the time. "It only costs 50p per person of the population to maintain the UK Roy
by LightG 5y ago
I'll take the 3 metres, thanks.
I hate this kind of framing. People use it all the time. "It only costs 50p per person of the population to maintain the UK Royal Family" ...
Pfft, in total there is the potential to do something more significant, more useful, and .... material.
- qaq 5y agoSure you will but you will never get it though. Because there will be a class of people who decide who should get that extra 3 meters and as my experience growing up in USSR tells me it's ain't gonna be you.
- LightG 5y agoA class of people? You mean our democratically elected officials? For all their flaws, I would rather they do something productive with "some" of the resources we're talking about here rather than putting it to use on just another bottle of Dom Perignon. Sure, even that generates economic activity, but there are much better economically multiplying activities that can be invested in.
- qaq 5y agoWell at the point of time when policies are that to the left hard to imagine you will still have elected officials but who knows
- GlennS 5y ago> that to the left hard He's talking about stopping funding for the British Monarchy, not nationalising the means of production. It's not a majority position, but it's hardly hard left.
- burnished 5y agoFucking lefties with their big government, wanting to.. stop paying the monarchy for breathing.
- robertlagrant 5y agoOfficials are not democratically elected.
- LightG 5y agoMine is. Sorry if you're living in North Korea. I'm rooting for your revolution.
- robertlagrant 5y agoYou vote for all the officials that write your legislation and bylaws, and administrate them? In my country we just vote for the people who take the credit/blame for the work a relatively static administrative system does.
- refurb 5y agoYup. All these arguments about wealth distribution are typically “solved” by just shifting that wealth to another select group. Of course entirely due to meritocracy - being an expert in Leninism require a certain lifestyle you understand. I have no argument against policies which support those at the bottom end. But to pretend that an equitable outcome is possible in the long term ignore thousands of years of human experience.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoI've heard it called the "Small Change Defense". It's applied, not just to the rich, but to government programs that people complain are wasteful. Sure, it's only 50 cents. That other program is only a dollar. But if you look at the federal budget, there are a lot of programs. They might each one be small. But add them all together and I get the huge amount I'm going to owe in April. And even if I just pick, say, 30 of them, I could still take that money and have at least a cheap date with my wife. I'd rather have that than those 30 programs. Straws are light, the horse said, but that doesn't mean I can carry a billion of them...