3 ms·

> I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to

by snitko 12y ago

> I'd suggest you look into how things work out in the real world. In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. My argument is that it's not going to be necessarily perfect, but simply better and more fair to the poor if government wasn't a monopoly on police and courts. Of course the rich would get better everything. They always will. The point is to improve the lot of ordinary people, not to hurt the rich. If you intend to help the poor by robbing (taxing) the rich, you're trying to do good by doing harm - that's not moral.

vertex-four 12y ago
> In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.
- snitko 12y ago
  The solution is to encourage everyone to become richer, not equalize people. If you argue that rich people should not get better treatment in court, then why not argue for the rich people to buy the same cars as everyone else, the same houses, the same clothes and same everything else. You see, what you're arguing is selective communism. I for one have no problem with the fact that rich people get better protection from the police, provided they made their money honestly. If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman: "If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
  - vertex-four 12y ago
    Some things are necessities for a stable, non-violent civilisation where everybody can live in relative peace. Cars are not included in that. Shelter is, but only a minimum level of shelter is necessary, and anything above that is discretionary spending, which I have no real problem with so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. Thank you for your statement that you literally could not care less about how people with less money than you are treated. I've been in a country where the vast majority of businesses never touch Government red tape. They don't pay taxes, the Government doesn't know they exist. Anyone who owns property could easily start up such a business. It still has massive poverty issues. I've lived there for years. I never want to go back. It would be unsafe for me to go back; due to a medical condition that I have, it is very likely that I would be discriminated against, and very possibly raped, with no recourse. And it'd be worse for a native.

by snitko 12y ago

vertex-four 12y ago

> In the real world the rich already have access to "better courts" because they can afford to hire top lawyers. And the solution to that is not to encode those inequalities into the fabric and rules of how a society works. It's to try and solve the issue as best as we possibly can.

snitko 12y ago
The solution is to encourage everyone to become richer, not equalize people. If you argue that rich people should not get better treatment in court, then why not argue for the rich people to buy the same cars as everyone else, the same houses, the same clothes and same everything else. You see, what you're arguing is selective communism. I for one have no problem with the fact that rich people get better protection from the police, provided they made their money honestly. If you truly wanted equality, you'd be arguing for lesser or no government intervention into the economy, so that people could easily and freely start businesses without the need to acquire licences and red tape. In the words of Milton Friedman: "If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that [free market]. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system."
- vertex-four 12y ago
  Some things are necessities for a stable, non-violent civilisation where everybody can live in relative peace. Cars are not included in that. Shelter is, but only a minimum level of shelter is necessary, and anything above that is discretionary spending, which I have no real problem with so long as it doesn't negatively affect others. Thank you for your statement that you literally could not care less about how people with less money than you are treated. I've been in a country where the vast majority of businesses never touch Government red tape. They don't pay taxes, the Government doesn't know they exist. Anyone who owns property could easily start up such a business. It still has massive poverty issues. I've lived there for years. I never want to go back. It would be unsafe for me to go back; due to a medical condition that I have, it is very likely that I would be discriminated against, and very possibly raped, with no recourse. And it'd be worse for a native.