Markets are a place to buy and sell there is nothing wrong with that idea.
Its greed (Capitalism) that makes it unfair and guess what that breeds (poor people).
No.
Capitalism cures poverty. How many times do I have to say it. How hard is that to understand???
If you don't want people to be poor, poor people have to be greedy themselves, and work for money so that they won't be poor.
It doesn't matter if people are greedy.
It doesn't matter if a you're a homeless person and a billionaire walks past you. You're not his problem. You're your problem. If you don't want to be poor then you fix it. The 1% didn't get wealthy by taking money from people, the 1% got wealthy because they created wealth. They make everyone else's lives easier.
The founder of Amazon is a billionaire. He didn't take money from people. His business allowed people to buy cheap products easily off the internet and delivered the products right to their doorstep. Everyone won. Capitalism. Win-win. The poor didn't suffer because of him; the poor only got better.
Business helps poor people. Not charity.
If guns were not manufactured because they made the business owner a profit there would not be so many guns.
If food wasn't manufactured people would starve. So that's great.
Then you clearly know more and better than those like Bill Gates who you have already cited for his success. In truth, charity is necessary for the reasons I have mentioned, but perhaps most importantly, to alleviate the burden on the tax payer. It would be, frankly, ridiculous to assume that one can be a part of a society that lacks both tax-payer funded welfare, as well as private charitable works. It isn't realistic at all. Learn from the Tsar.
There would be no burden on the taxpayer is we jsut abolished or cut government spending by like 90%.
How is it not realistic??? What's not realistic is how much the government spends by borrowing money, that we don't have to pay back, to fund stupid ********. I'm more down-to-earth than 99% of people.
Much like children who weren't reared properly, perhaps? So then again you show the need for charity. These wayward children ought to be protected. Wealth has a consequence and expectation of benevolence in this civilized world.
Yeah I guess... or could just let them go. The children that weren't raised properly will raise their children improperly, so why not just cut to the chase and end it there. There would be less tragedy and pain in the long-run. Besides, giving those people charity rewards them for being messed up.
Unless, you mean to say that those in a state of poverty are inherently corrupt and naturally inclined to immorality, in other words: born with those natures? Help me to understand as you do.
They vote socialism because they're idiots. They've been brainwashed.
There the people that are moved by this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwUGSYDKUxU
It isn't enough of a reward to be considered as such. No, there are plenty of examples, all of which are anecdotal and I prefer arguing in theory. The inevitable, might I add, is death; and that is inevitable for rich and poor.
You're giving people free stuff for doing nothing. That's not going to help anyone.
Furthermore the poor who ardently try to better themselves ought to be fostered.
Nope. If you're gonna use violence to make me help a poor person then that's unjust.
Poor people should convince better-off people that they deserve the money and that it's obvious they'll better themselves with that money.
If they aren't fostered, I feel that society would suffer as a result.
You feel lol.... Society would be better off. Society suffers when it has to take care of people that provide nothing in return.
A child has potential to grow, and a pauper has the potential to expand his affluence if privately (not by the state) subsidized by way of charity.
Yeah...
You are asking for a tremendous burden on the taxpayer. I'm not entirely sure if this is your intention, but that is the true inevitability. For the record, I'm not talking about charity to Africa, or India, or anywhere else beside the United States. Let the rich of those countries do their bit.
They've already done their bit. GOD, how many timess.... Bill Gates made Microsoft. He's done. He's done his part. He can spend his money however he wants legally.
If we follow this logic of yours down the proven path, we'll see crime rise and prison rates rise as a result. Crime = prison = taxpayer money. Or, we see an electorate that is so poor that when some socialist comes along, he just stole an election. Poverty, therefore socialism, therefore tax hikes, therefore tax payer burden.
When taxes go up crime and all that bad stuff goes up. Because there's a lack of responsibility and individuality. Take the city of Detroit. IT was a great city and then completely screwwed by the democrats.
Poor people who people who are just totally suffering wouldn't exist in a free market. That just doesn't happen. Everyone would have jobs. The government and people's altruism get in the freaking way.
You are speaking in Utopian contexts that aren't at all realistic. Charity is a necessity in any civilized society. We aren't savages. We have a country and community, we aren't our own little islands.
I'm a savage.
You know, if I wanted to help poor people, I would build a business and put them to work. That's what I would do. I wouldn't just give them free money. That's so stupid and wastes wealth.
Like taxes, right? I agree completely. So let's not give people the opportunity to demand higher taxes for welfare and give a little more to the relief fund, eh? Well, I will anyway. I'll enjoy my tax deduction. Cheers!
You can give to charity. I'm not going to waste my time and money.
Saturn is now Conjunct the Tropical Age tuning fork, and is directly affecting the Earth's Astrological resonance frequency. Third World's in real trouble, and it's getting worse. Won't hit the First World until Saturn's at about 15 degrees Capricorn.
