The only part where I inferred they were inferior beings was in their desire to soak the rich with 70% tax rates - i.e. *forcing* some people to work 9 months a year for the selfish desires of others. Note that many 15k burger flippers don't support soak the rich tax rates, and thus they were not the ones I was referring too. Please read more carefully in future. So, your argument is hypocritical - you construe desire not to be enslaved for the majority of one's adult life, as an expression of contempt for others. Whereas the contempt is coming from those doing the forcing - they have so little respect for another human being that they are willing to extort them into de facto slavery for decades. If it is arrogant or selfish to not want to be a slave to strangers who view you with contempt, and who employ an army of goons to kidnap and imprison you if you refuse to be extorted/enslaved, then I say let's have more of that kind of arrogance and selfishness. In the meantime, I'll have fries with that please.
It depends on the burger flipper - a 20 year old, good-looking, 160 IQ, charismatic and friendly 6'4" martial-arts fanatic in great physical condition, who happens to be flipping burgers to pay their college tuition, and doesn't believe in extortionate tax rates, would be superior to me in most ways. Whereas someone with the opposite of those characteristics would be mostly inferior. I'd be quite ok with a world where burger flippers and waitresses turn their nose up at me and refuse to bring me food, as long as they respect my rights and liberty. P.S. how come you picked on the soak-the-rich burger flipper example, and ignored my criticism of billionaire hedge-fund managers supporting the oppression of small business owners? Was that because it would totally undermine your portrayal of me as favouring the rich over the poor?
I don't agree - most rich people get enormous benefit in taxes. How long do you think Bill Gates or Warren Buffett's wealth would last if there was no law and order? They'd be stolen from, kidnapped and extorted, or just shot within days. Only a small percentage of the rich and well-off have the cunning required to adapt and survive in lawless anarchy. The proof of this is that anarchistic societies have far less rich people than more stable ones. Thus, the presence of core government functions is essential for the majority of well-off and rich people to get and stay that way.
So-called anarchistic societies (like Somalia) always seem to occur in places where there's no history or understanding of contracts, property rights, respect for the non-aggression principal, etc. Things are just as bad (often much worse) when a strong top-down government is in control. We really haven't seen a relatively wealthy, safe nation with the right pre-conditions attempt to slowly privatize most gov't services. Instead, they always go the other direction, expanding regulations and gov't agencies until wealth and innovation starts getting squeezed out.
This is possibly incorrect depending on whether you consider the U.S. to be "a relatively wealthy, safe nation with the right pre-conditions". If you don't, then I think from your prospective you are correct. If you do, on the other hand, then you are definitely incorrect as the U.S. has attempted, and is attempting to "slowly [privatize] most government services. " Here are just a very few of the endless list of what would often be government operations in other countries that are privatized in the U.S.: the National Laboratories, arms manufacturing, planning and building of military bases, military research and development (it's both but substantially privatized), Fannie and Freddie, the entire medical service delivery industry, including the service delivery part of medicare and most of the service part of medicaid, passport issuance, engineering and building of federal highways, travel for Federal Employees, and on and on. Things that are not yet privatized but may be in the future: management of the national parks (It's been proposed already), the IRS, and the Postal Service (That's proposed too). Also, it is likely only a matter of time until Wall Street gets their hands on Social Security, something they've been attempting to do for decades. As an aside I might add that granting of lucrative Federal contracts to private for profit corporations is a very important, if not the most important, portal for graft and corruption in the United States. The United States of America is the most privatized and capitalist country of any significance in the entire world, and threatening to become even more so! P.S. Are you surprised I did not mention the Federal Reserve?
"Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Sunday called for âcomprehensive reformâ of New Yorkâs tax code that would mean higher tax rates for the wealthy and a tax cut for the middle class, according to officials briefed on the plan...." http://www.cnbc.com/id/45552309
I find it funny that people think this is a victory. These people NEVER lose: You buy insurance, you get in an accident. Your rates go up. Insurance company never loses. Banks get Dodd-Frank. They lose revenue. They install new fees and pass those costs to the costumer. Banks never lose. Banks implode themselves and economy. Banks get bailed out by us, no one goes to jail. Government raises taxes on wealthy. They will find a way to pass those costs along or avoid them altogether. GUARANTEED. Capiche? It is a magic trick that society falls for OVER AND OVER, and only with a fast eye can you follow the ball underneath the shells.
It's ironic that an oft heard battle cry of corporations, is "their is far too much regulation"; yet regulators, both Federal and State have, in many cases, become closet advocates for those they regulate rather than adversaries, or (ideally) neutral, disinterested, independent regulatory bodies without conflicts of interest. This overly friendly regulatory environment is one reason the regulated have their losses contained and are sheltered from what would otherwise be the natural consequences of unwise risk taking. When losses must, nevertheless, be absorbed it is the holders of common stock who take the biggest hit. Often those most responsible for bad decisions suffer few serious consequences, though there are notable exceptions, and are sometimes even rewarded, in spite of their mismanagement of the stockholders' trust. This is something other than free markets/free enterprise and performance based compensation.
The best way to hide a lie is between two truths. Whenever you see lots of public complaints from these people, it means they want you to concentrate on that because it detracts from the real battle they are afraid to lose. It makes you feel "empowered". Since they have already won that battle, they don't mind you focusing on it, a) because you can't win (for the very reasons you give), and b) because it distracts you from what they are really afraid of. So guess what? The regulation complaint thing is a decoy.
Simons Strategy to Shield Profit From Taxes Draws IRS Ire http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...o-shield-profit-from-taxes-draws-irs-ire.html