- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 75,485
- Reaction score
- 39,816
- Location
- USofA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You are a master of straw man creation, cp.
I have never suggested in any way...the things you are charging me with here.
YOU were the one who charged ME with not giving a crap about anyone else.
Frank Apisa said:I think he understands it...he just does not care.
He is a poster boy for the "hooray for me; screw you" way of thinking.
I don't accuse you of not caring about the poor. I accuse you of wanting to tear down the rich.
Now.
1. I went back and re-read. I was over the top in mocking your position, and while I think it is disconnected and unrealistic, that was still rude. I apologize for my abusive behavior, and hope that you will forgive me for it.
2. You say that the disparity in wealth is an abomination. But you don't say that in the context of how little the poor have. The only thing that seems to be upsetting you is how much the rich have.
3. You do not back up your argument for why a disparity in wealth is an abomination, and as soon as a RW example is given to you, you agree that the example is ridiculous.
I think that Point #2 should cause you to reconsider what you are actually focusing on v what you claim to be focusing on, and Point #3 should cause you to reconsider why you think it, if your rule does not play out in a way that you recognize in real life.
4. The French and Russian Revolutions were not revolutions by deprived peasants angry at the rich, they were revolutions by rising urban lower-middle classes whose rising expectations were unmet and who then struck a catalyst. It was the Vanguard of the Masses, in both instances, who often had to Revolutionize the Peasants (who were actually poor) against their will. The actual deprived peasantry in both nations remained staunchly Reactionary for some time.
Meanwhile, strong wealth-disparity has hallmarked just about every single empire in Human History prior to 1600, including many of the most stable ones that lasted for centuries or millennia. The argument the wealthy having a lot is inherently destabilizing does not hold up against historical examples.
5. Furthermore, those examples were all ones in which concentration of wealth was the result of state division of it, rather than free trade. The former is more politically destabilizing than the latter, because the latter A) throws down the rich as rapidly as it raises them up and B) means that the rich become rich by benefitting others. George RR Martin has not reduced my life, he has enriched my life. And yes, he should write the damn book already. I understand that HBO has already told him that if he doesn't meet their deadlines, they will just move on through the timeline without him. Hopefully that is a good incentive for him.
Last edited: