Technically, you’re right… YET To throw around the term “discrimination” is simply preposterous.
And, why would I be using the “legal-sense” of the word? Do you really think a government, whose tax policy discriminates (as you said, technically I’m right) based based upon wealth, would include wealth in a legal sense of the word? Err, conflict of interest?
You also said the poor are the majority…we’re talking about the US, and the poor aren’t the majority.
From my perspective, they are.
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t rely on the “Lixy Poverty Index” when sorting out claims being made.
But if you want to restrict the talk to the US exclusively, then the majority of poor people is even more apparent. Clearly, the median is dragged very high up by the filthy rich, leaving the bulk of the population below it. Shit!
No, that makes them less wealthy, not poor. And, who is overusing a word, again? I’m not rich when I visit a friend who makes less than me, and suddenly poor when I drive past a mansion.
You finish up challenging my view on taxation and wealth by dragging drug laws into the conversation. Unfortunately, you didn’t have a clue as to what my position was on that particular topic.
Good point. It’s just that I value freedom over money and I like to prioritize things. My bad for assuming you were in the same boat.
Actually, you have it reversed. I value freedom over money. Which is why I’m very libertarian on BOTH issues.
Anyway, I wholly agree with the idea that charity should be voluntary and vehemently oppose looting people at gun point. Well, when you DISCRIMINATE between tiers of personal wealth, for forced taxation and redistriubtion of said wealth…I’m sorry, what was your objection? Oh, here it is below.
My beef was with your victimization of the “wealthy” and that loaded question you asked Beowolf.
How could you have beef with that? You just said above, that you “vehemently oppose looting people at gun point.” Color me confused.
To speak of discrimination in that context must be quite insulting to the number of people who were (and still are) discriminated against in the US.
That would be due to their own ignorance, since I made proper use of the word, as it is defined.
The wealthy have a shitload of advantages over the poor ranging from better judicial representation to buying politicians or public opinion. To suggest that the wind is against them in the US (of all places!) is a very weak argument.
Uh, too bad that wasn’t my arguement…
You cannot really value freedom over money because freedom requires property.
If you do not own something, including yourself you are not free to use it.
Insofar everyone that infringes on your property infringes on your freedom.