Bezos and Gates I wouldn't consider oligarchs myself. Just because they have billions, doesn't mean they are using it to control the government.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oligarchs for trump! Oligarchs for Biden! oops!!
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Bezos and Gates I wouldn't consider oligarchs myself. Just because they have billions, doesn't mean they are using it to control the government.
Don't ruin the conspiracy theory!
Sensible democracies have very real rules around election fund-raising and what may be spent in election campaigns. That means that more focus has to be on what the electoral messages are, rather than how much any party can saturate the airwaves with whatever it is they espouse (which is usually just disparagement of the opponent, rather than a positive campaign platform).
Money can, and does, buy elections. And if that is the case, the poor are automatically disenfranchised.
Money can, and does, buy elections. And if that is the case, the poor are automatically disenfranchised.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
No, but their actions and decisions affect the world.
This gets back to an age-old forum question: When does a claim become common-knowledge enough that a request for citations can be seen as sea-lioning?
Let's take the Walton family as an example. Are you comfortable accepting that many of their full time workers need food stamps to survive? Or is that something I'd also need to google for you.
All snark aside, I thought my claim was pretty well accepted by anyone who is paying attention to the degree to which billionaires in this country don't pay much in taxes. And again, I'm not claiming that what they isn't legal, my claim is that it's parasitic and unethical.
Some common knowledge is merely common
belief...like Jesus Christ being my lord & savior.
No one's yet made a credible argument for that.
How many need food stamps?
But this raises a question....how much assistance would
they need if they didn't have a job with Walmart?
My not accepting Jesus as my lord & savior...is that
cuz I've just not been paying attention too? Nah.
You're just using the argument of obviousness.
And if you cannot answer my questions, then you
should ask yourself....why do I believe what I believe?
I haven't addressed legality vs illegality.
And you've not made your case.
@Revoltingest all of the points in your last post are off topic.
This makes it appear that you are sea-lioning.
This makes it appear that you are sea-lioning.
Last edited:
Is that to ask a fundamental question which no believer can answer?
That wasn't my intent. I was just curious about the underlying facts.
"the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden ..." Seriously?
What a joke!
What a joke!
I'm going to assume you're discussing this in good faith, although I must admit you're not making it easy...
If full time Walmart employees had ethical bosses (in any company), they wouldn't need food stamps. This of course is an ethical claim I'm making and therefore some subjectivity is in the mix. The only exception I could imagine is if the bosses also needed food stamps to survive. In that case I suppose that "some job is better than no job". But if the bosses are multi-billionaires (which the Waltons are), how do you ethically square the idea that some of your tax dollars are going to support the employees of these multi-billionaires
I'm going to assume the same of you.
Well, whaddaya want...an echo chamber?
But if it's difficult, that's on you. I just asked
questions fundamental to your beliefs.
What you call "ethical", I wouldn't.
As I see it, Walmart has the obligation to pay employees
what's been agreed upon...no more. Employees are free
to seek better jobs. But if what Walmart offers is the best
they can find, then Walmart is the employer posing the
minimum taxpayer burden.
Walmart uses its muscle to drive competitors out of town. That leaves them with virtual monopolies in local job markets.
Again, I'm interested in hearing from you whether YOU think it's ethical to earn billions of dollars by underpaying your employees and shirking your ethical duties to pay for the upkeep of the commons you rely upon?
Imagine that....a store offering deals so much better that the
competition dies off. This raises questions....
Does Walmart then raise prices once it establishes its monopoly?
How often does this happen?
The 2nd question arose because I've seen many Walmarts in my
travels (rural & urban), but they're always surrounded by competitors.
We have some Walmarts here. But we find the competitors superior.
I addressed that.
Walmart has no responsibility to pay more than is necessary to
attract its workers. Remember....every worker there preferred
that job to all others available.
I re-skimmed the thread and I did not see where you addressed the upkeep of the commons?
We'll have to agree to disagree on the ethics of local monopolies.
I don't think so.
I'm not a fan of monopolies....where they exist.
You didn't answer my questions about that.
I recall you had an anecdote about seeing Walmart having competitors in certain markets. I'm happy to accept that, I was not making a black and white claim.
And I'd still like to hear your - libertarian-esque? - take on the maintenance of the commons. As an aside, there is much about Libertarianism that I'm attracted to, but there are a few areas I don't understand. So in this case, I'm sincerely interested in how Libertarians tackle the problem of maintenance of the commons?
I'm not clear on what you mean by "maintenance of the commons".
That sounds like a real estate management term.
By "the commons" I mean everything "we've" built and use as a society. E.g., roads, bridges, safety standards, fire and police services, education, social security, healthcare, and so on.
All of these things cost money. All of the companies run by millionaires and billionaires make HEAVY use of the commons. My sense of ethics is that those companies should pay their fair share of the costs to maintain all of that.