Welfare needs reformed

What's your argument against this photo?

And please, no "muh inflation". There are ways to regulate inflation. Printing money is inevitable for an economy of our scale. In fact, just listen to what Trump said:

youtu.be/ihjgYj5tNYk

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k
uneasymoney.com/2014/07/22/monetarism-and-the-great-depression/
qz.com/294809/why-the-us-has-the-most-powerful-currency-on-the-planet/
fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

They forgot access to uncapped internet

And freedom from being offended

>uncapped internet
if Congress wants to declare internet or wifi a necessity, then so be it.

>freedom from being offended
we have the right to not be acted upon. generally being offended by something that isn't your cup of tea isn't a legit issue.

The only rights you are guaranteed to are those you are born with. That is, to say what you want, believe what you want, defend yourself to the best of your ability and to succeed at life to the best of your ability. The rest of legislature defines the legal "culture" of a nation, which should also guarantee a right to due process of law and fair, unbiased application of the law.
Anyone who tries to say otherwise is trying to dehumanize you, ergo by disarming the populace you are informing them that they are not to be trusted with proper judgement in regards to proper application of force in the interest of self-defence, which I regard as a failure of the State.

>Printing money is inevitable for an economy of our scale

I should have said "necessary". Yes, you must spend money and have debt to have an economy. Unless you want to live in a gold-standard Ron Paul fantasy land.

who is sliding this fairly decent thread?

I think the point is that by moving past a physical standard we are trying to "move past" our economica capacity, something that I find very dangerous as it is a non-entity and isn't as stable as gold, meaning that the higher we build on a rickety ladder, the harder we fall.
Consider the EU. How are they going to solve Greece, Italy and Spain if they can't pay denbts and have no "physical" capital to rely on for payments? They're going to become enslaved by Germany

Also well it is a shit bait thread so ofc noone cares enough to reply too much. I'm drunk however, and would love to prove you wrong

>How are they going to solve Greece, Italy and Spain if they can't pay denbts

our economies will NEVER pay off national debt. and even on the day that they do, what will they do the next day? they'll spend money and create more debt.

what thread isn't a bait thread? the point is to always catch the reader's attention. i know why the thread is sliding. not enough BIG BLACK COCK.

none of those are rights

the actual right is the right of none intervention

you want to practice a religion, speak up, associate with others, own property, etc.

in other words you have the right not to be fuck with by others

the things mentioned in the OP post are material goods and services, things created by labor and violation by others, if you acknowledge them as rights it means you will have to trample over the ones I've mentioned

for example - you have a skill needed to to provide what OP preaches, if you decide to do anything else but provide for others you will be denying them their rights, so you have no choice but build houses or grow food or administer treatment FOR FREE or be branded a criminal

so, if we accept OP idea of rights we have to instate a slave caste providing others with the above mentioned - so, fuck off OP

>There are ways to regulate inflation. Printing money is inevitable for an economy of our scale.
nice try shekelstein

Okay, what is your proof we'll never pay it off? It might seem insurmountable now that everybody is in the belly of the beast, but what happens if economies crash and lose their credibility? Then what? Denbts are a social construction, and can be gone in the blink of an eye

>if you acknowledge them as rights it means you will have to trample over the ones I've mentioned

providing access to goods is not trampling. it does not imply a controlled economy. if Walmart wishes to participate in this, it's good on them and a smart move. if Target doesn't want in on it, well, they can watch their numbers drop.

Because the need for social Darwinism. In the past, people with poor health could get by with proving they can work hard enough to survive, and with the adoption of universal FREE SHIT for everyone, that drive vanishes.

Though I wouldn't mind scrapping all our aid programs and get our own homeless off the streets. If we quit sending money to all the niggers we could support all the whites, and if you extended these "human rights" to my kin, I wouldn't complain.

For example, what happens if I owe you a lot of money and then you come to collect and I shoot you, hide the body and manage to get away with it? Even if "authorities" manage to pin the crime on me because you showed up at my residence and then dissappeared, all I'd have to do is move to a country with no extradition to the US before the figure out what happened when and where and I'd be off scot-free

You are assuming that the nation is more powerful than the entity it borrowed from.

I'm not convinced that's correct.

social darwinism is moot in the age of gene therapy. and besides, it's an asshole philosophy to start with.

Your definition in this post is "providing access to goods". Noone is denied access to goods outside of what they are able to provide for themselves. If you fear that random chance may fuck you over, then a well-adjusted individual would in that scenario prepare for such an outcome in the case that it could ruin their fucking life. Thats why insurance is provided, to fill the gap between people who can afford to take a massive hit and people who can't. To quote a moviejew, "life uh finds a way"
If everyone acted in an individualist manner with a good moral code to back them up, crime would go down, education would go up and the overall quality of life would go up. If people weren't so concerned with taking the easy way out (fucking over others for personal gain), then we would have far fewer problems outside of those caused by mental illness and other unavoidable things decided at conception.

>Noone is denied access to goods outside of what they are able to provide for themselves

it's like some of you people think homelessness and deprivation is a myth.

People only borrow money when they're desperate for something, regardless of whether or not they actually need it so of course the entity borrowing is going to be in a worse position than the entity providing. But what happens when the entity providing isn't perfect and makes mistakes? What happens if they take on too many debtors who are unable to pay their debt? Then what? Thats why credit scores exist, so lenders have an easier time making a good deal.

The only thing that matters in lending is the ability of the debtor to pay denbts, otherwise it's free money if they just can't do it. Otherwise there will be physical conflict

Who works to pay for all of this?

I don't think homelessness is a myth, I buy sandwiches and water for the homeless couples I see bumming around the gas stations and tell them to count their shekels and try to get into tradeschool. Panhandling pays, brother. These people are either mentally ill and on the streets due to the closing of mental institutions, or because of poor life choices.

Outside of poor genetics, your life is the summation of your choices. Refute that

>ITT thread full of "redpilled" foilks

The redpill on economics is that everything about modern economics is smoke and mirrors. If you actually understood currency you'd know all modern currency is fiat, as in it's literally worthless and only accepted cause people just do as currency is the substitute for bartering away potentially needed things so people can retain more stuff since they can just trade some bullshit currency around. Under the historic gold standard the money supply really was limited; things like inflation/deflation were very real back then, but these are not real under fiat currency.

We could create infinite amounts of money accordingly and just keep dispersing it as the money supply is nothing more than a number since there's no commodity like gold being used as the base of the value of money anymore.

Universal basic income could already be a reality where currency is just created and dispersed to the masses as a primer to use in a real free market economy, it isn't cause you've all been duped into believing economic principles apply to fiat currencies, it's the biggest bluepill of them all because the elites don't want people being well off without sucking their cocks. The reason for welfare programs like food stamps and TANF is to keep people dependent as they only receive very limited benefits that will go away if they make more income, it's called the welfare trap. The reason poverty, wage stagnation, etc. persists is quite simply a matter of an elite minority retaining power by jewing all of you with "economics" that don't' apply to the currency being used.

youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k

>Outside of poor genetics, your life is the summation of your choices. Refute that

I can't refute that circumstance is largely a matter of personal decision. But I just don't buy into the "tough luck, pal" philosophy of Social Darwinism. we'll have to agree to disagree

Nice satanic sigil bro.

>If some one is promising you the moon they are probably trying to fuck you in the ass.

So free everything and nobody has to work..

Who pays for it?

You from louisiana? Fuckin Huey P man, crazy motherfucker

Also while I don't agree on the UBI, you're right in saying that all this shit is just smoke and mirrors. It seems the majority of problems in the western world are from dumbass compromises fucking up the system in place trying to reach a new system but we never actually reach that new system because thats just not how human reality works

Ah yes, the idiots last resort. "I can't actually prove you wrong but I'll never admit you're right". Evolution never left us user. History doesn't repeat; it rhymes. All the same pressures that forced us to where we are today from the stone age still apply, just in different ways. Have fun being retarded

>Universal basic income could already be a reality

give people money and they'll buy unnecessary things. provide the people a card that pays for the basics and that's it.

IMF and the World Bank

We tried that with EBT. Providing necessities makes people feel entiltled, and the human condition is to always be looking for ways to improve your life. Stagnation fucking rapes peoples minds, thats why solitary confinement works. So, the next thing they move on to is being provided unneccesities. Remember how EBT used to only be used for ingredients? Now they buy soda and box dinners and some even buy kfc with it. We don't have the moral strength to not take advantage of gibs like that, its not born into people. Take away the "why can't I have this" and people will keep on changing the "this" up until they have everything they want. And people never stop wanting. Only a lucky few die without want

>The IMF and the World Bank create wealth out of nothing

Oh okay.

Debt exists under 100% reserve, hard currency you mongoloid. What doesn't exist is (((banks))) and the (((government))) being able to silently transfer your wealth into their pockets through money creation.

maybe when you come down from your wine cooler, you'll realize that high technology does not fit in with the evolutionary theory.

the point of rights is not to keep people alive. in the real world nobody is entitled to give you anything.

Generally, whoever was able to would be too moved by an allegiance to country and countrymen to sit around on the dole, and doing so would be counterproductive to being able to fucking breed.
Good thing our economic and political elites have forced multiculturalism on societies that didn't fucking want it. Most Americans spend their 20's doing what should've been done by 21.

So then we're all slaves to the IMF and the world bank. What happens when they say we have to toe their line or else we get no healthcare, food, housing, clothing etc? Sorry, but I'd like to provide for myself, because I really doubt I'd deny myself basic necessities

Wtf i love the freemasons now

Honestly, once they make all this shit rights and I don't have to worry about starving or freezing to death or dressing myself or paying for healthcare I may actually just stop working and become the government's responsibility
I can just get a little extra income by selling drugs on the black market to live a bit more comfortably than what is probably deemed necessary.
Enjoy paying your 60% income tax on me suckers. No need to play a game I already won.

Of course it doesn't. We're not star treck yet. We haven't outgrown supply and demand. I fully support what you're proposing once we can magically poof matter into being. But until then, we live in reality and currently we are flying closer and closer to the sun with wings that just aren't ready to take the heat yet. I would love nothing more than to see every person clothed, housed and fed but I grew out of that shit in the second grade when it hit me that it JUST ISN'T FEASIBLE YET

or did the whole idea of us trying to outgrow our physical economical limitations go in one ear and out the other?

With an infinite money supply in in full on unregulated circulatoin that doesn't have the be the case, surely people will buy food and shit and have plenty more money to stimulate the market with whatever the fuck they want to buy. It's like you cherrypicked that particular line and ignored the rest of the post.

If money is infinite then what is it worth? Let me ask you this, for a given product it costs X$. You could say, you have P/X products per dollar. What happens when you change X to infinity? I'm sure in some math class you must have taken they went over this.

>completely redefine "inalienable" in order to eliminate rights

i cherry picked it because it was the only line i disagreed with

>infinite money supply
>surely people will buy food and shit and have plenty more money to stimulate the market with whatever the fuck they want to buy
t. Zimbabwe School of Economics.

Right for the wrong reasons

>dat obvious Star-of-David symbolism

None of these things are rights
Theyre either privileges or entitlements

>If everyone acted in an individualist manner with a good moral code to back them up, crime would go down, education would go up and the overall quality of life would go up.
If everyone behaved in a utilitarian manner or an altruistic manner or in a communist manner or an et al, the same would be true. And if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

>positive rights

Let's look at the reason currency in the thing in the first place.

>currency is the substitute for bartering away potentially needed things so people can retain more stuff since they can just trade some bullshit currency around

Because people have a quirk of feeling big and important by having a large number of something, its equivocal to "oohh shiny things" sort of mentality.

Let's take a step back and think about why money is even a thing. Instead of trading away your one and only cooking pan in exchange for some steaks, you can just give someone trying to get rid of steaks like $10 in exchange for the steaks and retain your cooking pan instead of giving it away and then having nothing to cook your new steaks on. The person you bought the steaks from can then use that currency to buy more steaks to sell or buy something else they need or whatever. Instead of $1 for every item of sale, people selling will want more that that so they can buy more from more people.

All the world's circulating currencies are fiat money, meaning money has no intrinsic value like the historic gold and silver standards. For example one dollar = .5 oz. of gold or something like that. The reason we abandoned intrinsic money was due to population booms plus the lack of gold and silver quantities, when printing more money to accommodate for the increasing population, money would have become worthless anyway due to the limited amount of commodities as back then money was redeemable for physical gold and silver. If we stayed on commodity money it'd be disastrous, which is why we've resorted to fiat currency that's worthless.

>Outside of poor genetics, your life is the summation of your choices. Refute that
Refute what? You haven't made an argument or provided evidence for your position. You are objectively wrong on a lot of levels, but you haven't even made an attempt to justify your assertion.

Now why is wealth inequality so much of a problem? Wouldn't' you think if we all just use de facto valuable fiat money there wouldn't be any poverty right? The problem is that people want more money to buy more things. The aforementioned example of using $10 to buy steaks goes along with people's desires and needs, you can't go to one person to buy everything from, you have to go to numerous different people with different resources whom they all need currency to trade with as well. Because people keep wanting more and more, they'll need more and more currency in their hands, which may entail less and less spending on their part, such as saving up for a car or a house, the people selling cars and houses will want a lot of currency in exchange so they can pay off their debts or buy food that couldn't afford before.

Now I mentioned the quirk of people liking having big numbers. This is where greed comes in as those who amassed the most currency will enjoy having so much to boast about, knowing they can exchange so much money for so many things with ease while others can't do so very easily. People sell a lot of things for the lowest price people are willing to pay and yet they are trying to sell for the highest amount they can, this is the great contradiction of economics. Those who've merchanted their way into amassing much currency will try to maintain as much as possible by buying for the lowest prices and selling for the highest possible, whereas others who stayed with a more minimal approach will also try to buy at the lowest prices and sell at the highest possible which is the ideal relationship. The reason for the contradiction that ruins the ideal relationship is quite simply class. Those who've amassed much currency by trading efficiently may employ others for labor as to produce more goods to trade.

Lol, no

Those at the lower rung will sell their labor in exchange for more currency. The problem that arises is the desire for the business to amass as much currency as possible, which may entail paying the workers the lowest possible amount as to maintain more for the business that the owner controls and profits from. Because gold and silver are so limited, the wealth inequality wasn't as massive historically until the move to fiat currency began, but I've already explained why that old system was abandoned due to natural factors. Despite the fact currency itself is de jure worthless and only accepted via law/social contract for trading, there's still that quirk and subsequent sense of greed that is inevitably fulfilled by the aforementioned scenarios, perverting the system from its simple fundamental form into something dangerously unequal and ridden by literal sin. People working will not acquire enough currency to trade for necessities because of this. This is why poverty persist to exist despite having literally worthless money that came to be to accommodate the growing population. Simply printing more money and dispersing it amongst the population will only cause the vicious cycle to repeat itself, as that's what's already happened when we started fiat currency.

This is why wealth redistribution measures are necessary, it already exist to a limited extent (I.e. Social Security) for those under certain conditions, but by lowering tax rates for the wealthy, the fact the wealthy aren't investing most of their money, and the lack of cash flow as a result, the economy is in limbo as wages have stagnated and job growth is piss poor. Most of the rich's money just sits around as a large number with that wealthy person's name attached to it. People need to be reminded how worthless money is and how dangerous being greedy overs something so abundant and worthless is only harming society.

>free
>free
>free
Libtards are literally retarded.

This is copypasta from an essay I wrote.

Exactly. We can't force everyone to try to live how we want, the best we can do is try to teach how reality works and mitigate losses on failed individuals. Like I said before, the circumstances of life are the sum total of choices. Even a beggar can become a king if he's cunning and driven enough. Trying to support idiots who refuse to participate in how life actually works will only bring everyone else down to the level of possible support for a nation of idiots.

I miss the coinage act. Where money held its own weight. Now its contolled by bankers, federal reserve, and the dogshit toy market of Wall Street.

Give me one example of your life not being the result of the choices you make. I could give Ben Carson as an example, albeit a semi-poor one as his mother drove him to success. But he made the choice to follow her lead. He could've just said "naw fuck that Imma sell weed till I get out tha projects"
But he didn't. America provides free education, and if certain cultures didn't socially ostracize its members for making the choice to pursue that education, they would be much better off. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Refute that, retard

Zimbabwe happened for the very reason I've exclaimed. People applying economic principles to fiat currency and treating the numbers as if they actually matter.

>treating the numbers as if they actually matter

currently, currencies compete with each other. you have to preserve the psychology of value.

The thing about UBI was more rhetorical than anything. I do unironically believe in stronger top to bottom wealth redistribution though.

Not really. The US Dollar is the top dog globally. No other currency truly compete with it.

How can you miss something you never experienced?

>I do unironically believe in stronger top to bottom wealth redistribution though

doesn't seem fair the rich person.

>doesn't seem fair the rich person.

*doesn't seem fair to the rich person.

You mean the people who have massive amounts of currency just sitting around not being used like it's intended to? This was already proven to be a problem with Reganomics, the idea was that cutting taxes on the wealthy would cause them to invest more in job creation and raising wages, but of course that didn't happen as expected.

doesn't seem fair to the rest of society. The point of income tax is a "use it or lose" sort of idea, what income they rich are unlikely to ever use can just be redistributed to those who will be more likely to actually need more.

So your idea is that because people naturally want more than they can have, we should just accomodate that? Greed is an awful thing, only tempered by either necessity or teaching. The only thing that fiat currency does is drive classes further away, as it expands the "debt power" gap between lenders and debtors. If a lender only has so much physical to lend out, he has to be wise with who his debtors are, otherwise he just loses money and can only regain as much as repossession allows. Fiat currency allows for stuff such as the subprime mortgage crisis. The govt had to bail out the fucking banks because everybody was defaulting and they can't run like that. So basically each time fiat currency fails to keep up with what its meant to be, that is debt and credit, we just go deeper and deeper into the money pit. If we still had physical currency, this wouldn't have happened as it would be an awful gamble because alchemists still haven't perfected how to turn other elements into gold or other commodities. But, if the banks know they have a bailout option because they've become "too big to fail" because of non-physical currency, then who cares? They get all the benefits of whatever they gain from the people, and the govt recaps their losses. Its a self-defeating idea because being "too big to fail" will continue getting bigger and bigger, and the failure of such a system gets bigger and bigger with it. What happens when theres no way to keep the debt system afloat? I'm all ears if you have any solutions to keep fiat currency going indefinitely, because populations only expand as much as the enviroment allows. Thats why deer hunting is a necessity. We removed much of the predator population keeping them in check, and if we didn't fulfill our position as alpha predator then the populations grow to the point where they have to destory the ecosystem to keep their population. And humans are just animals.

UBI isn't rhetorical, its a death sentence.

>Like I said before, the circumstances of life are the sum total of choices
Which is still not true. Furthermore, the "reality" you are describing is a delusion. Society has never been defined by individualism; we're all dependent on one another for survival. You can argue that pre-agracultural human groups were organized the way you describe but that way of life died out for a reason.
A couple of rich assholes decided on a lark that they would frame me for murder in the hopes they could commit "the perfect crime." I'm in prison for the rest of my life because of it. I use to try to escape every day until I was struck by lightning and paralyzed. Now I shitpost over the prison dial up, typing every letter with my tongue. I didn't choose this life.

But you still haven't made an argument, so I can't refute you. You subverted your own examples with Carson's mother and cultures that make it difficult to pursue a better life.

how do you feel about consumption taxes replacing the income tax?

Economic principles don't magically stop with fiat currency. Fiat currency is a shitty money, but it is subject to exactly the same rules as any other money. To deny this is to deny fundamental economic principles of human action.

...

>This is just more failed, "Utopianism." We've tried building/establishing governments and societies based on this line of thinking. It fails every time because those who rule others ALWAYS grow greedy and don't play by the rules. Also, what makes you think that the desires for these basic rights to goods, ect. will be the end of human desire for materials, etc? Once someone has "basic clothing," they will see someone with better clothing - and therefore it will still be unequal. Their desire for better clothing will become a new movement, striving for more "equality." Also, What makes anyone think that giving a man everything he wants will stabilize society?

>What's your argument against this photo?
nothing if it doesn't cost too much.

I hate when people call them "rights" because if the economy hits the shitter often these programs cannot be paid for and must be cut. I don't mind making these things that should be provided for when possible, but it may not always be possible.

The private sector can provide all of those at a superior quality and quantity than what the government can produce, and because you want those commodities you just listed to be "unalienable human rights," the government will ultimately fail at allocating its resources properly because they cannot deny rights. For example, if free food is a right, why would I get the cheaper steak over the more expensive one? Prices signal the supply of a good, and is how we allocate our resources accordingly, we limit the usage of uncommon resources by making them more expensive. Under your system, it is all free so these signals do not exist, meaning the cost for such a program will be huge, and you have eliminated resource control. The same applies for healthcare, clothing, and education.

>There are ways to regulate inflation. Printing money is inevitable for an economy of our scale.
That doesn't mean inflation is desirable. Inflation is the devaluation of currency by means of money expansion. Printing more money into existence does not create more resources or wealth, otherwise why don't we just print millions of dollars for everyone? It does not pop food into existence, it does not create doctors, schools, factories.

And the reason why theres such an inequality is because there aren't any limiting factors. You were correct in noting how fucked up trying to mix physical economics with fiat currency is, but I'm firm in my belief that continuing down the fiat currency road is a horrible idea. I say we make the switch before the consequences become too horrible. Sure it'll suck shit but can you imagine what a total economical collapse would be like? Because thats what is waiting at the end of the road. I mean sure the govt can keep printing money but if the money has nothing physical behind it, the only thing keeping it afloat is how much people care about it. What happens when there aren't enough people who care about it to keep it afloat? Thats why the 2nd amendment is so important, because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is physcial power. And if we keep going on like this, I can only pray we still have our rights when the system can't collect and comes calling to try to force a change on people so that they can keep their debt power.

>No other currency truly compete with it.
competes with it with regards to what?

So now being entitled to free shit is an human right? Top fucking kek.
What about real rights? Like the right to completely unrestricted free speech, the right to own, carry and use any gun for self defense, or the right to property?
Nope, I guess those are old ideals that the millenials don't care about. It's better to cry about muh free food and water (what the fuck?), muh free housing, muh free clothes, muh free healhcare and eduction.
Guess what leftards, in order for you to get "free" shit, someone like me had to work hard for it.

Carson could've chose not to follow his mothers drive to rise above his situation. And in being framed for a crime, the best thing you can do is make sure you're in a good position to hire the best lawyer available, and to strive to stay out of bad situations in which you could be framed for a crime. Define a situation in which you could be framed and never be able to escape from a guilty sentence if you have an alibi and a good lawyer.

>What's your argument against this photo?
Add two parallel lines to that logo.

Positive rights are immoral.

>did the whole idea of us trying to outgrow our physical economical limitations go in one ear and out the other?
You see, that's an idea, but it's predicated on tangible realities, unlike most of your other ideas which are baby's first philosophy course drivel. The problem with such ideas is they demand that the tangible realities they are based upon be presented for review. You have not provided any evidence that we are on the cusp of a tragedy of the commons scenario. Meanwhile farmers have to destroy their crops because supply outstrips demand, edible fruits and meats are trashed because of cosmetic defects, and landfills are packed with the evidence of our physical prosperity. But please, refute that, if you can. I'd love to know why starvation is a necessity when when we are nowhere near a resource peak.

>someone like me had to work hard for it.
that's what is so unfair about income taxation.

>So your idea is that because people naturally want more than they can have, we should just accomodate that?

Yes, which is why top to bottom redistribution is necessary as to undercut the impacts of greed. The reason economic crisis persist is cause of the greed and the desire to stay in power. By promising things like welfare programs, politicians get elected, by having other politicians promise "fiscal responsibility" including undercutting welfare, they'll be elected in other places. This leads to gridlocked government like
People are too different, some are greedier than others, etc. but the thing is that people don't recognize how worthless money really is. They're brought up to believe it matters more than it really has to and strive to work the system to try and amass as much as possible without investing a lot of it or anything, it's just in their bank accounts or pockets, just sitting there being bragged about by some asshole trying to get laid by golddigging sluts when maybe 10% of that money could be given to people starving in the streets to buy food. America is supposed to be one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, we've accomplished so much and yet poverty is still here. It's not a matter of whether fiat currency should still be a thing or not, cause there's good reasons gold standard was abandoned. It's about the cash flow, there's far more dollars than loaves of bread in the country and even more dollars than people in the entire world in existence. Crisis wouldn't be that big of a problem if cash flow were increased. We don't necessarily have to just print out shitloads more money, we need to incentivize more investment, wage raises, use it or lose it taxation for the wealthy, etc.


It's a matter of simple cash flow and people with abundance being assholes. It's believed the lack of cash flow was the root cause of the Great Depression.
uneasymoney.com/2014/07/22/monetarism-and-the-great-depression/

...

>Meanwhile farmers have to destroy their crops because supply outstrips demand, edible fruits and meats are trashed because of cosmetic defects, and landfills are packed with the evidence of our physical prosperity.
Just because this happens doesn't mean there's a better way.

qz.com/294809/why-the-us-has-the-most-powerful-currency-on-the-planet/

Survival is not a right given but earned. You don't get to rob other people because you have needs. Taxation to pay for the needs of others is slavery. A government should represent its people, not treat them like property to be exploited.

>rights

That's hurts the poor more than anyone else since they have less money for things, with consumption tax the more you buy the more tax, so of course rich people won't be as burdened.

However, I kind of like the idea of FairTax which includes consumption taxes and rebates to the poor.

fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

That's literally what the Soviet Constitution said, almost word for word. How'd that work out, OP?

>Starvation
This post is nothing but garbage meant to emotionally manipulate people. The amount of deaths in the US as a result of malnutrition is incredibly low, and malnutrition as a result of inaccessibility to food due to poverty is even lower. Obesity is a larger issue among poor people than starvation in the US. If by chance you were referring to the globe, then you're an even bigger fool for expecting the US to be able to supply food to every other country for free.

Food is scarce in our world whether you like it or not and no amount of "artificial scarcity" conspiracy theories will change that. If food were not scarce with regard to the demand of the public, food wouldn't be considered an economic good, and no one would pay for it.

>lack of cash flow was the root cause of the Great Depression.
Excessive cash flow was the root cause of the Great Depression. The depression was a straightforward, though significant, market correction made "Great" thanks to FDR.

>What about real rights? Like the right to completely unrestricted free speech, the right to own, carry and use any gun for self defense, or the right to property?
Sounds like you want a bunch of free shit too. Why don't you stop whining that you weren't born into nobility and focus on leading a pious life till God ushers you into his kingdom, peasant.

Farmes have outpaced demand because of subsidies, and the reason why we're such a consumerist non-recycling shithole is because we're allowing a non-physical currency to dictate our buying power. If we could only make do with what we PHYSICALLY had, and couldn't just throw money at something to make it go away for a bit. Frugality is what allowed the human race to survive this far, nothing else. Any successful culture only made do with what it had, and sought ways to expand their survivability through taking advantage of the physical and chemical properties of what reality provides for us. Now we're trying to take advantage of something that doesn't exist, and because humans aren't able to presently create a perfect system we are allowing the flaws to build and build and build until we can't support it anymore. Natives put it best, "use every part of the buffalo" because thats all they fucking had. Now, because we've attempted to "transcend" what is physically possible to survive with, we've generated shittons of waste because thats what happens when things don't physically matter anymore. Iphones only matter as a status symbol, not a tool that should only be replaced when necessary. While I agree that most of the things you say could be correct at some point in time, currently we are trying to outpace what we can survive on, because everybody has this idea that tomorrows always going to be better than today. And thats not the fucking case. We are nowhere near the technological level necessary to support our current global population growth rates, and attempting to just keep the new system going until we can is an incredibly stupid gamble

you have a right to limited resources apparently

fuck off