If wealth is inherited Watch

jakeel1
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Then wouldn't killing all the poor people make everyone wealthy?
0
reply
Imperion
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Everyone being rich would be disastrous. Just imagine it.
0
reply
tomtjl
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
No, because the term "wealth" would then be redefined.

If wealthy = top 1% then killing all the poor people just raises the bar to get into the top 1%.
0
reply
jam277
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Yeah it's a pyramid structure so killing all the poor people just causes inflation.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Clearly it would be terribly terribly wrong to actively kill people... however it would be totally acceptable to drive down their wages until they were starved to death, if they strike for better wages they would be dismissed by their bosses and starved. Eventually the resulting labour shortage would drive up wages until the survivors of the mass starvation were merely on the verge of starving to death - the laissez faire economy would have reached a new equilibrium.

this is entirely fair, moral and logically consistent.

any libertarians care to comment?
1
reply
louieee
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Joinedup)
Clearly it would be terribly terribly wrong to actively kill people... however it would be totally acceptable to drive down their wages until they were starved to death

do I even need to say anything about this
0
reply
AnorexicOnWkends
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by Joinedup)
Clearly it would be terribly terribly wrong to actively kill people... however it would be totally acceptable to drive down their wages until they were starved to death, if they strike for better wages they would be dismissed by their bosses and starved. Eventually the resulting labour shortage would drive up wages until the survivors of the mass starvation were merely on the verge of starving to death - the laissez faire economy would have reached a new equilibrium.

this is entirely fair, moral and logically consistent.

any libertarians care to comment?
im a libertarian and i believe the best way is to have a 1 child policy for poor people. would reduce the amount of poor people, prevent crime, unemployment (which costs the government a ton of money to dole out benefits), better scenery etc
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by AnorexicOnWkends)
im a libertarian and i believe the best way is to have a 1 child policy for poor people. would reduce the amount of poor people, prevent crime, unemployment (which costs the government a ton of money to dole out benefits), better scenery etc
What sort of policy?
First thing that comes to my mind is that China used to have a one child policy about the time it's government was hitting it's peak of authoritarianism.
0
reply
AnorexicOnWkends
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Joinedup)
What sort of policy?
First thing that comes to my mind is that China used to have a one child policy about the time it's government was hitting it's peak of authoritarianism.
a policy that says 1 child and any more and you wont get any benefits
0
reply
Tootles
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Joinedup)
Clearly it would be terribly terribly wrong to actively kill people... however it would be totally acceptable to drive down their wages until they were starved to death, if they strike for better wages they would be dismissed by their bosses and starved. Eventually the resulting labour shortage would drive up wages until the survivors of the mass starvation were merely on the verge of starving to death - the laissez faire economy would have reached a new equilibrium.

this is entirely fair, moral and logically consistent.

any libertarians care to comment?
Sounds like the Austerity plan that's in place.
0
reply
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Joinedup)
First thing that comes to my mind is that China used to have a one child policy about the time it's government was hitting it's peak of authoritarianism.
China still has this policy, it's just more relaxed. Their process is by giving people money for a child and taking it away if they have a second. They used to kill the second children but don't any more. This has led to an increased number of men than women because the parents want a boy so young girls were left on the streets to die.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by AnorexicOnWkends)
im a libertarian and i believe the best way is to have a 1 child policy for poor people. would reduce the amount of poor people, prevent crime, unemployment (which costs the government a ton of money to dole out benefits), better scenery etc
You are a 'libertarian' yet you believe in the state controlling private matters such as how many children people should and can reproduce?
1
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
doing that wouldn't make everyone rich, it would make everyone relatively poorer.

but it would be a job well done for the government since poor people peg society back in terms of welfare and crime etc.
0
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by clh_hilary)
You are a 'libertarian' yet you believe in the state controlling private matters such as how many children people should and can reproduce?
What's wrong with that? You seem to have the wrong definition of libertarianism. Sometimes you have to intervene to give people freedom.
0
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
There must be a limit as to how much poor people can reproduce. It is against the natural order of things for people people to be having 5 children. It's a disgrace is what it is. And the government certainly should be subsidising their perverted lifestyle.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by CrapDunGoofed)
What's wrong with that? You seem to have the wrong definition of libertarianism. Sometimes you have to intervene to give people freedom.
I don't have the wrong definition. You can even argue that it's 'liberal', but it's definitely not libertarian.
0
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by clh_hilary)
I don't have the wrong definition. You can even argue that it's 'liberal', but it's definitely not libertarian.
Listen here son, libertarianism is giving people the freedom to do whatever they want and have how ever many children they want. Actions have consequences son, and if a poor person can't afford children, and they have a wave of children, don't expect the government to be using taxpayers money to justify their poor life decisions.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by CrapDunGoofed)
Listen here son, libertarianism is giving people the freedom to do whatever they want and have how ever many children they want. Actions have consequences son, and if a poor person can't afford children, and they have a wave of children, don't expect the government to be using taxpayers money to justify their poor life decisions.


libertarianism
[MASS NOUN]
An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
- Oxford Dictionary

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.
- Wikipedia (which cited Woodcock and Britannica)

libertarian
: a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government
- Merriam-Webster

The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
- Libertarian Party

In the most general sense, libertarianism is a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep, and exchange their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role for the state.
- Stanford University

Consider yourself schooled.
0
reply
CrapDunGoofed
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by clh_hilary)




- Oxford Dictionary



- Wikipedia (which cited Woodcock and Britannica)



- Merriam-Webster



- Libertarian Party



- Stanford University

Consider yourself schooled.
What the **** is your point? I'm saying that people can have as many children as they want, just don't expect the government to be handing out welfare.
In fact, a true libertarian would support giving out NO benefits at all. Consider yourself schooled you idiot.
0
reply
Baron of Sealand
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by CrapDunGoofed)
What the **** is your point? I'm saying that people can have as many children as they want, just don't expect the government to be handing out welfare.
In fact, a true libertarian would support giving out NO benefits at all. Consider yourself schooled you idiot.
What exactly did you school me on?

You didn't say that. This is what you said:

(Original post by AnorexicOnWkends)
im a libertarian and i believe the best way is to have a 1 child policy for poor people. would reduce the amount of poor people, prevent crime, unemployment (which costs the government a ton of money to dole out benefits), better scenery etc
The libertarian way would be to not have a policy at all on this matter.

Whilst you did afterwards add that (which I didn't read until now) you meant to not give them benefits, you're suggesting that you would indeed give them benefits for the first child, which is not libertarian at all - you're then using the state to encourage or control people into doing something the state wants them to do.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (363)
59.12%
Yes- I don't like it (33)
5.37%
No- I want it (174)
28.34%
No- I don't want it (44)
7.17%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed