You dig that socialist law enforcement, dontcha? See how long someone can hold on to a billion dollars in free-market LE, and how much it costs them if they can.

i dont know what you said, please reword it if english is not your first language.

I'll reword it for Max because I can translate SJW psuedo leftist.
Max is saying that he thinks that you benefit from the current law enforcement regime designed to keep down the underclasses. But that if the (law enforcement?) market were truly free, billionaires (like yourself?) wouldn't be able to hold onto their money very long. He's saying that your allegiance to the rule of law supports the status quo, more or less.

It's easy to say hey I'm just playing by the rules of the game--when you own the people making the rules to favor you. And can pump out a bunch of propaganda to convince enough people this is the way it's supposed to be. Strip away that protection and all the sudden you're just a juicy target in a world full of dangerous animals

partly true i do benefit from current laws and rules and use that to try to increase wealth. nothing wrong with that. anyone can do it on whatever scale they are at and work their way up.. i didnt inherit any money and started off with basically nothing.

i have tried many times with friends and acquaintances to help them invest to get rich. but few would even bother to try and would dismiss it. only one did and he easily made over a million in real estate from the last crash starting with not much. and i showed how to do it with no money down at the time.

i wonder how many of those that want to redistribute money would still want that if they had a bunch and would now have to give up a substantial part of it. bernie sanders wants it and he is a multi millionaire but i havent heard of him giving a large portion of his money away.
bill gates, ted turner, warren buffet dont want redistribution but give away tens of millions each year to good causes. that is the way to have wealth transferred and that is voluntary.

I'm saying that society's laws and enforcement is fundamentally socialist, a fact conveniently overlooked by almost every "free-market" type poster that rails against socialism, not just Ray Zee in particular. ...especially the ones that commit tortured defenses of the mega-wealthy.

I'm actually quite comfortable. Wouldn't be sitting around on the internet everyday if I wasn't. I've also traveled all over this country a ton and you'd have to be literally blind not to see how broken things are. Hell, lots of Republicans agree things are broken too--they just seem to think channelling more wealth into the top will make it better.

Reality is the -very- wealthiest people have so much extra cash they literally can't even find profitable places to put it faster than they're stacking it up--and they will happily tell you that--when they're not whining about upkeep costs on their 3rd jet And cracking up about how they pay their workers 12.50/hr. Giving them even more seems almost criminal imo.

lol, straight out a comic book

our societies laws and rules are socialist to some extent. and part of that is the purpose of govt. to insure and protect us from outside and even ourselves. that is part of capitalism. it cant be all one way. but it has to be tilted way off to the side of those that produce and invest. other wise you have a country of do nothing socialist. like many of the communist or ones dominated in the past. if people cant shoot upward quickly if things go good for them then the incentive is lessened. how can that be argued.

I posit that it cannot be argued with people of a certain mindset, like those that like socialism protecting extreme wealth hoarding but turn it into a pejorative to use in propaganda targeted against workers (including banging the communism! drum).

The best practice for sustaining a philosophy is to apply the polar opposite principles to it?

It's amazing how easily the gen that grew up preaching good old blue collar/salt of the earth common sense got played lol

no its the generation that thinks they are the entitled ones and dont need to work hard to get ahead but deserve things for just being here.

No, that's just a random moral feeling.

Capitalism is about private ownership of industries for.....(wait for it).....profit.

And if you are trying to profit in a market you want to be the only one making a profit in that market. Full stop.

Anything else isn't capitalism.

There was a time not that long ago when the average worker understood what capitalism was and it's limitation regarding following the rules and improving your lot in life.

I'm a tail end Boomer but that's our generation.
We had the world laid out for us and pulled the ladder up on our kids.
Shameful.

I'm not going to oldsplain anything to them. lol

the little kid with a lemonade stand is capitalism. its more of a lifestyle rather than a definition.
it works and prospers

My parents aka the boomers had the world handed to them on a silver platter.
They were the original entitled kids--and that's why they got tagged as the Me Generation

I watched my dad and uncles sell off land that was in our family for many generations lol. And I can rattle off a dozen or 20 other local friends my age right off the top of my head whose parents did something similar.

At least we get to look at the housing developments, malls and best buys etc to remind us what a bunch of morons they were

Seriously, do you realize how much taxpayer money goes towards billionaires and corporations? Do you realize how much goes back to the people?

Like this isn't hard to figure out.

This is spoken like someone who has never truly worked an actual job

that is the spoken truth. ive been an entrepreneur all my life. never seen a paycheck.

I can assure you that hard work does not get compensated in our society

I doubt people’s respective attitude towards economic inequality would change much even if we radically changed the distribution. For instance, if we seized the means and compressed the wage scale between $60K-120K, the haves and the have-nots would still exist by way of some single parent households at $60K and some two income households at $240k. And my guess is some people would be calling for even more progressive taxes on those relatively high two income households because it wouldn’t strike them as "the “Best” way to structure a free society of supposedly equal people."

I'd be able to start my own business if only I could stop drinking starbucks and eating avocado toast.

The conditions around the time we founded the country were far closer to your example than they are today. The colonies/early America were actually fairly egalitarian. Obv there are going to be some *s when we point out things like slavery. But surely we can come up with a more reasonable cut than a handful of people effectively owning half the country

It gets overlooked but even back in say the 50s when the top had been reined in--they were still doing Fantastically well. The simple fact is--they didn't think that was fair. And put on an extremely organized effort to change it. It worked. Can you imagine the top 1% today writing a Constitution that closely resembles the original at all? I think you would be hard-pressed to answer yes.

Just because something is hard to do doesn’t mean you should be paid for it.