Why are conservatives against redistributing the wealth, if there is in fact plenty to go around?
Why are conservatives against redistributing the wealth, if there is in fact plenty to go around?
Jaxson Sanders
Cooper Price
Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.
Gavin Miller
>if there is in fact plenty to go around
Prove this first then come back.
Gabriel Brooks
There isn't our wealth is debt based. Only through people going into debt and becoming slaves to the bank is money and wealth created. The banks profit off the backs of our works and distribute to other Jews who then "donate" the wealth to other Jews.
Ayden Miller
Shut the fuck up communist
Tyler Baker
I'm not a conservative, but if you come to my house and take my shit I'm going to shoot you because you're a thieving nigger.
Lincoln Gomez
Exactly.
why invest for the future or work when the mass of useless layabouts will just steal your property?
The end result is an African tier society, not much better than chimps laying around naked eating berries from trees.
Evan Hall
Are you retarded?
Zachary Hughes
jew power
Aiden Carter
FPBP OP BTFO
Camden Robinson
Because that doesn't solve any problems, an unproductive NEET isn't going to start contributing to society no matter how much monye you throw at it.
Josiah Fisher
because they want to keep most of their labor. conservatives don't mind having their own money seized by the government as long as it's a smaller percent.
Dylan Reyes
>Why are conservatives against redistributing the wealth, if there is in fact plenty to go around?
A. Because they earned it, for what reason should they give it to someone who didn't?
B. Because nobody likes what they own to be forcefully taken from them.
C. Because there's less motivation to work more if it'll be taken away from you.
D. Because there's less motivation to work if it'll be given to you for free.
Liam Peterson
>white people work hard to create things
>"Why don't you want to give it away to worthless niggers?"
gee I wonder
Ryan Hill
Sebastian Price
>A. Because they earned it, for what reason should they give it to someone who didn't?
the government's whim. the government didn't 'earn' it, but they'll sure take it from you
>Because nobody likes what they own to be forcefully taken from them.
sure they do. cuz 'muh services'. and when the tax rates go up, and the gov continues to misspend and lose tax payers money, no one cares. we're at 30+% tax in america. the founding fathers were taxed 3% in britain when they were fed up with it.
>Because there's less motivation to work more if it'll be taken away from you.
our tax rates steadily increase as well as labor and people do it like good slaves.
> Because there's less motivation to work if it'll be given to you for free.
you're doing that right now lmao. you pay for the welfare of poor people and the military.
Asher Morris
Conservatives aren't against redistributing wealth. No conserative would ever say that it should be illegal to give money away. What conservatives are saying is that it should be illegal to redistribute other people's wealth. Because that's called stealing.
Landon Harris
>redistributing the wealth
you mean stealing money from well-off families with the government monopolization of deadly force.
John Rivera
those old fashioned juden hats are hawt
Gavin Davis
I don't know, they shouldn't be. All the billionaires and multimillionaires support the Democrats. there are very few exceptions, and those exceptions donate very little to conservative projects or elections. On the other hand any retarded feminist wanting to do menstrual blood gurgling scream art or whatever can get big bucks from a thousand sources.
Making the rich our class enemy is the same as fighting leftism itself. The little collateral damage is worth the payoff.
Ayden King
Kevin Roberts
I totally agree that rich jewish bankers should be expropiated and the money spend on infrastructure,border walls and an increase of the white birth rates.
Buts thats not your plan pal right ?
You were like taking stuff away from whites to give it to 3rd worlders and leave the jewish bankers rule it all.
Bad faith argument.
Its too late.