Unthinking Majority wrote:Conservatives: if you're poor it's due to your and/or your parents' own actions or inactions (bad decisions).
Liberals: if you're poor you're the victim of somebody else who has oppressed you. (ie: bourgeoisie, colonialism, uncle who molested you etc).
Have I got it right?
So basically, conservatives are uncompassionate assholes and liberals are weak simps who don't take responsibility for their own actions/inactions.
Who is "poor"? Is it 75% of the country, because a life of jealousy mandates you define redistribution to "feel" better about yourself?
Predicted 230+ years ago by the second President of the United States....
- - - - -
John Adams writes in 1787￼: "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.http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... 16s15.html