The Empire Strikes Back

This discussion is specifically about the US government in its current state and what "we" are fighting for.

There will be a lot of fodder for debate and a lot of controversial aspects that people are sure to disagree with. And I want to keep a metaphorical relationship between the government in discussion, to the Empire in the Star Wars universe. If you disagree that one is anything like the other you can argue that too. And if it is similar then what is it that makes it so? What is at the heart of this empire? And what is it that continues to put it in a position to be influenced and arguably taken over by the "Sith"? Is there a Palpatine among us? How do we detect a Palpatine? If there is, are there rebels who oppose this person and can they be successful?

This is an open discussion of sensitive beliefs and perspectives. I ask that people who choose to participate do so respectfully and abide by the supplementary guidelines specified in this post and in a thread I'm also starting called Verbal Combat: Aggressive Negotiations . This thread will serve to evolve a system of unofficial self-imposed regulations... a discipline for those who choose to approach discussion in similar fashion to light saber dueling.

Because I want my topics to be a positive experience for everyone, by posting on this topic you acknowledge that I am moderating it to some degree but am actively involved in it unlike a referee. So please respect: other participants, the progression of the discussion, differing opinions, differing personalities, people's time (in general), and an overall air of positivity. If you are in a bad mood please refrain from posting. If you started off in a good mood and someone said something that changed that then please wait at least an hour before responding. There is a way to imply personal faults indirectly. Please avoid doing that. If that's what you were thinking then you can reword it in a way that takes the other person out of the equation.

Example 1: Where did you get that idea from (other person is in the equation)
Example 2: Are there credible sources supporting that idea that I can find? (other person is not in the equation)

Try not to make general conclusions about an idea if you don't agree. Your opinion is valuable but it doesn't automatically invalidate someone else's opinion. And you don't have to prove your opinion is superior in a way that discredits the other person or makes it seem like they're inferior to you in reasoning.

Example 1: That idea is stupid (not cool)
Example 2: I strongly disagree (cool)
Example 3: I probably wouldn't have came to that conclusion. (okay)

If you feel the need to say something personal in response to a perceived slight then message that person in private and give them a chance to explain or change that perception of slight. If this condition is satisfied then you can respond publicly in this thread but try not to stoop down to that perceived level but rather bring them up to the level at which you were offended.

Lastly, whatever you do, don't be a hypocrite and don't be a jerk. Please have fun but don't deny others from the same opportunity.

Question 1: Is the US government an Empire?

Question 2: Is it Striking Back? (MAGA)


Let's discuss!

No its not an empire. It is a democratic republic. As for striking back, striking back at what? by MAGA I assume you mean the Make America Great again slogan that President Trump used in his campaign. Im not sure how that equates to striking back?

It depends on what you mean by "empire". We do not have an emperor, but you know that already and I gather it's not what you're alluding to. In terms of strict definition, no, the US is not an empire. But consider the actions that an empire would take. Does the US interfere with international elections and the sovereign decisions of citizens of other nations? Yes. Does the US use military force to give itself economic advantages? Yes. Do citizens of the US regard the decisions of our elected officials as "holy" or as coming from an absolute authority? Some of them, but not all. An empire will often go out of its way to expand its borders; this is not the case in the US in a strict sense, though we do advance our economic interests internationally (effectively creating "puppets" out of states which are not technically under our domain). That is, perhaps, what it means to "strike back".

I am no fan of the US government (or any government), but I would not call them an empire.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: No its not an empire. It is a democratic republic. As for striking back, striking back at what? by MAGA I assume you mean the Make America Great again slogan that President Trump used in his campaign. Im not sure how that equates to striking back?

First let's define what I mean by empire.

An "Empire" is (1) an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
"the Roman Empire"
(2) a large commercial organization owned or controlled by one person or group.

In my definition, and in this context, it is not strictly that but rather based on likeness or behavior. We can look at how the Roman Empire behaved but also the British Empire and how they maintained influence and control of territories. Every nation has foreign policy and foreign interests; especially with trading partners. But sometimes influence goes beyond this and other nations are often very wary of the US and it's influence because the US government has been known to involve themselves. (see imperialism).

For example... The US government has been trying to broker peace in the middle east for a long time but for what purpose? It is clear that Israel is a strong ally of the US and that the US never holds Israel accountable for any wrongdoing. What was the effect of Trump announcing that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel? Why was it so controversial? Would it mean the same thing if Jamaica recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? Would it mean the same thing if Jamaica recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine? Why does anyone care if these states are truly sovereign? And... as an "ally" of the US isn't it possible for Israel to do things for the US that the rest of the world disagrees with without the US being directly responsible? And... hypothetically, say the US is an Empire, isn't it more... "efficient" to create local governments just like it is more "efficient" to create a representative democracy? Aren't empires fundamentally unpopular? Do empires even work? Does the US claim to be capitalistic and is the capitalism practiced in the US pure capitalism? Because if it's not then I would propose that classic definitions need not limit the scope of qualifying behavior.

In the end, I'm really not going to be moved from position by appealing to a classical definition, but rather I expect any Empire to disguise itself in order to maintain its holdings. If the US is an empire then I would expect it to be an empire in the most efficient manner which incites the least amount of rebellion. Empires and rebellions, in my view, are like peanut butter and jelly. The more you rob people of their freedom the more they will resist. Therefore, the US preaches freedom while using military and economic force to control people both in named territories as well as de facto territories. Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are US territories by name but if other territories are under US control by different means then the result is the same.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jun/02/highereducation.bookshttps://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jun/02/highereducation.books
https://www.aei.org/publication/is-the-united-states-an-empire-2/https://www.aei.org/publication/is-the-united-states-an-empire-2/

Although Kagan said he sought to avoid “a definitional argument,” much of the disagreement between the two scholars was over semantics, with Ferguson defining “empire” broadly and Kagan restricting the word to its more traditional interpretation.

Again... just to reiterate and keep us from repeating a pointless debate I'm using a paintbrush not a pencil. In my opinion *IF* the US is indeed more powerful than any empire in human history then we need to update our definition of the word and allow it to include a more successful version. Because in my opinion it is the denial of the word and the refusal of the direct responsibility that allows the US to operate an an empire and have that much power. But because we deny it in a literal sense Webster isn't going to update its definition to include the US and therefore people will continue use that to argue that it isn't. But definitions are not born from heaven. They relate to a standardization of a common tongue. Therefore, if it is true, that it is but that we're in denial of it then that denial is the reason the dictionary cannot be trusted. That's what denial is. We're lying to ourselves.

In the broader definition he favors, the United States ranks as one of the most powerful empires in all history.

“Militarily, economically and culturally, the United States has all the attributes of past empires,” he said. U.S. bases exist in almost two-thirds of the world’s countries. The United States accounts for roughly 40 percent of the world’s military spending. No empire has ever been as powerful as the United States in its ability to project its power around the world and into space.

The U.S. share of the world’s economic output is more than 30 percent, Ferguson said — three times larger in its share of global output than Great Britain at the height of the Industrial Revolution.

And the United States has the ability to make its cultural values attractive to other peoples.

But Americans refuse to believe in the existence of their empire. Ferguson said it is good for public officials to maintain this position. However, academics and intellectuals can afford to tell the truth.

“This is an empire in denial,” he said. “One that refuses to acknowledge its own existence.” For Ferguson, this state of denial constitutes the problem. He said that despite its power the United States has been one of the least successful empires in history. In its foreign interventions, it has failed far more often than it has succeeded in leaving behind its democratic institutions.

We have been preaching freedom, but is freedom truly what we bring to the world? Is Globalization, led by multinational corporations designed to bring freedom or to capitalize on cheap labor? If, I (representing a corporation) am paying you then I can argue that I'm not enslaving you and therefore you're free to work for me or not but I am guiltless. If anything I'm helping you. But this is what I say when in fact I am exploiting you and the difference in cost of living which is exploiting the relative poverty of your economy. And if I continue to pay you those same wages then your economy will only grow to the extent that you can buy the same things that my home economy can buy, but not from me because you couldn't afford it.

When slave masters in the south took slaves it wasn't about being evil it was about economics. They wanted to exploit human capital and even though they didn't pay their slaves, they paid "for" their slaves. The point of the money transfer wasn't to benefit the slave but rather the slave master. Now things have changed... evolved... but the US is still capitalizing on cheap labor for the benefit of shareholders. Think about it. Those shareholders collectively use their corporations to lobby the government. The government then has the power to force its citizens (via military service) to "improve the conditions" in other regions of the world as a farmer would till the ground to be ready for plantation (figurative and literal); ready for this system of Globalization where cheap labor can be harvested.

Now we don't think about it this way because we're not supposed to. It's their job to maintain the illusion that there is a separation between government and corporations (which are typically properties of wealthy families which takes the place of kings and their courts) the same way there is separation between church and state. If church corrupts the state then why would it be any different for corporations? Corporations don't advertise their relationships or brag about which politicians are in their pocket. If they did it wouldn't work! And that's why I'm saying it's an empire. Of course its not going to agree. If it did it wouldn't work!

You have come to some hasty generalizations in characterizing the US govt as an empire based on some of its actions. The reason it is not an empire is because it does not call itself an empire. Sure one may characterize some of its actions as empiric but there is no grand conspiracy as you are trying to depict here that a secret empire is in operation. Meaning there are no policies in place that dictate it to be an empire. The US govt also has social programs in place and humanitarian efforts. But you are not calling the US govt a socialist state nor are you calling it a humanitarian state are you. In fact the US govt is one of the most complex and successful republics in the history of this planet. And that's all it is, a democratic republic based on capitalist economy. None of those aspects are pure - democracy is representative, republic is rule by the people, equal opportunity for all, not equal outcome. That is how its designed and that's how it operates. There will never be a perfect democracy because it leads to the downfall of a nation, there will never be a perfect capitalist economy and in fact ours is regulated. So its disingenuous to characterize a few behaviors and then slap a universal term of Empire on the whole. Its a fallacy.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: You have come to some hasty generalizations in characterizing the US govt as an empire based on some of its actions. The reason it is not an empire is because it does not call itself an empire. Sure one may characterize some of its actions as empiric but there is no grand conspiracy as you are trying to depict here that a secret empire is in operation. Meaning there are no policies in place that dictate it to be an empire. The US govt also has social programs in place and humanitarian efforts. But you are not calling the US govt a socialist state nor are you calling it a humanitarian state are you. In fact the US govt is one of the most complex and successful republics in the history of this planet. And that's all it is, a democratic republic based on capitalist economy. None of those aspects are pure - democracy is representative, republic is rule by the people, equal opportunity for all, not equal outcome. That is how its designed and that's how it operates. There will never be a perfect democracy because it leads to the downfall of a nation, there will never be a perfect capitalist economy and in fact ours is regulated. So its disingenuous to characterize a few behaviors and then slap a universal term of Empire on the whole. Its a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy and you proved my point by saying the reason it isn't is because it doesn't claim to be. This is like saying you're not a male because you don't claim to be. As a society we can deny your gender along with you but if gender is based on your genitalia then you don't "need" to say anything. You're identified by your features. Again, this denial exists for good reason. Because if it didn't deny it it wouldn't work. People would rebel. Consider the movie, The Matrix. While you were in the Matrix was there signs on every building saying "this isn't real. This is the Matrix." ? Someone almost had to literally tell you that it wasn't reality. And it existed exactly as such, as a deception, because that was the only way to get the stupid humans to accept the program. Make sense? I'll rest my case on that note.

Now, here's what I mean by "striking back". And if you're a fan of Donald Trump you might get offended. If so, please know that I'm not trying to personally offend or attack you. And know that I have many reasons upon which to have an anti-Trump bias, but for the purpose of this Thread limiting it to a perception of a certain zeitgeist which seems to exist among many disgruntled voters that the Trump campaign was successfully able to harness. I don't believe Trump is telling you the truth when he says he's on your side but I will endeavor not to try to make that argument here. I wish only to explore a parallel that I see. You may not see it and that's okay.

MAGA or "Make America Great Again" is insidious in its tactical manipulation. Why? Because it capitalizes on people's pride and patriotism. But that last word... "Again" is loaded like the barrel of a tank. And maybe there is someone who has never considered this before but I would invite you to think about it from a different perspective.

mine... for example.

My pride and patriotism exists but it isn't cut and dry. It's very complex. I love the United States but I love it for the people who I see and experience making progress in a positive direction, not simply prosperity because that is an end that often does not justify the means. I love the potential for the US to be greater and that potential makes it great. But pride based on wealth and weapons, in my opinion, is a fallacy. I don't have that wealth. I don't possess those weapons. I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons. 99% of us cannot boast about our personal wealth. So therefore, to me, its more of a marketing scheme of the 1% to have us all be so proud of what amounts to their bank accounts. The American Dream is the idea... the notion... that any of us can ascend to those same heights. Sorry, but that's a lie. Billionaires are made in some of the poorest countries. So you can get rich anywhere you can find opportunities. But if opportunities are kept away from you then you can't dream the American dream. But perhaps there was a time when "some people" had an advantage that they still have but that grows less and less effective.

And if you look at what immigrants are often able to do it's not because they simply came to America but more so because they put their money together in order to buy assets that individually they couldn't afford. That would work anywhere but the return on investment would be higher in the US because they could charge more money in the US than in other places.

My father was an immigrant from Jamaica. He worked hard. He did well, relatively speaking. He became a Computer Analyst for the city and ran a department. For the record, a lot of Jamaicans do well and there are opportunities out there that Jamaicans and Africans and other immigrants uncover that perhaps most lower income Americans don't know about. And that is a thing that is great. At the same time I know my father desired to retire to Jamaica but the expense of all his responsibilities here became a trap. If you don't start the game with money its easy to leave the game with debt.

"Again" is a very loaded word to add because it then begs the question "If not now, when was America great?" To make it great again implies that it isn't great right now. And so we need to know what makes it great and what time period do you consider it being great and what precipitated its decline. If the average American is mostly concerned about having a job (which is perfectly fine and normal) then they would naturally feel threatened by the argument that "other" people are "taking" their jobs.

From my perspective, being black, I first want to know if people think America was great during slavery... and subsequently Jim Crow and segregation because A) is was obviously not great for my people it wasn't that long ago, C) My step kids were told just this very week that they should go back to the plantation, and D) when African Americans left the plantations and gained the very freedom that America (claiming not to be an empire) was advertising, we had to compete with whites for jobs. Whites didn't like that and unions started to form. One of the basic tenets of capitalism is competition and yet a segment of the American population seems to feel as though the "others" are "taking" their jobs when in reality either people are more qualified to do the job or others are willing to work for less. In either case, no one is hiring themselves. And no one is owed a job. The hiring decisions are driven by the very "market forces" that define capitalism.

And if white children are telling black children such hateful things these ideas must be heard from parents. And this is what I mean by a certain zeitgeist.

I - in my real life rarely speak on politics. There are actually a few subjects - I just don’t speak about. Not from fear of reprisals or from backlash or even actual emotional or physical injury but because - it ain’t my thing. I’ve met Americans from all different paths and walks. The word great or wonderful or good or even crappy is - in this context of debate - very relative. I can physically track and touch people where I live and have lived that can tell you America is great and America is crap. For me - I have a set of specific needs - wants - hopes - dreams - wishes - that can and can not be met at times. My own definition of greatness differs from any one I’ve ever spoken to or met. It’s no fair in my practice to compare my wants and dreams and expectations to some one else’s and use those - my own- to define some one else’s. Ide feel like a jerk if I did. Some don’t. To me - taxes suck. Flat out . My dollar I make , I have to pay for making it AND spend it. Twice. And even when some one gets it- they gotta pay twice for getting it and spending it too... poor poor dollar bill. Does that keep me from working : nope. Does that keep me from spending: nope. Does that keep me from complaining : nope. Yet : the difference I practice is - I buy things I only have to buy - once and often shop around for the best choice. ( This is a real life example for me) We own every game - video and board game - I’ll ever want. I no longer have to search for them. We as a family , wrote a list and figured out what we wanted and after a while - while at resale shops and stores or garage sales and even some new - our closet is pretty much full of games we want and will ever need. This is a very small example of what we as a family try to do for cloths and things and food. To us - to be able to do this is a great thing. I have all the color of Hawaiian shirts I’ll ever need- smiley face. After a while - we spend very little and keep a whole lot more. Farmers do the same. Some do not. I do remember the time I was single and I had groceries delivered to my home weekly and ate at the fancy places and wore the newest trends and went to the most happening places. Cost good to live good. The possibilities are endless. I remember sleeping under a bridge growing up for a week . Greatness is what we call it. I know there are things on a greater scale going on. I try to do my part. What constitutes greatness is different for a lot of folk. America was great when I ran away and America was great when I lived in the fast lane and America is great when my family become the center of fun around a board game at night time or we all watch a Star Wars movie or a hobbit one or a Harry Potter one or a comic book one or a .....

I think when Trump says 'again' he is referencing a more Reagan type of era, trying to manage soft landings economically while not sticking their heads in the sand geopolitically. The later tends to let problems grow until they get too big to ignore, and while more popular locally and easier on the economy in the short term, its a short sighted approach which has shown to be more costly in the longer run seemingly. It's this short v far sighted approach which seems to best define the left v right these days IMO.

And assertions of 'empire' seem a bit of a stretch, sort of in line with that left approach to actually ignore a whole basket of problems as if they were not there by making them out to be creations of engagement with them. But if I had to pick countries closer to acting like an empire it would be the two large Eurasian powers, but that is more an ideological growing pain as they are both fully entrenched and engaged in the wider globalized free market capitalist economy now. It's more about old habits securing national political identity so the old guards can stay in charge in the face of higher personal wealth - because wealth equals power. In those socialist communist hybrid economies its still the minority of ultra wealthy elites, its just the machinery under them which is different. The more compelling argument for me is that they actually disconnect the population from accessing wealth while democracy enables it. The downside in both is that if you don't have money, you don't have power - its just capitalism enables one to actually move from zero to hero, while the other system has a solid ceiling which cannot be broken through.

So in regards to security, its more complicated... to assert empire would seem to be using the old language of competing cultural nations when the current world is a globe of competing national economies. So in the context of security, its global. And the Cold War was the transition from cultural nations to national economies, two systems duked it out across the globe and capitalism won out by virtue of its efficiencies enabling advantages. It was that which defined US foreign policy for the last 70 odd years... not some US hegemony.

Basically economic security is now a global responsibility, and where conflict interacts with economic activity it tends to be addressed by those economies willing and able to do so. The US just happens to be the one who is most able to do so, and it and others still fears that some other nations might abuse the system if given the chance.... like Russia in Crimea, Georgia and Syria or China in the Spratly Islands, Tibet and Taiwan. Which leads the discussion to the trade war currently.... it could be argued that in the last century China was afforded huge market advantages so that it integrated away from socialist isolationism and moved like it has to free market capitalism, and that now its success and integration is such that it is unfair to remain with those advantages. Trump might say that a re-balancing needs to occur to even the playing field... and China might say that is unfair to move the goal posts.

But a good place to start might be defining what an Empire might look like in this current world, rather then trying to pick attributes from various nations. To me a SW Empire is one which exerts military power to control governance of resources, be it human capital, minerals, transport corridors etc. The problem is providing security to enable a free market can appear like this if its only one entity doing the security... which is where we sort of are now with the US. But in reality there are other nations participating in securing free market, such as in the NW Indian Ocean there are various nations navies protecting shipping to and from the Suez Canal from pirates launching from places like Yemen and Somalia etc. So I think its easy to cast the US as an empire, but I think its inaccurate. For instance, the US in Iraq invited Saddam to hand himself over to avoid an invasion, but he denied. And once in they switched to a security role against foreign Jihadists rather then domination and colonization. They worked to setup self governance and when able, packed up and left. That is not what an Empire does. Naturally the area is a mess because that area has existing long standing problems but that is beside the point. Not only that but it destroyed the main narrative of Al Qaeda that the US were trying to occupy and control the Mid East, and the younger generation throughout the Arab world reacted with the Arab Spring Uprising to try and reject their status quo and move closer to the West. But its a very complicated topic with lots of variables, both seen and unseen.... and the mainstream media is often not the best way to understand what is going on.

So to me the 'Sith' hehe, would be those who lie and misrepresent the bigger picture rather then the smaller details... because the bigger picture is the more important game and getting that wrong means everything else does not matter. Unfortunately an example would be Obama in trying to appeal to Iran seemingly created the conditions for Iran to start supplying weapons to Yemeni terrorists and the whole of Yemen become a disaster since then, not to mention now there are attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf and increased terrorist attacks against Israel. So ignoring the wider reality to be popular would be an example of focusing on the small at the expense of the large. I think the role of federal level government is specifically to focus on the large, and other more local levels of government can focus on the smaller issues, down to who is the most popular local mayor to reflect local sentiments on small issues. Perhaps Empire does away with that structure as well to some extent, all hail the emperor... or else.

As Jedi I believe we should seek to be responsible and informed citizens. While simultaneously distancing ourselves to some extent from the influences of political pressures and the extremist ideologies which plague these institutions. I do not believe that the U.S. is an empire although it is an Imperialistic, Capitalist system and its Republican governing bodies have become decayed and manipulated as in the old republic in Star Wars

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

Gee... I dunno. The same way Trump could go bankrupt 6 times and keep asking for Loans and keep getting loans to the point that he owes Deutsche Bank more money than I will ever earn in my life. How is that fair? Who's money is that? Let's not ignore the fact that people "borrow" money all the time. I don't know a single American that has never used a Credit Card. For somethings (like car rental) it's hard to do without it. And what is an unsecured credit card? Is it your money? Or the banks? But wait.... is it really the banks money? Or is it the collective money of all the people who have accounts + some extra magical juice that the bank is able to borrow from the government. And whose money is that?

So when Chase wont loan me $500 (I'm sure they probably would since my credit isn't that bad) which isn't their money to begin with how it is this not a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich when the rich can borrow millions of dollars under the presumption that the risk will be worth the reward?

And let me be perfectly clear. If you gave me $300 million dollars because you're willing to invest in me, I guarantee you I would buy assets that would generate enough wealth, not only for me to be rich, but to pay you back with interest. It's not that difficult. The test is whether you can manage those assets and Trump has failed many times in doing so. You can hire people to help you if you have a large enough portfolio. My wife is a property manager. I wish a bank would give us $300M. But no, Trump gets it and he gets it because he helps the bank wash money. Let's be real. US banks wont touch him for good reason. And once again, where does this money come from? Did he earn it? When the government gives subsidies to corporations, did they earn it? When the government gives tax breaks to the rich did they earn it?

That's simply not how our US economy works. Massive amounts of money are redistributed ALL THE TIME from the poor to the rich so that the rich can employ the poor to make stuff to sell that the poor have to pay for. And the poor have to pay for earning money as well as spending the same money they earned. And this enables corporations, not only to get free money like Amazon just got free money, but also get government contracts that they can pretty much bribe people into giving them. So there is a WHOLE HELLUVA LOT of giving other people money away. Redistribution of wealth IS the system (sorry for shouting) but again... its in denial so you can choose not to see it if you don't want to. But we all know "it takes money to make money" but most of us can't walk into a bank and ask for $300 million. So this system operates for the benefit of those who can ask and have it be given.

And yes... to get a traditional loan you can leverage assets like your house. If you don't have a house or other assets the bank can take from you if you fail you can put up a percentage of the funds. Therefore you can save up, maybe put 10K to get a house and then leverage your house to start a business. Of course, this is the way it works for some people more than it does for others which is why I said what I did about asking for wealth.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

We've built a society where people need money itself as a resource for survival. Far too much of it is being hoarded by far too few, more than they could ever use, never mind need.

There are valid, solid moral and ethical arguments to be made, but in light of our culture's self serving perversion of such things, I'll emphasize a practical argument:

Ask the French how well it works out when you maintain a policy of "Let Them Eat Cake ".

Kelrax Lorcken wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . I cannot even ask for that wealth or those weapons.

Why on earth would you ever expect to be able to just ask for that wealth??!! Its not your wealth. Asking for it, i.e. social distribution, is just thievery. You did not earn it, why should you be entitled to it?

We've built a society where people need money itself as a resource for survival. Far too much of it is being hoarded by far too few, more than they could ever use, never mind need.

There are valid, solid moral and ethical arguments to be made, but in light of our culture's self serving perversion of such things, I'll emphasize a practical argument:

Ask the French how well it works out when you maintain a policy of "Let Them Eat Cake ".

https://www.britannica.com/story/did-marie-antoinette-really-say-let-them-eat-cake

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

I'm having a hard time understanding which line in the sand is the jumping off point for a person having too much wealth that they are seen as hoarding it. 100k a year? 10mil a year? 50k a year? To the destitute, 50k a year may be hoarding wealth. And is everyone worthy of a handout that's simply poorer than the ultra rich or do you have a criteria they must meet?

I'm not a Trump fan, but I'm neither a fan of socialism. Why is there a moral obligation to share your wealth with others?

As an aside, I do feel a moral obligation to share my wealth with my wife and kids; I don't feel the same obligation to share it with my neighbors. Are you saying I should if I was making enough money? How much would that be?

One is poor if they need to work to survive..... time poor, becuase someone else dictates a large part of their existence. But even having a loan means your working for the bank just to some much smaller extent. While money is not everything, surviving is, and getting more freedom is wealth. So I wouldnt attack wealth, but attack abuse of its potentials. The problem is its much much easier to lose then create - which is why handouts dont work. So while it might be easier to make money with more money, its also easier to lose. Hording is not greed, its economics..... its just the relationship with money has to change if its to grow.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: I'm not even sure how to respond to these strawman arguments...

You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did, it's a hell of a lot more complicated than running down to the bank. Also bankruptcy does not mean failure, out of 515 business ventures to only have 6 get in trouble is pretty damn good. And it just means restructure of debt much of the time. I really see these arguments as jealous whining. If you want something then you sacrifice and bust your butt and work for it. Equal opportunity not equal outcome and if you even claim the opportunity is denied you then talk to the hand my friends, cuz that's just bull.

First, I will remark on what I could but wont remark on in order to keep this discussion civil:
"jealous"
"whining"

These are personal which, years ago, would make me defensive and look for an opening to hit the same ball back like in tennis. However, since I'm fairly certain that no one here will give credibility to these attacks I'll just practice restraint and ignore them.

To the point... which is quite ridiculous...

"You want 3m bucks, work for it like trump did"

Trumps father made him a millionaire. This is now a recognized fact. Fred Trump made Donald a millionaire by age 8.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/trump-family-wealth.html

Fred also cheated on his taxes and taught Donald how to do the same. The Trump family didn't simply "work for it". They cheated for it; lied for it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/donald-trump-deutsche-bank-loans-lies

Where do you get the number 6? How exactly are you counting? There are websites have a "Top 10" of his business failures and a lot of the things Trump's name is on he doesn't actually manage at all.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-59556/

He didn't write the Art of the Deal (and the actual author thinks he's a dangerous idiot). He didn't make The Apprentice successful because it was a fake reality show the whole time and had little to do with real business.

Sacrifice? Trump hasn't had to sacrifice a day in his life. Even though his personal loses accounted for an entire percentage point of the country's losses for one year in question, his ability to borrow (other people's money) is what keeps him rich and keeps his name marketable. He's not a stable genius. It's an illusion that other people create in order to profit on everyone who buys into that name as a "brand".

Ivanka tells a story that I know is true; about how they passed a homeless man and Trump said the homeless guy had more money than him. Think about that. At some point the homeless guy probably had a job. He worked. But because he wasn't making 200k a year, between his debts and expenses he could no longer sustain a place to live. Most people live paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't take one being jealous to see this as unfair; that because Trump was born with a silver spoon and was able to lie to banks, that he should get to have a life of extreme wealth and materialism, cheat on his wives with porn stars and playboy models, while the rest of us do actual work and all he has to do is borrow more money. And again... where does this money come from? Thin air? No. It comes from the people who work for it and put their money in the banks that Trump lies to.

I don't have an opportunity equal to that. Even if I lied (which I wouldn't do) no one would believe I was already wealthy and would investigate any assets I claimed to have. This is easily done these days with title searches and the like. Trump only managed to get away with it, even then, because the assets he claimed were his were in the family. I have zero interest in getting rich by conning and manipulating other people. That's why I am not and could never be jealous of Donald Trump. If I am envious of anyone it's Elon Musk. Now there's a self-made man!