You don’t know my position on your question because your question is actually an assumption disguised as a question. It’s possible my OP was to difficult for you to comprehend so you made wild assumptions based on how you define freedom and equality which I don’t agree with.
Im talking about equal income for all. Or work to gain more then that. Its a hypothetical situation with 3 options. Accept the universal equal income for yourself and all without work. Or work and gain more income then that and more still as you work harder and smarter.
Or lay down and die.
3 options. Which one would you pick IF you had to choose? Im not saying this situation exists in america now, im creating a hypothetical situation and asking you which one youd choose?
If you don’t want my views to go unchallenged, then your question should’ve pertained to my OP. Instead you asked me a question that had absolutely nothing to do with my OP. Your question were assumptions based on what u believe, not what I believe.
Why are u still asking me to choose when I already to you I don’t agree with either the choices!? I believe your question is a false premise. Since your assumptions about freedom and equality are in correct.
I keep telling you, i dont care how you define the words free and equal. Its irrelavent. If the situation existed in the question i asked, what would you choose?
And don’t give me that bull about the context of the words. That’s how you define those words period!
Freedom definition according to google "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Equality definition "the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities."
I agree with these definitions and my question is not breaking there definitions at all.. further, yes, those words also have different contexts. Words have meanings and also contexts. I cant believe i gotta go over this **** with you. But, here goes.
Context number 1. Joe lifted a hundred pounds for one rep to failure. Sam lifted the same 100 pounds for 1 rep to failure. Therefore sam was EQUAL in strength as joe.
Context number two. Joe made an income of 1000$ per month. Sam made 1000$ per month as well. Therefore sams income was EQUAL to joes.
So, now, my question.
If you HAD TOO choose, would you choose to be taken care of by universal income by government, where everyone gets EQUAL (aka same) income. Or would you rather work in order to gain a larger sum of money then this universal income would provide?
And where do they get there jobs?
I just told you. What creates a company's jobs? a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with the company's customers. According to your logic jollybear, rich people directly go into their bank accounts and give out money and directly give out jobs lmao.
We had this conversation before on a different thread. The company's customers buy the company's products. This, in turn, channels money to the company and allows the the company to hire employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If the company's customers and potential customers go broke, the demand for the company's products will collapse. And the company's jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneurs or investors do.
Ok, im gonna break it down more.
Joe again. He owns a his own lawn mor business. He invested in 3 mowers. He went around knocking on doors and got alot of costumers. He took more costumers then he could chew. So, he hired 3 guys for the 3 mowers he invested in. Tom, dick and hary.
Once a month joe goes around and collects the money from all his costumers. He counts it all and divides it up into everything he needs to do. So, he pays his 3 workers there share. He pays for more gas to go into the mowers. Then he pays himself (aka his profits).
Now, his business starts to grow. So, he buys another mower and hires another man.
Now, two things are ultimately causing joe, tom dick and hary to have money. First joe because he made the business. If it was not for that, both joe AND tom dick and hairy would all be worse off (aka, poor). Second, the costumers because there willing to buy there service.
I rest my case.
