You can detect intelligence levels just by visiting a part of a city? Giles, do you have special powers?
Moral degeneration? That is a foolish thing to say because in most cases becoming rich entails crime, so the wealthy are proportionaly much more degenerated, but that sort of crime does not take place out in the streets and isnt persecuted by the state but is enabled by it. On the other hand the sort of "crime" that goes on in the poor parts isnt really crime for the most part, it is only classed such by the state.
Less attractive? Yes indeed, I do imagine there are far less trophy wifes walking around in the poor parts. The trophy wifes don`t tend to have wealthy backgrounds though, Giles.
EDIT; It is well clear when you bother to think about it.
Moraly sound enterprenour from a poor background are kept poor, imprisioned and ostracised by state`s persecution of gambling and drugs.
On the other hand a moraly degenerate political opportunist with some wealth buy themselves favour with the state and take part in its plunder and get the dubious honour of becoming a part of Giles` überclas.
Here is to Mike Ashley then. Albeit I doubt that he is stil a billionaire. He was hit hard by the crisis.
PS There could be some moral issues involved with owning a Premiership football club connected to IP. Around half of their income is from TV broadcast rights, but a TV signal is not scarce and can be lifted, so it is doubtful they would be able to rake in that sort of money in a free society.
And with the other example, you’re correct, but he’s plowed hundreds of millions of pounds into Newcastle anyway, rather than realising a gain due to IP.
The people in the wealthier areas are usually more intelligent. There are definitely still intelligent people in the poor areas, but there is certainly a lot more crime. About the attractive part…I don’t really see the connection here. Do you wander around poor areas of a city and look at other mens wives, measure how attractive they are, and then compare their attractiveness to the wives who live in the wealthy areas of the city? I hope not. Also, you cannot complain about moral decay, and then claim physical appearance is a good indicator of wealth. If poor people are far less attractive than rich people, then I should be able to determine how wealthy a woman is simply by looking at her…and only a person who is morally bankrupt would actually believe such garbage.
There is no objective way of measuring intelligence, and I doubt you carried out any of the less subjective tests of people.
Most crimes committed are what we would both term “non-crimes” (i.e. drug “offences”). Yes, theft is higher in some poorer neighbourhoods, but this is not necessarily true. In many favelas and townships there is a very low level of acquisitive and violent crime between residents.
As a completely valuless point, most “rich” people I know are liberal, whereas the conservatives I know are in general poorer. Many poorer people have socially conservative values.
I have extreme doubts as to whether they are born significantly (or at all) less intelligent. That they receive poorer schooling, have much worse encouragement at home, less access to books etc, are probably more important.
Let’s be honest here, most of the people on these forums are from somewhat affluent backgrounds. They’re also above average in terms of intelligence.
We’re talking about those who become rich without cooperating with the state. No, becoming rich does not entail commiting crime. You just have an issue with wealth: in which case you’d better try Marxism it goes better than libertarianism.
What? Murder and theft aren’t crime? I’m definately going to suggest Marxism again. By the way, you forgot that the poor rarely, if ever, reject welfare. Of course that somebody different from state welfare to the rich.
What? Why do those laws only apply to the poor? A rich person could easily provide them (of course, if it was a wealthy person they’d be feeding people’s addictions and as such they’d be monsters, the poor on the other hand are doing the right thing if they do it).
Yes, and it makes sense to think that those with a low time preference and high IQ would be rich: they’re better able to provide goods to society. No confusion here.
Most people on here, just like on every other political forum, are middle class. Unless they`re plastic surgeons thats not really “affluent”.
No we are not. “We” are talking about a rich part of the city which you brought up.
All state laws apply to all of its subjects but only a simpleton would claim that means they affect them all to the same degree. A person who already has some capital has more entrepreneurial opportunities avaliable to him, thus it is easier for him to avoid the state no-go zones.
Most of the poor work. Most of the rich didn`t get rich legitimately. If we exclude the lumpenproletariat the more money you have the more likely it is you are a crook. And thats just a fact.
He probably let his money charm an attractive airhead. Thus of the children he would sire on her, the daughters would be virtualy assured to end up attractive themselves while the sons can end up as ugly as he is.
Yes, exactly, they’re from middle - upple class backgrounds.
You’re missing the point. There’s no reason to believe that drug laws hurt the poor, small business more any reason more than they hurt the big business, since it’s no unrealistic to assume that drugs could be mass produced far cheaper without the restrictions. So why knows, perhaps the laws benefit the poor.
No, it’s not. It’s your silly little rantings about the rich. Try Marxism.
And BTW, actually the term you`re lookin for is upper middle class. Thats stil not rich though.
That`s a fair point, but it is not the whole story. Because it does not end with a bann. Despite the bann some will stil enter this field (drugs, gambling, cigarette smuggling, copyrights violations…), after which there is a chance they will be made to bear the effects of state repression. Ie, they get locked up and their family is made poorer for it. Plus they have a harder time getting a job when they get out. Because there is this risk this will be the decision of those with less avenues avaliable to them.
So the problem is not the effect of the bann on drugs, but the effect of the war on drugs. And to say the war on drugs might actually help the poor is nonsensical.
Im not ranting. Im showing your statements to be absurdities. If you want to prove me wrong just digg up the list of 100 richest men in the world and find me a bunch of honest, standup guys on it.
BTW, Marxism is materialistic and promises to make everyone rich. Hardly the right choice for someone who would be anti-wealth. Glad to be of service.
No, I meant middle and upper class. And yes, that does count as affluent.
Right, which is indicative of high time preference. Are you trying to prove my point for me?
Once again, you’ve not shown why it would hit the poor hardest.
No, these are just silly rantings, nothing else.
Why not? You can’t stand that there are people better off than you, so you aspire to live in a world in which nobody is better off than anybody else. Makes perfect sense.
And please stop with the nonsense. Middle class doesnt count as affluent. Affluent is another word for rich. Its a synonym for it. Look it up. If middle was rich they would be called rich, they wouldn`t be called middle.
Only under identical starting positions.
And anyway so what if it were? Is high time preference a crime, Giles? Is it moral degeneration? Are the Irish degenerates?
No I have, but you`ve chosen to ignore it.
No, thats not it. I dont mind those who are better off. I just dont like those who think they are better as such for being better off.
And it is becoming more and more nonsencical to argue with you as you dismiss arguments out of hand.
Just anwser me this: Do you belive more people become millionaires through the state or idenpendent of it?