Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- From: Nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 09:09:19 -0400
Michael Price wrote:
They will.
Poverty and to much disparity is guaranteed to generate violence.
Based on what? People have been far poorer than these "poor"
children and not resorted to widespread criminality. Why is someone
else being rich a reason to become a theif (besides the obvious
opportunity)?
In libertarian party do they really have a ban on thinking ?
If there is a house on the market and you have 100k are you are more likely
to be homeowner in which case:
a) into a country where everybody have less than 100k ?
b) into a country where everybody have at least 1M ?
That is. The relative poverty is very important into any market driven
system. The only way to make the relative poverty irelevant it is to get
rid of the market economy alltogether. But in that case other factors will
come to mess up the things, as the communist countries showed.
You see, if you think you can find answers.
Contrary to libertarian belief, thinking is not harmfull.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- From: Werner
- Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- References:
- Relative poverty, a problem?
- From: puntontg
- Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- From: Bob Kolker
- Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- From: Nospam
- Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- From: Michael Price
- Relative poverty, a problem?
- Prev by Date: Murray Rothbard on Georgism Part 2
- Next by Date: Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- Previous by thread: Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- Next by thread: Re: Relative poverty, a problem?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
