Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?
No need to make straw persons when it appears in this very thread.
You mean to suggest that she thinks the world owes her? Please, do explain.
Compare the statement "that the government should provide everything" with "We live in a SOCIETY where we have responsibilities to one another".
I have already done so, but to this I raise two points:
i) Her statement does not readily equate to the government providing everything. In context, the broader post was about unethical business practices benefiting the wealthy. No remedy was put forward involving government or other wise. The idea that we live in a society where we have responsibilities to one another could refer to personal responsibility to behave ethically within the group structure, or to government regulations and programs, or to a mix of both.
ii) What we are addressing is the possible straw man which I brought up. I made it quite clear where my point of contention lies: the notion that 'leftist hippies' (which seems to indicate posters in this thread who fall to the left on the political spectrum) feel the world owes them. The comment you brought up states the exact opposite: we owe society. Note the use of the first person plural.
Her statement relates to the previous poster's statement "let the wealthy keep their wealth, they earned it", and thus must be interpreted to the point that they should not, in fact, be allowed to keep it as they have "earned it by cutting and cutting wages" as well as "mining resources at cut price leaving the land poisoned". This is preposterous leftist bovine feces to thick for me to care to wade through.
Our first responsibility is to ourselves, and since none of us here live by the standards of a starving citizen of the Sahel we clearly have much more than we absolutely need and don't really want to share too much, ideological claptrap notwithstanding.
All western countries are variations of heavily regulated mixed market economies, certainly neither a marxian or randian hell hole of absolute dogmatism.
As for socialist ideologues - or leftist hippies in american parlance - they certainly feel entitled to the productive capacity of others, specifically those which are lucky enough to fully utilize all the opportunities this specific system entails. Why else care about other people's money?
I am dead against taxing wealth (at least a living person's wealth) and ideally I would see no income taxes. The mantra should be to tax that which is bad and subsidize that which is good, and income and wealth are certainly good, though perhaps not in need of subsidizing. Of course, that's my ideological preference, I am not opposed to reasonable taxes on income as a realistic compromise to abate the envy of the left.
Consumption, property, sugar, cigarettes, alcohol, fat, cars, etc are all excellent sources of effective and efficient tax income. Income and wealth are not.
I am not defending or debating the validity of her claims. Again, I feel I have been quite clear:
"You mean to suggest that she thinks the world owes her? Please, do explain."
I already provided an explanation to your question, if the wealthy do not deserve their wealth, then she has implicitly made the judgement that she would be more deserving, either individually or collectively.
You pointed to a specific post as an example of a leftie who feels the world owes them:
My expectation, which I feel is more than reasonable, was that you provide an direct example from that post, and not a caricature of 'socialist ideologues' or a false dichotomy which may or may not apply to the poster in question. Even if the statement, "...she would be more deserving, either individually or collectively" was not presented as a dichotomy, there are still numerous possibilities which fall outside of that scope.
I see appealing to your ability of inference will not work since I have provided sufficient evidence as to why the conclusion can be reached. Barring the poster specifically stating the obvious there will be no convincing you, and I believe we have reached an impasse,
I am stating that the inference is not evidentially supported. As I stated, there are numerous other possibilites to what you feel is inferred. You've simply concocted a convenient version of that poster attributing views which may or may not be held to her. It was the very straw man for which I was concerned from the get go.
I see you are stating that, and I am dismissing the statement due to the fact that you haven't actually provided any argument against mine, just dismissal.
An incomplete list of possible positions she could hold which would not guarantee her a direct or collective return as far as we know:
businesses could invest the (perceived) excess spent on executive compensation on:
She could advocate alternative business models which distribute dividends more equitably amongst those connected to the enterprise.
She could believe in taxation which would be invested in social programs from which she cannot or does not intend to ever collect.
She could simply believe in regulation designed to restrict unethical practices with no interest in seeing a personal or collective return on wealth.
She could believe that there are no reasonable measures that can be taken to effectively address the problem, yet still want to acknowledge that the problem exists all the same.
She could believe that the onus is simply on the individual to behave ethically where wealth is concerned.
Again, she did not even propose that there was a course of action to be taken let alone what that course of action might be. I do not know what her views are in that regard and neither do you. We cannot simply assume that she advocates a course of action with the expectation that she sees a return in wealth either individually or collectively. You flat out made that up.
You also don't know what her personal financial status is and whether or not any view she advocates would affect her wealth bracket positively, negatively, or be neutral.