[ExI] Usages of the term libertarianism

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson  (et.al.)
...
>...I know lots of people on food stamps that live with their parents
in$500,000 homes...
...
>>...  They're living in 25k sq/ft homes,  driving 150k porsches....and they
want 16k/yr from the pockets of the guys who broke their backs to get them
that porsche/mansion.
....
>>... Again, I'm not a hater of the rich, I'm a hater of the poor (hate they
even exist in this day and age)...Does one need enough to support 100
families to feel satisfied?  1000?  1 million?
...
>...Do you want an equal opportunity (capitalism) or an equal outcome
(socialism)?

>...In my opinion, a true libertarian society would give more people that
chance. Would there be more rich people too? You bet! That's how you keep
poor people from being so poor.  -Kelly


In all this discussion, note how much mischief is caused by our using the
same term (rich) to mean two related but different things.  It is used to
mean those who have a ton of money and also for those who are in the process
of making a ton of money.  Paradoxically, the term poor is used for those
who have little money but not necessarily for those who are making little or
nothing.  The US federal government has no way of taxing a person based on
what they have, only on what they make.  There is no good way to turn
convert to anything else in any capitalist system; if the fed tries to tax
assets, capital flees.

Set up a 2x2 matrix, put income on one axis and assets on the other.  In
general most people fit in quadrants 1 and 4, but there are plenty of people
who fall in 2 and 3 as well.  These are those who live in mansions and drive
new sports cars, but qualify for food stamps.  These are young medical
doctors, perhaps earning a decent wage, yet still struggling for years under
a mountain of debt while paying huge tax rates and living very modest
lifestyles.

We need to have words for high income low assets, and low income high
assets.  Rich and poor are overworked words.

spike