Taxes...

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

There are some who are naturally disadvantaged, some who cannot help being burdens. People first became social because the many together could look after one another better than each individual could himself. Your obligations are to those who you share society with, and it will always remain so except in the event of your making a complete break with that society. Tell me, how do food stamps and homeless shelters pay for basic cable? Would you deny the starving food because you yourself are not hungry? Isn't that really all the more reason to give?

FAMILIES stayed together because of the survival advantages. CLANS are groups of families, which means they share genetic ties and interests.

Past that, you're stretching. I'm not obligated to pay for the crippled and the retarded. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't, I'm not a liberal demanding others pay for whatever sense of pity I might suffer at any time, so when the urge comes, I drop a dime or two in the Salvation Army bucket.

The poor NEVER have the right to demand I pay for them. Well, they can demand all they want. They don't have the right to TAKE it. The extent to which parasites can steal from others is a measure of the extent our freedoms have been lost.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not totally a matter of morality. It's first and foremost a matter of duty, and only deals with morality insofar as it assumes that one has a duty to his fellow man

So, what is this 'duty' based on, if not moralty?

morality, if you wish to think of it that way anyway, can indeed be regulated and changed by government. Even if it could be boiled down to a question of simple right and wrong, social programs would still be both acceptable and necessary, I believe.

I've noted that the list of morals that are 'acceptable' for legislation is rather short, and dominated by liberal ideology. Its OK for them (you) to push your moraltiy on everyone, but refuse to allow anyone to push their morality on you.

Why is that?

 

[goligoth]

Do you support low taxes(tax cuts) or high taxes(tax raises)?

Well I would rather pay low taxes obviously, but the government does need it's income so taxes are needed.....I really don't mind paying high taxes unless the tax is complete and total b.s.....many taxes are b.s.....

 

[hipsterdufus]

The question isn't as simple as yes/no.

Who do you want to have lower taxes and how are we going to pay off this 8 trillion dollar deficit? Right now are tax system is more of a Reverse Robin Hood system - rob from the poor and give to the rich.

It's real easy to say, let's spend like drunken sailors and have everyone pay zero taxes. What does that get us as a country?

If you want to take a serious look at helping the middle class with tax breaks then look at payroll taxes. This is a tax that over 75% of Americans pay and if congress wanted to lower taxes on something that would help the vast majority of Americans - this would be a great place to start.

As it currently stands, payroll taxes stop being paid at $90,000. One suggestion to fix Social Security is to raise the limit to say $1,000,000 that people pay payroll taxes.

Another suggestion is a doughnut hole. Leave a gap from say 150K to 450K (arbitrary figures) then kick the payroll tax back in after 450K a year.

The tax cuts that are currently on the table - estate, dividend, capital gains etc are really giveaways to the rich. Sure Middle Class Americans may see a little benefit from eliminating or lowering these taxes, but it's like a crumb that falls off the table. The poor get no benefit. The cap right now is 1 million tax free before estate taxes kick in. The number of Americans set to inherit that much is relatively small.

I also think that all income should be treated equally - whether it's from wages, capital gains, dividends or salaries.

We should also close corporate loopholes that encourage American corporations to set up shop overseas. I would also propose a congressional oversight committee that would be in charge of eliminating corporate loopholes in the future.

The maxim “from those to whom much is given, much also is expected” is very valid for me as an American.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who do you want to have lower taxes and how are we going to pay off this 8 trillion dollar deficit? Right now are tax system is more of a Reverse Robin Hood system - rob from the poor and give to the rich.

Thats directly from the DNC talking points.
Truth is, the poor don't pay income tax, and the poor benifit the most from payroll tax.

It's real easy to say, let's spend like drunken sailors and have everyone pay zero taxes. What does that get us as a country?

Yer right.
Stop the spending, especially on things that the government doesnt have the power to spend on.

If you want to take a serious look at helping the middle class with tax breaks then look at payroll taxes. This is a tax that over 75% of Americans pay and if congress wanted to lower taxes on something that would help the vast majority of Americans - this would be a great place to start.

The middle/lower classes are those most likely ro need the services provided by the revenue derived from payroll taxes. Why should those that benifit the most pay less for that benifit?

As it currently stands, payroll taxes stop being paid at $90,000. One suggestion to fix Social Security is to raise the limit to say $1,000,000 that people pay payroll taxes.

And, pursuant to above -- the people that benifit the least from the services provided by the revenue derved from payroll taxes -- why should they pay the most?

Another suggestion is a doughnut hole. Leave a gap from say 150K to 450K (arbitrary figures) then kick the payroll tax back in after 450K a year.

Same questions as above.

The taxes that are currently on the table - estate, dividend, capital gains etc are really giveaways to the rich.

"On the table"? According to whom?
And what about direct income tax - a tax everyone pays, with the lower income levels paying far less than the rich, bioth in terms of raw $ and % of income?

We should close corporate loopholes that encourage American corporations to set up shop overseas. I would also propose a congressional oversight committee that would be in charge of eliminating corporate loopholes in the future.

Yes - because those evil corporations deserve to pay more!!
Never mind that every additional $ they pay in tax will come from the consumer, and every $ taken out of the ecomomy thrui taxation is a $ that will not be available for economic growth.

The maxim “from those to whom much is given, much also is expected” is very valid for me as an American.

Dont youmean "from each according to his means to each according to his needs"?

Either way, it's a moral position.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

That's not sufficient. Their need does not become my obligation. Not in a free society, anyway.

This is, I suppose, the point it all rests on. You say you have no obligations to your fellow man whatsoever, I gather, and I say the most basic necessities ought to be provided whether deserved or not. Since I am assuming you'll not come 'round to my thinking, I'm assuming my words are wasted breath- finger motions, rather. But I'll explain my thinking again, if only so you can see where I'm coming from.

Morals? Like you shouldn't steal? Like you should pay your own way? Those morals? This nation was founded on the presumption of "he who shall not work shall not eat".

This nation was founded on the universality of the right to life, to liberty, and to pursuit of happiness. Starving colonists in Jamestown do not trump the Declaration of Independence. With that in mind, does not the fulfilment of these universal rights require certain things of those granted them? They do. Rights only exist to govern interaction between two men. If no one had anything to do with anyone else (i.e., admitted no obligation to them), any maxim would become meaningless. Free men have to keep each other free to protect one another's rights, directly and indirectly. Starve a man, and you take away his life. Your own right to it is therefore voided, no?

Ethics? What's ethical about stealing from the man who works to support the man who won't?

What's ethical about denying a starving homeless man who can't find work food?

Duty? No man can define the duty of another unless that man consciously accepts the other's authority. I define my own duties, thank you. Supporting parasites isn't one of them.

The society that he belongs to defines his duty, and if he shirks it he separates himself from that society. You cannot interact with other human beings without accumulating moral debts and credits. Pay up. There are disabled war vets with mental diseases who will freeze to death tonight if you don't.

No, I can't. I need to WORK to EARN the MONEY to BUY the goods and services I require and desire.

So does everyone else. I'm neither an island, nor a free lunch counter.

If you admit you can't, how can you believe you can escape the strictures your own society by its very nature imposes?

No. I may feel that some person might benefit from my VOLUNTARY gift of money or time, but I'm under no obligation whatsoever to help them. I'm perfectly content to raid the refrigerator when fat Sally Struther's wanders among the starving skeletal children of Starvation Land. Then I change the channel to watch All In The Family.

It's not your choice to make unless you exist apart from society. If you are watching All in the Family, I'd say you're still bound to it one way or another. You talk of those in need being parasites, and some are. But are not you a parasite yourself if you make use of what society provides without repaying it?

No. The House of Congress has a greater incumbency rate than the Politburo, practically.

So you believe that once he is in office there is no way at all to harm a politician? Work harder next election. Run yourself. You have to do more than vote, yes. But you are free to if you wish.

Even if they "need" it, I'm not obligated to give it. That's why the IRS can use the cops to force people out of their homes. They need the guns some times.

Same argument. Obligations... I must confess I don't understand the IRS metaphor.

A free society forms a government to protect the benefits of liberty, not to make some the slaves of others.

A free society... doesn't our particular free society require that all of its elements have certain things? The aforementioned life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

FAMILIES stayed together because of the survival advantages. CLANS are groups of families, which means they share genetic ties and interests.

Past that, you're stretching. I'm not obligated to pay for the crippled and the retarded. Which isn't to say that I wouldn't, I'm not a liberal demanding others pay for whatever sense of pity I might suffer at any time, so when the urge comes, I drop a dime or two in the Salvation Army bucket.

The poor NEVER have the right to demand I pay for them. Well, they can demand all they want. They don't have the right to TAKE it. The extent to which parasites can steal from others is a measure of the extent our freedoms have been lost.

Same as above. Social obligations. Is society not just an extended family at the heart of things?

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

So, what is this 'duty' based on, if not moralty?

Your being a part of society. You alone do not decide its nature; if you wish to rebel, you must separate yourself from it.

I've noted that the list of morals that are 'acceptable' for legislation is rather short, and dominated by liberal ideology. Its OK for them (you) to push your moraltiy on everyone, but refuse to allow anyone to push their morality on you.

Why is that?

Because most morals are not acceptable for legislation, as you yourself pointed out. Some are, though, and redistribution of wealth to the extent that it allows the poorest elements of a society to at least survive is one such. Remember the right to life from the Declaration of Independence? It isn't voided by poverty, and the same society that offers those rights has to provide them. You are a part of that society, so you have to provide part of the insurance.

That, at least, is how I view the matter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your being a part of society. You alone do not decide its nature; if you wish to rebel, you must separate yourself from it.

OK, you're arguing in circles. As a member of a socirty, I have a duty to society; I have a duty to society because I am a member. You'll have to do MUCH better than that.

Because most morals are not acceptable for legislation, as you yourself pointed out. Some are, though, and redistribution of wealth to the extent that it allows the poorest elements of a society to at least survive is one such.

Morals are morals. If its wrong to impose Moral A on someone, its wrong to impose Moral B-Z on someone.

Remember the right to life from the Declaration of Independence? It isn't voided by poverty, and the same society that offers those rights has to provide them. You are a part of that society, so you have to provide part of the insurance.

Wrong. Government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them. You have the right to milk and honey, but its up to you to put it on your table.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Same as above. Social obligations. Is society not just an extended family at the heart of things?

No, it's not. It's a whole bunch of strangers who've promised to not kill each other or rob each other as a condition for inhabiting the same land. Nothing else.

Enforced "charity" at gunpoint is nothing but a violation of that agreement.

Tell me, if a man on the street robbed you and took 20% of your money, saying he had a hungry child, you would:

a) offer him more.
b) call the cops?

If you say "a", you're lying, if you call the cops, explain how the situation is different than today's enforced wealth re-distribution scams you support.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This is, I suppose, the point it all rests on. You say you have no obligations to your fellow man whatsoever, I gather, and I say the most basic necessities ought to be provided whether deserved or not. Since I am assuming you'll not come 'round to my thinking, I'm assuming my words are wasted breath- finger motions, rather. But I'll explain my thinking again, if only so you can see where I'm coming from.

Of course I have "obligations". Like I've said, I'm obligated to take care of myself and not become a burden. You have some objection with this most basic of all adult attributes? Beyond that, if I haven't volunteered to carry a burden, someone has to wave a gun in my direction to make me tote it. Societies that have to threaten their citizens with death to compel behavior are fascist or communist. Which are you?

The most basic necessities "ought" to be provided? Why? I mean, if you feel that way, why aren't you donating that amount of your income you're not using for bare minimum survival? Feeling a little greedy?

This nation was founded on the universality of the right to life, to liberty, and to pursuit of happiness.

This nation was founded on the universality of each man is free to make his own decisions. That's megaparsecs from demanding that men who work support men who won't. Clearly the Revolution was the total opposite of that silly idea.

Starving colonists in Jamestown do not trump the Declaration of Independence.

Nor do starving maggots in a slum in Harlem.

With that in mind, does not the fulfilment of these universal rights require certain things of those granted them?

Well, yes. They require that a man be free to work and to keep what he earns because he's the one that earned it. The men that founded this country didn't think any other way.

They do. Rights only exist to govern interaction between two men.

RIGHTS don't exist at all. The only function the concept of rights has is to define limits on government power, ie the power of society to compel behavior from it's members. Re-read the Bill of Rights carefully. Not once does it say anyone HAS a right to anything. It always says that the government is limited in this area or that.

If no one had anything to do with anyone else (i.e., admitted no obligation to them), any maxim would become meaningless.

Damn if you ain't getting the big picture. In a free nation, men trade with one another, they enter contracts which define obligations, and they don't view each other as sacrificial animals.

Free men have to keep each other free to protect one another's rights, directly and indirectly. Starve a man, and you take away his life. Your own right to it is therefore voided, no?

No. What is lost is freedom when a man's choice to aid or deny aid to anyone is taken from them. He becomes a slave.

What's ethical about denying a starving homeless man who can't find work food?

What's ethical about making other people slaves? If you feel that the alcoholic drug addicted lazy bum begging for drug money is worthy of your support, you've the freedom to waste your money on him. It's your money and no one should ever judge you for how you spend it. So why do you not only judge others on their spending preferences but make them slaves to satisfy your warped vision of morality?

The society that he belongs to defines his duty,

No. A moral society can only define wishes. An immoral society compels.

and if he shirks it he separates himself from that society.

Okay, stop talkng to me. I have no intention of ever voluntarily complying with the flawed socialist vision of making the superior the slave to the inferior.

You cannot interact with other human beings without accumulating moral debts and credits.

Of course I can. I pay my own way. You're not going to define my morality for me.

There are disabled war vets with mental diseases who will freeze to death tonight if you don't.

If a war vet is so stupid that he can't come in out of the cold, we're better off without them. I've no pity for people hiding their inadequacies behind an old uniform. They're an embarassment to real veterans everywhere, like me.

It's not your choice to make unless you exist apart from society.

Of course it's my choice. It's my money.

If you are watching All in the Family, I'd say you're still bound to it one way or another.

No, I just seeing how Meathead never managed to get anything right. And even after 30 years, Rob Reiner is still wrong about just about everything.

You talk of those in need being parasites,

That is a useful word, isn't it?

and some are. But are not you a parasite yourself if you make use of what society provides without repaying it?

I would be if that were a true condition. Since it's false, no, I'm not a parasite. I'm clearly one of the group that's paid more in taxes than I'll ever get back in goods and services.

So you believe that once he is in office there is no way at all to harm a politician?[/

Lee Harvey Oswald had some interesting ideas along that line.

Work harder next election.

And perhaps you're ignorant of politics in America? Candidate choices are always "Far Lleft" and "Man Overboard off the Port Bow!"

Run yourself. You have to do more than vote, yes. But you are free to if you wish.

Duh. :roll:

Same argument. Obligations... I must confess I don't understand the IRS metaphor.

You should study that which you advocate. If you did, you'd know what happens to people that refuse to pay taxes they don't deserve.

A free society... doesn't our particular free society require that all of its elements have certain things? The aforementioned life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example?

Sure, and not one of those things can be attained by making slaves of others.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

OK, you're arguing in circles. As a member of a socirty, I have a duty to society; I have a duty to society because I am a member. You'll have to do MUCH better than that.

Must I? It is not circular reasoning because you can escape society- as I have explained. Why is it so incomprehensible? You are a part of something because you have a duty to it, yes. But if you do not do your duty, you cease to be a part of it (e.g. go to prison) and if you leave it (e.g. become a hermit in a cave in Bolivia) you free yourself of your duty.

Why is that not a viable argument? We are not trapped, at least not by anything greater than our love of society. Do you not have to do things in defense of what you love?

Morals are morals. If its wrong to impose Moral A on someone, its wrong to impose Moral B-Z on someone.

Society imposes its morals on those who it comprises, but you are free to decide on your own personal code and, of course, whether or not you accept society. Our common morals as a group of people are shared of necessity, and protected by law so that society can exist. My personal morals, though, are just that: my own.

Wrong. Government exists to protect your rights, not provide the means to exercise them. You have the right to milk and honey, but its up to you to put it on your table.

Government exists to guarantee the reality of those rights, so that we remain free men rather than slaves paying lip service to a hollow ideal. There sometimes comes a point in time when it is no longer humanly possible for an individual citizen to provide for himself; then and only then can the "gimmes," as you seem to regard them, begin. But then, too, they must begin, or society betrays its own integrity.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

No, it's not. It's a whole bunch of strangers who've promised to not kill each other or rob each other as a condition for inhabiting the same land. Nothing else.

Enforced "charity" at gunpoint is nothing but a violation of that agreement.

Tell me, if a man on the street robbed you and took 20% of your money, saying he had a hungry child, you would:

a) offer him more.
b) call the cops?

If you say "a", you're lying, if you call the cops, explain how the situation is different than today's enforced wealth re-distribution scams you support.

Why do people interact, then? Why should they go to a play, why chat with the store clerk, why fall in love? People living together do not exist independently of one another. That is the simple truth.

Enforced charity, as you call it, maintains the integrity of that society, that collection of people. You need mortar to hold bricks together, and social ties to hold people. Social ties mean obligations.

As for your metaphor, I'd call the cops. The whole reason there is charity of any sort is so that this sort of thing becomes impossible. The difference is a massive one: you have an obligation to those who can no longer help themselves within the strictures of the society to which you belong (e.g. the (law-abiding) homeless), but you have none whatsoever to one who steps outside of those strictures (e.g. one who commits a violent crime), the reason being that he has freed himself from the universal code in which you believe.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Of course I have "obligations". Like I've said, I'm obligated to take care of myself and not become a burden. You have some objection with this most basic of all adult attributes? Beyond that, if I haven't volunteered to carry a burden, someone has to wave a gun in my direction to make me tote it. Societies that have to threaten their citizens with death to compel behavior are fascist or communist. Which are you?

Neither. I believe in personal freedom and in capitalism, both- just not absolute capitalism. In other words, I favor survival of the fittest only to the point where it kills the slowest tortoise. No further. "Let the successful be successful, but let them allow the unsuccesful the basic necessities of life" is far closer to my belief than is the "force everyone to be equally successful" you assign me. I believe in success with responsibility. Ever had a little brother? Think of the "naturally, inherently disadvantaged" as your socio-economic little brother, if you must.

The most basic necessities "ought" to be provided? Why? I mean, if you feel that way, why aren't you donating that amount of your income you're not using for bare minimum survival? Feeling a little greedy?

Fraternity. An idea from the French Revolution (no clever lines about guillotines, please). And I only believe that the successful are obligated to allow the unsuccessful "the basics." I am not suggesting that we allow disabled, homeless veterans to stay in the Ritz-Carlton. I am suggesting that we insure they have enough food to stay alive, shelter to keep them from freezing to death. The argument rests on this. Either you say that it's wrong to let people starve so that you can have a little more money, or you do not. Which is it?

This nation was founded on the universality of each man is free to make his own decisions. That's megaparsecs from demanding that men who work support men who won't. Clearly the Revolution was the total opposite of that silly idea.

Remember "no taxation without representation?" How far is that from "no freedoms without responsibilities?" The only difference is that this time you're on the same end as the British government. Ought we to still be speaking Queen's English?

Nor do starving maggots in a slum in Harlem.

My whole point is that the Declaration implies we have to support your "maggots." Agree or disagree, but please don't ignore my argument and pretend there's no difference.

Well, yes. They require that a man be free to work and to keep what he earns because he's the one that earned it. The men that founded this country didn't think any other way.

The "universal rights" require their own universality. When there is a conflict between two men's rights, rather than one getting to be absolutely free and the other having to be a slave, the freer becomes a little less free so that the slave can be a lot more free.

RIGHTS don't exist at all. The only function the concept of rights has is to define limits on government power, ie the power of society to compel behavior from it's members. Re-read the Bill of Rights carefully. Not once does it say anyone HAS a right to anything. It always says that the government is limited in this area or that.

So you believe massive government is the default? No government is the default. We go from monarchy to republic, not vice versa. We become more free, not less free. Although... the aristocrats are much less free, because you and I have some of their money and power, now. The difference is what? How would we be more free as a society and as individual people if we still said "m'lord?"

The Bill of Rights is written from the perspecive of government because the purpose of the Constitution is to create a government.

Damn if you ain't getting the big picture. In a free nation, men trade with one another, they enter contracts which define obligations, and they don't view each other as sacrificial animals.

If I may say so, I think it is you who fails to see the big picture. You treat those who begin with less money as though they are less entitled to the aforementioned "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Are you a sacrificial lamb if you give blood so that another lamb that has gotten hit by a car can have a transfusion?

No. What is lost is freedom when a man's choice to aid or deny aid to anyone is taken from them. He becomes a slave.

He becomes a little less free so that the real slaves become a lot more free; see the aristocrat metaphor above. Universal absolute freedom is impossible because in all dealings there are both winners and losers. From an economic standpoint, socialism is true freedom, and I'm not even calling for that. I'm calling for the provision of the meanest necessities to those with the least means- no pun intended.

What's ethical about making other people slaves? If you feel that the alcoholic drug addicted lazy bum begging for drug money is worthy of your support, you've the freedom to waste your money on him. It's your money and no one should ever judge you for how you spend it. So why do you not only judge others on their spending preferences but make them slaves to satisfy your warped vision of morality?

Do I judge you? No. I am simply debating the merits of The System with you. As for the rest of your argument, I refer you to article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "everyone has the right to life." Would you starve these people to death in defiance of it?

No. A moral society can only define wishes. An immoral society compels.

If society does not define him, he does not belong to it. Murders and rapists are outcasts for a reason.

Okay, stop talkng to me. I have no intention of ever voluntarily complying with the flawed socialist vision of making the superior the slave to the inferior.

I will stop talking when you do. If you do not wish to hear my arguments, stop disagreeing with them. If it's peace you want, why are you at this place.

As I have said, I am no socialist. I simply believe that the unsuccessful should not be totally crushed beneath the feet of the successful. That is all. I believe people should be fed. How, pray, is that socialism? Socialism is based on enforced equal distribution of wealth, not mild redistribution.

And I am curious... what makes you superior to the poor, other than the fact that you have more money? Nothing. Are you telling me that you believe everyone who doesn't have as much as you is a worse person? Bill Gates has a lot more than both of us, I think. I'll see you in hell...

Of course I can. I pay my own way. You're not going to define my morality for me.

Society will until you distance yourself from it. If you want to play a game, you have to follow the rules. Or would you rather let murderers run free? "Yah, Judge! You're not the boss of me 'n my moral code! I believe killing's okay." That is state-enforced morality, the prohibition on killing is. Too, as I have said, these are very loose rules. Your moral code is your own, but social norms are not up to you to define.

If a war vet is so stupid that he can't come in out of the cold, we're better off without them. I've no pity for people hiding their inadequacies behind an old uniform. They're an embarassment to real veterans everywhere, like me.

Where would you have him come in to? He doesn't necessarily have a family, and you've done away with the homeless shelters, remember? Most people don't let hobos into their house no matter how cold it is- incidentally, the very reason we have government-managed social programs.

Of course it's my choice. It's my money.

Allow me to reiterate: it's not your choice to make unless you exist apart from society. Your having money- which you made off of society- does not relieve you of all obligations to others.

No, I just seeing how Meathead never managed to get anything right. And even after 30 years, Rob Reiner is still wrong about just about everything.

Do what? You were, in what was meant to be a show of extreme callousness, saying it was your right to sit down and watch TV in your nice, safe house while outside children starved. If you are watching TV, you are still a part of society. Plain and simple. If you are anywhere near the poor, believe me, you are not independent of them.

Cont. in next post.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Previous post continued

That is a useful word, isn't it?

It was what you called them. Useful, yes, as are most words. But wrong in the context.

I would be if that were a true condition. Since it's false, no, I'm not a parasite. I'm clearly one of the group that's paid more in taxes than I'll ever get back in goods and services.

How can you believe you exist independently of society when you drive a car, use the internet, watch All in the Family, and argue at debatepolitics.com? You are not. It is a true condition.

Lee Harvey Oswald had some interesting ideas along that line.

Clever.

And perhaps you're ignorant of politics in America? Candidate choices are always "Far Lleft" and "Man Overboard off the Port Bow!"

"That George Bush... he's a gal-dang socialist, ain't he, Ned?"

"I reckon. I woulda voted for Pat Robertson, mebbe, but he wasn't running this year."

Duh. :roll:

Cleverer. The smiley-face with the rolley eyes gives your argument a pleasant aesthetic.

You should study that which you advocate. If you did, you'd know what happens to people that refuse to pay taxes they don't deserve.

I have studied it, thank you. And I know what happens to people who don't pay taxes. I was wondering what bearing the metaphor, as you presented it, had on anything.

Sure, and not one of those things can be attained by making slaves of others.

Yes, everyone should have life, but no, those with money should not pay for it on behalf of those who cannot? Where should the starving get food? Trash cans?

My apologies for any errors in this, by the way; they're telling me this is too long to preview.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Why do people interact, then? Why should they go to a play, why chat with the store clerk, why fall in love? People living together do not exist independently of one another. That is the simple truth.

Know how to slaughter a pig? Make bacon? Then you need to interact with people that do if you want bacon on your cheeseburger, or at least you need to interact with the chain of people that ends with a guy with a pig and a knife.

You up to taking out your own appendix? Then you need to interact with the guy that does.

You think the guy with the pig and the knife can teach his kids the civil engineering the kid wants to learn? Think the doctor doing your appendectomy would feel comfortable if just anyone built that bridge he drives over to get to your surgery, or does that require a professional, too?

To get all those guys to do the work that they need doing, they all demand something we call "money", and those people limit their interactions with one another almost exclusively to the exchange of those little green pieces of paper. That's "society".

Enforced charity, as you call it, maintains the integrity of that society, that collection of people.

No. It maintains those people that can't build the bridges that tranports the pig cutter to the doctor and the pig cutter's bacon to the grocery store. Enforced involuntary transfers of wealth maintains those people who feel they're too good to learn useful skills, who feel they're not paid enough for the skills they do have, and who feel for the most part that the world's unfair to them and they deserve something they haven't earned.

But, as far as I know, the nation imports millions of people, most illegally, to pick strawberries. Clearly so long as there are jobs out there, there's no reason for most people who are on the welfare scam to be on the welfare scam.

You need mortar to hold bricks together, and social ties to hold people. Social ties mean obligations.

My credit card measures my obligations. Every purchase was made voluntarily. My children and my family are other physical evidence of what other obligations I possess. The faceless parasites are not MY obligation. they provide no service for me, I've requested no service of them.

As for your metaphor, I'd call the cops. The whole reason there is charity of any sort is so that this sort of thing becomes impossible. The difference is a massive one: you have an obligation to those who can no longer help themselves within the strictures of the society to which you belong (e.g. the (law-abiding) homeless), but you have none whatsoever to one who steps outside of those strictures (e.g. one who commits a violent crime), the reason being that he has freed himself from the universal code in which you believe.

Threatening my person with physical violence if I refuse to cede that portion of my wealth that the useless ones demand as the price of their vote is a violent crime. It's called "extortion".

Here's the issue:

Society works by trade betweeen consenting indivduals. Anything else is theft. I contend people who provide me with NO service, NO goods, NOTHING of value, do not have a valid claim on my life, my time, my money.

What I say has a logically irrefutable foundation.

You claim otherwise, yet you only stand in the middle of the road and wave your arms. You make assumptions without basis, you can't even cite sources for our entertainment. Get to work, start backing up your claims.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Neither. I believe in personal freedom and in capitalism, both- just not absolute capitalism.

Then you neither understand freedom or capitalism and you can't believe in either.

In other words, I favor survival of the fittest only to the point where it kills the slowest tortoise.

Yeah, the weak ones bring up Darwinism, as if a proven biological theory has that much relevance to sociological phenomenon. That link has not been proven at all, but it certainly makes for good whine.

"Let the successful be successful, but let them allow the unsuccesful the basic necessities of life"

The successful don't have the freedom to deny others their chance at success. Failure is far more accessible to indvidual choice than success is, anyway.

is far closer to my belief than is the "force everyone to be equally successful" you assign me. I believe in success with responsibility. Ever had a little brother? Think of the "naturally, inherently disadvantaged" as your socio-economic little brother, if you must.

Oh. I ditched my little brother ages ago. I'm the uncle of his daughter because he met a bimbo who told him she had a "latex" allergy, and he wasn't 15 but 30 when that happened. It only took me three months to convince him that he had to stick around because he now had a responsibility to the kid that was coming.

DAMN! I used a foul word. I said "responsibility". Shame on me.

When I was in the third grade, we had to read a story that illustrated how responsibility was a personal thing, not a group thing. What a wild notion that was. I'm betting that story doesn't get taught any more.

Fraternity. An idea from the French Revolution (no clever lines about guillotines, please).

If I'd wanted to be in a fraternity, I could have got in line behind Kevin Bacon and joined the chorus of "Thank you, Sir! May I have another!". Since I didn't participate in any funny pledge ceremony, I deny the claims of others to be my frat brothers.

And I only believe that the successful are obligated to allow the unsuccessful "the basics."

Well, you're wrong. The "successful" are only obligated to be honest in their dealings with others. That's all that's required of anyone. Too bad honesty is in such short supply.

I am not suggesting that we allow disabled, homeless veterans to stay in the Ritz-Carlton. I am suggesting that we insure they have enough food to stay alive, shelter to keep them from freezing to death.

How many documented cases of men with true service related disabilities not recieving adequate care you got? How does that compare to the millions of known freeloaders scamming the government wealth re-distribution system?

If men with true service related disabilities are inadequately cared for, they've earned, by their service, proper care. If their conditionsa are exacerbated by self-addictions to drugs, the words "tough ****" works just fine.

Fact is, if the American taxpayer wasn't burdened with half his income taken via taxes and regulation, he'd probably have enough money to fund true charities to care for the truly needy. Being Americans, if they had the funds, they would.

The argument rests on this. Either you say that it's wrong to let people starve so that you can have a little more money, or you do not. Which is it?

It's wrong to use the starvation of people to steal money from me, thereby impeding my ability to keep my true charges off the public dole.

Your statement only has validity if I have the free choice to deny funding for any particular charity. You're refusal to understand this illustrates your failure to understand freedom.

Remember "no taxation without representation?" How far is that from "no freedoms without responsibilities?"

About 16 billion light years.

Since I never said people don't have responsibilities, what you said doesn't apply. Clearly I understand people have responsibilities. I named them.

The only difference is that this time you're on the same end as the British government. Ought we to still be speaking Queen's English?

Why, do you sound like Brian May? Clearly a person insisting that a man has no obligations that he hasn't accepted personally isn't a fan of the Crown.

My whole point is that the Declaration implies we have to support your "maggots." Agree or disagree, but please don't ignore my argument and pretend there's no difference.

No, the Declaration makes no such claim. You're taking a phrase out of context and treating it like the principal goal of the document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So, when government starts to impede one's freedoms, it's proper that the offending government be displaced with a new one that's more supportive of the goals of freedom.

The Declaration of Independence was a statement of intent, an explanation of why the colonies rebelled. Stealing the property of one man to pay for the support of another is miles worse than raising a tax on tea to pay for the Empire. Naturally, it's not necessary to point out that the rate of taxation suffered by Americans today is far higher than what our ancestors fought a war in protest against.

The "universal rights" require their own universality. When there is a conflict between two men's rights, rather than one getting to be absolutely free and the other having to be a slave, the freer becomes a little less free so that the slave can be a lot more free.

There are no such things as "rights", there's only limitations on government power. Hence, "rights" cannot come into conflict.

So you believe massive government is the default? No government is the default. We go from monarchy to republic, not vice versa. We become more free, not less free. Although... the aristocrats are much less free, because you and I have some of their money and power, now. The difference is what? How would we be more free as a society and as individual people if we still said "m'lord?"

Hmm...true, sometimes simple ideas are far to difficult for minds expecting complexity to comprehend. Clearly what I said cannot lead you down the path you're following. Read what I say most carefully. Definitely expend more care than you are presently investing.

The Bill of Rights is written from the perspecive of government because the purpose of the Constitution is to create a government.

Right. And what does the BoR do? It LIMITS government.

If I may say so, I think it is you who fails to see the big picture. You treat those who begin with less money as though they are less entitled to the aforementioned "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Are you a sacrificial lamb if you give blood so that another lamb that has gotten hit by a car can have a transfusion?

People with less money have as much liberty to spend their money as people with more. They have as much life, and no one is making them slaves, so they have even more, since they're not expending their life's time working to support poor people. People like themselves, even. And no one can stop anyone from "pursuing happiness". I just hope they never pass a law requiring that they catch it.

When I "donate" blood, it's a voluntary act. When the government threatens to confiscate my home if I don't submit a certain portion of my wages to support their lambs, that's slavery.

From an economic standpoint, socialism is true freedom,

What arrant nonsense. Socialism is true slavery. The plantation owner takes the product of the slave and sells it for his own, in socialism the plantation owner is everyone else, and nothing is the worker's own.

and I'm not even calling for that. I'm calling for the provision of the meanest necessities to those with the least means- no pun intended.

No matter. It's the methods that gild the road to Hell, not the bad intentions.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Do I judge you? No. I am simply debating the merits of The System with you. As for the rest of your argument, I refer you to article three of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "everyone has the right to life." Would you starve these people to death in defiance of it?

Ah, always the extreme case. So long as I'm denied the freedom to chose, yes, let the bastards starve. Give me the freedom to choose, and the answer might change.

If society does not define him, he does not belong to it. Murders and rapists are outcasts for a reason.

You wrote the above in response to:

?

As I have said, I am no socialist.

I think you need to re-examine your ideology against teh definitions.

I simply believe that the unsuccessful should not be totally crushed beneath the feet of the successful.

No. That's not what you believe. You believe that the self-sufficient should be taxed to support the insufficient.

That is all. I believe people should be fed. How, pray, is that socialism? Socialism is based on enforced equal distribution of wealth, not mild redistribution.

If you believe people should be fed, you contribute your own money, you talk your friends into donating theirs, and you get out there and man the telephones and organize and support fund raisers. I'm perfectly content with the concept of charity.

Clearly you're advocating a much more pro-active approach than that. You beleive that people must be forced to comply with your vision of a charitable world, and in the process you desecrate the concept of charity.

Socialism is based on force, nothing else.

And I am curious... what makes you superior to the poor, other than the fact that you have more money? Nothing.

Will.
Skill.
Intelligence.
Decisiveness.
And I looked really really good 80 pounds ago.

What the hell makes you think those people are my equals? I don't even think most of them are your equal. No two people are equal.

Are you telling me that you believe everyone who doesn't have as much as you is a worse person?

No, I'm a genuine rectum. Everyone would agree to that. What's with the moral judgements? I don't care about them. It's an ideological issue concerning my freedom to spend my money as I wish.

Society will until you distance yourself from it. If you want to play a game, you have to follow the rules. Or would you rather let murderers run free? "Yah, Judge! You're not the boss of me 'n my moral code! I believe killing's okay." That is state-enforced morality, the prohibition on killing is. Too, as I have said, these are very loose rules. Your moral code is your own, but social norms are not up to you to define.

Ummm...the state enforces rules against murder far less vigorously than rules against tax evasion. Basically, it's easier to get away with murder. Finances leave a paper trail, and most people can't afford the accountant that can cover it up.

And of course, it's not necessary to explain that the stricture against murder is legitimate because murder is a form of theft, in that one man is stealing another man's very life. It's when the state justifies stealing other things for other purposes that they start sliding down an immoral slope.

Where would you have him come in to? He doesn't necessarily have a family, and you've done away with the homeless shelters, remember? Most people don't let hobos into their house no matter how cold it is- incidentally, the very reason we have government-managed social programs.

Damn, no one in this country EVER contributes to charitable causes, do they? Or perhaps it is that they do, but the ones you favor aren't popular enough? Maybe if people weren't robbed of half their money before they get paid they'd have both more money and more good feeling towards their fellow man to support charity better?

(Yes, half. There's the obvious taxes, there's the 7.5% taken from the employer for FICA, there's the 8.25% sales tax, there's the additional taxes on gasoline, there's to cost of complying with stupid regulations buried in the sale price of everything, and all the compounding effects of government interference with the economy).

Allow me to reiterate: it's not your choice to make unless you exist apart from society. Your having money- which you made off of society- does not relieve you of all obligations to others.

I never said my possessing money relieved me of obligations. I simply don't have the obligations you wish to impose on me. They don't exist.

Do what? You were, in what was meant to be a show of extreme callousness, saying it was your right to sit down and watch TV in your nice, safe house while outside children starved. If you are watching TV, you are still a part of society. Plain and simple. If you are anywhere near the poor, believe me, you are not independent of them.

Agent Smith said it best.

"It's the SMELL."

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Know how to slaughter a pig? Make bacon? Then you need to interact with people that do if you want bacon on your cheeseburger, or at least you need to interact with the chain of people that ends with a guy with a pig and a knife.

You up to taking out your own appendix? Then you need to interact with the guy that does.

You think the guy with the pig and the knife can teach his kids the civil engineering the kid wants to learn? Think the doctor doing your appendectomy would feel comfortable if just anyone built that bridge he drives over to get to your surgery, or does that require a professional, too?

To get all those guys to do the work that they need doing, they all demand something we call "money", and those people limit their interactions with one another almost exclusively to the exchange of those little green pieces of paper. That's "society".

I agree with you up to the last paragraph. If money is the foundation of society, money must be at least as old as society. Yet it is not. Society is not even based wholly upon exchange of goods, barter; the apes and dolphins and certain other animals form definite and permanent social ties despite their inability to engage in any form of trade. So how can you possibly claim that unless you spend money you have no obligation to those around you? It's not that simple.

Show me where I'm wrong in this. Find the hole.

No. It maintains those people that can't build the bridges that tranports the pig cutter to the doctor and the pig cutter's bacon to the grocery store. Enforced involuntary transfers of wealth maintains those people who feel they're too good to learn useful skills, who feel they're not paid enough for the skills they do have, and who feel for the most part that the world's unfair to them and they deserve something they haven't earned.

But, as far as I know, the nation imports millions of people, most illegally, to pick strawberries. Clearly so long as there are jobs out there, there's no reason for most people who are on the welfare scam to be on the welfare scam.

With all due respect, I think you're being at best excessively cynical about the sort of people social programs support. Not that it matters, of course; you think no one who does't already have money deserves any for any reason, and I believe in extenuating circumstances. Like physical disabilities, and abject poverty. Tell me, how do I get to the strawberry fields if I have no car and no money? Hitchhiking, remember, is illegal. And assuming I can get there, what do I do if I have a ruined back and am quite simply physically unable to pick the things? According to you, I should die because I'm so worthless I don't even deserve food. I disagree, but we could argue the point to the end of time.

But wait! You put in the qualifier "most?" Where from came this softening of heart? What about these exceptions, then? You've already said let them starve, have you not? Why? Because others may take advantage of the programs that could save their lives?

My credit card measures my obligations. Every purchase was made voluntarily. My children and my family are other physical evidence of what other obligations I possess. The faceless parasites are not MY obligation. they provide no service for me, I've requested no service of them.

I refer you to the first argument in this post.

Threatening my person with physical violence if I refuse to cede that portion of my wealth that the useless ones demand as the price of their vote is a violent crime. It's called "extortion".

It's called, in this case, forcing you to do what society demands of you because you will not do it on your own.

Here's the issue:

Society works by trade betweeen consenting indivduals. Anything else is theft. I contend people who provide me with NO service, NO goods, NOTHING of value, do not have a valid claim on my life, my time, my money.

I contend that people have obligations to one another even when they are not together worshipping in the Temple of the Almighty Dollar. Again, we could argue until Judgment Day on this, it seems.

What I say has a logically irrefutable foundation.

You claim otherwise, yet you only stand in the middle of the road and wave your arms. You make assumptions without basis, you can't even cite sources for our entertainment. Get to work, start backing up your claims.

And what I say also has a logical foundation. I will not call it irrefutable, but you have not convinced me it is wrong any more than I seem to have convinced you that it is right. As for the other bit... show me sources yourself. This is philosophy in large part, not statistics. It's reason, not numbers. I rather thought we had both detailed our arguments well. What have I not explained to your satisfaction? You seem to have no problems coming to grips with my "incomplete" arguments.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Thats directly from the DNC talking points.
Truth is, the poor don't pay income tax, and the poor benifit the most from payroll tax.

How about some data to back that up?
The argument "It's a talking point" doesn't mean that it's incorrect. I use the term Reverse Robin Hood every chance I get, because it's true.

Yer right.
Stop the spending, especially on things that the government doesnt have the power to spend on.

Our debt is increasing 2,000 million a day. That's astonishing.

The middle/lower classes are those most likely ro need the services provided by the revenue derived from payroll taxes. Why should those that benifit the most pay less for that benifit?

So you're only for tax cuts for the rich. That has been the trend the past five years, it's just rarely admitted by Republicans. I appreciate your honesty.


And, pursuant to above -- the people that benifit the least from the services provided by the revenue derved from payroll taxes -- why should they pay the most?

"On the table"? According to whom?
And what about direct income tax - a tax everyone pays, with the lower income levels paying far less than the rich, bioth in terms of raw $ and % of income?

In April of 05, Senate Republicans were working on a compromise bill to permanently repeal the estate tax. The House already passed similar legislation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50961-2005Apr13.html

HR 4297 was passed as part of the "Budget Reconciliation Bill" and extend tax cuts on Capitol Gains and Dividends to the year 2010. Taxpayers making more than 200,000 a year will recieve 80% of the benefit.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4297

Yes - because those evil corporations deserve to pay more!!

It is unAmerican for corporations to avoid paying taxes.

Never mind that every additional $ they pay in tax will come from the consumer, and every $ taken out of the ecomomy thrui taxation is a $ that will not be available for economic growth.

Look at the 4th quarter profits for Chevron released today. It's a perfect example.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWBo1fMrWFpU&refer=us

Chevron is facing a lawsuit from one of its subsidies in Lagos for avoiding taxes there. They've spilled billion of litres of oil in the past 40 years. Chrevron recieved a tax rebate in 1998.

We all know that Enron cheated investors by using offshore firms to pretend that money it borrowed was money it earned. We later found it also used shells to hide income from the IRS. Enron had 881 offshore subsidiaries: 692 in the Cayman Islands ; 119 in the Turks and Caicos; 43 in Mauritius and 8 in Bermuda . Enron had no office in the Cayman's, but Box 1350 there received mail for 500 affiliates. Enron's 1996 through 2000 pretax U.S.profits were $1.8 billion, but it paid no tax in four of those five years. It even got a rebate! Because of fancy paperwork that invented tax losses even while it was boasting of profits to investors, Enron got back $381 million from the IRS.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/corporate_tax_evasion_offshore.html
http://www.businessinafrica.net/news/west_africa/473741.htm
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=31914

Dont youmean "from each according to his means to each according to his needs"?

Either way, it's a moral position.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

No I meant what I said: “from those to whom much is given, much also is expected” The government legislates morality all the time - speed limits, seat belt, helmet laws, drinking age etc. etc. etc.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I agree with you up to the last paragraph. If money is the foundation of society, money must be at least as old as society. Yet it is not. Society is not even based wholly upon exchange of goods, barter; the apes and dolphins and certain other animals form definite and permanent social ties despite their inability to engage in any form of trade. So how can you possibly claim that unless you spend money you have no obligation to those around you? It's not that simple.

Show me where I'm wrong in this. Find the hole.

Oh, the possibilities that last sentence gives me...

Money is the modern measure of the value of a man's time. In earlier times it would be in-kind goods, or direct labor.

Those aspects of modern society independent of money are almost exclusively in the realm of personal, chosen obligations and awarenesses of other forms of self-interest. People care for their kids not only because they think they're the best kids around, but because those children are their genetic posterity, and mammalian instinct compels nurturing behaviors. Humans take care of their parents because of a obligation for favors past, again, this is an evolved behavior advantageous to humans because grandparents take care of children while the parents are out hunting the mammoths or digging the roots. Another survival mechanism, peculiar to humans, which happen to be the only species where grandparents play a direct role in raising offspring.

Thus, once again, obligations for others spring from the interests those others satisfy in return.

Naturally, if someone isn't providing me with a benefit, I have no obligation to support them. When they become a burden, put them on an icefloe and let them drift away.

With all due respect, I think you're being at best excessively cynical about the sort of people social programs support. Not that it matters, of course; you think no one who does't already have money deserves any for any reason, and I believe in extenuating circumstances. Like physical disabilities, and abject poverty. Tell me, how do I get to the strawberry fields if I have no car and no money? Hitchhiking, remember, is illegal. And assuming I can get there, what do I do if I have a ruined back and am quite simply physically unable to pick the things? According to you, I should die because I'm so worthless I don't even deserve food. I disagree, but we could argue the point to the end of time.

If the farmer wants the strawberry fields picked, he either hires people with cars or gets a bus for them. What? All the illegal mexicans get driven to work in limos? I haven't seen anyone waiting at my door to give me a ride to work lately, why should I have to provide that for anyone else?

Generally speaking, if you have a ruined back, what the hell are you doing volunteering to pick strawberries. Perhaps that lack of intelligence is why you're poor in the first place?

People that don't have money don't deserve any until and only until they produce something worth paying for. That's "deserve" means, "to be worthy", "worthy" meaning "to have value". Value, of course, is what's paid for.

Naturally, once the truly needy cases are sorted out, people like you would be able to finance their eternal care through the goodness of your heart and the unending generosity of your wallet.

But wait! You put in the qualifier "most?" Where from came this softening of heart? What about these exceptions, then? You've already said let them starve, have you not? Why? Because others may take advantage of the programs that could save their lives?

Oh, no, I never said that voluntary charity was verboten. That's what charity is, a voluntary donation of money, goods, or services, to support a cause or person. Those few that actually need it would be able to find it, once the scammers are out in the strawberry fields.

It's called, in this case, forcing you to do what society demands of you because you will not do it on your own.

It's called slavery.

I contend that people have obligations to one another even when they are not together worshipping in the Temple of the Almighty Dollar. Again, we could argue until Judgment Day on this, it seems.

You contention has not only been proven false, you haven't disproven the opposite, namely that no man is slave to another's need.

And what I say also has a logical foundation. I will not call it irrefutable, but you have not convinced me it is wrong any more than I seem to have convinced you that it is right. As for the other bit... show me sources yourself. This is philosophy in large part, not statistics. It's reason, not numbers. I rather thought we had both detailed our arguments well. What have I not explained to your satisfaction? You seem to have no problems coming to grips with my "incomplete" arguments.

Good thing you didn't call it irrefutable, huh, seeing as how I just trashed it. And no, you haven't laid out a logical foundation, since you've yet to justify your unwarranted assumption that the needs of some must be satisfied by the confiscation of the work of others.

All you said is that those people have needs and then you jump to your conclusion that because they have needs, others must supply them. You haven't connected the dots.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Then you neither understand freedom or capitalism and you can't believe in either.

Most of the time I don't go for absolutes, that's all. I'm not for infinite personal freedom (i.e. freedom to do others harm with impunity) and I'm not for infinite economic freedom. If your argument were applied to society rather than the economy, murder would be okay. I believe there is a natural link between society and the economy, and strictures on one carry over to the other. You can do as you wish personally so long as you do not harm others; why should you be able to do as you wish economically even to the point of killing them?

Yeah, the weak ones bring up Darwinism, as if a proven biological theory has that much relevance to sociological phenomenon. That link has not been proven at all, but it certainly makes for good whine.

Must you use insults to strengthem your arguments? There is indeed a lnk; just because Biology is not the same thing as sociology does not mean that their elements are mutually exclusive; quite the opposite. Explain to me why my analogy didn't work. Rather than dismiss it, disprove it. Please; I hate wallowing in my own ignorance.

As for my "whining," am I not defending the status quo? I thought whiners usually complained about that rather than supported it; if I am for things as they are now, after all, what quarrel do I have? None.

The successful don't have the freedom to deny others their chance at success. Failure is far more accessible to indvidual choice than success is, anyway.

What about those who have no means by which to be successful? And is not failure lack of success, and success lack of failure?

Oh. I ditched my little brother ages ago. I'm the uncle of his daughter because he met a bimbo who told him she had a "latex" allergy, and he wasn't 15 but 30 when that happened. It only took me three months to convince him that he had to stick around because he now had a responsibility to the kid that was coming.

DAMN! I used a foul word. I said "responsibility". Shame on me.

When I was in the third grade, we had to read a story that illustrated how responsibility was a personal thing, not a group thing. What a wild notion that was. I'm betting that story doesn't get taught any more.

I don’t get your argument. Because they read you a certain story in kindergarten, my line of thought is flawed? Because you disowned your kid brother? Isn’t what I’m arguing for responsibility on the part of the successful? I rather think so.

If I'd wanted to be in a fraternity, I could have got in line behind Kevin Bacon and joined the chorus of "Thank you, Sir! May I have another!". Since I didn't participate in any funny pledge ceremony, I deny the claims of others to be my frat brothers.

That’s not what I meant and you know it. Yes, I was talking about that time I went to the University of French Revolution. Come on, now. Stop making jokes and explain. In continuing to be a part of society, you agree to the fundamental goodness of the basic idea of fraternity, the idea it forces upon you. Your “funny pledge ceremony,” if you absolutely must think of it in those terms, is watching All in the Family and buying meat at the grocery store and being legally married… you get the picture.

Well, you're wrong. The "successful" are only obligated to be honest in their dealings with others. That's all that's required of anyone. Too bad honesty is in such short supply.

I’m wrong? That’s a convincing argument. I suppose we have to agree to disagree on this? I’ll offer no more evidence; even if I were to, the effort would obviously be futile.

How many documented cases of men with true service related disabilities not recieving adequate care you got? How does that compare to the millions of known freeloaders scamming the government wealth re-distribution system?

Browse through this website: http://www.nchv.org/. Now you show me proof of these millions of “welfare kings.” I told you, I’m not for large-scale wealth redistribution. I’m for allowing the very poor and the very unfortunate enough money or goods or services for them to live, and at least marginally better than animals if possible.

If men with true service related disabilities are inadequately cared for, they've earned, by their service, proper care. If their conditionsa are exacerbated by self-addictions to drugs, the words "tough ****" works just fine.

So if they deserve it, why do you still say “let them starve?” Innocent until proven guilty is the rule in the courts. Surely even in your ideal world “fed until proven undeserving of food” would be the corresponding social law? If they deserve food, feed them. Don’t starve them because someone else might be getting a free ride!

Fact is, if the American taxpayer wasn't burdened with half his income taken via taxes and regulation, he'd probably have enough money to fund true charities to care for the truly needy. Being Americans, if they had the funds, they would.

Because Americans are good people, all of them, just like that. Social programs are like law; sure, we can assume everyone is fundamentally good (charitable)- this is just making sure.

It's wrong to use the starvation of people to steal money from me, thereby impeding my ability to keep my true charges off the public dole.

And those with no good fellows like you to support them are just S.o.L. if they can’t take care of themselves?

Your statement only has validity if I have the free choice to deny funding for any particular charity. You're refusal to understand this illustrates your failure to understand freedom.

That opens the door to personal discriminations, the very reason why we have social programs together with the myriad private charities that pick and choose.

About 16 billion light years.

Since I never said people don't have responsibilities, what you said doesn't apply. Clearly I understand people have responsibilities. I named them.

You said this:

This nation was founded on the universality of each man is free to make his own decisions. That's megaparsecs from demanding that men who work support men who won't. Clearly the Revolution was the total opposite of that silly idea.

, which basically means that while you have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, those who do not already have them can expect no guarantees from you. You have freedom with no strings attached- true freedom for you, and none for those further down the socio-economic ladder.

Why, do you sound like Brian May? Clearly a person insisting that a man has no obligations that he hasn't accepted personally isn't a fan of the Crown.

You mean the guy from Queen? I know nothing about his political views, but I have nothing against the British monarchy as an ornamental body. My reference, though, was to English with the English accent. As in, America does not exist. Nothing to do with the monarchy. Nothing to do with the rock band.

No, the Declaration makes no such claim. You're taking a phrase out of context and treating it like the principal goal of the document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You bolded the wrong part. Look at the sentence before that. Those three rights are absolute; they belong even to those you describe as maggots. Government securing the rights- hmmm… Do not social programs grant at least life and the chance to pursue happiness to those who would otherwise lose them? Yes.

If you believe what you’re posting, why aren’t you out actively trying to undermine your “oppressor?”

So, when government starts to impede one's freedoms, it's proper that the offending government be displaced with a new one that's more supportive of the goals of freedom.

It takes away a little of your freedom to give those with next to none a lot more. Again, would you rather the old English aristocracy had never been abolished? Our ancestors took the freedom of the elite two hundred-odd years ago and distributed it among themselves, the relative poor. This is no different, as I said earlier.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

The Declaration of Independence was a statement of intent, an explanation of why the colonies rebelled. Stealing the property of one man to pay for the support of another is miles worse than raising a tax on tea to pay for the Empire. Naturally, it's not necessary to point out that the rate of taxation suffered by Americans today is far higher than what our ancestors fought a war in protest against.

The justification was the denial of the liberties listed, though. You can’t deny that without those “supreme freedoms,” there could be no moral justification for the rest of the document. There would be no violated rights to complain about!

And are not all taxes, at their heart, wealth redistribution? The only difference here is who the money goes to- poor you don’t care for, or a military your ancestors didn’t care for. Don’t, by the way, try to claim that the military is a necessity. This was the English Army being paid for, which was for the most part off in England and elsewhere in the Empire.

There are no such things as "rights", there's only limitations on government power. Hence, "rights" cannot come into conflict.

Again, no government is the default. If you begin with a clean slate, anarchy is more likely to arise than a totalitarianism. And for the latter to arise, the social ties you deny the existence of must be strengthened tenfold.

Hmm...true, sometimes simple ideas are far to difficult for minds expecting complexity to comprehend. Clearly what I said cannot lead you down the path you're following. Read what I say most carefully. Definitely expend more care than you are presently investing.

Ah, but see I have ideas of my own; what you have written, I no more regard as absolute truth than you do what I have.

Right. And what does the BoR do? It LIMITS government.

I don’t disagree, but that hardly changes the purpose of the overall document. And by the way, the BoR was only added after some people cried a havoc about government with no strictures. I don’t disagree with you at all, but you’re not answering my original (2 posts ago) argument.

People with less money have as much liberty to spend their money as people with more. They have as much life, and no one is making them slaves, so they have even more, since they're not expending their life's time working to support poor people. People like themselves, even. And no one can stop anyone from "pursuing happiness". I just hope they never pass a law requiring that they catch it.

And people with no money? Consumer rights are not the only true freedoms, you know. Peopl will die without food, and certain forces beyond their control- like permanent disability and no family- can put a damper on that whole pursuit of happiness thing. The extremely poor are not physical slaves, no, but if you deny them their rights and keep them impoverished for your own benefit, they are definitely enslaved in economic terms.

When I "donate" blood, it's a voluntary act. When the government threatens to confiscate my home if I don't submit a certain portion of my wages to support their lambs, that's slavery.

When the rest of society keeps you poor so that it can be a little less poor, that’s slavery of a sort. When the government funds social programs, up to a point it is insuring the rights of the otherwise “economically enslaved. I certainly agree with you in that there should be limits, but social supports should by no means be abolished.

What arrant nonsense. Socialism is true slavery. The plantation owner takes the product of the slave and sells it for his own, in socialism the plantation owner is everyone else, and nothing is the worker's own.

The whole point of socialism is that there be no plantation owner. But I am not arguing for socialism, regardless of what you say.

No matter. It's the methods that gild the road to Hell, not the bad intentions.

I don’t deny it, and I don’t deny that the system is deeply flawed. But you disagree even with the justification and the intention itself.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Ah, always the extreme case. So long as I'm denied the freedom to chose, yes, let the bastards starve. Give me the freedom to choose, and the answer might change.

You've already once before said "let them starve," and now you accuse me of extremity in reminding you of it? And now you confess- in so many words- that you would willingly violate human rights to save a little of the money you have made. You, if I may say so, are the one being the extremist. I mean no disrespect; it is, from my perspective, a simple statement of fact.

You wrote the above in response to: No. A moral society can only define wishes. An immoral society compels.



?

My meaning was that the compulsion of which you complain is nothing more than the society to which you belong working to prevent its own collapse. I believe I have elaborated sufficiently in my previous posts, but if you wish me to do so again, just say the word.

I think you need to re-examine your ideology against teh definitions.

That's just the thing. My ideology doesn't totally fit any one definition. Socialists tend not to believe in corporations, but I am all for the private company. Socialists tend to believe in large-scale wealth distribution, but I am for very limited redistribution, and that solely for the purpose of ensuring the reality of all men's "inalienable rights." As I have said several times now.

I am not in any way, shape or form a socialist. Look under my profile. See the "slightly conservative?" How many conservative socialists do you know?

No. That's not what you believe. You believe that the self-sufficient should be taxed to support the insufficient.

I have many times stated my limited support for social programs. Only to that degree to I support the necessary taxes. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.

If you believe people should be fed, you contribute your own money, you talk your friends into donating theirs, and you get out there and man the telephones and organize and support fund raisers. I'm perfectly content with the concept of charity.

There would never be enough money or effort. Especially so long as tightwads control the purse-strings.

Clearly you're advocating a much more pro-active approach than that. You beleive that people must be forced to comply with your vision of a charitable world, and in the process you desecrate the concept of charity.

There is a difference between charity and the social program, a point which I have made earlier. Allow me to explain: one is an obligation, the other a freely given gift. They are no more the same than oil and water, but equally needed. I desecrate nothing.

Socialism is based on force, nothing else.

I am not, once again, a socialist. Any force in socialism- theoretically- is the minimum required to ensure that the system is preserved, but that again has no bearing on our debate.

Will.
Skill.
Intelligence.
Decisiveness.
And I looked really really good 80 pounds ago.

You've heard of the hard luck story, no? Sometimes people just catch really bad breaks. Don't tell me there's no possible way for you to lose it all tomorrow. Lose everything except those 80 pounds, I mean.

What the hell makes you think those people are my equals? I don't even think most of them are your equal. No two people are equal.

They- "those people-" may be your personal equals and they may not, but they are equal in rights, in liberties. Whether you're rich or a great guy or just think highly of yourself, the things that make you see yourself as a human being in no way confer to you exclusive human rights.

No, I'm a genuine rectum. Everyone would agree to that. What's with the moral judgements? I don't care about them. It's an ideological issue concerning my freedom to spend my money as I wish.

So you agree, and yet still deny them what they, as human beings, deserve as much as you? It wasn't a moral judgment, by the way; it was a question about your views. What you had said led me to ask it, nothing more. Why? Are you perturbed by where your own views have led you? That, too, was just a question, in case you were wondering.

Ummm...the state enforces rules against murder far less vigorously than rules against tax evasion. Basically, it's easier to get away with murder. Finances leave a paper trail, and most people can't afford the accountant that can cover it up.

My point was that some laws are based in morals which may not necessarily be your own. Nothing makes killing directly any more fundamentally wrong than killing indirectly (starving) save for perception, now does it? The ease of the act has no bearing on its level of rightness or wrongness.

And of course, it's not necessary to explain that the stricture against murder is legitimate because murder is a form of theft, in that one man is stealing another man's very life. It's when the state justifies stealing other things for other purposes that they start sliding down an immoral slope.

What is starving others but stealing their food? And what makes theft wrong? Is not that idea, too, based in morals and ethics that might not be shared by all mankind? It is. I do not necessarily have to regard theft as an evil any more than you regard indirectly starving your poor countrymen as an evil- incidentally, the reason we refer the question to a higher authority, the society to which we both belong. If more people thought as you did than as I did, the law would in any circumstance in which we were at odds be more likely to favor you, but in this it favors me. Because I agree with society.

Damn, no one in this country EVER contributes to charitable causes, do they? Or perhaps it is that they do, but the ones you favor aren't popular enough? Maybe if people weren't robbed of half their money before they get paid they'd have both more money and more good feeling towards their fellow man to support charity better?

I do. But it's not a matter of which I like, and my gifts to charities have nothing to do with the social programs supported by any taxes I might pay. As I have said, social programs and charities are not one and the same. They are two very different creatures.

And you know that human beings are essentially greedy. Why else do they collect things? Possession, whether of money or material objects, gives pleasure. People are on the whole disinclined to sacrifice that; having more does not necessarily incite them to give more. Not everyone who is rich is a philanthropist, after all, and many of those who are give nothing like what they can.

(Yes, half. There's the obvious taxes, there's the 7.5% taken from the employer for FICA, there's the 8.25% sales tax, there's the additional taxes on gasoline, there's to cost of complying with stupid regulations buried in the sale price of everything, and all the compounding effects of government interference with the economy).

The amount doesn't really matter anyway. We're arguing principles.

I never said my possessing money relieved me of obligations. I simply don't have the obligations you wish to impose on me. They don't exist.

You have obligations to the society to which you belong up to the point in time at which you decline to be a part of it. It has nothing to do with what I wish.

I have, I think, offered plenty of evidence. But if you want more, again, just say the word.

Agent Smith said it best.

"It's the SMELL."

I don't quite get it, I'm afraid...

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

Oh, the possibilities that last sentence gives me...

Money is the modern measure of the value of a man's time. In earlier times it would be in-kind goods, or direct labor.

Those aspects of modern society independent of money are almost exclusively in the realm of personal, chosen obligations and awarenesses of other forms of self-interest. People care for their kids not only because they think they're the best kids around, but because those children are their genetic posterity, and mammalian instinct compels nurturing behaviors. Humans take care of their parents because of a obligation for favors past, again, this is an evolved behavior advantageous to humans because grandparents take care of children while the parents are out hunting the mammoths or digging the roots. Another survival mechanism, peculiar to humans, which happen to be the only species where grandparents play a direct role in raising offspring.

Thus, once again, obligations for others spring from the interests those others satisfy in return.

Naturally, if someone isn't providing me with a benefit, I have no obligation to support them. When they become a burden, put them on an icefloe and let them drift away.

As I said, humans did not first come together in exchange for anything. Allow me to reiterate: Why did mothers first begin to really raise their young? What did their young give them? Why did Man form groups larger than simple mating pairs? Why did he begin to care for his sick and his injured and his dying, when they had nothing to offer him? Why did he bury his dead?

Unless you prove that goods or services were at the heart of all this, your argument is leaky and mine remains airtight. I for a second time invite you to find the hole.

If the farmer wants the strawberry fields picked, he either hires people with cars or gets a bus for them. What? All the illegal mexicans get driven to work in limos? I haven't seen anyone waiting at my door to give me a ride to work lately, why should I have to provide that for anyone else?

I'm not asking for you to give people rides to work, necessarily. I'm asking you about the people who cannot work, who could not get to work without a ride. There are some people who really are stuck in a bad situation with no legal way to get out. They're everywhere. Stop sidestepping the question. What do we do about them? Those "illegal Mexicans" of whom you spoke save the farmetr the trouble of sending them a bus, so what happens to them?

Generally speaking, if you have a ruined back, what the hell are you doing volunteering to pick strawberries. Perhaps that lack of intelligence is why you're poor in the first place?

My whole point is that it doesn't work for everyone! If the guy with the bad back has to choose between picking strawberries and starving, he'll pick strawberries. But wait! As you yourself just pointed out, there is no way he can support himself doing this. Physical impossibility. Of course he can't pick strawberries; that's my point! That's the extenuating circumstance! It's not stupidity, it's him in a bad situation with no way out whatsoever, no matter how much h wishes to and no matter how much he tries. And you think he should starve to death.

People that don't have money don't deserve any until and only until they produce something worth paying for. That's "deserve" means, "to be worthy", "worthy" meaning "to have value". Value, of course, is what's paid for.

Naturally, once the truly needy cases are sorted out, people like you would be able to finance their eternal care through the goodness of your heart and the unending generosity of your wallet.

Human rights do not discriminate; you do not have to be productive to have them. You may not deserve but are nonetheless entitled to certain things as a human being. Enough food to keep the breath in your body is one of them.

You know it's impossible to resolve this on a case-by-case basis, so in the meantime you can continue to pay up right beside me, my friend, because- oh, how I am belaboring this point- you and I live in the same society, a society which makes certain demands of us.

Oh, no, I never said that voluntary charity was verboten. That's what charity is, a voluntary donation of money, goods, or services, to support a cause or person. Those few that actually need it would be able to find it, once the scammers are out in the strawberry fields.

I never said that you did, but you do fail to acknowledge the fact that there is a difference between charity and social programs. I explained it in one of the last three "partial posts" above; I refer you to that argument.

As for your assertion that the true unfortunates could be found, they'll die before you can find them. And even if they do not, the freeloaders- the very people who make you hate the social programs- will not just give it all up. Their ruining the system makes it unscrappable in the short term. Surely you realize this; are you willing to pay the necessary cost in life to bring about immediate reform?

One final question: what happens in hard times when people, even with fewer taxes, have no money to donate? What would happen to the poor then under your proposed system of private donations? I'm just curious on this last bit, not attacking you.

It's called slavery.

I refer you to the aristocrat argument, twice made in my previous posts. It is the totally free sacrificing some freedom so that those closer to real slavery can themselves be equally free.

You contention has not only been proven false, you haven't disproven the opposite, namely that no man is slave to another's need.

I don't think it has, and I think I have. On this too, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Good thing you didn't call it irrefutable, huh, seeing as how I just trashed it. And no, you haven't laid out a logical foundation, since you've yet to justify your unwarranted assumption that the needs of some must be satisfied by the confiscation of the work of others.

All you said is that those people have needs and then you jump to your conclusion that because they have needs, others must supply them. You haven't connected the dots.

I really don't think you did. And my warrant is the demand of the society you choose to live in. I have stated that- what? A dozen times, now? It is not a question of needs, it is a question of inherent rights on the one side and inherent obligations on the other. Everything I have discussed which you have taken as a need, or almost everything, is the product of inherent this or inherent that or inherent the other thing under the umbrella of a society you are not inherent to. You are , like I am, free to leave it all behind, but you can't have things both ways.