America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

On the subject of Brian's and Dan's debate, I see Brian still has no comprehension of what the term "rights" actually means...

Yea, it's going to take me a little while to respond but I do intend to get back to it.

 

[Swift]

What's not to agree with? Where do I go wrong in my assessment?

Nothing is wrong with it. But I feel that if they are going to take my money without consent then I'm going to recoupe some of that given the oppurtunity.

I don't think you're wrong, I just don't agree. It's like getting to the same place two different ways. They can both be correct, just different.

 

[Danoff]

Nothing is wrong with it. But I feel that if they are going to take my money without consent then I'm going to recoupe some of that given the oppurtunity.

You're justifying an immoral action because one was taken agianst you.

 

[Swift]

I just want to clear one thing out:

Every American I meet online hates the French. Period. (At least the ones I've asked)
Why is that?

I know that the American's "saved the French in WWII". So is it because they didn't want to kill Iraqi's?

I JUST DON'T GET IT!!!


Please enlight me...

I don't like the French Gov't. 200 years ago they couldn't wait to help us out. We return the favor, twice. And they just forget about it. The French Gov't from my understanding is just weak. not to mention any guy speaking French sounds like a fruit. I'm not saying he is, but it just sounds like it.

 

[Swift]

You're justifying an immoral action because one was taken agianst you.

Am I? Or am I simply using the system that I had no say in how it was setup? In my mind it's immoral for the state to charge as much as it does just to own a car. The registration fees are just a racket. Pure and simple. But I don't have a choice. It's do that, or don't own a car. Since I live outside of any major city and my place of work isn't near any train station, I'm stuck.

That's how I look at the unemployment insurance. Yes, the system isn't perfect, but I didn't have a hand in setting it up. So why shouldn't I get some back that was taken?

 

[Danoff]

Am I? Or am I simply using the system that I had no say in how it was setup? In my mind it's immoral for the state to charge as much as it does just to own a car. The registration fees are just a racket. Pure and simple. But I don't have a choice. It's do that, or don't own a car. Since I live outside of any major city and my place of work isn't near any train station, I'm stuck.

That's how I look at the unemployment insurance. Yes, the system isn't perfect, but I didn't have a hand in setting it up. So why shouldn't I get some back that was taken?

Because it isn't coming from the person who got what was taken from you. It's coming from someone else, who didn't take anything from you.

It doesn't matter if you had a hand in setting up the system, you're voluntarily receiving money that isn't yours.

In the example where you pay for car registration, you're not doing something immoral by paying to have your car registered. You're getting screwed. That's not the same thing.

Here's the scenario

Government puts a gun to your head and says "give me money"
You give your money
Government gives it to bob.
Government puts a gun to toms head and says "give me money", he does.
Then the governmnet offers you tom's money.

If you take it you've accepted money that was taken immorally.

 

[Swift]

Because it isn't coming from the person who got what was taken from you. It's coming from someone else, who didn't take anything from you.

It doesn't matter if you had a hand in setting up the system, you're voluntarily receiving money that isn't yours.

In the example where you pay for car registration, you're not doing something immoral by paying to have your car registered. You're getting screwed. That's not the same thing.

Here's the scenario

Government puts a gun to your head and says "give me money"
You give your money
Government gives it to bob.
Government puts a gun to toms head and says "give me money", he does.
Then the governmnet offers you tom's money.

If you take it you've accepted money that was taken immorally.

Again, no argument. But, God forbid I loose my job, I'm not going to become destitute for pride.

 

[Danoff]

Again, no argument. But, God forbid I loose my job, I'm not going to become destitute for pride.

I'd rather die than live unethically. But I won't be facing that problem.

 

[Swift]

I'd rather die than live unethically. But I won't be facing that problem.

Ok, let me get this straight. You don't believe in God or a higher power. But you'd die from starvation for your morals. That sounds like a very spiritual person to me.

 

[Danoff]

Ok, let me get this straight. You don't believe in God or a higher power. But you'd die from starvation for your morals. That sounds like a very spiritual person to me.

It's not spiritual. It's just that civilized society doesn't work if we all run around acting like animals stealing from each other to fill our bellies. In order for man to be free, we have to respect each other's rights. That includes me respecting your right to your productivity (income).

 

[Swift]

It's not spiritual. It's just that civilized society doesn't work if we all run around acting like animals stealing from each other to fill our bellies. In order for man to be free, we have to respect each other's rights. That includes me respecting your right to your productivity (income).

Well, I hate to say it. But you've got me. Of course this doesn't transfer to any other concepts.

You've made a valid argument sir, I can't find fault in it. You win this one. 👍

 

[Danoff]

Well, I hate to say it. But you've got me. Of course this doesn't transfer to any other concepts.

You've made a valid argument sir, I can't find fault in it. You win this one. 👍

If anyone ever says the there is never closure in these discussions... we can point them here.

 

[Swift]

If anyone ever says the there is never closure in these discussions... we can point them here.

And I just had to be the one to concede....

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I will not collect social security either.

I will claim any insurance that I have voluntarily agreed to. I will not claim any insurance that is involuntarily taken from me.

Scenarios

1) When I claim insurance that I have voluntarily agreed to, others will be paying for my claim - but they have also voluntarily agreed to it.

2) When I claim insurance that i have not voluntarily agreed to, others will be involuntarily paying for my claim.

The second case is theft.

I will respond to the rest but I have to respond to this as I'm reading it.

You say that social security payments etc. is NOT voluntarily agreed to. I disagree. By paying taxes you ARE voluntarily agreeing (via social contract) to pay for the insurance.

Again, I'm still reading the rest of the posts... will update.

 

[Danoff]

You say that social security payments etc. is NOT voluntarily agreed to. I disagree. By paying taxes you ARE voluntarily agreeing (via social contract)

If you refuse to pay social security, you go to jail - that's the very definition of involuntary. If I choose not to pay my renter's insurance or life insurance, I lose my insurance coverage. That's different, now I'm just getting what I paid for.

To a certain extent, almost nothing is involuntary. If someone puts a gun to my head and says stand on one foot or I'll shoot you. I do have a choice not to stand on one foot - but it isn't really involuntary.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If you refuse to pay social security, you go to jail - that's the very definition of involuntary. If I choose not to pay my renter's insurance or life insurance, I lose my insurance coverage. That's different, now I'm just getting what I paid for.

To a certain extent, almost nothing is involuntary. If someone puts a gun to my head and says stand on one foot or I'll shoot you. I do have a choice not to stand on one foot - but it isn't really involuntary.

Not necessarily. You can always move to a country (Somalia, perhaps?) and avoid paying taxes altogether.

It's not spiritual. It's just that civilized society doesn't work if we all run around acting like animals stealing from each other to fill our bellies. In order for man to be free, we have to respect each other's rights. That includes me respecting your right to your productivity (income).

The highlighted hit me like a ton of sugar bricks at a sugar factory -- not that I would now what that feels like.

Anyway... the highlighted portion. I found that statement very profound, yet unclear (if that makes any sense ).

How exactly would you define "rights"? (alludes to Duke's previous post) :

On the subject of Brian's and Dan's debate, I see Brian still has no comprehension of what the term "rights" actually means...

 

[Swift]

Brian, what he's saying that to be a citizen of this country, you are forced to play taxes.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian, what he's saying that to be a citizen of this country, you are forced to play taxes.

I understand, I was just being sarcastic.

I still want his definition of rights, though (or a definition of rights).

 

[Duke]

Ok, let me get this straight. You don't believe in God or a higher power. But you'd die from starvation for your morals. That sounds like a very spiritual person to me.

No, that's a very moral person - and I share his philosophy. There's nothing 'spiritual' about that in terms of an immortal soul that will outlive our bodies. But there is everything about the human spirit in it.

You say that social security payments etc. is NOT voluntarily agreed to. I disagree. By paying taxes you ARE voluntarily agreeing (via social contract) to pay for the insurance.

You're joking, right?

Taxes are not voluntary in any way. They are backed up by law which is backed up by police with guns. Tell me again how you 'volunteered' to pay your taxes last year.

Would you have, Brian, if it were legal not to?

The highlighted hit me like a ton of sugar bricks at a sugar factory -- not that I would now what that feels like.

Anyway... the highlighted portion. I found that statement very profound, yet unclear (if that makes any sense ).

How exactly would you define "rights"? (alludes to Duke's previous post) :

We've defined "rights" at great length and with great clarity during our Libertarianism discussion. Reread that thread - our concepts haven't changed.

Why would the highlighted portion hit you like a ton of bricks? It's absolutely fundamental to our philosophy, which we have explained before at great length and with... see above.

 

[Danoff]

The military don't exist to protect your car (or your house) from foreigners. It exists to protect your RIGHTS from foreigners.

I agree, however, our definition of rights are very different.

So you admit that it is rights that the military is protecting, if that’s the case – why do you say this?

I disagree in that because the rich have more to lose, they benefit MORE from the military. Again, this is why we pay more to insure a Mercedes than we do for a Ford. There's more at stake in the event of a loss.

Now you’re not talking about rights anymore, you’re talking about the military protecting cars. We each have one right to our property. We have one right to a fair trial, one right to our lives. It is independent of worth. It’s funny that of the two of us, you are the one who puts so much weight on how much money someone has in the bank. It reminds me of a quote from Braveheart.
Robert the Bruce "remember that these men have lands and castles. It's much to risk."

William Wallace "And the common man who bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?"

It is our freedom that our military protects - our way of life. To say that some have more to lose than others is to say that some people have better lives than others. I won't make that statement.

Up to a point, but rich people will never get out of it what they put in.

That's the way it should be in my opinion.

Why? Why is it that rich people are not entitled to the money they earned?

...and why are we talking about gas? That's not paid for with taxes, neither is electricity.

I was only using it as an analogy... perhaps it was a poor analogy but in retrospect, the insurance example pretty much explains what I was trying to say.

Just be careful about what kinds of analogies you draw. That you drew the gas analogy is a particularly illustrative example of how you think that the rich are not entitled to their money. You chose a case where they have already paid for their goods and think they should pay more.

It’s almost as though you think people should pay more if they earn more for the same product. That would be communism though, so I’m sure you don’t actually think that.

How are the poor taxed by the rich?

Sales tax is a regressive tax.

Sales tax is a flat tax and it’s actually somewhat voluntary (especially since most “necessities” aren’t taxed). However, the rich do pay far more in sales tax than the poor do – because they spend more. A rich person buying a Ferrari probably pays more in sales tax for that car ALONE than 10 people working minimum wage jobs. How is that the rich taxing the poor? You’re of this opinion that rich people shouldn’t have what they have earned. It makes so little sense for someone who has respect for the market. You of all people should understand how rich people did not make their money unfairly off of the poor. You of all people should understand how the rich people CREATE opportunities for poor people, how the rich employ the poor, giving them a way to make money and provide for their families. You of all people should understand how the rich in this semi-meritocracy we have in the US are the PRODUCERS of the country… and how the producers in this country are the figurative Atlas that hold up our society.

It's my obligation to help the poor?

In my opinion, yes.

Why? Why does their need entitle them to my services? What gives them any claim over my productivity? Do I owe them for something? If I do not owe them, how can it be my obligation? If I do owe them, why?

The right to life is the right not to have your life TAKEN from you.

Thou shall not kill -- err -- the right to life is the right not to have your life taken from you provided you haven't committed a capital offense (in which case I believe one should have their life taken from them). Like I said, I partially agree with that statement.

Agreed.

Not to have your life maintained FOR you.

I disagree here. If someone needs help, they deserve to get help. Seeing as how private charity doesn't work (or can't work on it's own), we need a welfare system.

Listen to yourself. “If someone needs help, they deserve to get help.” Why? Who is it they deserve this help from? America is an easy place to live. Let’s be honest. You can find a job and make ends meet here pretty easily. You can be a really stupid individual, in poor shape, with no communication skills whatsoever and still land a job here.

But fundamentally, no one is entitled for me to do anything for them.

Why is that a hard concept?

I control my life, I am in charge of my existence. I as a free individual, as a non-slave, as a human being can choose what I wish to do (so long as it does not infringe the rights of others). The minute (I’m going to bold this because it’s important) the minute you say that someone else’s need gives them the right to my work, you make me a slave.

The bottom 10% of earners pay negative income tax (ie: they get larger returns than they paid in). It's called "earned income" which means they get income they didn't earn.

As it should be.

Why should anyone get anything they didn’t earn? It makes no sense to me that in a fair society anyone should get something they didn’t earn. That is the very definition of unfair.

The top 20% of earners pay something on the order of 80-85% of all income tax.

They earn more, so they get taxed more -- progressive tax. As it should be. It's the only way to counter the fact that the poor are taxed by the rich.

The poor are not taxed by the rich. I’m going to need you to provide me with some sort of evidence to back up this ludicrous claim. The rich support the poor in this country (and just about every other country). The reason you enjoy many of the comforts you do is because the rich have been burdened with the prospect of supporting your lifestyle above what you have brought in. I seriously doubt that you pay enough in taxes to carry your weight. I know I don’t. We’re both getting services we didn’t pay for.

Collective effort doesn't make anything ethical. If we all work together to kill of the jews, that doesn't make it any more ethical.

Why on earth would you compare welfare, a humanitarian effort, to mass genocide? I don't get that... Maybe I should elaborate. The collective effort to work for the greater good is ethical.

Sound a little like communism to you? What do you consider the greater good? What rights are you willing to trample in the name of what you consider the greater good? Forced collective effort for ANY reason, be it genocide or planting flowers is unethical.

It would have to come from others like yourself or other donations. Even if there wasn't enough (in your opinion) that doesn't give you the right to take other people's money.

It may not give me the right to take other people's money, but how else would we be able to get things done? Few, if any people would donate money if left to their own devices -- hence the existance of welfare.

Few if any huh? Billions of dollars every year are donated to charity in SPITE of the government’s poor slow role in ROW. How’s that for “few if any”. Welfare and other ROW programs are the combination of two things: greed - which humanity has built in as a gift from nature, and the lack of morality.

I would try to talk him out of it but I would not physically restrain him.

This is precisely why we can't agree on certain issues. I believe that the use of force is necessary if it means saving someone's life (whether it be financially or physically as in the attempted suicide example).

The minute you take away someone’s freedom to do as they wish, you’ve ruined their life. You believe force is necessary if you think you know better how someone else should live. Which is either dictatorial or communistic.

It is impossible to receive welfare and not be abusing the system. Welfare is an abuse of the system.

If you're talking about the free market system, then yes. However, the free market is NOT a panacea. You can't just privatize and deregulate and expect things to be better.

I never said it was or that you could. I simply said that it is impossible to receive welfare and not be abusing the system. To receive welfare is to take advantage of the opportunity at sanctioned immorality offered you by our government.

No, I don't have enough money for people to go after. The leeches are after people who make much more than I do and are much less mainstream.

That's all relative.

You’re missing my point. My point is that the leeches are after people who can’t defend themselves. People who are by DEFINITION in the voting minority. The top 10-20% of earners, who don’t have enough say in any election to protect themselves.

The worst leeches aren't the ones cashing in the checks. The worst leeches are the ones taking money from the rich and giving it the poor in the name of charity. Those people can't even be bothered to fund their own cause.

I guess you mean SOME of those people -- I wouldn't exactly consider myself a person who can't be bothered to fund my own cause.

I mean all of those people. I consider you a person who can’t be bothered to fund his own cause. Your cause is to eliminate poverty, but you can’t be bothered to raise funds for it. You resort to advocating that it be STOLEN from people who are BY DEFINITION a minority and can’t defend themselves in a democracy. You’re advocating that we continue to abuse a hole on our constitution that allows us this opportunity to be immoral – the opportunity to spend other people’s money. It’s appalling.

And if there is not enough, you will either starve and/or be homeless in the name of what? Pride? Justice? Rights? I don't get it...

I would starve in the name of freedom.

You use government funded services EVERYDAY. You have no choice in the matter. So why is this (welfare) such a problem? Just because you don't use it, we should eliminate it? Just because I don't use it, I shouldn't have to pay for it? I don't get it...

I use government funded services everyday. It’s true. I do not have a choice in the matter. But I do not have to voluntarily contribute to an immoral practice. I just couldn’t live with myself voluntarily taking money that had been stolen.

 

[Duke]

The minute you take away someone’s freedom to do as they wish, you’ve ruined their life. You believe force is necessary if you think you know better how someone else should live. Which is either dictatorial or communistic.

In the Libertarianism thread Brian proved, at great length and with great clarity, that he thinks he knows better how someone else should live.

 

[Swift]

I honestly believe that the welfare system in it's entirety is holding the potential of this country back as a hole. I mean, a woman can just up and have a baby or two, not be married and boom, free money for however long. Not to mention it's usually much more then they need to meet their needs. How is that fair to the person working fulltime in a manual labor position that has a wife at home with a few children and CAN'T make ends meet.

I just think that rewarding irresponsibility and laziness is just plain dumb.

 

[Danoff]

I just think that rewarding irresponsibility and laziness is just plain dumb.

It's true, the incentives are messed up. But that's beside the moral question of whether it is right to take one person's money and give it to someone else.

How is that fair to the person working fulltime in a manual labor position that has a wife at home with a few children and CAN'T make ends meet.

Regardless of whether they have trouble making ends meet. How is it fair to the person working (regardless of what job they are doing) to take their money and give it to someone else.

 

[Swift]

It's true, the incentives are messed up. But that's beside the moral question of whether it is right to take one person's money and give it to someone else.



Regardless of whether they have trouble making ends meet. How is it fair to the person working (regardless of what job they are doing) to take their money and give it to someone else.

Uh...isn't that what I said?

 

[Danoff]

Uh...isn't that what I said?

I was just making a few things explicit... not really disagreeing.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Taxes are not voluntary in any way.

By living in this country, you have automatically entered into a social contract with the government. The government provides you with goods/services that you voluntarily use everyday. That is how taxes are voluntary.

They are backed up by law which is backed up by police with guns. Tell me again how you 'volunteered' to pay your taxes last year.

I use government services everyday. I choose to live in this country. By living here, I have automatically agreed to the social contract.

Would you have, Brian, if it were legal not to?

Absolutely. Also, by year's end, I'll be filing for capital gains tax as well.

We've defined "rights" at great length and with great clarity during our Libertarianism discussion. Reread that thread - our concepts haven't changed.

Will do.

Why would the highlighted portion hit you like a ton of bricks? It's absolutely fundamental to our philosophy, which we have explained before at great length and with... see above.

I had forgotten about the highlighted portion.

So you admit that it is rights that the military is protecting, if that’s the case – why do you say this?

I'm afraid I cannot answer this question without asking you this question. Would you consider the right to have a good education or the right to have a minimum standard of living, rights?

Now you’re not talking about rights anymore, you’re talking about the military protecting cars. We each have one right to our property. We have one right to a fair trial, one right to our lives. It is independent of worth. It’s funny that of the two of us, you are the one who puts so much weight on how much money someone has in the bank. It reminds me of a quote from Braveheart.
Robert the Bruce "remember that these men have lands and castles. It's much to risk."

William Wallace "And the common man who bleeds on the battlefield, does he risk less?"

It is our freedom that our military protects - our way of life. To say that some have more to lose than others is to say that some people have better lives than others. I won't make that statement.

Irreconcilable differences.

Why? Why is it that rich people are not entitled to the money they earned?

They utilize government goods and services as well. If they didn't use any government goods/services, then they would be entitled to all of their income. As this is not the case, they are not entitled to all of the money they earn.

Just be careful about what kinds of analogies you draw. That you drew the gas analogy is a particularly illustrative example of how you think that the rich are not entitled to their money.

You are absolutely correct.

You chose a case where they have already paid for their goods and think they should pay more.

I think they should pay more because of the regressive sales tax -- which I will cover.

It’s almost as though you think people should pay more if they earn more for the same product.

That's not true...
... and it's not PRACTICAL either?! Can you imagine how that would work on the stock market?! Johnny-Mall-Cop wants to buy 10 shares of Home Depot, let's give it to him for $3/share. Oh no wait! Bill Gates wants to buy 10,000 shares of Home Depot! He'll have to pay $3,000/share.

That would be communism though, so I’m sure you don’t actually think that.

Correct. However, in my opinion, the perfect economy would be one that has elements of both socialism and capitalism. Socialism alone is ruinous. Capitalism alone is ruinous.

Sales tax is a flat tax and it’s actually somewhat voluntary (especially since most “necessities” aren’t taxed). However, the rich do pay far more in sales tax than the poor do – because they spend more. A rich person buying a Ferrari probably pays more in sales tax for that car ALONE than 10 people working minimum wage jobs. How is that the rich taxing the poor?

Sales tax is a regressive tax:
Let's say we have two families. One is a money-is-no-object income family (Family A), and the other is a living-from-paycheck-to-paycheck family (Family B). Both families are about to buy a new car.
Family A makes a total of $50,000/year while family B makes $500,000/year. Let's assume a sales tax rate of 9% (about what I pay ).
Family A buys a new car for $18,000 and pays $1,620 in sales taxes or 3.24% of their income.
Family B buys a new car for $88,000 and pays $7,920 in sales taxes or 1.584% of their income.
Family A pays over 2x the amount of taxes as Family B and that's with a car that costs nearly 5x less! Try it with ANY item and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.
The rich squeeze the poor. They sell their products and services and because of the regressive sales tax, the poor end up paying more than the rich. Income tax is a progressive tax for the same reason sales tax is a regressive tax. It's all about BALANCE. The rich may pay more taxes (aggregate) than the poor, but the poor end up paying more (proportionately) at the end of the day.

You’re of this opinion that rich people shouldn’t have what they have earned.

Correct.

It makes so little sense for someone who has respect for the market.

They should raise the rate on capital gains tax. 28% for the short term is too low.

The poor are not taxed by the rich. I’m going to need you to provide me with some sort of evidence to back up this ludicrous claim.

It's not ludicrous -- it's called the sales tax which I've described earlier.

The rich support the poor in this country (and just about every other country). The reason you enjoy many of the comforts you do is because the rich have been burdened with the prospect of supporting your lifestyle above what you have brought in. I seriously doubt that you pay enough in taxes to carry your weight. I know I don’t. We’re both getting services we didn’t pay for.

We did pay for them. In fact, we pay just as much the rich do. Try not think of it in terms of the aggregate, but in terms of the proportion (referring to the sales tax example).

Why? Why does their need entitle them to my services? What gives them any claim over my productivity? Do I owe them for something? If I do not owe them, how can it be my obligation? If I do owe them, why?

Simply by living in this country, you owe them. Again, the same services that the "needy" have are available to you as well. By not paying for that insurance, you are violating the terms of the agreement voluntarily made between you and the United States government.

Listen to yourself. “If someone needs help, they deserve to get help.” Why?

Because if they could help themselves, they wouldn't need help.

Who is it they deserve this help from?

Everyone.

America is an easy place to live.

Tell that to a homeless person.

Let’s be honest. You can find a job and make ends meet here pretty easily.

Tell that to someone who is unemployed or the single mother who has to tend to 2 children.

You can be a really stupid individual, in poor shape, with no communication skills whatsoever and still land a job here.

Of course... and their salary would be (invariably) commensurate to their "skills" (i.e. minimum wage) which is probably not enough to cover basic living expenses (definitely not enough to cover basic living expenses if they live in or close to a major city).

Why is that a hard concept?

It's not a question of difficulty -- I understand the concept. I just don't agree with it.

I control my life, I am in charge of my existence. I as a free individual, as a non-slave, as a human being can choose what I wish to do (so long as it does not infringe the rights of others). The minute (I’m going to bold this because it’s important) the minute you say that someone else’s need gives them the right to my work, you make me a slave.

Then let us all be slaves working for the greater good. Is Bill Gates keeping an extra $300 million in his pocket that much more important than keeping food on the table for a low income family?

Why should anyone get anything they didn’t earn?

Because they weren't able to earn it on their own. If they could, they wouldn't need assistance would they? Why, however, would you assist someone that does not need help? That defies all logic...

Help the fortunate, but don't help the needy? That's like giving healthy people cancer treatment medication (as a preventative measure, let's say) and watching cancer patients die. MAYBE, if someone is (or some people are) generous enough (now we're talking private donations) there will be enough medication available for a few hundred people (but the rest aren't so lucky). However, with the redistribution of the medication, EVERYONE has the opportunity to benefit from the medication if they ever need it. If you are fortunate enough to never have cancer, consider yourself lucky! The redistribution of wealth works exactly the same way. If you are fortunate enough to never have to cash an unemployment/welfare check or go to the supermarket with a pocket full of food stamps, consider yourself lucky! It's that simple.

It makes no sense to me that in a fair society anyone should get something they didn’t earn. That is the very definition of unfair.

It makes no sense to me that in a fair society anyone should die (or live without the basic necessities) because they didn't get something they couldn't earn. That is the very definition of unfair.

Sound a little like communism to you?

A bit.

What do you consider the greater good?

There should be a minimum standard of living for all.

What rights are you willing to trample in the name of what you consider the greater good?

All if need be.
What rights are you willing to trample in the name of freedom? How would you enforce your definition of freedom?

Forced collective effort for ANY reason, be it genocide or planting flowers is unethical.

So I guess we should just free convicts from jail then... that's a forced collective effort.

Few if any huh? Billions of dollars every year are donated to charity in SPITE of the government’s poor slow role in ROW. How’s that for “few if any”. Welfare and other ROW programs are the combination of two things: greed - which humanity has built in as a gift from nature, and the lack of morality.

If it is human nature to lack morality and be greedy, why on earth would you want to ELIMINATE welfare and ROW programs? That's why they're there in the first place -- to protect people from the greedy and the immoral.

The minute you take away someone’s freedom to do as they wish, you’ve ruined their life. You believe force is necessary if you think you know better how someone else should live. Which is either dictatorial or communistic.

Is taxing you for products/services that you use taking away your freedom to do as you wish? I believe force is necessary not because I think I know better how someone else should live (that's arrogant) -- I believe force is necessary to do the right thing. That is neither dictatorial nor communistic. If anything, it's egalitarian.

I never said it was or that you could. I simply said that it is impossible to receive welfare and not be abusing the system. To receive welfare is to take advantage of the opportunity at sanctioned immorality offered you by our government.

The redistribution of wealth is not sanctioned immorality. It is a moral obligation.

You’re missing my point. My point is that the leeches are after people who can’t defend themselves. People who are by DEFINITION in the voting minority. The top 10-20% of earners, who don’t have enough say in any election to protect themselves.

Who needs say when you can have cash? All I know is, if I was one of the top 10-20% of earners, I'd be too busy counting benjamins to worry about elections.

I mean all of those people. I consider you a person who can’t be bothered to fund his own cause. Your cause is to eliminate poverty, but you can’t be bothered to raise funds for it. You resort to advocating that it be STOLEN from people who are BY DEFINITION a minority and can’t defend themselves in a democracy.

Oh yes. The rich are the oppressed minority who need our help. They ARE a defenseless bunch aren't they? Funny, though, how quickly you would want to eliminate Affirmative Action (a program designed to protect a minority who can't defend themselves in a democracy). So why support the rich when they really don't need support?

You’re advocating that we continue to abuse a hole on our constitution that allows us this opportunity to be immoral – the opportunity to spend other people’s money. It’s appalling.

Perhaps the hole was left there intentionally -- for this specific purpose.
What I find appalling is the fact that you believe people are entitled to ALL of the money that they earn (despite the fact that they are receiving government services.) THAT is the very definition of theft.

I just couldn’t live with myself voluntarily taking money that had been stolen.

Just as I couldn't live with myself knowing that I've used a product/service and did NOT pay for it.

 

[Duke]

Wow. You haven't changed one bit. Your idea of "rights", "moral obligations", "progressive", "regressive", and in fact your whole vision of a perfect society frankly terrify me.

 

[Danoff]

Brian,

Your post boils down to a few things


1) The misunderstanding (yet again) that I would want to get rid of ALL taxes, that I think ALL taxes are somehow theft.
2) That rich people are less entitled to their earnings simply because of the contents of their bank account.
3) That citizens of America have a moral obligation to support each other.
4) The misunderstanding the sales tax is regressive
5) That people choose to live in America and so they voluntarily submit to redistribution of wealth.
6) A misunderstanding about what rights are.


Almost all of the rest of your post (which actually isn’t much after you take those 5 things) is constructed simply to try to retort rather than to further the discussion. I’ll give you an example:

Listen to yourself. “If someone needs help, they deserve to get help.” Why?

Because if they could help themselves, they wouldn't need help.

What kind of a response is this? Honestly. Are you really trying to advance the conversation here? Or are you just looking for a quick “out” to make it appear that you’ve answered the question. The above does not address my question, it doesn’t even pretend to address my question. It simply brushes the question aside as though it is inconsequential or nonsensical.

Here’s another example:

I control my life, I am in charge of my existence. I as a free individual, as a non-slave, as a human being can choose what I wish to do (so long as it does not infringe the rights of others). The minute (I’m going to bold this because it’s important) the minute you say that someone else’s need gives them the right to my work, you make me a slave.

Then let us all be slaves working for the greater good. Is Bill Gates keeping an extra $300 million in his pocket that much more important than keeping food on the table for a low income family?

…as though I wasn’t speaking philosophically, you simply brush the notion aside. “Let us all be slaves, working for what I consider the greater good” you say. I say America is free.

Anyway I’m not going to respond to all of that – since you didn’t really respond to me in the first place.

Now on to the 6 points above.
1) Quite simple here. I have told you many times (yet you continue to forget, perhaps on purpose) that I do not consider all taxes to be theft. Some taxes and government services are military. Let’s stop trying to paint me out to be an anarchist and start actually listening to what I’m saying.

I say “Redistribution of wealth is bad.”

You say “Government programs are bad?? Do you think the military is bad?”

I say “ that’s not what I said.”

Here’s an example of this misunderstanding.

Why? Why is it that rich people are not entitled to the money they earned?

They utilize government goods and services as well. If they didn't use any government goods/services, then they would be entitled to all of their income. As this is not the case, they are not entitled to all of the money they earn.

You know very well I’m talking about the redistribution of wealth, not the military or the police or the roads.

Moving on…

2) You fundamentally think that it is right to charge someone more money if they can afford it. I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s absurd. Just because people have more money than they “need” (which is a huge percentage of the US population) you think it is right that some of that money should be taken to provide for those who do not have what they “need”.

You know by now that money (in America) is created rather than taken from others. So you know that the rich did not take their earnings from the poor (except in your misguided sales tax concept which I’ll address later). So you wish to put need as the principle motivation behind who gets what earnings.

To do that places need at the forefront of things that earn money. More need = more money. That’s the way to build a collapsing society. Productivity is what should be rewarded, that’s the way to build a society that grows and prospers.

More fundamentally however, when I run into Joe homeless guy who I have never met. I owe him nothing. He got where he is through some combination of events in his life that I took no part in. He alone is responsible for his destiny, I have done nothing to put him there and so I have no responsibility to get him out.

It simply can’t work any other way.

I don’t want ANYONE to be responsible for me. I find it unacceptable that someone might feel responsible for my well being. Leave it to me.

That is America, Brian. That is freedom. The freedom to succeed or fail on your own steam. That’s what makes this country prosperous and great. That’s why our economy flourishes. To hold me responsible for someone else’s life is quite simply wrong.

3) I rambled into three as part of 2.

4) In your sales tax example the poor person pays a higher percentage of their income in tax than the rich person did (I can’t believe you honestly felt I needed that example, as though I didn’t understand that that is what you were saying). However you didn’t adjust the spending by income . Try not think of it in terms of the aggregate, but in terms of the proportion. OF COURSE the poor people end up spending a larger portion of their income on sales tax in that example, they’re spending a larger portion. That’s a flat tax.

5) What if the law were to slaughter all Jewish people? What if they were given a year to leave and then all Jewish people left would be slaughtered? Does that make it ok to kill the ones who stay behind? They stayed voluntarily, we gave them a chance to leave. That makes it ok for us to commit a crime against them.

It’s preposterous.

6)

Would you consider the right to have a good education or the right to have a minimum standard of living, rights?

In reference to adults - nope.

 

[ledhed]

Correct. However, in my opinion, the perfect economy would be one that has elements of both communism and capitalism. Communism alone is ruinous. Capitalism alone is ruinous.

You are dead wrong . You cant have elements of communism in a capitalist democracy . You must not have read much about communism . You can have elements of capitalism in a communist society . Its a huge difference .
You can have elements of socialism ( like the US for instance ) . On a small scale amongst like minded people any philosophy will work . So the part about pureness leading to ruin ..is a bit over stated .
you either respect property rights or you do not . unless you are in a system like China's where everyone IS NOT EQUAL and Capitalism is allowed for some as long as it benifits the goals of the STATE . You either belive in the individual taking precidence ( as in the US ) or you believe in the State taking precident OVER the individual as in Communism .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

You are dead wrong . You cant have elements of communism in a capitalist democracy . You must not have read much about communism . You can have elements of capitalism in a communist society . Its a huge difference .
You can have elements of socialism ( like the US for instance ) . On a small scale amongst like minded people any philosophy will work . So the part about pureness leading to ruin ..is a bit over stated .
you either respect property rights or you do not . unless you are in a system like China's where everyone IS NOT EQUAL and Capitalism is allowed for some as long as it benifits the goals of the STATE . You either belive in the individual taking precidence ( as in the US ) or you believe in the State taking precident OVER the individual as in Communism .

The highlighted is what I meant to say.