| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
The T 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
 Posted: September 27 2010 at 10:33 |
Great tactic Robert. Remember when I said out of my ass that "that's why the tea party is so successful?" Now I guess that weak statement gains credibility. You have turned what's essentially a decent (if naive if you want, or unrealistic if you want) wish (healthcare for all) into an "evil" thing (slavery). Brilliant. By using a ridiculous unlikely scenario you've turned the discussion into one of slavery vs free will... Master tactician Robert...
 Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.
What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?
Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.
|
This really insults me. Sorry then. Especially since I put all this time explaining to you how the real world works. Fine. Things in bold, I want a direct answer.
If your sister were dying (and she was) how much of every individual's wealth in a given country would be permissible for the government to take over to save her life?
10%? Not enough.
30%?Not enough.
70%?Now you're too greedy... 
All of it? If it came to it, would you have everyone in the country give all their money to save your sister? Why or why not?
In what part did I say "the country has to give money to save my sister"?  relax Rob, I have expressed I'd like for a system where EVERYBODY puts a little bit for the benefit of EVERYBODY, not just my sister or yours. Taxes, yes. I've never said "people in the country has to give me money to save my sister". This is ridiculous. Taxes, like in the rest of the industrialized world, not just for my benefit but for everybody's. I pay taxes too, and I've no problem with that.
I made my case clear enough. If my child has a disease, and no one can save him or her, or no one is willing to, I will be the doctor. If I fail, it's on me. It's not on anyone else- period. If you call me a murderer for not being a slaver, then you are a fool. No. Maybe you'r the fool. When all this ridiculous scenario is said and done I'll be left with a moral obligation to compensate the doctor that was forced to work to save lives, but I'd also be left with those people living, alive to pay back, too. You'll be left with your principles intact and with people who never were forced to do anything, but with a dead child.
All of this, as I said previously, is just your attempt to turn a wish that is at least in principle good (if flawed in reality) to an "evil" act.
It doesn't make me a killer. It makes me a father who did everything he could to save his child without stepping on the rights of anybody else. No- my children are not worth more than other people's rights.
Your position that under an extreme circumstance it's okay to enslave anybody is repulsive.Your position that property is above pretty much anything but freedom is repulsive to me. But we come from different worlds, you can't understand me and I can't understand you.
In response to your larger response to me, here is all I must say:
1. You call theft taxes and say it's okay.I called taxes "theft"?? You've got one beer too many Rob, if I ever used that expression is in reference to libertarians' views... I DON'T think taxes are theft. Nor does more than half the entire planet. Remember I wasn't born here. I don't have those views. Only a (sadly large) group of Americans (and maybe some people outside) agree with that.
I don't think they're theft because, one, we are ALL paying taxes; two, because our elected representatives, for bad or good, have created this tax system, hence in way WE have created them.
Again, we'll never agree on this.
2. You consider slavery admissible under at least one (maybe more) scenarios.
3. You don't see the elimination of government programs the answer...then you are apparently okay with Ponzi scams as well as long as the government is performing them. You're drawing ridiculous conclusions. I don't like Ponzi schemes. I'm repulsed by greed, remember. I failed to see how social security and medicare are ponzi schemes with your examples (I saw a bit of that with the last two paragraphs of your real world explanation). That is inefficient, yes, maybe I could agree with that. Tell me something- why is it okay that Madoff goes to jail and the US government is in the clear for doing the same thing? And in broad daylight? And at all our expense? And through several programs?
Tell me- why is Bernie Madoff in jail for his scam and the US government okay continuing to do the very same thing?  Calm down, relax. I wouldn't be ok with that. If that's the case, I'd put the responsibles in jail.
I didn't miss your point about not being able to take your life to the grave. Hence my wink. But I guess...aw f**k it.
You're okay with theft always and slavery under extreme circumstances. Great conclusion. Now you can go to tea party rallies to convince people that liberals are for theft and slavery. Most of them will buy it, too. I'm okay with neither ever. Period. I'm not okay with people dying because of greed, ever. Period.
|
I don't want to take your property Rob, I'm not going to go and try to steal it (you'd be waiting for me with a gun anyway  ) I don't like theft or slavery. In my country some forms of pseudo-slavery still existed when I was young (remains of huasipungo) . I was always repulsed by them and reacted against them. I'm in favor of everybody paying taxes for the benefit of everybody though. I'm not your enemy. I think different. Maybe wrong, but that's it.
If changes go along and the US gets rid of taxes and all forms of welfare, ok. I'd disagree and try to support change. But I don't have that power, so don't get so upset. It's so strange to see you this upset....
Edited by The T - September 27 2010 at 10:47
|
|
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:00 |
The T wrote:
Great tactic Robert. Remember when I said out of my ass that "that's why the tea party is so successful?" Now I guess that weak statement gains credibility. You have turned what's essentially a decent (if naive if you want, or unrealistic if you want) wish (healthcare for all) into an "evil" thing (slavery). Brilliant. By using a ridiculous unlikely scenario you've turned the discussion into one of slavery vs free will... Master tactician Robert... The opposite tactic worked for guys like Hitler.
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.
What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?
Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.
|
This really insults me. Sorry then. Especially since I put all this time explaining to you how the real world works. Fine. Things in bold, I want a direct answer.
If your sister were dying (and she was) how much of every individual's wealth in a given country would be permissible for the government to take over to save her life?
10%? Not enough.
30%?Not enough. How much is too much? Would you have everyone give $1 if it could save your sister's life? Would you have everyone give all their money if it could save your sister's life? Where do you draw the line, and why?
70%?Now you're too greedy...
All of it? If it came to it, would you have everyone in the country give all their money to save your sister? Why or why not?
In what part did I say "the country has to give money to save my sister"? Your sister benefited from something that other people had to pay for. relax Rob, I have expressed I'd like for a system where EVERYBODY puts a little bit for the benefit of EVERYBODY, not just my sister or yours. Taxes, yes. I've never said "people in the country has to give me money to save my sister". What do you think taxes are? They are monies taken from people in a given country, and in the case of your sister, paid out to provide her medical care. This is ridiculous. Taxes, like in the rest of the industrialized world, not just for my benefit but for everybody's. I pay taxes too, and I've no problem with that.
I made my case clear enough. If my child has a disease, and no one can save him or her, or no one is willing to, I will be the doctor. If I fail, it's on me. It's not on anyone else- period. If you call me a murderer for not being a slaver, then you are a fool. No. Maybe you'r the fool. When all this ridiculous scenario is said and done I'll be left with a moral obligation to compensate the doctor that was forced to work to save lives, but I'd also be left with those people living, alive to pay back, too. You'll be left with your principles intact and with people who never were forced to do anything, but with a dead child. I will not enslave someone to save someone else. I will beg and plead, but I would not put a gun to the doctor's head and make him work. If you wouldn't put a gun to the doctor's head, how would you force him? Would you have him fined? Jailed? Threaten his family?
All of this, as I said previously, is just your attempt to turn a wish that is at least in principle good (if flawed in reality) to an "evil" act. Nope. It is already evil. People love to call evil good and good evil (hey, that's in the Bible!) Taking money from people by force to give to others who did not earn it is theft.
It doesn't make me a killer. It makes me a father who did everything he could to save his child without stepping on the rights of anybody else. No- my children are not worth more than other people's rights.
Your position that under an extreme circumstance it's okay to enslave anybody is repulsive.Your position that property is above pretty much anything but freedom is repulsive to me. But we come from different worlds, you can't understand me and I can't understand you. No, I understand you. You are a collectivist who places appeals to emotion, ad hominem remarks, and blatantly untrue statements over reason.
In response to your larger response to me, here is all I must say:
1. You call theft taxes and say it's okay.I called taxes "theft"?? You've got one beer too many Rob, if I ever used that expression is in reference to libertarians' views... I DON'T think taxes are theft. Nor does more than half the entire planet. Remember I wasn't born here. I don't have those views. Only a (sadly large) group of Americans (and maybe some people outside) agree with that. No, you have it backwards. You don't call taxes theft. You call theft taxes. Please read more carefully.
I don't think they're theft because, one, we are ALL paying taxes; two, because our elected representatives, for bad or good, have created this tax system, hence in way WE have created them. Everybody doesn't pay taxes. If you make under a certain amount, you don't pay. So your first statement is false. My elected officials didn't create this system- people long since dead created this system, so your second statement is false. By the logic of your first statement, if everyone breaks into his neighbor's home and steals something, is it no longer theft because everyone is doing it? By the logic of your second statement, does this mean you are okay with the Iraq War because our elected officials created the system of how we go to war, hence in a way WE have created this?
Again, we'll never agree on this.
2. You consider slavery admissible under at least one (maybe more) scenarios.
3. You don't see the elimination of government programs the answer...then you are apparently okay with Ponzi scams as well as long as the government is performing them. You're drawing ridiculous conclusions. I don't like Ponzi schemes. I'm repulsed by greed, remember. I failed to see how social security and medicare are ponzi schemes with your examples (I saw a bit of that with the last two paragraphs of your real world explanation). That is inefficient, yes, maybe I could agree with that. Tell me something- why is it okay that Madoff goes to jail and the US government is in the clear for doing the same thing? And in broad daylight? And at all our expense? And through several programs? It's very simple- the government is running several blatant Ponzi schemes and has been for decades. Just because the government does it doesn't make it right. In fact, I'd say it makes it more wrong. You keep saying my words are ridiculous, yet you never show how. Show me how social security and Medicare are not a Ponzi Schemes.
Tell me- why is Bernie Madoff in jail for his scam and the US government okay continuing to do the very same thing? Calm down, relax. I wouldn't be ok with that. If that's the case, I'd put the responsibles in jail. The government is doing this. Only on a grander scale.
I didn't miss your point about not being able to take your life to the grave. Hence my wink. But I guess...aw f**k it.
You're okay with theft always and slavery under extreme circumstances. Great conclusion. Now you can go to tea party rallies to convince people that liberals are for theft and slavery. Most of them will buy it, too. I don't have to convince them of this. They already know it. Also, ad hominem statements do you no credit. I'm okay with neither ever. Period. I'm not okay with people dying because of greed, ever. Period. Then you'd best start by criticizing the US government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:16 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
Great tactic Robert. Remember when I said out of my ass that "that's why the tea party is so successful?" Now I guess that weak statement gains credibility. You have turned what's essentially a decent (if naive if you want, or unrealistic if you want) wish (healthcare for all) into an "evil" thing (slavery). Brilliant. By using a ridiculous unlikely scenario you've turned the discussion into one of slavery vs free will... Master tactician Robert... The opposite tactic worked for guys like Hitler.Come one we're on this stage now?
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
The stupid scenario used to "prove" that I'm for slavery and universal healthcare is slavery has, apparently, served its purpose, though I don't see what we get from it, other than knowing than under EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EXTREME circumstances some people would act in a certain way.
What would you do Rob if in the same hypothetical scenario your children were dying and these doctors had to be forced to cure them by your decision? Would you force them to act, thus becoming a slaverer? Would you act on your mighty high principles, thus killing your own children? Are you a murderer just because in this ridiculous scenario you would say yes or no? Is this a serious way to prove your high moral standing on issues? Are you trying to prove that you libertarians are on high moral ground just because in the most extreme circumstance you would act based on your imperturbable principles?
Anyway, I'm not running away from what I said. Luckily for all of us, this strange scenario will never occur.
|
This really insults me. Sorry then. Especially since I put all this time explaining to you how the real world works. Fine. Things in bold, I want a direct answer.
If your sister were dying (and she was) how much of every individual's wealth in a given country would be permissible for the government to take over to save her life?
10%? Not enough.
30%?Not enough. How much is too much? Would you have everyone give $1 if it could save your sister's life? Would you have everyone give all their money if it could save your sister's life? Where do you draw the line, and why? READ THE EMOTICON IN THE NEXT LINE. JOKE it was.
70%?Now you're too greedy...
All of it? If it came to it, would you have everyone in the country give all their money to save your sister? Why or why not?
In what part did I say "the country has to give money to save my sister"? Your sister benefited from something that other people had to pay for. My sister also paid. With her taxes. She pays a LOT of taxes in Germany. relax Rob, I have expressed I'd like for a system where EVERYBODY puts a little bit for the benefit of EVERYBODY, not just my sister or yours. Taxes, yes. I've never said "people in the country has to give me money to save my sister". What do you think taxes are? They are monies taken from people in a given country, and in the case of your sister, paid out to provide her medical care. Or anybody else. Not just her. This is ridiculous. Taxes, like in the rest of the industrialized world, not just for my benefit but for everybody's. I pay taxes too, and I've no problem with that.
I made my case clear enough. If my child has a disease, and no one can save him or her, or no one is willing to, I will be the doctor. If I fail, it's on me. It's not on anyone else- period. If you call me a murderer for not being a slaver, then you are a fool. No. Maybe you'r the fool. When all this ridiculous scenario is said and done I'll be left with a moral obligation to compensate the doctor that was forced to work to save lives, but I'd also be left with those people living, alive to pay back, too. You'll be left with your principles intact and with people who never were forced to do anything, but with a dead child. I will not enslave someone to save someone else. I will beg and plead, but I would not put a gun to the doctor's head and make him work. If you wouldn't put a gun to the doctor's head, how would you force him? Would you have him fined? Jailed? Threaten his family?The service of said doctor would be horrible anyway. I prefer this scenario not to happen, ever.
All of this, as I said previously, is just your attempt to turn a wish that is at least in principle good (if flawed in reality) to an "evil" act. Nope. It is already evil. People love to call evil good and good evil (hey, that's in the Bible!) Taking money from people by force to give to others who did not earn it is theft.
It doesn't make me a killer. It makes me a father who did everything he could to save his child without stepping on the rights of anybody else. No- my children are not worth more than other people's rights.
Your position that under an extreme circumstance it's okay to enslave anybody is repulsive.Your position that property is above pretty much anything but freedom is repulsive to me. But we come from different worlds, you can't understand me and I can't understand you. No, I understand you. You are a collectivist who places appeals to emotion, ad hominem remarks, and blatantly untrue statements over reason.The ad hominem part I don't get where from... I would concede that sometimes I fall for emotion. Hey, it's in my blood! I also have seen the worst side of poverty, a real poverty unknown to you. Maybe that colors my statements, I give you that.
In response to your larger response to me, here is all I must say:
1. You call theft taxes and say it's okay.I called taxes "theft"?? You've got one beer too many Rob, if I ever used that expression is in reference to libertarians' views... I DON'T think taxes are theft. Nor does more than half the entire planet. Remember I wasn't born here. I don't have those views. Only a (sadly large) group of Americans (and maybe some people outside) agree with that. No, you have it backwards. You don't call taxes theft. You call theft taxes. Please read more carefully.That's what you have determined then. I don't see it as theft.
I don't think they're theft because, one, we are ALL paying taxes; two, because our elected representatives, for bad or good, have created this tax system, hence in way WE have created them. Everybody doesn't pay taxes. If you make under a certain amount, you don't pay. So your first statement is false. EVERYBODY who makes a certain amount in a fair society where the worst-off are not left to rot. My elected officials didn't create this system- people long since dead created this system, so your second statement is false.And your current elected official have reinforced this. By the logic of your first statement, if everyone breaks into his neighbor's home and steals something, is it no longer theft because everyone is doing it? No that's theft. By the logic of your second statement, does this mean you are okay with the Iraq War because our elected officials created the system of how we go to war, hence in a way WE have created this?I'm not ok with it. Our elected officials also fail.
Again, we'll never agree on this.
2. You consider slavery admissible under at least one (maybe more) scenarios.
3. You don't see the elimination of government programs the answer...then you are apparently okay with Ponzi scams as well as long as the government is performing them. You're drawing ridiculous conclusions. I don't like Ponzi schemes. I'm repulsed by greed, remember. I failed to see how social security and medicare are ponzi schemes with your examples (I saw a bit of that with the last two paragraphs of your real world explanation). That is inefficient, yes, maybe I could agree with that. Tell me something- why is it okay that Madoff goes to jail and the US government is in the clear for doing the same thing? And in broad daylight? And at all our expense? And through several programs? It's very simple- the government is running several blatant Ponzi schemes and has been for decades. Just because the government does it doesn't make it right. In fact, I'd say it makes it more wrong. You keep saying my words are ridiculous, yet you never show how. Show me how social security and Medicare are not a Ponzi Schemes.
< ="utf-8">"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."
Ok I see what you try to get at. But:
< ="utf-8">In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual;
Then it's not. It maybe is a failed or flawed policy. No a Ponzi scheme. It might resemble one in some ways, I can give you that.
Tell me- why is Bernie Madoff in jail for his scam and the US government okay continuing to do the very same thing? Calm down, relax. I wouldn't be ok with that. If that's the case, I'd put the responsibles in jail. The government is doing this. Only on a grander scale.
I didn't miss your point about not being able to take your life to the grave. Hence my wink. But I guess...aw f**k it.
You're okay with theft always and slavery under extreme circumstances. Great conclusion. Now you can go to tea party rallies to convince people that liberals are for theft and slavery. Most of them will buy it, too. I don't have to convince them of this. They already know it. Also, ad hominem statements do you no credit. I'm okay with neither ever. Period. I'm not okay with people dying because of greed, ever. Period. Then you'd best start by criticizing the US government. I'm not saying the US government is perfect, never had. If you recall, this entire conversation is about universal healthcare. I support it. If there is a way to have it without the government being present, show me the way, I'll support it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:16 |
|
too many colors; dr
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:19 |
^ Groovy colours 
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:23 |
The T wrote:
I don't want to take your property Rob, I'm not going to go and try to steal it (you'd be waiting for me with a gun anyway ) I don't like theft or slavery. In my country some forms of pseudo-slavery still existed when I was young (remains of huasipungo) . I was always repulsed by them and reacted against them. I'm in favor of everybody paying taxes for the benefit of everybody though. I'm not your enemy. I think different. Maybe wrong, but that's it.
If changes go along and the US gets rid of taxes and all forms of welfare, ok. I'd disagree and try to support change. But I don't have that power, so don't get so upset. It's so strange to see you this upset....
|
You want the government to take some of my property to give to people who didn't earn it. Yes, that upsets me.
The government takes money from my generation to pay benefits to retirees now. When I am old, there will be no money to pay benefits to me. The numbers speak for themselves, and you fail to realize that. That upsets me.
The "everyone pays so everyone benefits" notion is a falsehood. Not everyone pays and not everyone will benefit. That upsets me.
The tax system penalizes wealth creation and subsidizes wealth loss. That upsets me.
The government is incredibly inept at managing wealth. It takes in almost 5000 billion dollars each fiscal year yet has a current national debt of around 13.5 trillion dollars. Yet people continue to trust an organization that wants to increase spending. That upsets me.
Our economy will collapse in my lifetime unless drastic change is made. That upsets me.
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:29 |
You're too upset Rob.
I understand you better now.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:30 |
|
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why taxes aren't theft. You keep saying why you think taxes are justified, but that's not the question I asked. You said they are not theft because 1) everyone does it and 2) our elected officials fail to discontinue them.
Then Rob pointed out that everyone committing a crime does not make it not a crime (to which you seemed to agree) and then you admitted that elected officials are in fact capable of committing injustice even though we voted for them. So I still have no idea where you idea that taxes are not theft comes from.
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:31 |
|
^ Emigrate to a country with a more efficient government that actually insures its citizens against hardship and sickness
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:34 |
The T wrote:
.The ad hominem part I don't get where from...
|
The T wrote:
Great
conclusion. Now you can go to tea party rallies to convince people that
liberals are for theft and slavery. Most of them will buy it, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:36 |
Taxes are not theft because everyone is paying them (when everyone is in fact not), yet if everyone robbed his neighbor, it is theft? 
Social security and Medicare are not Ponzi schemes (i.e., fraud) because it isn't intentional deception? 
That's some impressive redefining, right there. Kind of reminds me of how you insisted I was a murderer because I wouldn't force a doctor to save my dying child. 
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:38 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ Emigrate to a country with a more efficient government that actually insures its citizens against hardship and sickness
|
No thanks. I don't want other people to be forced to pay for any hardship or sickness that might befall me.
Edited by thellama73 - September 27 2010 at 11:39
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:45 |
thellama73 wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
^ Emigrate to a country with a more efficient government that actually insures its citizens against hardship and sickness
|
No thanks. I don't want other people to be forced to pay for any hardship or sickness that might befall me.
|
This post wasn't directed at you Thellama, just I wasn't quick enough to use ^ to point to Rob's list of things his country does that upsets him.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:46 |
|
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:50 |
thellama73 wrote:
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why taxes aren't theft. You keep saying why you think taxes are justified, but that's not the question I asked. You said they are not theft because 1) everyone does it and 2) our elected officials fail to discontinue them.
Then Rob pointed out that everyone committing a crime does not make it not a crime (to which you seemed to agree) and then you admitted that elected officials are in fact capable of committing injustice even though we voted for them. So I still have no idea where you idea that taxes are not theft comes from.
|
All property derives from mostly ill-gotten gains. Certainly in the past (and today) people acquired property and means of production by less than holy means. Taxes are only just to compensate for that.
Wealth cannot be acquired without the structure of a society. You don't acquire it by yourself. You acquire it thanks also to the structure and to other people's contributions. Society as a whole is then justified to collect a part of it in the benefit of everybody.
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:50 |
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 11:54 |
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why taxes aren't theft. You keep saying why you think taxes are justified, but that's not the question I asked. You said they are not theft because 1) everyone does it and 2) our elected officials fail to discontinue them.
Then Rob pointed out that everyone committing a crime does not make it not a crime (to which you seemed to agree) and then you admitted that elected officials are in fact capable of committing injustice even though we voted for them. So I still have no idea where you idea that taxes are not theft comes from.
|
All property derives from mostly ill-gotten gains. Certainly in the past (and today) people acquired property and means of production by less than holy means. Taxes are only just to compensate for that.
Wealth cannot be acquired without the structure of a society. You don't acquire it by yourself. You acquire it thanks also to the structure and to other people's contributions. Society as a whole is then justified to collect a part of it in the benefit of everybody.
|
 Also, funny how much of our money is squandered (like bailing out big businesses).
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 12:00 |
Epignosis wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why taxes aren't theft. You keep saying why you think taxes are justified, but that's not the question I asked. You said they are not theft because 1) everyone does it and 2) our elected officials fail to discontinue them.
Then Rob pointed out that everyone committing a crime does not make it not a crime (to which you seemed to agree) and then you admitted that elected officials are in fact capable of committing injustice even though we voted for them. So I still have no idea where you idea that taxes are not theft comes from.
|
All property derives from mostly ill-gotten gains. Certainly in the past (and today) people acquired property and means of production by less than holy means. Taxes are only just to compensate for that.
Wealth cannot be acquired without the structure of a society. You don't acquire it by yourself. You acquire it thanks also to the structure and to other people's contributions. Society as a whole is then justified to collect a part of it in the benefit of everybody.
|
?
The first reason is one I have read about but I'm still getting into it. the second one I've expressed it previously and is the basis for my entire view of taxes. I don't produce wealth alone. You don't either. You get rich or wealthy or even just well-off because you live in a structure that allows you to do so. You don't generate wealth by your own breathing, in a way of saying.
Also, funny how much of our money is squandered (like bailing out big businesses). that's terrible. Awfully terrible. Again, I never said I agree with bailing out wall street. I agree with UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE through taxation if necessary, or through a different way if it was shown to me.
|
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 12:03 |
All our differences fall on this: individualism vs collectivism. (I'm not saying one or the other is better right now).
I'll never agree with you Rob. Not on this at least. If that upsets you, fine. I know it's not me, you're upset at the government.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 27 2010 at 12:08 |
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I'm still waiting for that explanation of why taxes aren't theft. You keep saying why you think taxes are justified, but that's not the question I asked. You said they are not theft because 1) everyone does it and 2) our elected officials fail to discontinue them.
Then Rob pointed out that everyone committing a crime does not make it not a crime (to which you seemed to agree) and then you admitted that elected officials are in fact capable of committing injustice even though we voted for them. So I still have no idea where you idea that taxes are not theft comes from.
|
All property derives from mostly ill-gotten gains. Certainly in the past (and today) people acquired property and means of production by less than holy means. Taxes are only just to compensate for that.
Wealth cannot be acquired without the structure of a society. You don't acquire it by yourself. You acquire it thanks also to the structure and to other people's contributions. Society as a whole is then justified to collect a part of it in the benefit of everybody.
|
Again, you are explaining why taxes are justified, not why they are not theft. All you're saying is that it's okay to steal from a thief. If that's your view, say so. Don't say "stealing from a dishonest person is not stealing."
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Do you support universal healthcare?