| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
jimmy_row 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
 Posted: September 21 2008 at 13:15 |
 The Doctor wrote:
jimmy_row wrote:
Hey guys...just an idea. How about we have a debate...or better yet, a discussion, and we use actual points of reference alongside our experiences but without hiding behind anger or sarcasm? |
Where's the fun in that?  |
hahaha point taken: what would an argument be without emotion?
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
 |
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 13:26 |
|
I think the best thing that could happen to the American political system is to have an option "none of the above". I bet he'd win every election. At least until the major parties got their acts together.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 14:10 |
^ Pretty soon, the "Indifferent Party" (soon to be called simply the "indies") would seize control, and proceed to do an inadequate job. 
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 14:15 |
jimmy_row wrote:
^ Pretty soon, the "Indifferent Party" (soon to be called simply the "indies") would seize control, and proceed to do an inadequate job. |
After 8 years of Bush, I would love to have a president who merely did an inadequate job.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 14:19 |
Finnforest wrote:
Well first I don't consider it theft to band Americans together to support basic human care at the end of life, but rather a social contract deserving of "threatening the freedom" of the hard core Libs. We do it as a people to make sure everyone can get access to the help in a dignified manner, rather than perhaps having to suck up to some church to get the kind of community charity that the conservatives favor. This kind of hands off approach existed in the distant past, when poor americans died alone or on "poor farms". We can do better than than, without advocating full socialism, by making sure an older person can remain in their home and get health care at the end of life, yes, backed by our country as a whole, not on individual charities with their own shortcomings and agendas. You are correct to point out that government can be inefficient and I applaud those who work to make us better on that front. But you can start with corporate welfare, the military, and 1000 other things before you get to cutting off help for our most vulnerable.
|
Well thats fine that other things should be cut off first, but it doesn't change the fact that social welfare is just as bad as corporate welfare, though of course the former is easier to support because it has the face of your grandmom attached to it.
You use alot of nice words about banding Americans together, but how can you call it anything besides theft when an entity takes money from you through force?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 14:28 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
Well first I don't consider it theft to band Americans together to support basic human care at the end of life, but rather a social contract deserving of "threatening the freedom" of the hard core Libs. We do it as a people to make sure everyone can get access to the help in a dignified manner, rather than perhaps having to suck up to some church to get the kind of community charity that the conservatives favor. This kind of hands off approach existed in the distant past, when poor americans died alone or on "poor farms". We can do better than than, without advocating full socialism, by making sure an older person can remain in their home and get health care at the end of life, yes, backed by our country as a whole, not on individual charities with their own shortcomings and agendas. You are correct to point out that government can be inefficient and I applaud those who work to make us better on that front. But you can start with corporate welfare, the military, and 1000 other things before you get to cutting off help for our most vulnerable.
|
Well thats fine that other things should be cut off first, but it doesn't change the fact that social welfare is just as bad as corporate welfare, though of course the former is easier to support because it has the face of your grandmom attached to it.
You use alot of nice words about banding Americans together, but how can you call it anything besides theft when an entity takes money from you through force? |
I can call them taxes and so, I think, can most everyone.
The reason taxes are not theft, is that being a citizen of a country, any country, involves a social contract between you and all other members of that society. That contract involves such things as having a government and laws which all members of that society are supposed to abide by. In order to have government and laws, each member of society must contribute to the upkeep of that government and its laws. One of the primary functions of the social contract and, in turn, of government, is to protect all members of society, physically, in terms of intangible rights, and yes, also economically. You may not have signed said contract, but by participating in society you have agreed to abide by the rules of that contract. If I agree to pay you $100 to paint my house, then you paint my house, and then demand I pay you $100, would you call that theft? I think not.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Hibernation
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 14:37 |
what if he did an "inadequate" job of painting? 
Edited by jimmy_row - September 21 2008 at 14:38
|
|
Signature Writers Guild on strike
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 21 2008 at 20:02 |
The Doctor wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Finnforest wrote:
Well first I don't consider it theft to band Americans together to support basic human care at the end of life, but rather a social contract deserving of "threatening the freedom" of the hard core Libs. We do it as a people to make sure everyone can get access to the help in a dignified manner, rather than perhaps having to suck up to some church to get the kind of community charity that the conservatives favor. This kind of hands off approach existed in the distant past, when poor americans died alone or on "poor farms". We can do better than than, without advocating full socialism, by making sure an older person can remain in their home and get health care at the end of life, yes, backed by our country as a whole, not on individual charities with their own shortcomings and agendas. You are correct to point out that government can be inefficient and I applaud those who work to make us better on that front. But you can start with corporate welfare, the military, and 1000 other things before you get to cutting off help for our most vulnerable. |
Well thats fine that other things should be cut off first, but it doesn't change the fact that social welfare is just as bad as corporate welfare, though of course the former is easier to support because it has the face of your grandmom attached to it. You use alot of nice words about banding Americans together, but how can you call it anything besides theft when an entity takes money from you through force? |
I can call them taxes and so, I think, can most everyone.
The reason taxes are not theft, is that being a citizen of a country, any country, involves a social contract between you and all other members of that society. That contract involves such things as having a government and laws which all members of that society are supposed to abide by. In order to have government and laws, each member of society must contribute to the upkeep of that government and its laws. One of the primary functions of the social contract and, in turn, of government, is to protect all members of society, physically, in terms of intangible rights, and yes, also economically. You may not have signed said contract, but by participating in society you have agreed to abide by the rules of that contract. If I agree to pay you $100 to paint my house, then you paint my house, and then demand I pay you $100, would you call that theft? I think not. |
Well there's the source of our disagreement. We clearly have a different conception of the social contract. Though I think its rather clear from the intentions of our founders that our government was not constructed to provide the protection you talk about.
I have to point out that your analogy is incredibly dissimilar to the situation at hand. A better analogy would be I see a man starving on the street so I put a gun to your head and take two dollars from you so that I may feed him.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - September 22 2008 at 17:10
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: September 22 2008 at 23:35 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Well there's the source of our disagreement. We clearly have a different conception of the social contract. Though I think its rather clear from the intentions of our founders that our government was not constructed to provide the protection you talk about.
|
As a point of argument...
Our founding fathers also had slaves, lived between the 18th and 19th century, and to an extent were terrorists.
|
|
keiser willhelm
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
|
Posted: September 22 2008 at 23:44 |
BroSpence wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Well there's the source of our disagreement. We clearly have a different conception of the social contract. Though I think its rather clear from the intentions of our founders that our government was not constructed to provide the protection you talk about.
|
As a point of argument...
Our founding fathers also had slaves, lived between the 18th and 19th century, and to an extent were terrorists. |
i prefer the term "insurgents" or "freedom fighters"
|
|
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: September 25 2008 at 01:28 |
The Doctor wrote:
I think the best thing that could happen to the American political system is to have an option "none of the above". I bet he'd win every election. At least until the major parties got their acts together. |
Nader is a proponent of the "no confidence" vote option.
Edited by BroSpence - September 25 2008 at 01:29
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
McKinney, Barr, Nader