Things you dislike about your country.
I don't think so. It would be a matter of doing it yourself or paying someone else to do it, which ever is more efficient and suits the person's preferences. If not being able to make that choice is what bothers you then yeah, I agree. It would be inefficient for our bureaucracy to keep track of those who pay police taxes and those who don't, so they just make everyone do it, and I don't see a way around that.
Are you saying that it is ok to resort to theft because, it would be too difficult to keep track of who actually paid? Keep your receipt, that way you don't have to depend on someone else's bookkeeping ability, or lack thereof. Either way, "it's too hard not to" is hardly an excuse for violating the rights of another.
So we agree on something
Yeah, I'm probably doing that as well. I enjoy civil and stimulating discussions, especially since I got past the idea that there was always a single truth and a single, right point of view, that either them or me would reach eventually.
There is a single truth, but it cannot be understood from a single point of view. And, no, no one convinces any one else of anything online.
If you feel your rights are being violated why don't you take that up with the government? seriously blaming it on those in poverty for using programs availible to help them from the government is a terrible approach.
I'm not blaming the poor, why do you keep saying that?
Its kind of the impression I got from the following:
The context. You have dropped it.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
I hate that those with are valued more than those without.
I hate that when the have nots complain about my second point, they are accused of class envy.
I hate that science is seen as the enemy.
I hate that ignorance is considered a virtue.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.....
The true essence of liberalism underneath all the feelgoood rhetoric....
And I'm actually supposed to love those things? What am I saying? Of course you think I should!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So where's all this tolerance you all are always accusing us of not having?
I'm not seeing much of that in "I hate" over and over...
So it should read
I love that those with are valued more than those without.
I love that when the have nots complain about my second point, they are accused of class envy.
I love that science is seen as the enemy.
I love that ignorance is considered a virtue.
there is that a little kinder on your eyes.
I knew you'd catch on.
I remember when I was 15, I fancied myself a right wing republican for a while....ha ha, now look at me, as you can see that didn't last.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Racism, Ignorance narrowmindedness and Bible thumpers.
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
Differences of opinion in the topic at hand would stem from different answers to this question, and so far I've found that if someone firmly believes in one of them, there is no way to convince him otherwise, and no point trying.
Well then you're gonna love my answer.
However, there is also a certain degree to which each of us is responsible for our own happiness. Attitude, a positive outlook, being willing to focus on one's strengths and what one can do rather than on one's limitations and blame-casting are important to personal happiness. Also making sound decisions and choices, spending time with people who share some basic values rather than just going along with the crowd, and so forth.
There's a lot a person, even without financial means, can do to further their own happiness. But it's sure good to have less stress in the way of basic expenses and health needs.
duncvis
Veteran
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,642
Location: The valleys of green and grey
^
^
excellent post.
_________________
I'm usually smarter than this.
www.last.fm/user/nursethescreams <<my last.fm thingy
FOR THE HORDE!
We all have the right to pursue our own happiness, but that must be balanced with the happiness of others. I guess I believe that we should pursue the most happiness for the most people, but allowing people to pursue their own happiness (within reason--sorry Ayn Rand) is part of how this is achieved.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
You believe that person A should be taxed to benefit person B against the will of A. Whoever does the taxing is a tyrant and he make B an accomplice.
If a private party did that you would be calling the police. If the government does that you are overflowing with fulsome praise.
Taking from A to give to B against the will of A is theft simpliciter (I seem to remember a Commandment that pertains here). Somehow you are willing to overlook this if the theft is legal.
ruveyn
I've never like the whole "taxation is theft" simply for semantic reasons. Theft is when you take someone's property illegally. The government defines what is legal and what is not, so if it makes taxation legal then it can't really be theft. After all, property is not a fundamental concept--it is defined by the powers running society (ie: government) and as such that definition can be changed at will. That says nothing about whether or not taxation is morally right but I don't think that such a charged word is an accurate one in this situation.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
You believe that person A should be taxed to benefit person B against the will of A. Whoever does the taxing is a tyrant and he make B an accomplice.
If a private party did that you would be calling the police. If the government does that you are overflowing with fulsome praise.
Taking from A to give to B against the will of A is theft simpliciter (I seem to remember a Commandment that pertains here). Somehow you are willing to overlook this if the theft is legal.
ruveyn
I've never like the whole "taxation is theft" simply for semantic reasons. Theft is when you take someone's property illegally. The government defines what is legal and what is not, so if it makes taxation legal then it can't really be theft. After all, property is not a fundamental concept--it is defined by the powers running society (ie: government) and as such that definition can be changed at will. That says nothing about whether or not taxation is morally right but I don't think that such a charged word is an accurate one in this situation.
Again, it's not about being taxed but how the money is managed (read that mismanaged) and where it is spent.
The government can't do anything efficiently. The things that they do that appear efficient have several bureaucratic whorehouses backing them up.
Why do you think we're up to our necks in debt?
And, yes, we terrible conservatives do believe that social programs should be limited in scope and budget due to role of government issues.
Part of what is considered "conservative" economic policy is to maintain a pool of reserve labor, also known as "unemployed". If part of the plan is to have a certain amount of unemployed people available, it seems the only considerate thing is to ensure they are able to still have a good existence. That is not necessarily a criticism of this sort of economics itself, but the politics that interfere, driving some people into the dirt
Ultimately my opinion is that politicians should definitely think about economics, but economists should not let politics factor into their own decisions. The USSR died of this, though in a different way. To be a Communist economist meant definite political persuasions. In this way political paradigm interfered with the reality of economics. I think the same can be said for a lot of right leaning economists as well
_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
The government can't do anything efficiently. The things that they do that appear efficient have several bureaucratic whorehouses backing them up.
Why do you think we're up to our necks in debt?
And, yes, we terrible conservatives do believe that social programs should be limited in scope and budget due to role of government issues.
We're talking about totally different issues here. You're talking about whether or not it makes sense to have extensive government spending (a topic which I will, with great difficulty, refrain from commenting on for the moment). I'm talking about the concept of taxation and my problems with the libertarian interpretation of it.
Before there were ever laws there was theft. Taking that which someone else grew, gathered or made by force or by threat. The laws against theft followed the act of theft. Theft came first. Then the laws against theft. Legalizing theft does not change its nature. It is the forced transfer of assets either by outright violence and taking or by threat of such. It is the involuntary transfer of assets, possessions and in the abstract the absconding of opportunity. Legalizing nastiness does not make nastiness any less nasty for the victim.
ruveyn
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Before there were ever laws there was theft. Taking that which someone else grew, gathered or made by force or by threat. The laws against theft followed the act of theft. Theft came first. Then the laws against theft. Legalizing theft does not change its nature. It is the forced transfer of assets either by outright violence and taking or by threat of such. It is the involuntary transfer of assets, possessions and in the abstract the absconding of opportunity. Legalizing nastiness does not make nastiness any less nasty for the victim.
ruveyn
I understand your point but I guess my way of thinking of it is just different from yours. As I said, it has no impact whatsoever on the moral discussion, I just find the statement misleading in terms of my way of thinking of things.
BTW, talk of extermination camps only exites me.
Well why can't they use the money that's left over from the social safety network...to do that, and then still help the citizens in need of help? the idea of helping people must just really irritate you or something. Anyways as if its a suprise that would 'excite' you...sure it would that is until they finally come for you.
How 'bout we get our house financially squared away then if there's money in the budget we'll have our social safety net. Note that I said safety net and not a hammock to lounge on for generations....
Umm because bad thing happens when the government just says 'screw you' to the poor and decides to ignore the citizens being in poverty. Most people don't just lay down and die, but if it comes to that I guess I will get to see what anarchy looks like.
It's only anarchy if the gov't stands aside and lets the thieves plunder.
Why do you believe that the poor can only be taken care of by the gov't?
Well, if people have no land to live off of and no way to survive and society is unwilling to do anything about this they will have no choice but to disregard your property rights. This happened during the Irish potato famine. The tenants literally had nowhere to go when their absentee English landlords evicted them. One million starved to death. If that is your vision of morality and how human beings should treat other human beings then I don't know what to say to you. Your philosophy is simply infantile. If human beings really are too asinine and selfish to learn how to treat others with dignity and at least make some effort to coexist maybe we should consider not reproducing. Unless you are somehow content with a world going completely to hell.
Before there were ever laws there was theft. Taking that which someone else grew, gathered or made by force or by threat. The laws against theft followed the act of theft. Theft came first. Then the laws against theft. Legalizing theft does not change its nature. It is the forced transfer of assets either by outright violence and taking or by threat of such. It is the involuntary transfer of assets, possessions and in the abstract the absconding of opportunity. Legalizing nastiness does not make nastiness any less nasty for the victim.
ruveyn
That is very well written. Taxpayers are victims, taxes are theft, and laws are legalized nastiness. You could get a job writing political speeches.
If there were no taxes, then there would be no way of paying police, and no way of protecting you from illegal thieves. So, you might as well pony up, to avoid being imprisoned yourself, and to pay for protection from illegal thieves. Either that or stock up on guns and ammunition.

