Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

My Beef with "Social Responsibility"

Page 4 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

24 May 2012, 10:23 am

edgewaters wrote:
No, it infers that taxation is based on who the "collective" likes or dislikes.

It doesn't do that either. Perhaps you should try reading the post by Sweetleaf that I was replying to.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 10:44 am

Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Ok but paying taxes is not the same thing as someone coming and stealing your money you pay taxes since you are a citizen who has money...once that money is taken, its not 'YOUR' money its the governments money to use for the public. If you were the kid constantly screaming 'mine' and never sharing then I imagine the other kids didn't find you very friendly or pleasant to be around, would we want the tax money in the hand of such a child?

I don't believe "you don't deserve your hard-earned private property because the collective doesn't like you" to be a very convincing argument.


Neither do I, and I do not feel I indicated that I do...what I was getting at is if we had people who are totally opposed to taxes being used to help the public in charge of what the taxes are used for things would likely fall apart. Maybe it was a bad analogy, but that was the point also I don't think Ruven is having to give up the majority of his pay check to taxes nor do I think those on welfare are doing any harm to him or any other taxpayers...If people feel they are being taxed too much they should take that up with the government not sit around complaining about how parasitic those financially struggling are. But that is just my personal opinion and people have every right to sit around and complain about whatever they want, I just don't know how much good it does.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 10:55 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Neither do I, and I do not feel I indicated that I do...what I was getting at is if we had people who are totally opposed to taxes being used to help the public in charge of what the taxes are used for things would likely fall apart. Maybe it was a bad analogy, but that was the point also I don't think Ruven is having to give up the majority of his pay check to taxes nor do I think those on welfare are doing any harm to him or any other taxpayers...If people feel they are being taxed too much they should take that up with the government not sit around complaining about how parasitic those financially struggling are. But that is just my personal opinion and people have every right to sit around and complain about whatever they want, I just don't know how much good it does.


Are you implying that I should be happy that they only stole 30 percent of what is mine, rather than 51 percent or greater? Whoopie!

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 11:04 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Neither do I, and I do not feel I indicated that I do...what I was getting at is if we had people who are totally opposed to taxes being used to help the public in charge of what the taxes are used for things would likely fall apart. Maybe it was a bad analogy, but that was the point also I don't think Ruven is having to give up the majority of his pay check to taxes nor do I think those on welfare are doing any harm to him or any other taxpayers...If people feel they are being taxed too much they should take that up with the government not sit around complaining about how parasitic those financially struggling are. But that is just my personal opinion and people have every right to sit around and complain about whatever they want, I just don't know how much good it does.


Are you implying that I should be happy that they only stole 30 percent of what is mine, rather than 51 percent or greater? Whoopie!

ruveyn


No though I don't see what is so bad about having money to live on, I would imagine that is a good thing in your life. But as I said if you are unhappy with the tax rate take it up with the government....start a petition or something. Personally I think that sounds like a bit high for them to take out of your income but your frustration would do better directed at the 'government' who makes the laws and regulates the taxes, rather then at the people who need the social safety network taxes go to help provide.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 11:05 am

Burzum wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
No, it infers that taxation is based on who the "collective" likes or dislikes.

It doesn't do that either. Perhaps you should try reading the post by Sweetleaf that I was replying to.


I did, that's how I knew it was a strawman to characterize it as some sort of "collective" coming to take your things because they don't like you (which is precisely what you said).

The inference is pretty clear. "Because" points to a cause. You said taxation (presumably) is seen as permissable "because the collective doesn't like you". Cause = not being liked; that's not even an inference, that's just plainly stated. The only inference involved is whether you were talking about taxation or not. Were you talking about something else? In context with Sweet's post it certainly looks like taxation was the issue.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 11:10 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Have you not advised this before your self?......knuckle under or get out if you don't like it, cause it sounds familiar. I do apologize if I am confusing you from someone but if I remember right I heard the same from you when I was bringing up some issues I have with the government. So if you were the one who made that point why the disagreement with it now?


I oppose the initiation of force.

What I have written goes like this: If you don't like the country you are in, then leave it. That is not a response to armed force but a way of reconciling a dislike.

The government has the guns. I am unarmed. So I act accordingly. But I do not call it a Good Thing. It isn't.

The need for government is a response to the evil that humans do. If humans were good we would not need government.

ruveyn


Considering past discussions on this forum...I'd think you would be well aware of the fact that I hardly see this government as a good thing. However I direct that frusteration at the government and the lobbyists/and very high up wealthy who pay them off. Though let me be clear wealthy people are not the problem......'some' wealthy people contribute to the problems in this system. Also my frustration is not with taxation, though I'd be frustrated with any policies to bar certain segments of the population from help.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 24 May 2012, 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

ZakFiend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 547

24 May 2012, 11:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Neither do I, and I do not feel I indicated that I do...what I was getting at is if we had people who are totally opposed to taxes being used to help the public in charge of what the taxes are used for things would likely fall apart. Maybe it was a bad analogy, but that was the point also I don't think Ruven is having to give up the majority of his pay check to taxes nor do I think those on welfare are doing any harm to him or any other taxpayers...If people feel they are being taxed too much they should take that up with the government not sit around complaining about how parasitic those financially struggling are. But that is just my personal opinion and people have every right to sit around and complain about whatever they want, I just don't know how much good it does.


Are you implying that I should be happy that they only stole 30 percent of what is mine, rather than 51 percent or greater? Whoopie!

ruveyn


The fact that you characterize it as stealing is a proof that you really don't understand that MONEY and PROPERTY are flawed institutions backed by guns. The idea that you are an 'individual' and you owe no one nothing is garbage.

You've swallowed that libertarian nonsense that if we just got rid of the government 'everything would be ok' but you're wrong, their has never been a society without need for government. All trade requires someone to enforce the soundness of money and contracts. Not to mention governments used force to CREATE MARKETS to begin with if you know anything about history at all. The enclosure movements forcibly removing peasants from their lands, etc. Money and the legal principles, precepts and laws of a given society are all inherently flawed.

The elites throughout history have always needed governments to PROTECT THEIR MARKETS AND PROPERTY. Because they know markets aren't sustainable without force.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 11:15 am

Burzum wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
No, it infers that taxation is based on who the "collective" likes or dislikes.

It doesn't do that either. Perhaps you should try reading the post by Sweetleaf that I was replying to.


Trouble is I never attempted to imply such a thing in the first place.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

24 May 2012, 11:29 am

ZakFiend wrote:


The fact that you characterize it as stealing is a proof that you really don't understand that MONEY and PROPERTY are flawed institutions backed by guns. The idea that you are an 'individual' and you owe no one nothing is garbage.

You've swallowed that libertarian nonsense that if we just got rid of the government 'everything would be ok' but you're wrong, their has never been a society without need for government. All trade requires someone to enforce the soundness of money and contracts. Not to mention governments used force to CREATE MARKETS to begin with if you know anything about history at all. The enclosure movements forcibly removing peasants from their lands, etc. Money and the legal principles, precepts and laws of a given society are all inherently flawed.

The elites throughout history have always needed governments to PROTECT THEIR MARKETS AND PROPERTY. Because they know markets aren't sustainable without force.[/quote]

QFT

i have seen hardcore criminals with a better disposition towards society


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 11:41 am

Oodain wrote:
ZakFiend wrote:


The fact that you characterize it as stealing is a proof that you really don't understand that MONEY and PROPERTY are flawed institutions backed by guns. The idea that you are an 'individual' and you owe no one nothing is garbage.



Your life and your time on earth. Who owns them? You do. Not society. Not God. Not the People.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 11:48 am

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
ZakFiend wrote:


The fact that you characterize it as stealing is a proof that you really don't understand that MONEY and PROPERTY are flawed institutions backed by guns. The idea that you are an 'individual' and you owe no one nothing is garbage.



Your life and your time on earth. Who owns them? You do. Not society. Not God. Not the People.

ruveyn


Well I guess some people are able to look past themselves and also care some about other people, as well as the general well-being of the population...which is good because people like that allow for a social safety network to exist in the first place.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 11:52 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Well I guess some people are able to look past themselves and also care some about other people, as well as the general well-being of the population...which is good because people like that allow for a social safety network to exist in the first place.


I care about (some) others. Why? Because it suits me. Because it suits ME. Got it?

What I do for others is based on my preferences, not on some a priori duty that I owe to Mankind.

ruveyn



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 11:57 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Well I guess some people are able to look past themselves and also care some about other people, as well as the general well-being of the population...which is good because people like that allow for a social safety network to exist in the first place.


I care about (some) others. Why? Because it suits me. Because it suits ME. Got it?

What I do for others is based on my preferences, not on some a priori duty that I owe to Mankind.

ruveyn


Well ... its a good thing we don't all think like that, or in 30 years we'd be scratching ourselves underneath our loincloths made from animal skins, in a cave somewhere, blaming the Chinese. Any advanced civilization does demand a certain level of duty from its citizens in order to function and survive.



Last edited by edgewaters on 24 May 2012, 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 May 2012, 11:57 am

ruveyn wrote:
marshall wrote:
I suppose you were the little kid that hoarded all the toys for the entire play period and screamed like a bloody banshee when told you had to share and give others time as well. I see bitching about paying taxes as equally childish.


Actually not. I was the little kids who brought his own toys and made it plain My Toys are Mine and Your Toys are Yours.

I have not the right to sequester other people's property and I never believed that I did even when young.

I grew up believing what is Mine is Mine, what is Yours is Yours and what is His is His.

ruveyn


What if you didn't have your own toys? Then what is your definition of "Mine"? Is it what you claim because you happened to get to the toy bin first? I find the notion of a world that operates on that kind of principle alone pretty sad and childish.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 11:59 am

marshall wrote:
What if you didn't have your own toys? Then what is your definition of "Mine"? Is it what you claim because you happened to get to the toy bin first? I find the notion of a world that operates on that kind of principle alone pretty sad.


And what if my grand-mother had balls. Would she be my grandfather?

I brought my own toys to school. I take private property very seriously. Do you?

What is Mine is Mine, what is Yours is Yours, and what is His is His.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 12:06 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Well I guess some people are able to look past themselves and also care some about other people, as well as the general well-being of the population...which is good because people like that allow for a social safety network to exist in the first place.


I care about (some) others. Why? Because it suits me. Because it suits ME. Got it?

As if that wasn't clear already :roll:

What I do for others is based on my preferences, not on some a priori duty that I owe to Mankind.

ruveyn


Also what I do for others is based on.....treat others how you want to be treated, there is no reason I should not help someone if its within my ability to do so. Its not about any prior duty that I owe to mankind, its about things work better when people treat each other well and work together. Together we stand, divided we fall sort of thing, to some that's just stupid hippie talk but to each their own.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.