Democracy and liberty

Post Reply New Topic

What makes you think welfare is to encourage bad parenting? Not being able to make enough money to get buy and provide for your children regardless of if you work full time is not 'bad parenting' that's parents in a bad situation trying to provide for their kids, who need a little bit of help from the government that is supposed to support its people.

People in the U.S can leave if they don't think they should have to pay taxes.

Also I don't know who exactly would determine it, probably the branch of government that deals with taxes.

Also taxation is not the illegal taking of someone elses property, how do you think society would function with no taxes?

Good god, now you're claiming capitalism solves violence...we're barely 18 years past the bloodiest century in human history (most of the bloodshed from capitalist nations btw), and you're claiming it creates peace.

The number one job of a parent is to provide for their child when they fail to do this they are bad parent.

So people would have to undergo a invasive and permanant medical procedure to be able to qualify for any financial or food benefits at any point in their life? That sounds pretty authoritarian. But who would decide which people make enough money to have children and which ones don't? And what happens to parents and children from families that were financially stable but faced some financial hardship later down the road due to a parent maybe getting injured, layed off/fired and have thus become poor?

The US has citizen based taxation unlike every other country apart from Eritrea which cannot even enforce it.

I am not saying society shouldn't have taxation, I am saying any society based on taking money from productive people and giving it to non productive people will end up creating more non productive people and fewer productive people and then collapse.

Nope the vast majority of those wars and communism to were a reaction to previous evils of the aristocracy. Kings and Aristocrats got their wealth by violence, they seized lands and forced people to pay taxes. Capitalism allows people to create wealth through non violent methods.

Regardless of if barriers they didn't create are getting in the way of them doing so? For instance as I've mentioned before even people working full time are struggling to afford bills and living expenses. If the parents are working they should be able to provide for a child if they want one...if employers don't pay enough and there isn't an endless availability of better jobs with better pay what more are these parents supposed to do other then apply for a little bit of help to get by...till they can reach a more stable position again.

I would say after maybe 1 year of claiming benefits if someone wanted more free money then they would have to volunteer to get sterilised. Its not authoritarian because no one is forcing them.

If they cannot afford to have children and they are working then their skill set must be low, so why create more low skilled people? Especially when low skilled people are more likely to be replaced by machines.

WWII had nothing to do with anything you're talking about and it accounted for 42% of all war related death in the last century. It was a fight for resources, from the German/Japanese perspective (the two nations casting the first stone), and there's nothing more capitalistic than fighting for resources.

Edit: if the 20th century was the peace capitalism provides, count me out.

Fighting to steal resources is not capitalism, capitalism is property rights theft violates that.

Japan was an imperial state.

WW2 was a response to WW1. WW1 was started with the assignation of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, there were already growing tensions between the European superpowers all being ran by their aristocracies.

Who says that is what society should be based on? I am not suggesting we take all the money from productive people and give it to unproductive people...just that everyone including the very wealthy pays their fair share in taxes, to provide support for the infrastructure and a social safety network.

Also its possible to be non-productive for a time and then to become more productive. For instance Vocational Rehab is a tax funded program here that helps disabled people get back to work or to start working I am going through that program again because my last job did not work out. My goal is to eventually get off of SSI(disability income) entirely, but without programs to help disabled people find employment I think it would be pretty hopeless. But point is there are programs with the goal to help people become more productive so they don't need to depend on welfare programs.

Trumps plan is give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest, and then cut the social safety network and things that help people to make up for the difference created by giving such unreasonable tax breaks to the wealthy. How does that improve anything...sure looks to me like screwing over less fortunate people to help very rich individuals?

If it helps people or is good for the environment you can guarantee Trump wants to cut funds for it or undo it.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 05 Apr 2018, 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WWII was not a response to WWI, it was a response to the dire conditions of Germany from the Wiemar republic (capitalism was great for the Wiemar Republic wasn't it?), and the Japanese need for raw resources to enter the industrial world. And yes, the Japanese had an emperor, an emperor with very little power compared to the military junta surrounding him, and in U.S. history books that's what they're classified: a military junta. But guess what, they were also capitalists, lol, perhaps you've heard of Honda, or Mitsubishi, or any other number of free market companies from Japan that predate WWII.

No one says it is. Its an inevitability of a system that rewards unproductive people for having children they cannot afford through welfare at the expense of productive people via taxation. Evolution works on the macro scale over time.

It's not a 'reward' to have to go apply for food assistance or help with heating and electricity for instance. Its a little bit of help to ensure you and/or your kids don't freeze to death in the winter or starve to death. I mean you're talking like these people are just handed thousands of dollars 'stolen' from the wealthy to do what they please with.

I mean how is it at your expense if some tax money goes to programs to help the poor afford food or bills? Does it really have a detrimental effect on you personally if some poor family gets some government food funds and some help with their heat bill for instance? Do you think it actually has a detrimental effect on a wealthy person staying in their 'summer home' on the beach for instance.. does it really cause them harm, that some of their tax dollars might have went to feed a hungry family.

Also wealthy and productive aren't the same thing, you seem to keep mixing up the two. Lots of people are born into wealth...so why is it someone born into wealth who's never faced poverty is seen to be deserving of the utmost respect, but someone born into poverty is scorned because they can't dig themselves out of it with the snap of a finger.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 05 Apr 2018, 3:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.