Page 4 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,172
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 1:56 am

Spiderpig wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The huge benefits of free 5-18 education are dismissed because raising funds via blanket taxes is inherently evil, even if the taxation does not unduly burden any individual and provides huge benefits to nearly every individual.


There's no "due" amount of theft other than zero. Those huge benefits aren't going to those robbed to pay for them, which have a natural right to give their own children an even more privileged education instead of paying to give a chance to someone else's children, whom they don't need to give a damn about. They shouldn't even be forced to pay to save those children from starvation, so much less to save them from illiteracy.

It is irresponsible to have children you can't afford to raise. It may not be the child's fault, but neither is it anyone else's, so they shouldn't have to pay a cent unless they freely chose to.


It's a matter of morality, and caring for those in need. Especially since we Americans keep telling ourselves we're a Christian nation, so at least we should act like it and care for the needy.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Spiderpig
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,893

05 Aug 2015, 2:16 am

Not everyone is a Christian, nor can you force everyone to care about others if they don't. Trying to will only fuel hatred. What about caring for those robbed by the government?


_________________
The red lake has been forgotten. A dust devil stuns you long enough to shroud forever those last shards of wisdom. The breeze rocking this forlorn wasteland whispers in your ears, “Não resta mais que uma sombra”.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,172
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 2:23 am

Spiderpig wrote:
Not everyone is a Christian, nor can you force everyone to care about others if they don't. Trying to will only fuel hatred. What about caring for those robbed by the government?


Oh, boo hoo. I'm so concerned about people who never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from, or about the welfare of their children, or where they'll sleep that night.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

05 Aug 2015, 2:37 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

If that means keeping people from being lynched, or forced to use substandard bathrooms or schools just simply for being part of an unpopular minority, then absolutely, yes, it's more than okay.


If we don't s**t on someone's rights, people will be lynched?

Sorry, I come here for rational discussion and debate. Let me know when you're ready to give that a go.


I think you understand I meant how the federal government had to step in to protect African Americans from white terrorist groups like the Klan.


Actually, no. Contextually that was far from clear.


Sure it is, just try.


I'm glad you agree.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,172
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 3:53 am

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

If that means keeping people from being lynched, or forced to use substandard bathrooms or schools just simply for being part of an unpopular minority, then absolutely, yes, it's more than okay.


If we don't s**t on someone's rights, people will be lynched?

Sorry, I come here for rational discussion and debate. Let me know when you're ready to give that a go.


I think you understand I meant how the federal government had to step in to protect African Americans from white terrorist groups like the Klan.


Actually, no. Contextually that was far from clear.


Sure it is, just try.


I'm glad you agree.


You clearly don't understand, because I didn't agree. And what is there to understand? White hate groups like the KKK, and just lynch mobs composed of inbred whites, used to make it a regular habit of lynching African Americans. That only stopped because the federal government stepped in and used the force of law to prosecute and convict the offenders. Without government coercion, white racists would have had no reason to stop.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,427
Location: Reading, England

05 Aug 2015, 10:10 am

Spiderpig wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The huge benefits of free 5-18 education are dismissed because raising funds via blanket taxes is inherently evil, even if the taxation does not unduly burden any individual and provides huge benefits to nearly every individual.


There's no "due" amount of theft other than zero.

Taxation is not theft. Taxation is the price you pay for living in a society with a government which maximises well-being, including by giving people limited rights to property. Theft is the illegal seizure of assets.

Quote:
Those huge benefits aren't going to those robbed to pay for them,

Yes they are. We all benefit from an educated population. We have doctors to treat us when we are sick, police officers to keep us safe, and scientists to make discoveries. We have effective business leaders and politicians. We have people who can take all manner of skilled and unskilled jobs, rather than having to resort to crime.

Quote:
which have a natural right to give their own children an even more privileged education

What makes you say that?

Quote:
It is irresponsible to have children you can't afford to raise. It may not be the child's fault, but neither is it anyone else's, so they shouldn't have to pay a cent unless they freely chose to.

People have a right to family life, including raising children, so there's an inherent good in allowing them to do so. As a society, we benefit from "poor people" having children (the economy benefits, there are more people to do jobs, more art is produced...), and we benefit from feeding, clothing, and educating the children of poor people (because they can excel, they don't have to resort to crime, and we can sleep at night knowing we're not monsters).

This is exactly what I'm talking about wrt. blind deontology. A moment's examination shows that a world ran by your deontological principle alone would be worse than this one. A considerable period of examination shows it would be much worse.



Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,508
Location: x

05 Aug 2015, 10:30 am

Spiderpig wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The huge benefits of free 5-18 education are dismissed because raising funds via blanket taxes is inherently evil, even if the taxation does not unduly burden any individual and provides huge benefits to nearly every individual.


There's no "due" amount of theft other than zero. Those huge benefits aren't going to those robbed to pay for them, which have a natural right to give their own children an even more privileged education instead of paying to give a chance to someone else's children, whom they don't need to give a damn about. They shouldn't even be forced to pay to save those children from starvation, so much less to save them from illiteracy.

It is irresponsible to have children you can't afford to raise. It may not be the child's fault, but neither is it anyone else's, so they shouldn't have to pay a cent unless they freely chose to.


You can't have compulsory education unless you also have free education. And if you don't have compulsory education, it will be pretty hard to be a first world country.

It's easy to make jokes about how kids are illiterate and ignorant after their compulsory public school education but they aren't really. They just aren't educated up to whatever standards the person making the joke has. So much that we take for granted in the first world is made possible by compulsory education. Kids get jokingly called illiterate if they can't read above a very basic level, such as a simple magazine. But that isn't real illiteracy. Imagine a country where, if parents didn't or couldn't teach reading, kids wouldn't even be able to read signs, labels or simple instructions. You think this doesn't impact you but your first world life is utterly dependent on millions of compulsorily educated people being able to read these things. Many of them are making minimum wage or just above it. But even minimum wage work requires a certain level of literacy.

Surely some parents would take it upon themselves to teach their kids the necessities. Home schooling exists, after all. But "some" isn't enough to run a first world country. Without compulsory education which must necessarily be free in order to be compulsory, we slip into being third world.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

05 Aug 2015, 11:18 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

If that means keeping people from being lynched, or forced to use substandard bathrooms or schools just simply for being part of an unpopular minority, then absolutely, yes, it's more than okay.


If we don't s**t on someone's rights, people will be lynched?

Sorry, I come here for rational discussion and debate. Let me know when you're ready to give that a go.


I think you understand I meant how the federal government had to step in to protect African Americans from white terrorist groups like the Klan.


Actually, no. Contextually that was far from clear.


Sure it is, just try.


I'm glad you agree.


You clearly don't understand, because I didn't agree.


Sure you did.

Quote:
And what is there to understand?


You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
White hate groups like the KKK, and just lynch mobs composed of inbred whites, used to make it a regular habit of lynching African Americans.


Relevant to the discussion because?

Quote:
That only stopped because the federal government stepped in and used the force of law to prosecute and convict the offenders. Without government coercion, white racists would have had no reason to stop.


And this has to do with sh*tting on rights how?

Please, dear, try to stay on point.



Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1021
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

05 Aug 2015, 12:15 pm

Government is always more detrimental than beneficial contrary to the « popular/indoctrinated » beliefs...

...unfortunately, I have seen century after century of humanity always repeating the same mistakes, without fail...


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,172
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 1:52 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

If that means keeping people from being lynched, or forced to use substandard bathrooms or schools just simply for being part of an unpopular minority, then absolutely, yes, it's more than okay.


If we don't s**t on someone's rights, people will be lynched?

Sorry, I come here for rational discussion and debate. Let me know when you're ready to give that a go.


I think you understand I meant how the federal government had to step in to protect African Americans from white terrorist groups like the Klan.


Actually, no. Contextually that was far from clear.


Sure it is, just try.


I'm glad you agree.


You clearly don't understand, because I didn't agree.


Sure you did.

Quote:
And what is there to understand?


You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
White hate groups like the KKK, and just lynch mobs composed of inbred whites, used to make it a regular habit of lynching African Americans.


Relevant to the discussion because?

Quote:
That only stopped because the federal government stepped in and used the force of law to prosecute and convict the offenders. Without government coercion, white racists would have had no reason to stop.


And this has to do with sh*tting on rights how?

Please, dear, try to stay on point.


I am staying on point. The only "right" being violated here is the right to hurt other people, which isn't a right at all. Please, do tell how the evil, evil government was suppressing anyone's legitimate rights by doing this. Keep in mind that I'm talking about ending white supremacy, and the violence associated with it, here.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,891

05 Aug 2015, 4:02 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

I am staying on point. The only "right" being violated here is the right to hurt other people, which isn't a right at all. Please, do tell how the evil, evil government was suppressing anyone's legitimate rights by doing this. Keep in mind that I'm talking about ending white supremacy, and the violence associated with it, here.


I'm not interested in your boogieman narrative. You believe that an idea can be killed. You're just as bad as anything you're condemning.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,172
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 5:00 pm

adifferentname wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:

I am staying on point. The only "right" being violated here is the right to hurt other people, which isn't a right at all. Please, do tell how the evil, evil government was suppressing anyone's legitimate rights by doing this. Keep in mind that I'm talking about ending white supremacy, and the violence associated with it, here.


I'm not interested in your boogieman narrative. You believe that an idea can be killed. You're just as bad as anything you're condemning.


So how is my support of ending homicidal white supremacy making me as bad as homicidal white supremacists? And as a matter of fact, some ideas should be killed. And no, I never said that people with those ideas should be killed, too.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,124
Location: The Infodome

05 Aug 2015, 7:21 pm

Now I know why most libertarians are white.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,172
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Aug 2015, 8:08 pm

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Now I know why most libertarians are white.


Hard to imagine a black man defending lynchings and white supremacy.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,124
Location: The Infodome

05 Aug 2015, 8:24 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
Now I know why most libertarians are white.


Hard to imagine a black man defending lynchings and white supremacy.

It will get you a job on Fox News.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/