31 May 09
Originally posted by normbenignWhat people have in an economic system is based on the rules of the economic system. You have no moral right to not be taxed at what the majority of society feel is a proper amount so that what the majority feel is the legitimate goals of society can be accomplished.
When you take what's mine by force, and give it directly to someone else, what the hell is it?
If you believe it isn't then give me your credit card number and I can see that a lot of needy people get what you own.
Theft is a moral as well as a legal term. That people have voted to use the government to steal for them, doesn't make it moral.
If the majority want to abolish credit cards altogether, that would be within their legitimate power.
31 May 09
Originally posted by normbenignCould you give us a culture on Earth that would let a sick child die when it could be treated solely because it's parents didn't have enough wealth?
Parents are those biologically responsible for children. There isn't a culture or society on Earth that doesn't at least superficially hold parents responsible for providing the necessities of life.
Of course you may be advocating the system in Ayn Rand's Anthem?
You probably can, but I want no part of such a culture.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen we acknowledge that people can vote their way into other people's wallets, we have acknowledged mob rule.
What people have in an economic system is based on the rules of the economic system. You have no moral right to not be taxed at what the majority of society feel is a proper amount so that what the majority feel is the legitimate goals of society can be accomplished.
If the majority want to abolish credit cards altogether, that would be within their legitimate power.
Democracy is nothing short of mob rule. I'm not buying that anyone morally can vote to forcibly take from another. If it is allowed it is nontheless immoral.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is a difference between holding parents primarily responsible, and letting children die.
Could you give us a culture on Earth that would let a sick child die when it could be treated solely because it's parents didn't have enough wealth?
You probably can, but I want no part of such a culture.
It is also possible to give assistance, and require the recipient to eventually repay. That is moral. Requiring others to pay, is not.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignSo is it better to have an autocrat who can just grab what he wants from people's wallets?
When we acknowledge that people can vote their way into other people's wallets, we have acknowledged mob rule.
Democracy is nothing short of mob rule. I'm not buying that anyone morally can vote to forcibly take from another. If it is allowed it is nontheless immoral.
Is it better to have no government at all?
No. So what is this objection against so-called "mob rule" based on? Good ole Friedman fetishism again?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignInteresting. So handicapped people, being unable to work, should be denied any care?
There is a difference between holding parents primarily responsible, and letting children die.
It is also possible to give assistance, and require the recipient to eventually repay. That is moral. Requiring others to pay, is not.
01 Jun 09
1 edit
let's translate it to man-months. if 40 pct of my income goes to taxes, assuming a 2000-hour work year that makes 5 months to the man (translated: to the govt) before i get to enjoy the remaining 7 months for myself.
those are real hours i sat chained to a desk, working for the man. so if i have to donate more of these hours as a citizen of NY, that makes NY a less free state.
you can poke at it, for example, saying the income is taken out of your paycheck gradually, not 5 months off the top. but those are quibbles. so there it is.
hey FMF, you don't have to click that link, now!
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFat the bottom of this page there is a link titled "1". click on THAT link, then scroll down 3 and 4 posts.
What link? Your self-over-estimation defines you.
so was it Mr. or Mrs. FMF? in Thread 113386.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNot the conclusion I would reach, and in fact most handicapped people can work, and want to work. Remember the ancient request, look at my ability not my disability.
Interesting. So handicapped people, being unable to work, should be denied any care?
We all have varying abilities and disabilities. I am against government bureaucrats determining who gets the help, and who they rip off to pay for it.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by uzlessEnglish, please.
quit while your behind.
I was interested in knowing why the founding fathers were against a central bank BACK THEN.
Jebus, I think i've given you too much credit. Has your younger stupider brother been loggin in and posing as you these last few weeks?
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by normbenignSociety determines what government bureaucrats determine.
Not the conclusion I would reach, and in fact most handicapped people can work, and want to work. Remember the ancient request, look at my ability not my disability.
We all have varying abilities and disabilities. I am against government bureaucrats determining who gets the help, and who they rip off to pay for it.
01 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOverly high taxation doesn't keep people from dieing, nor does it get them jobs. In fact when carried to its extremes, hyper unemployment, and violent death is rather the rule.
I agree, but what does this have to do with taxation? Letting people die is going to get them a job?
I don't have to even look. New York with its high taxation is no utopia for the unemployed or the handicapped. Governments are universally inept, corrupt, and discriminatory about distributing benefits. In the US, disability benefits are paid to alcoholics and drug addicts, and denied to people with crippling congenital defects.