rylan wrote:No no, its a Utopia under the socialist dreamland where everyone has the same thing regardless of how hard they work! ;)
I see someone isn't familiar with having nothing regardless of how hard they work...
rylan wrote:No no, its a Utopia under the socialist dreamland where everyone has the same thing regardless of how hard they work! ;)
Sarvis wrote:But I thought under the free market everything would be a Utopia?
/duck
Corth wrote:
But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.
Corth wrote:But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.
Sarvis wrote:Corth wrote:
But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.
And how would, for instance, socialized medicine not be treating everyone the same? Everyone pays taxes, and everyone has access to the same basic level of healthcare.
Ragorn wrote:Disagree. The strongest moral argument is ensuring that all of your citizens are provided with the basic essentials they need to survive. If you fail to accomplish that, you fail as a society.
Kifle wrote: but, do you honestly believe that the free market hasn't been disfigured far beyond its initial intentions that it is still a level playing field?
Corth wrote:Kifle wrote: but, do you honestly believe that the free market hasn't been disfigured far beyond its initial intentions that it is still a level playing field?
Its only been disgured to the extent that socialistic entitlements and redistribution of wealth have done their magic.
Corth wrote:Sarvis wrote:Corth wrote:
But still its better, from a moral perspective, that we are all treated the same by the government.
And how would, for instance, socialized medicine not be treating everyone the same? Everyone pays taxes, and everyone has access to the same basic level of healthcare.
Well first off, the government discriminates against people who earn more than others by charging a higher marginal tax rate. Thus, right away the so-called 'rich', who are often middle class two-income wager earners, pay a higher share of everyone else's healthcare. Second, it discriminates against people who might otherwise choose to save their money instead of purchasing healthcare. It compels them to pay higher taxes and participate in a socialized welfare program. Perhaps they would rather take their chances and use that money for another purpose?
I won't even get into the moral hazard inherent in universal healthcare, as that is off topic since we are talking about socialism being discriminatory, not socialism encouraging poor use of resources.
Just to give you an idea of current inequality, statistically speaking, the top 1 percent of all income
earners in this great land earn roughly 20 percent of the total income. The top 1 percent of wealth
holders have close to one-third of all wealth. The top 5 percent of wealth holders have very roughly 50
percent of all wealth in this country.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Coincidentally, aren't you the guys who don't want any religion forced on you by the government in prayers and such?
The opposing viewpoint is that the individual must be compelled (I'm being diplomatic, the more accurate word would be 'coerced')
Kifle wrote:We pay taxes to a government to look out for our best interests... they aren't doing that at all. I'm honestly too scared to look at where exactly my tax dollars go to... it sure as hell isn't the public education system, social security, medicaid/medicare, or roads (yeah, that was outsourced recently here in indiana too).
Kifle wrote:You mean like in France, Canada, Norway, Sweden, England?
Sarvis wrote:An education system which gives us skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy
A welfare system which lessens incidences of destitution, thus keeping our population on it's feet until the economy needs more workers... thus strengthening our economy.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I agree Ragorn. I just believe it is MY responsibility to do so, whether it be by donating money to organizations to aid those that lack the basic essentials, or doing it myself. If you educate people correctly, they will see the pleasure and benefits in helping others. BUT, it is not something that should be FORCED on me by others.
Coincidentally, aren't you the guys who don't want any religion forced on you by the government in prayers and such?
Thats the essential rebuttal to my argument. Ultimately its the battle of the interests of individuals vs. society. I tend to believe that you treat the individually fairly, let him be productive in an environment that allows him to reap the rewards of his hard work, and society will flourish. The opposing viewpoint is that the individual must be compelled (I'm being diplomatic, the more accurate word would be 'coerced') into providing for the many, for the good of society, and in doing so sublimate his own self-interests. Its one of those big questions that are debated for thousands of years and you still never get a definite answer.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I have two good friends in Spain with the equivalent of Master's degrees unable to get good jobs. They cannot afford to buy ANY property in their cities, and are still living with their parents, both 30+.
Sarvis wrote:Which education system gives us skilled workers?
Are you referring to Japan or South Korea?
And I think you meant to write "maintains" instead of writing "lessens".
Lathander wrote:Is it moral to penalize those that are successful? Do those that are lazy deserve money from those that have actually earned it?
I believe those that work hard, many doing 50 to 100 hour weeks deserve to live better.
More people should be like that instead of lazy people that barely work 40 hour weeks and don't want any stress.
Finally for those of you for socialized medicine, we are already getting a preview of this from what some health insurance plans are doing.
Sarvis wrote: Taxes got us:
A Highway system which improves commerce, thus strengthening our economy
Sarvis wrote:An education system which gives us skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy
Sarvis wrote:A welfare system which lessens incidences of destitution, thus keeping our population on it's feet until the economy needs more workers... thus strengthening our economy.
Sarvis wrote:An army capable of defending our country from any army.
Sarvis wrote:Yeah, a lot of us could probably name people like that in this country too...
Sarvis wrote:Funny. Yes, our system is lacking... butover time it has certainly led us to be the chief innovators in many fields, and the most economically powerful country in the world. Name a country without a public education system that isn't a 3rd world country.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I agree Ragorn. I just believe it is MY responsibility to do so, whether it be by donating money to organizations to aid those that lack the basic essentials, or doing it myself. If you educate people correctly, they will see the pleasure and benefits in helping others. BUT, it is not something that should be FORCED on me by others.
Ragorn wrote:And in a perfect society, the government wouldn't need to mandate the welfare of the citizens because the citizens would take care of each other. Do you believe that's the society we live in?
Ragorn wrote:Is America intrinscally altruistic or materialistic?
Ragorn wrote:And oddly enough, the political party that opposes social distribution of wealth is the same one that preaches morality, compassion, and family values. Hmm.
Corth wrote:The free market v. socialism is a perfectly good debate.. but perhaps someone should start a new thread. Discussion about the housing market does not have to be politically charged, and may be of some practical benefit to people.
Vigis wrote:Just because I think I want a Corth sign too :P
Disclaimer: Sarvis is the best friend I've had in the mud, but we can have disagreements on the BBS. (He's usually the one that makes me come back out of retirement)
Sarvis wrote:
Thus creating more pollution and global warming? Damned Taxes are killing our environment. (remember, I work in the trucking industry so I am a bit biased about that).
Sarvis wrote:Correction... gave skilled workers, thus strengthening our economy. Things were going quite well until Bush decided to try his hand at socialism and make sure that there was "No Child Left Behind." Now, teachers are making sure that every student gets the same education by teaching to the lowest possible level.
I will concede the point that the welfare system occasionally works to strengthen the economy. But to be honest, the only time I have seen it work in that manner is when it not being used by the people for which it was intended. The young couple in graduate school (who could be making a combined $90k per year) use it to make sure their child has healthcare while they finish school or the small business owner who can't quite afford insurance on his kids because his earnings are taxed to high hell are making use of welfare in the manner for which I think it should have been designed, not in the manner for which it was. Those are the type of people who end up strengthening the economy from being on welfare. Wal-Mart is never going to run out of high-school students or retirees looking for some supplemental income. Keeping people on welfare as "bench strength" for jobs like that is ludicrous.
I've always found it odd that we have a "volunteer" armed forces, but we pay them.
I don't know what to make of this except to say that with the freedom to bear arms outlined in the constitution, I think the populace of the United States could probably defend the country just fine.
No offense to those of us in this community who are in the armed forces, for I respect you all for the choice you have made. But (this is pulling on my own experiences and family) most smart people don't join the military; which makes them available to defend the country. We actually have a better guerilla force than Iraq could ever hope to have.
There are most definitely areas where Sarvis and I will agree, but how our tax dollars are spent won't be one of them.
Seriously though, our country is hosed until the time when candidates can stand up and say what they honestly think without worrying about how much money their party is going to throw to their opponent. Some day, I would like to go back to the era of Lincoln and Douglass. Two men who are ultimately qualified for the position and actually have to stand up for something. Kerry, Bush, Gore, all they ever had to do is stand up and say "I'm NOT like him!" and the American public has eaten it alive....we have learned to suck as a democracy. We have learned to speak the party line, puke the party schpiel, and give money to the party candidate. I wish we were smart enough to say SCREW THE PARTY.
At least consider voting.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:That's because not stealing is also part of morality.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:That's because not stealing is also part of morality.
Corth wrote:Government is by definition coercive. Laws regulate our actions. I am coerced into driving 55MPH on the highway under threat of fine. I am coerced into paying my taxes under penalty of imprisonment and fine. In some states, I am coerced into not murdering someone under penalty of death. The coercive nature of government is necessary for it to be effective.
In many cases the coercion is warranted. But don't ever fail to recognize what it is.
Corth wrote:The free market v. socialism is a perfectly good debate.. but perhaps someone should start a new thread. Discussion about the housing market does not have to be politically charged, and may be of some practical benefit to people.
Sarvis wrote:So are you saying we don't have a say in what laws govern us, or that deciding what laws we are governed by is still being coerced?
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Sarvis wrote:So are you saying we don't have a say in what laws govern us, or that deciding what laws we are governed by is still being coerced?
Yes.
This year, our representatives here in Florida were talking about getting rid of property taxes in favor of raising sales tax (the logical solution). People had their hopes up, I was extremely excited about going out and voting. When they finished their "talks", all talks of sales tax vanished, and now it's just about either keeping the 3% rule on property tax assessments, or choosing a higher homestead exemption, and negating the 3% cover permanently.
...
Sarvis wrote:Yet next election season you will re-elect the same leadership.
You COULD protest, write letters to the representatives and even run for office yourself on your own platform or move somewhere with better leadership.
Instead you whine about it on the web and act like you are being forced, when in reality you agree to live under the laws passed by your elected representatives and keep voting for the people who do these things.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Sarvis wrote:Yet next election season you will re-elect the same leadership.
You COULD protest, write letters to the representatives and even run for office yourself on your own platform or move somewhere with better leadership.
Instead you whine about it on the web and act like you are being forced, when in reality you agree to live under the laws passed by your elected representatives and keep voting for the people who do these things.
Isn't this what you have been doing all along in all threads too? I mean, come on now.
I have never re-elected someone who fails to represent my beliefs. I have emailed or phoned different congressmen when the need has arisen, as I did now. I just did it this past week regarding a tax increase to our satellite provider.
Please... It's like me saying that you voted twice for Bush.
Sarvis wrote:In short, taxes are not theft. We pay taxes because we get representation in what taxes are collected and how they are spent.
The Founding Fathers Libertarians are so fond of quoting had a slogan. It was not "No Taxation" but rather "No Taxation <i>Without Representation</i>.
The former could be considered theft, the latter is not.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Well said. But let me clear one thing, because I don't think it was stated before, my bad.
It's not taxation I'm against, nor is that the case with many other people who complain over taxes.
Sarvis wrote:Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I think we were confused with this statement: "That's because not stealing is also part of morality" as a reply to Ragorn's "social redistribution of wealth" comment, which was essentially a fancy way of saying taxes.
Ragorn wrote:I've never seen cause of death listed as "not enough jesus."
Ragorn wrote:Taxation is stealing? Remember that when your president wants to start a war with Iran.
Ragorn wrote:Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Ragorn wrote:I've never seen cause of death listed as "not enough jesus."Ragorn wrote:Taxation is stealing? Remember that when your president wants to start a war with Iran.Ragorn wrote:Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.
Good point Ragorn...yeah.
Ragorn wrote:Sarvis wrote:Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:I think we were confused with this statement: "That's because not stealing is also part of morality" as a reply to Ragorn's "social redistribution of wealth" comment, which was essentially a fancy way of saying taxes.
Sometimes, people make sensationalized statements when trying to evoke an emotional response.
More on this story as news develops.
sok wrote:term life insurance is cheaper, but when it's over and you dont die you get nothing.
whole life, you pay a little more and a little coverage, but the extra money is invested for you and you can take the money out.
why would you pick term?
Lathander wrote:Income replacement and estate planning. That is why you buy life insurance.
No one commented on the PMI proposal by the Democrats to raise it for everyone instead of on those with the worst credit which represents a risk.
Lathander wrote:Income replacement and estate planning. That is why you buy life insurance.
No one commented on the PMI proposal by the Democrats to raise it for everyone instead of on those with the worst credit which represents a risk.
Return to “General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests