|
Post by Hussar on Aug 17, 2004 21:33:20 GMT -5
Hmm, gee, is this the place where I said the military is not important or needed? It would help if you would actually read what's there instead of filtering it through whatever worldview possesses you at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 17, 2004 21:40:09 GMT -5
ROTFLMAO! I just read the ORIGINAL article which Mr. Williams wrote. Galadon conveniently left off the last paragraph of the article. Why is that, sir? Why would you so dilligently reproduce the article, only to omit the last paragraph? Let us see the last paragraph in its entirety. Hmm, could it be because to include this quote would pretty much cost the article any and all credibility? That an evangelical attack on socialism would be seen as ultimately self-serving and, well, about as useful as breasts on a shark? The article can be found here: www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/04/socialism.html
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 18, 2004 13:22:29 GMT -5
Now why would I put that in there, hmmmm. Oh I put it in at first but deleted it. I wanted to check on something. Why would the last paragraph lose all creditability.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 18, 2004 13:29:58 GMT -5
The article is not about taxation. It's about stealing money in the disquise of social programs.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 18, 2004 15:12:31 GMT -5
So, Gal, are you agreeing with the anarchist perspective that government enforced taxation with a threat of imprisonment for noncompliants is the moral equivalent of armed robbery?
Or is it only if the money that one individual is robbed of ends up in the hands of a farmer (as a subsidy) or a poor inner-city person of a minority ethnicity (as well fare)?
Are you willing to take the next step and say that execution of a murderer is not morally different than the original murder? And that war is really only murder on a truly massive scale?
Or is the government only held up to moral standards when it comes to your property rather than someone else's life?
Any time you take anything and say it's mine and mine alone you are stealing from the entire world. Property is theft or at the very least extended borrowing without the consent of everybody involved.
Ideally I'd like to see a world where everyone owns everything and the only thing an individual has from moment to moment is that which he truly needs or wants at that moment. Of course this is impractical hippy, commie, thought that assumes everyone is basically nice and ungreedy, which the writer of Galadon's article is all too willing to illustrate is in error.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 18, 2004 16:56:46 GMT -5
The article is not about taxation. It's about stealing money in the disquise of social programs. I believe the article is saying that taxation to fund social programs is equal to stealing. It is about taxation.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 19, 2004 1:16:56 GMT -5
Ok, here's why you have to support your opinions with facts that can be verified. As a PHD, I'm a little surprised that Mr. Williams chooses to ignore that fact.
Let's stop right there. Ok, first off, Socialism is not a Marxist doctrine, no matter how much people would like it to be. Socialism existed long before Marx came along and, in small scale examples has been highly successful. The Kibbutz in Israel is a modern example of this. Rousseau also argued in favour of socialism, some centuries before Marx. So, to use Marxist doctrine as a basis for criticising socialism is something any politics 020 student could tell you is wrong.
Really? According to whom? This is from which federal budget? Who can we ask to verify this 66% figure? Without any sources, this is meaningless. It is simply a figure he pulled out of the air and tossed out. We're supposed to nod our heads and agree with him because he can pick a number from 1 to 100.
Again, REALLY? I was unaware that congresspeople do not pay taxes. Wow, I'd be really angry if I was an American to learn that being elected to Congress absolves me of all taxes. He also neglects to mention here that ALL governments throughout history have no resources. Never have and never will. But, it sounds good doesn't it?
Again, he completely ignores reality here. Whether a country is capitalist, socialist or feudal, it is always necessary to tax the population in order to provide services. Who is going to pay for roads? Schools? The Military? If we bail out a ailing company today that turns around and becomes a world leader tomorrow, is that immoral?
And now we come to the last, forgotten paragraph:
Hmmm, well, now everything makes sense. Of course an evangelical is going to take an opposing stance to socialism. Duhh, that whole opiate of the masses thing kinda annoyed the church crowd. He's masking a thinly veiled Christian attack on an economic system. Sorry, I don't listen to preachers when they talk about economics, any more than I go to an economist to learn how to save my soul.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 19, 2004 15:08:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 20, 2004 14:20:27 GMT -5
Taxes to build roads and other needed things are fine with me, But supporting welfare people or artist, I'm against.
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 23, 2004 15:37:22 GMT -5
Taxes to build roads and other needed things are fine with me, But supporting welfare people or artist, I'm against. What makes a road needed? Why can't you and a bunch of friends with strong backs build it yourselves rather than rely on the government? I don't drive; I walk. I do like the arts though. So I'd rather see my tax dollars support artistic endeavors than another road to destroy some nice woods or fields and to give the evil polluting cars that want to run me over another place to find me. As for welfare: Last winter my mother had enough of her psychotic boss and quit her job. She thought she had another one lined right up, but that job was government funded and lost its funding before she could start (another job lost because of conservative tax cuts, which of course lead to funding cuts). She couldn't collect unemployment because she "left her job voluntarlily". If I had to put up with what she did, I would have sued the company rather than simply quitting. So she had no income, but she did manage to receive some government aid in the form of food stamps. Where is the socialist evil in the above scenario? If an evil socialist hippy like me ran things: 1) My mother could have collected unemployment, even though she quit. 2) The food stamp benefits would have been significantly higher. 3) She would not have had to take the first job that was offered her that was clearly beyond her physical abilities and nearly killed her. 4) She might have gotten the job she originally wanted when she first quit the psycho-boss job.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 23, 2004 15:55:48 GMT -5
I don't drive either. If you want to give money to some artist, then you do it, private. I'm against any tax money going to the NEA.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on Aug 23, 2004 16:06:23 GMT -5
What makes a road needed? Why can't you and a bunch of friends with strong backs build it yourselves rather than rely on the government? I don't know about you, but I need roads so I can visit my boyfriend in the next state or my relatives two states over. I need roads to get to my job interview next Wednesday. I need roads so I can pick up my elderly grandmother and bring her over for Sunday dinner, and I also need them so the ambulance can get here the next time she thinks the shower curtain is a wall and falls in our bathtub. What if I don't have any friends with "strong backs" or enough free time to build me a road to my bf's house? And if I do build such a road, what's to stop other people from using the product of my blood and sweat? It's not that I don't want to share, I just don't want to repair it when they've worn it out. I don't know if you realize it, but modern transportation is a huge defining point to our society. It's made the world a much more accessable place. Sure, I'm a big advocate for using clean transportation, like walking or biking (and I loooove to bike, I wish there were more safe places to do it around here), but I can't bike to Vermont or Boston. Heck, I can't even bike to the grocery store if I expect to buy more than a backpack-load of food. My car used to be the only way I could get to work (I had an hour commute one way), and now it's the only way I can get to job interviews. I like my roads and I'm perfectly willing to pay for them with my taxes. I do pretty much agree with everything else you said, though.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Aug 24, 2004 12:38:59 GMT -5
What many fail to grasp is the use of taxes. I have meet to many people who believe if you want to elimate tax going to a unneeded project like the NEA. Then your against all taxes. I have met people who say this, are they serious or kidding, sometimes you can't tell.
Taxes for the infrastructure of a country is fine, roads, water, etc. no problem there.
Money going to the NEA so they can give it to some jack off who wants to nail a toliet to the ceiling, put a cross in urine, take a picture of a 12 year old naked girl on a beach, and call the art. Fine call it art with your own money not with taxes.
Let's make every thing equal, a classless society, each according to their own needs, yeah right. First it doesn't work I have come across to many lazy idiots who refuse to work. They will find one reason or another to not work. The group is paided and suppose to divide it equally, bullcrap, if one or two people didn't work, they don't get paid.
It's called pulling your own weight.
Each according to there own needs. I not sure people really understand what this means. Needs not wants.
If you don't need a car to survive, you don't get one. You can walk to work.
If you don't need a computer to survive. Then you don't get one.
The state will give you want you need, but that is a far cry from any form of high living. Unless your part of the high government officals.
Take a look at how the people lived in the Soviet Union, the common folk. A fine example of socialism at work. Oh yeah that looks real tempting.
Oh but look at Norway another form of socialism, no unemployment free health care for everyone. Any care to tell me how much of a paycheck goes to the government in Norway. This idea some have about free health care, what tooth fairy told you it was free. Just because you get it at no cost doesn't make it free.
And of course my favorite form of socalism paying taxes to feed and support every third world refugee that can make it here. And Social Security, to paid for old people or the one who are really disabled, I'm not speaking of that SocSec. But lets paid for worthless drug addicts and lazy idoits who are just to damn lazy to work and con the Soc Sec in to believing their nuts. An they wonder why Soc Sec and medicare is going bankrupt.
I don't agree with one thing in the constitution, All men are NOT equal
For all who think socialism is great and just the cat's meow. Why don't go visit Cuba and see how great socialism is.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Aug 25, 2004 4:05:02 GMT -5
First off, that's COMMUNISM, not socialism, so the comparison is flawed. It's like saying that democracy is bad because Hussein was a democratically elected president. If you're going to knock socialism, at least LEARN a little about it first.
Secondly, the US is the LOWEST donor nation in the industrialized world by percentage. It is the actual lowest if you remove Israel and Pakistan from the equation. To complain about your tax dollars going to pay off other countries is woefully ignorant of the realities of the situation.
Yup, being Canadian means paying upwards of 50% income tax, in addition to the numerous other taxes. By the same token, it also means that I can go to the doctor whenever I want and never have to worry about it. Unlike the states where they jack your rates up if you go too many times. Never mind that if I don't have the money, I get to go to some poor county hospital and get treated by Nick Riviera. But hey, as long as you got money, you got no worries in America right?
|
|
|
Post by khyron1144 on Aug 26, 2004 15:15:56 GMT -5
I don't know about you, but I need roads so I can visit my boyfriend in the next state or my relatives two states over. I need roads to get to my job interview next Wednesday. I need roads so I can pick up my elderly grandmother and bring her over for Sunday dinner, and I also need them so the ambulance can get here the next time she thinks the shower curtain is a wall and falls in our bathtub. What if I don't have any friends with "strong backs" or enough free time to build me a road to my bf's house? And if I do build such a road, what's to stop other people from using the product of my blood and sweat? It's not that I don't want to share, I just don't want to repair it when they've worn it out. I don't know if you realize it, but modern transportation is a huge defining point to our society. It's made the world a much more accessable place. Sure, I'm a big advocate for using clean transportation, like walking or biking (and I loooove to bike, I wish there were more safe places to do it around here), but I can't bike to Vermont or Boston. Heck, I can't even bike to the grocery store if I expect to buy more than a backpack-load of food. My car used to be the only way I could get to work (I had an hour commute one way), and now it's the only way I can get to job interviews. I like my roads and I'm perfectly willing to pay for them with my taxes. I do pretty much agree with everything else you said, though. Merk, On the need for roads: I need to get to: My place of residence. My job. The library. The comics store. The grocery store. That's about it really. They're all within my definition of walking distance of each other for me. So what good do roads do me? A little. I'll admit that the Burger King I'm working at wouldn't exist if there were not a major road for it to be alongside, and ditto for the comics shop and grocery store and library. So I suppose that roads are not the ultimate evil, but I'm not a big fan either. On the power of strong backs: Maybe it's different for you, but I'm part of a large extended family with some close friends. Some of my family is out in the country on a decent sized plot of land. This means that when they have yard work there's a lot of it. Enough that me, my 13-year old brother, my best friend, and my best friend's younger brother were up there more than once to help them with various projects over the summer. I suspect that if there was a need for a road to be built it could be done by the four of us plus a few others over a long weekend. Okay Gal, you have somewhat answered my point about the NEA. I think a culture is made great by its arts and okay by its infrastructure, which seems to be a point beyond the grasp of most conservatives. You however haven't addressed my second point, which is that there are some legitimate cases where welfare or food stamps are a boon to someone who is legitimately looking for work. While there may be some who try to cheat the system and live for free off the government by and large most recipients of government aid do deserve and will be back in the work force soon. Oddly enough your argument for eliminating welfare because of the cheats rather nicely parallels my libelral/anarachist/hippy argument to eliminate drug laws because there will always be users and there's nothing a law can do about it.
|
|