|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: Seuss]
#9049085 - 10/08/08 05:20 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I'll nominate myself for social/fiscal liberal
I wish somebody would explain to me why this is a good combination? Why do you feel that you are entitled to somebodies money/property/prosperity for no other reason than you feel like you deserve it?
Perhaps you should be moderator for the first debate.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: Seuss]
#9049717 - 10/08/08 07:12 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > I'll nominate myself for social/fiscal liberal
I wish somebody would explain to me why this is a good combination? Why do you feel that you are entitled to somebodies money/property/prosperity for no other reason than you feel like you deserve it?
Seuss, America (the continents) is based on the appropriation of resources from their rightful holders to enrich another segment of society. Nobody in this hemisphere who is wealthy hasn't in some way received their wealth from ill gotten gains. Though I think the question of what is right or wrong of libertarian fiscal policy is too vague to debate it in generality, there rings a hypocrisy in language that condemns it as theft from the wealthy.
I nominate myself for social/fiscal liberal. I've had to shut down my op and I am so board I have to do something.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
Edited by ScavengerType (10/08/08 07:14 PM)
|
piracetam
bioanalytical chemist
Registered: 05/03/08
Posts: 4,321
Loc: TX
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: ScavengerType]
#9049902 - 10/08/08 07:41 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
left-lib? got my vote.
technically, i'm for the green party, so you're an ally.
btw...your property(land) isn't really yours anyway. law of "eminent domain"
-------------------- "Experiments are the only means of attaining knowledge at our disposal. The rest is just poetry, imagination." ~Max Planck
|
Ferris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: piracetam]
#9049942 - 10/08/08 07:47 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I subscribe closer to the natural law of adverse possession.
It's the reason I don't understand people who pay millions of dollars for uninhabited islands in the south Pacific.
-------------------- Discuss Politics
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: Ferris]
#9050256 - 10/08/08 08:28 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
not to mention with global warming and rising sea levels they'll have nothing to pass on to their kids. zing.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: ScavengerType]
#9050838 - 10/08/08 09:45 PM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > I'll nominate myself for social/fiscal liberal
I wish somebody would explain to me why this is a good combination? Why do you feel that you are entitled to somebodies money/property/prosperity for no other reason than you feel like you deserve it?
Seuss, America (the continents) is based on the appropriation of resources from their rightful holders to enrich another segment of society. Nobody in this hemisphere who is wealthy hasn't in some way received their wealth from ill gotten gains. Though I think the question of what is right or wrong of libertarian fiscal policy is too vague to debate it in generality, there rings a hypocrisy in language that condemns it as theft from the wealthy.
I nominate myself for social/fiscal liberal. I've had to shut down my op and I am so board I have to do something.
What does this have to do with anything whatsoever?
Arguendo, if that statement is true it has nothing to do with his question. He didn't ask what happens or happened he asked what right you had to such demands. This reminds me of someone arguing phred about libertarian economics. He said something like "well libertarian capitalism sucks, look at how the united states gives all these corporate welfare grants and tax cuts to those companies that are politically important. How can you defend that?". Dum da Dum dum
What is hypocritical about me being a libertarian, specifically? Libertarians aren't concerned with the wealthy, they're concerned with rights. It matters not if you have not a dollar to your name or if you are wealthy.
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: johnm214]
#9051857 - 10/09/08 01:19 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
first off, the answer I gave was a moral justification for the right to redistribute wealth by comparing it to how it was accumulated. As I said, "there rings a hypocrisy in language that condemns it as theft from the wealthy." Thus telling him what right "I think I have," as if charity from the government to help the poor was somehow morally outrageous. It seems to me I did answer the question.
As for your drudging up of old arguments, as I said back then I don't support corporate welfare, nor do I support the US government under either parties. That thread was about how Libertarianism as it is voiced on economic policies (actually more similar to neo-conservatism) would benefit the wealthy while affording no measures to ensure protection of the poor or socioty in general. As I recall I never said it was a contradiction for you to be a libertarian, rather that you weren't a libertarian purist. Though I believe the language fivepointer was using was "real libertarian" so I can see how the language may have seemed loaded.
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: ScavengerType]
#9051886 - 10/09/08 01:42 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: first off, the answer I gave was a moral justification for the right to redistribute wealth by comparing it to how it was accumulated. As I said, "there rings a hypocrisy in language that condemns it as theft from the wealthy." Thus telling him what right "I think I have," as if charity from the government to help the poor was somehow morally outrageous. It seems to me I did answer the question.
Yeah, I understand that's what you posit, I don't understand how the argument is valid.
Nobody is defending or advocating what happened to the natives. If you want to talk about reperations or whatnot, feel free, but I don't see the relevance.
I'm talking about what our philosophy should be now, as I thought this thread was addressing.
Why would I owe some other cracker some cash? You seem to argue it was wrong that the natives were 'whatevered'. So how does it follow that it is right to redistribute wealth now? To other white folks?
Moreover, what guilt or debt do I owe native americans? None, absolutely none whatsoever, and you don't seem to be able to identify any debt either.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: johnm214]
#9051904 - 10/09/08 01:53 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
>So how does it follow that it is right to redistribute wealth now?
But wealth is already redistributed through taxes. Unless you're arguing for the abolition of taxes, this debate is really about the finer details of this redistribution, and should be treated as such.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: zouden]
#9051925 - 10/09/08 02:03 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But wealth is already redistributed through taxes.
That doesn't mean it is right to do so.
Phred
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: Phred]
#9051932 - 10/09/08 02:05 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
So are you arguing for the abolition of taxes?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: zouden]
#9052012 - 10/09/08 03:01 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Abolition of taxes means pretty much total abolition of government including the judicial branch.
I would somehow feel more like arguing you if you actually supported your own stated point.
I wasn't putting native rights or grievances up to issue I was saying that most of the wealth accumulated was appropriated in a immoral manner. There is a hypocrisy in protecting these ill gotten gains and condemning welfare as theft. There is nothing morally outrageous about helping the poor and just because you know some white trash hillbilly retard on welfare doesn't mean that it's representative of the entire demographic. Nor does it mean that, this individuals limited intelligence and wanton disregard for the fact that he's become a full fledged stereotype, grants you a right to label him unworthy of simple charity and/or work assistance. And be honest unless your flippen loaded your not payin taxes equivalent to your fair share of public services you receive in return. So don't fret it's not like your paying for "some cracker".
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
Edited by ScavengerType (10/09/08 03:02 AM)
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: ScavengerType]
#9052070 - 10/09/08 03:58 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I presume that was meant to be directed at johnm214?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: zouden]
#9052104 - 10/09/08 04:29 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
> So are you arguing for the abolition of taxes?
No, he is arguing (I assume) for the abolition of redistribution of wealth though taxes. In other words, end welfare type programs at the federal level.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
ScavengerType
Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 5,784
Loc: The North
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: Seuss]
#9052110 - 10/09/08 04:36 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
then what gives the government the right to tax but not to tax in order to redistribute the wealth to a minority in need?
-------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: ScavengerType]
#9052114 - 10/09/08 04:38 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: Abolition of taxes means pretty much total abolition of government including the judicial branch.
I would somehow feel more like arguing you if you actually supported your own stated point.
I wasn't putting native rights or grievances up to issue I was saying that most of the wealth accumulated was appropriated in a immoral manner. There is a hypocrisy in protecting these ill gotten gains and condemning welfare as theft. There is nothing morally outrageous about helping the poor and just because you know some white trash hillbilly retard on welfare doesn't mean that it's representative of the entire demographic. Nor does it mean that, this individuals limited intelligence and wanton disregard for the fact that he's become a full fledged stereotype, grants you a right to label him unworthy of simple charity and/or work assistance. And be honest unless your flippen loaded your not payin taxes equivalent to your fair share of public services you receive in return. So don't fret it's not like your paying for "some cracker".
What the hell are you talking about? You seem to presuppose my reasons for disliking welfare and then refute the nonissues.
And I know noone on welfare and hardly have any presuppositions of who is representative of that class. Why would you think i'd presume some hillbilly, my kin, to have less of a right to welfare than a college professor out of work?
That's part of the problem, when you grant people a right to money they have no moral right to you get to control who gets the benifit of the public apparatus. And since nobody has that right, yet everyone has the right to equal protection, you get stupid value judgments made which should not be the province of govenrment. Who am I to say some hillbilly shouldn't get wellfare provided to others? Who is the government?
I don't endeavor to have the state enforce my value system via taxation or grant.
And you repeat yourself like a record. I've asked you to demonstrate the hypocrisy in me disliking welfare or wahtever. You keep repeating native americans but have yet to link them with anything relevant to my supposed hypocrisy.
I really have no idea whether I pay taxes equivalent to the public services I receive, but doubt it. So what?
And zouden, yes, taxation is neccesarily wealth redistribution. I believe the historicaly public schools in the US are fine, as are roads and police. The distinction between these and other things proposed is that all may make use of the roads equally, and the police, and the schools. Within a given jurisdiction: Their are no roads for rich or poor. Their are no schools for rich or poor. Their are no police for rich or poor. (ideally, though I'm no fan of the police. I'm far more afraid of the police than i am of other criminals, and I don't do anything illegal generally)
And while this is towards the socialized end of things, I'm fine with them existing. The problem comes when we give govenrment money we give them the ability to discriminate. Giving government the power to distribute money is giving them the power to control you.
They pass national healthcare then tell you you can't smoke, afterall they pay for your care. They give you a license to do buisness, then tell you how you may conduct yourself or what buisness you may do.
The distinction between roads and welfare, beyond the benifits of roads being available to all, is largely an arbitrary notion of what government should do. But that's good enough for me. I'd much rather err on the side of more freedom.
And for the record, in the US, I'm not entirely against all social programs. I'm categorically against the federal government providing these, though. It is dangerous to our freedom to have the government taking your money and redistributing it how they see fit rather than how your community sees fit. No guarantee you get it all back, no guarentee you have a use for the form in which you do get it back, no guarentee they won't hold it hostage unless you assent to their bullshit demands.
I like the free market, and I think that can work with govenrment services in the US- if we'd follow the constittuion. Let one state have socialized healthcare and another not. Where care is cheaper, buisnesses and workers will follow, enriching the efficient state and penalizing the inefficient state.
Which one is better in the end I really don't care so long as people have a choice, and the law is followed. I'd prefer a free market, but at least our multiplicity of states and federalist, supposedly, system allows for some competition- in theory.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: johnm214]
#9052139 - 10/09/08 05:05 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
They pass national healthcare then tell you you can't smoke, afterall they pay for your care.
Well, that hasn't actually happened yet, though some people have called on the government to increase the medicare levy (healthcare tax) for smokers. So far no prime minister has done that, presumably because smokers are voters too. I think you'd be surprised how well the system works in many cases.
Quote:
The distinction between roads and welfare, beyond the benifits of roads being available to all, is largely an arbitrary notion of what government should do. But that's good enough for me. I'd much rather err on the side of more freedom.
Excellent, then we are in agreement that it's a matter of opinion across a sliding-scale, rather than an absolute distinction. Government is always going to redistribute wealth, it's just a matter of how much, and to whom. Everyone will have a different idea of when it becomes "too much socialism".
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: ScavengerType]
#9052142 - 10/09/08 05:07 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
> then what gives the government the right to tax but not to tax in order to redistribute the wealth to a minority in need?
A government cannot run without taxation. In the case of America, the Constitution originally required congress to apportion taxes among the states according to each state's population (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). However, the 16th amendment changed all that, allowing congress to dole out our tax money as they see fit.
Turning your question around... why should the government have the right to redistribute wealth to a minority in need? (And why a minority? Why not the poor in general? Why must we bring race into the issue?) Is it not the job of the government to protect the right for people to succeed, regardless of their race, rather than giving handouts to the lazy and punishing those that do succeed for their success?
Edit:
Again, I am talking about the federal government. What the individual states do, with respect to welfare, etc, is their own business. However, I see no reason why the people of New York (or any other state) should be paying breeders in some other random state to sit at home and watch Oprah while waiting for their next kid to pop out.
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: Seuss]
#9052149 - 10/09/08 05:16 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
You presume they are lazy and not just down-on-their luck. Welfare is meant to be a safety net, to stop people falling through the cracks into poverty and turning to crime or prostitution. In Australia, to receive welfare you have to be either studying full-time or looking for work. This means approaching 14 potential employers every fortnight, and the welfare agency checks that you actually did it. After 3 months of unemployment, to continue receiving welfare you have to join a community work program, but you still have to look for work. The lazy don't do that - they just get an easy job and make twice as much money then spend it on beer and weed.
Edit:
Quote:
Again, I am talking about the federal government. What the individual states do, with respect to welfare, etc, is their own business. However, I see no reason why the people of New York (or any other state) should be paying breeders in some other random state to sit at home and watch Oprah while waiting for their next kid to pop out.
Isn't that a bit arbitrary? Why should the people of New York City be paying breeders in Buffalo?
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
Edited by zouden (10/09/08 05:20 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 9 days
|
Re: Unofficial vote a shroomery member for president thread! (nominations) [Re: zouden]
#9052153 - 10/09/08 05:19 AM (15 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zouden said:
Quote:
The distinction between roads and welfare, beyond the benifits of roads being available to all, is largely an arbitrary notion of what government should do. But that's good enough for me. I'd much rather err on the side of more freedom.
Excellent, then we are in agreement that it's a matter of opinion across a sliding-scale, rather than an absolute distinction. Government is always going to redistribute wealth, it's just a matter of how much, and to whom. Everyone will have a different idea of when it becomes "too much socialism".
I wouldn't call it a "matter of opinion across a sliding-scale". Interstate roads help everybody, from the rich to the poor. You want food? Unless you are growing it yourself, it has to be transported, either by road or rail. Besides, road maintenance costs can be offset by fuel taxes. Handouts for lazy people that don't feel like working does not benefit everybody. I get nothing in return when my tax money goes to pay for food and housing for somebody that can't be bothered to work.
I'm not against things like unemployment benefits; things that help people through tough times. However, in the example of unemployment benefits, the employers pay unemployment tax, and the proceeds from this tax are returned to the employee should they need it when out of work, as long as they are trying to find work. It is not a free handout, and it does not last forever.
> Welfare is meant to be a safety net, to stop people falling through the cracks into poverty and turning to crime or prostitution.
Then why does it last forever? Why do benefits go up for having more kids? Welfare is a way to keep the poor dependent upon the system, trapping them in a demoralizing existence of poverty.
Edit:
> Why should the people of New York City be paying breeders in Buffalo?
Because they live in the same state, and if they don't like it, they can move to another state. It is much harder to move to another country to avoid the policies that the federal government dictates. We can get ridiculous and break it down to the city, or community, or side of the road, but it doesn't really make sense.
Please, don't play stupid. I know that you are not.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
|