Your blind endorsement of pure capitalism still has yet to explain the Great Depression.
What does that have to do with pure capitalism? While the crash was surely a spark, the primary cause, in my opinion, was overproduction and the farmer's depression, ALSO caused by overproduction. The overproduction was not caused by vicious capitalists trying to corner the market, but by ignorance: the new appliances of the day, refrigerators specifically, were being overproduced because companies thought people would want 2 or 3 in the house. Am I missing something here?
Quote from Stax »
Why is a man with a gun ok for the government to protect you from? Because he could kill you. But if you die in a gutter, because you were driven out of buisness, and are yes, God Forbid, a convict so in The United States of T2Sux (your governmental system) you can't get work and you starve to death, that's none of the government's concern? Why are some modes of death 'ok' for citizens, and not worthy of protection?
A man gets cancer, and dies. Another man kills himself. Are these modes of death the gov't's fault too? You are, as Senori was, comparing apples and oranges. The gov't protects people from guns and swords and bombs because that is the primary purpose of a gov't, as far back as the concept of gov't goes: protect citizens from physical violence. You say a gov't should help the poor and downtrodden? The gov't is not a self-sufficient entity. It gets its money, and therefore its ability to help, from people. So when you say that it's the gov't's responsibility to help the poor, you are saying it is everyone's responsibility. Take it one step further: If it is my responsibility to help a criminal, then is the criminal not entitled to my money? By the mere fact that he IS a criminal? Take it another step forward: If a criminal is entitled to my money as help for his having been a criminal, then is he not entitled to be a criminal? Who are we, mere humans, to punish someone for killing another? Or robbery? To get off the subject of criminals, let's look at your everyday hobo: Since the gov't should help him, that means I should help him, which means he is entitled to my money, which means he's entitled to be a hobo. Why, then, should we ask him to work? By what right, since he is entitled to my money?
A man gets cancer, and dies. Another man kills himself. Are these modes of death the gov't's fault too? You are, as Senori was, comparing apples and oranges. The gov't protects people from guns and swords and bombs because that is the primary purpose of a gov't, as far back as the concept of gov't goes: protect citizens from physical violence. You say a gov't should help the poor and downtrodden? The gov't is not a self-sufficient entity. It gets its money, and therefore its ability to help, from people. So when you say that it's the gov't's responsibility to help the poor, you are saying it is everyone's responsibility. Take it one step further: If it is my responsibility to help a criminal, then is the criminal not entitled to my money? By the mere fact that he IS a criminal? Take it another step forward: If a criminal is entitled to my money as help for his having been a criminal, then is he not entitled to be a criminal? Who are we, mere humans, to punish someone for killing another? Or robbery? To get off the subject of criminals, let's look at your everyday hobo: Since the gov't should help him, that means I should help him, which means he is entitled to my money, which means he's entitled to be a hobo. Why, then, should we ask him to work? By what right, since he is entitled to my money?
No, because you are turning charity into entitlement, which is stupid.
A. Government has sworn to protect citizens.
B. Things threaten citizens.
C. Government does as much possible to protect citizens.
You are simply wrong T2. You don't get to declare that hobo's are no longer citizens, and therefore not worthy of that protection. I support government reasearch (guy who dies from cancer), I support Suicide laws and hotlines (guy who kills himself), I support soup kitchens and aid for the poor/drug addicted (hobo/guy driven out of buisness/criminial), and yes I support the military (Guns, Bombs, Tanks).
No, because you are turning charity into entitlement, which is stupid.
Really? If it is my responsibility to give money to someone, are they not entitled to it?
Quote from Stax »
A. Government has sworn to protect citizens.
B. Things threaten citizens.
C. Government does as much possible to protect citizens.
So a gov't is supposed to be a nanny? Protecting citizens, even from themselves?
Quote from Stax »
You are simply wrong T2.
It would be interesting to note how many times you've said that...;)
Quote from Stax »
You don't get to declare that hobo's are no longer citizens, and therefore not worthy of that protection.
I don't declare that hobo's are not citizens; I declare that NO citizen is entitled to someone elses money, eg gov't hand outs, be they rich or poor.
Quote from Stax »
I support government reasearch (guy who dies from cancer), I support Suicide laws and hotlines (guy who kills himself), I support soup kitchens and aid for the poor/drug addicted (hobo/guy driven out of buisness/criminial), and yes I support the military (Guns, Bombs, Tanks).
Good- so do I. I support soup kitchens....not gov't soup kitchens; I support suicide hotlines...not gov't suicide hotlines; I support a person's right to form a charity...not gov't charity.
Any person has a right to donate to or help whomever they wish. However, it is neither the right nor the purpose of a gov't to do it for them.
Really? If it is my responsibility to give money to someone, are they not entitled to it?
It is your responsibility to obey the law. The law says you pay taxes to the government. Ergo it is your responsibility to give the government your money.
The government is responsible to protect it's citizens. Citizens need money to be protected, government is responsible to protect them.
The government is entitled to your money. The people are entitled to the govnernment's money.
So a gov't is supposed to be a nanny? Protecting citizens, even from themselves?
Yes
It would be interesting to note how many times you've said that...
Well, ya' know, when you're right you're right. May as well repeat it.
I don't declare that hobo's are not citizens; I declare that NO citizen is entitled to someone elses money, eg gov't hand outs, be they rich or poor.
And here it is once again... You are simply wrong T2. If you agree that a hobo is a citizen, then he or she is entitled to the same rights granted by this ideal government, which would provide for the hobo's. Otherwise, I keep repeating this and you keep not replying, the system is not ideal. The system would be just as built to fail as Communism. Communism fails because it doesn't respect human nature and desire for power. Your system fails because it assumes everyone will follow it like a good little citizen. In capitalism, a majority of people are either driven out by their corporate opponents, or paid the lowest wages possible so the company can get by. If your system doesn't help, that majority will be pissed off (rightly so). Pissed off poor majority vs happy wealthy minority = Every European Civil war, basically ever.
Any person has a right to donate to or help whomever they wish. However, it is neither the right nor the purpose of a gov't to do it for them.
Non-government-run programs cannot be guaranteed by the government (the same reason I don't approve of privatized Social Security). The government has a responsibility to citizens which is not fulfilled by hoping private organizations cover their asses.
It is your responsibility to obey the law. The law says you pay taxes to the government. Ergo it is your responsibility to give the government your money.
The government is responsible to protect it's citizens. Citizens need money to be protected, government is responsible to protect them.
The government is entitled to your money. The people are entitled to the govnernment's money.
Essentially saying, by syllogism, that anyone who can't fend for themselves are entitled to the money of those who can. Hm.
Quote from Stax »
Quote from T2sux »
So a gov't is supposed to be a nanny? Protecting citizens, even from themselves?
Yes
Well, why not extend it to all areas? Ban smoking! Ban driving(it's dangerous, dontcha know), ban drinking; ban MOVEMENT god dammit, because it could hurt the citizen and that is the top priority!!
Quote from Stax »
And here it is once again... You are simply wrong T2. If you agree that a hobo is a citizen, then he or she is entitled to the same rights granted by this ideal government, which would provide for the hobo's. Otherwise, I keep repeating this and you keep not replying, the system is not ideal. The system would be just as built to fail as Communism. Communism fails because it doesn't respect human nature and desire for power. Your system fails because it assumes everyone will follow it like a good little citizen. In capitalism, a majority of people are either driven out by their corporate opponents, or paid the lowest wages possible so the company can get by. If your system doesn't help, that majority will be pissed off (rightly so). Pissed off poor majority vs happy wealthy minority = Every European Civil war, basically ever.
Actually, I did reply to that, if you read:
Quote from T2sux »
Really now? Cuz America has always had a fairly large fissure between the rich and poor, and, well it's been over *checks calendar* 200 years now. You seem to forget that these revolutions to which you allude all took place under an aristocracy or dictatorship, the best example of which is the Bolshevik revolution, under a Czar. The French Revolution was under King Louie, I believe. I doubt if you could find an example of a poor-people revolution under a democratic-esque state.
Essentially saying, by syllogism, that anyone who can't fend for themselves are entitled to the money of those who can. Hm.
No. Saying you watch your back and the government will watch it's. You pay taxes for governmental protection, and the government doles it out where necessary. You don't get to pick and choose where your money is spent.
Well, why not extend it to all areas? Ban smoking! Ban driving(it's dangerous, dontcha know), ban drinking; ban MOVEMENT god dammit, because it could hurt the citizen and that is the top priority!!
Feel free to act like a child. It just makes my rightness more evident.
Actually, I did reply to that, if you read:
And wouldn't you know it! America does have an economic divide, but you know why that's not a satisfactory answer?! THATS NOT YOUR SYSTEM. America has massive economic support, social support, etc. So... Thanks for giving me more evidence?
No. Saying you watch your back and the government will watch it's. You pay taxes for governmental protection, and the government doles it out where necessary.
You said:
Quote from Stax »
Ergo it is your responsibility to give the government your money.
then:
Quote from Stax »
The government is entitled to your money
and finally...
Quote from Stax »
The people are entitled to the govnernment's money.
If A=B and B=C then A=C.
Quote from Stax »
Feel free to act like a child. It just makes my rightness more evident.
Who's being childish? I simply named the next logical step to what you said, that the gov't has to protect people from themselves.
Quote from Stax »
And wouldn't you know it! America does have an economic divide, but you know why that's not a satisfactory answer?! THATS NOT YOUR SYSTEM. America has massive economic support, social support, etc. So... Thanks for giving me more evidence?
That's cute, Stax, using my own arguement against me...too bad it doesn't work in your case...:
Quote from Stax »
Massive schizm's between the rich and the poor, coupled with violence ALWAYS leads to revolution.
That was your original quote. I provided a counterexample, I never said it was my system. While the US does(unfortunately) provide aid, there is still a massive rift between upper and lower class, moreso this past century. And, America existed for over 100 years without welfare and with little aid, with a massive schism. Civil war took place, yes, but over entirely different issues, unrelated to this. As I said: the type of revolutions to which you refer all took place under dictatorships/aristocracies.
Now, if you'll excuse me until tonight, I must be getting off to work...earning myself some money, dontcha know
Your money /=/ Other People's money. The government is the switching station where it stops being your money.
Who's being childish? I simply named the next logical step to what you said, that the gov't has to protect people from themselves.
You are. You know perfectly well that a government has more than one responsibility we are arguing over a government's protection responsibility, but of course that is balanced with the rights of the citizens which must be protected as well.
That was your original quote. I provided a counterexample, I never said it was my system. While the US does(unfortunately) provide aid, there is still a massive rift between upper and lower class, moreso this past century. And, America existed for over 100 years without welfare and with little aid, with a massive schism. Civil war took place, yes, but over entirely different issues, unrelated to this. As I said: the type of revolutions to which you refer all took place under dictatorships/aristocracies.
Yes, and your counterexample wasn't one. The American schizms aren't gigantic, and are further padded because the government follows it's responsibility.
hmm.. It really does depend on the size of the country, but my favorite must be socialism thats not all to tight about everything.. but nothing like USA..Please no...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Einstein »
Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
Quote from Nietzsche »
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
While the US does(unfortunately) provide aid, there is still a massive rift between upper and lower class, moreso this past century. And, America existed for over 100 years without welfare and with little aid, with a massive schism. Civil war took place, yes, but over entirely different issues, unrelated to this. As I said: the type of revolutions to which you refer all took place under dictatorships/aristocracies.
The gap between rich and poor is far *less* now than it was 100-150 years ago. The US did get quite close to a revolution for economic reasons near to the end of the 19th century. It was stopped due to the actions of Teddy Roosevelt and others pushing through laws like the minimum wage and child labor restrictions.
What does that have to do with pure capitalism? While the crash was surely a spark, the primary cause, in my opinion, was overproduction and the farmer's depression, ALSO caused by overproduction. The overproduction was not caused by vicious capitalists trying to corner the market, but by ignorance: the new appliances of the day, refrigerators specifically, were being overproduced because companies thought people would want 2 or 3 in the house. Am I missing something here?
There's a reason they list the beginning of the Depression at the crash- yes, those things did worsen the Depression, but they were not the primary causes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
What does that have to do with pure capitalism? While the crash was surely a spark, the primary cause, in my opinion, was overproduction and the farmer's depression, ALSO caused by overproduction. The overproduction was not caused by vicious capitalists trying to corner the market, but by ignorance: the new appliances of the day, refrigerators specifically, were being overproduced because companies thought people would want 2 or 3 in the house. Am I missing something here?
The Great Depression proved that laissez-faire does not work T2sux. Government regulation is necessary.
The Great Depression is the inevitable outcome of unrestricted capitalism. It's a simple matter of doing the math. Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably result in the major amount of wealth being monopolized by a privileged few, causing the economy to destroy itself.
Honestly, I still can't understand how you can possibly keep rehashing the same arguments. We disproved everything you've ever said on MTGNews.
You are. You know perfectly well that a government has more than one responsibility we are arguing over a government's protection responsibility, but of course that is balanced with the rights of the citizens which must be protected as well.
Ah. But you asserted that the gov't is responsible for protecting people from themselves. Why doesn't this extend into other areas? A paternalistic state, the kind you seem to endorse(communism being the prime exponent of a paternalistic state), would essentially take away the essential freedom: freedom of choice. Your gov't feels it is its right to protect people from killing themselves, from smoking....from making stupid decisions and ending up poor. Consider the implications of a gov't that holds itself as a nanny.
And, of course, that is assuming that " you know perfectly well that the gov't has more than one responsibility." Do I know that? Hm. I believe that the gov't exists solely for keeping law and order. Since we must live together, we must have govt. To live in a free society, we must have as little of it as possible. The gov't is not an end in itself. It is a means to keep society safe for people to live and prosper: it has no right to interfere with anything else.
Quote from Stax »
Your money /=/ Other People's money. The government is the switching station where it stops being your money.
So, a person has no right to decide where the money they paid is to go?
Quote from Highroller »
The Great Depression proved that laissez-faire does not work T2sux. Government regulation is necessary.
The Great Depression is the inevitable outcome of unrestricted capitalism. It's a simple matter of doing the math. Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably result in the major amount of wealth being monopolized by a privileged few, causing the economy to destroy itself.
There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about my view on this topic, and if this misunderstanding is my fault, then I apologize, and I will clarify: I know that pure capitalism is not a perfect system. I am not, contrary to popular belief, an idiot; however, in my estimation, it is the best system out there.
Pure capitalism, in the form I speak of, has never existed. Just as pure communism, which some of you speak of, has never existed. Would it be fair of me to say that Marxism is stupid based upon Stalinist Russia?
American capitalism is not pure capitalism. The crash of the stock market was not the result of greedy capitalists. It was the result of stupid people(investors) trusting other stupid people(brokers) with their money, and getting scared. This sparked a rampage to get to the banks, which couldn't give everyone their money. This was not a result of the priveleged few destroying the rest. The depression was the result of, essentially, people getting scared.
That, however, is beside the point. The reason capitalism is preferable to other form is essentially by default. Communism, Socialism, and all the bastard systems conceived therefrom...they stifle or abolish the rights of the individual, including(but not limited to) the right to progress by your own effort. Capitalism is the only economic system which promotes prosperity and progress for those who earn it. Therefore, in my estimation, it is the only moral system.
Ah. But you asserted that the gov't is responsible for protecting people from themselves. Why doesn't this extend into other areas? A paternalistic state, the kind you seem to endorse(communism being the prime exponent of a paternalistic state), would essentially take away the essential freedom: freedom of choice. Your gov't feels it is its right to protect people from killing themselves, from smoking....from making stupid decisions and ending up poor. Consider the implications of a gov't that holds itself as a nanny.
And, of course, that is assuming that " you know perfectly well that the gov't has more than one responsibility." Do I know that? Hm. I believe that the gov't exists solely for keeping law and order. Since we must live together, we must have govt. To live in a free society, we must have as little of it as possible. The gov't is not an end in itself. It is a means to keep society safe for people to live and prosper: it has no right to interfere with anything else.
Right there, however you named 2 responsibilities. Law and Order. Two seperate yet equally important groups who... *damn TNT marathons*
Anyways, you make it out as evil that you protect people from death, but that is precisely what you continually say as well. Isn't the military a nanny, by your theory? Pshaw, crazy old generals, taking away our freedom of choice to be killed in a nuclear attack? Death is not a right, life is. The government exists to protect rights, ergo, to protect life.
So, a person has no right to decide where the money they paid is to go?
No. You elect people who do that, that's what a Representative Democracy is (IE, US). Were your ideal system a true Democracy, then yes you would have a choice (but your Constitution would be the most worthless piece of nothing ever, since it could be constantly overturned)
I'd go with something like Canada, really... except without the Queen
Heh. Not to be a dink or anything, but we've been separate from the monarchy for a long while. Queenie isn't in control, most places barely even recognize that the British royalty ever had control. I haven't seen a picture of the Queen in school since I was very little, and that's only because my teacher was old enough to have been one of the first settlers who came here. Don't mind me, I'm just bugging in good humour.
As for the topic, I really like my Canadian government as it is. I haven't taken a poli-sci class in years, so I'm admittedly rusty on the topic of government, but I have no complaints about how my country is run and organized. I'd love to pay less taxes, but as long as the money is going towards cool stuff like our awesome (more or less) health care system, I don't mind paying.
My ideal government = no government, Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law. But that's just me, not enough structure for a lot of people who expect others to share their goals and do their work and pay their bills simply because we reside on the same patch of land.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
~In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.~ Fu's Cab - Retired! ||| Trade thread dead for now; returning soon! One day I will alt. art my Jace, The Mind Sculptors into 'Mentok! The Mind Takers!' Quotes
Quote from Magikeeper »
Mr. Fu, your leaving of MTGnews' humor forum killed it. KILLLED IT!
So, a person has no right to decide where the money they paid is to go?
I still find your view on taxes flawed. Who owns the land your house is built on? You don't, unless you're willing to defend it yourself. Who owns the land that cities, corporations, schools, etc. are built on? Again, property owners have no real right to claim property, unless they are willing to defend that property themselves. If you think you and you alone own the land your house sits on, then try to stop me from waging war on your land. In reality, the population is only "borrowing" or "renting" land from the government, and taxes serve to pay the rental fee and the services attached to it (such as military and police defense). The government secured the land for you in the first place.
Or maybe you would advocate privatization of the military and police? We can each own our own land, but we would have to pay private agencies for defense? And perhaps we would have to hire private judicial courts to legislate on our land? I could create personal laws for my property, and if you violated those laws, I would have you tried by my personal court (or whichever court I decided to hire).
You claimed that celebrities should be entitled to a cut of the profits that other people make off them. By that same logic, the government is entitled to a cut of the profits that you make off its land (and other services). It only makes sense that one owes the government, and that's what taxes are for.
I still find your view on taxes flawed. Who owns the land your house is built on? You don't, unless you're willing to defend it yourself. Who owns the land that cities, corporations, schools, etc. are built on? Again, property owners have no real right to claim property, unless they are willing to defend that property themselves. If you think you and you alone own the land your house sits on, then try to stop me from waging war on your land. In reality, the population is only "borrowing" or "renting" land from the government, and taxes serve to pay the rental fee and the services attached to it (such as military and police defense). The government secured the land for you in the first place.
Or maybe you would advocate privatization of the military and police? We can each own our own land, but we would have to pay private agencies for defense? And perhaps we would have to hire private judicial courts to legislate on our land? I could create personal laws for my property, and if you violated those laws, I would have you tried by my personal court (or whichever court I decided to hire).
You claimed that celebrities should be entitled to a cut of the profits that other people make off them. By that same logic, the government is entitled to a cut of the profits that you make off its land (and other services). It only makes sense that one owes the government, and that's what taxes are for.
You...DO...know that I...support...taxation..........right? I believe the gov't exists for the sake of the three things you mentioned in your post: military, police, and a system of law. And I gladly pay taxes to support these. It is programs such as welfare and other such programs that the gov't shouldn't support, thus the tax payers shouldn't support. I know that for gov't to exist, taxes must exist(though I would honestly, though not realistically, prefer a non-compulsory tax system...but that is impossible); it is concerning what they are to be spent on that we are debating.
@Stax: First off, I would like you to stand and take a bow: You have the honor of being the one to type the most idiotic statement of the thread!!!!! :
Quote from Stax »
Pshaw, crazy old generals, taking away our freedom of choice to be killed in a nuclear attack?
I hope you were high on drugs when you typed that.
Now for the rest.
Quote from Stax »
Right there, however you named 2 responsibilities. Law and Order. Two seperate yet equally important groups who... *damn TNT marathons*
Anyways, you make it out as evil that you protect people from death, but that is precisely what you continually say as well. Isn't the military a nanny, by your theory? Pshaw, crazy old generals, taking away our freedom of choice to be killed in a nuclear attack? Death is not a right, life is. The government exists to protect rights, ergo, to protect life.
The military is not, as you say, protecting people from the "choice to be killed in a nuclear attack"..(?). They are protecting the country from outside invaders. However, if someone would like to die, I invite them to do so: knives work quite well. Your comparison is worse than Senori's: Comparing the military protecting the citizens to welfare. I am not
make it out as evil that you protect people from death
, I am making it out as evil to take the responsibility of making money and succeeding upon the gov't's shoulders, or more specifically, the tax payer's shoulders, ie my shoulders. The gov't *does* exist to protect rights. But not the rights that are the individual's to protect himself. Rights can only be violated by other people: if you go on a drinking spree, lose your job and end up homeless, it is not up to the gov't to be your mother and wipe your nose and make it better. People MUST be held responsible for certain aspects of their lives: while defending against a nuclear attack is not one of them, keeping yourself fed and in a home is.
I am not , I am making it out as evil to take the responsibility of making money and succeeding upon the gov't's shoulders, or more specifically, the tax payer's shoulders, ie my shoulders. The gov't *does* exist to protect rights. But not the rights that are the individual's to protect himself. Rights can only be violated by other people: if you go on a drinking spree, lose your job and end up homeless, it is not up to the gov't to be your mother and wipe your nose and make it better. People MUST be held responsible for certain aspects of their lives: while defending against a nuclear attack is not one of them, keeping yourself fed and in a home is.
What you seem to be completely missing is that a lot of the time being out of work/out of money is something that the person has no control over. You've bought into the whole mythology of the American dream. Anyone can become rich by working hard, and therefore if you're poor you're lazy and (by implication) immoral.
No one really responded to my earlier point about property, so I'll make it again. In capitalism, having property allows you to extort money from the people who actually earned it by producing. Unchecked, this system leads to the inevitable concentration of the vast majority of wealth and power in the hands of a few people, and your society becomes a plutocracy or a dictatorship. Since this extortion unfortunately is a necessary part of our economic system, it is the governement's responsibility to redistribute the wealth from those who benefit from this extortion to those who suffer from it. That is necessary to make the system fair (i.e. your income is in proportion to how hard you work for it, not how much property you have), and to counteract the natural tendency for capitalist systems to concentrate wealth (which is bad for the economy, and if left unchecked for too long, is a threat to civil rights).
You...DO...know that I...support...taxation..........right? I believe the gov't exists for the sake of the three things you mentioned in your post: military, police, and a system of law. And I gladly pay taxes to support these.
Sorry. Your views must have changed since the good ol' days. I wouldn't have ever imagined you using the phrase, "gladly pay taxes."
In any case, I would still argue that the government is responsible for more than those three things. I mentioned in that old thread that I believed the government must assume responsibility for a few other things, notably infrastructure, a treasury (and along with it the responsibility to control inflation), and food/drug regulation.
As long as government supplies services that benefit the whole public, we cannot hope to have a voluntary taxation system. The free rider problem will always exist.
What you seem to be completely missing is that a lot of the time being out of work/out of money is something that the person has no control over.
Out of curiosity---what is your economic status? Because, judging by that remark, it does not seem as though you've dealt with or met many poor people. Speaking from experience, having grown up in some very poor areas, there are very, very few cases in which a person has "no control" over their situation. More often than not, a person could improve their situation, except they are not willing to do what is required.
Quote from GMontag »
No one really responded to my earlier point about property, so I'll make it again. In capitalism, having property allows you to extort money from the people who actually earned it by producing. Unchecked, this system leads to the inevitable concentration of the vast majority of wealth and power in the hands of a few people, and your society becomes a plutocracy or a dictatorship. Since this extortion unfortunately is a necessary part of our economic system, it is the governement's responsibility to redistribute the wealth from those who benefit from this extortion to those who suffer from it. That is necessary to make the system fair (i.e. your income is in proportion to how hard you work for it, not how much property you have), and to counteract the natural tendency for capitalist systems to concentrate wealth (which is bad for the economy, and if left unchecked for too long, is a threat to civil rights).
Oh. So you're one of those, eh? Well, I'll try to untangle this.
First off, your assertion that all wealth comes from extortion is not only wrong, but damn offensive. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who owns property does so as a result of mercilessly leeching off the hard work of others. And it is NOT the gov'ts job to play Robin Hood.
In addition to that: As it stands, a huge chunk of the country's wealth is in the hands of maybe 10 Americans...the lower class and middle class outnumber the upper class greatly. Where is your plutocracy? Some would argue that Bush is a dictator, but that is another story entirely d
Quote from fadeblue »
Sorry. Your views must have changed since the good ol' days. I wouldn't have ever imagined you using the phrase, "gladly pay taxes."
No. I have always said that taxes are necessary to a society, even in "Government ad Perfecto". I did float around the word "voluntary", but that was the impractical, idealistic side of me jumping in.
Quote from fadeblue »
In any case, I would still argue that the government is responsible for more than those three things. I mentioned in that old thread that I believed the government must assume responsibility for a few other things, notably infrastructure, a treasury (and along with it the responsibility to control inflation), and food/drug regulation.
Ideally, infrastructure would eventually be privatized, however that would be one of the last things to happen in forming this system. A treasury: I took it for granted that a treasury was implied with the mention of taxes. Yes, it would exist. However, the Federal Banking System would not. It is not the gov'ts job to touch the economy. Seperation of Economy and State.
However, I would consider an FDA type thing. I refuse to limit production, but regulating what they produce, as far as safety goes, is another issues entirely.
The military is not, as you say, protecting people from the "choice to be killed in a nuclear attack"..(?). They are protecting the country from outside invaders. However, if someone would like to die, I invite them to do so: knives work quite well. Your comparison is worse than Senori's: Comparing the military protecting the citizens to welfare. I am not
You still haven't once said why the military is a special magic protection that's a-ok, but the rest are pointless.
, I am making it out as evil to take the responsibility of making money and succeeding upon the gov't's shoulders, or more specifically, the tax payer's shoulders, ie my shoulders. The gov't *does* exist to protect rights. But not the rights that are the individual's to protect himself. Rights can only be violated by other people: if you go on a drinking spree, lose your job and end up homeless, it is not up to the gov't to be your mother and wipe your nose and make it better. People MUST be held responsible for certain aspects of their lives: while defending against a nuclear attack is not one of them, keeping yourself fed and in a home is.
What a revalation T2. If you did an ounce of research, however, you'd know that there are limitations both on the length you can be on Unemployment/Welfare, and there is a serious application process.
You still haven't once said why the military is a special magic protection that's a-ok, but the rest are pointless.
Actually, I did in the paragraph after the one you quoted. The type of potection the military offers is against things which the citizens cannot control, such as nuclear attack. People must, as I said, be held responsible for their own general wellbeing, such as holding a job.
Quote from Stax »
What a revalation T2. If you did an ounce of research, however, you'd know that there are limitations both on the length you can be on Unemployment/Welfare, and there is a serious application process.
Amazingly enough, I know that. I know personally, oh, about 20 people who are currently on either Welfare or unemployment, and have heard them whine about the process. The fact that it takes *a while* for the gov't to give our money away doesn't make it right.
Actually, I did in the paragraph after the one you quoted. The type of potection the military offers is against things which the citizens cannot control, such as nuclear attack. People must, as I said, be held responsible for their own general wellbeing, such as holding a job.
Which is a blatant lie. I agree that a guy who says "Hey, lets have a tequila party today" instead of briefing on the big account, therefore losing his job does not deserve protection. But when, for instance, Mom and Pop's General store gets shunted out by Walmart, that simply is beyond their control. It's not quite so nasty, but not their fault as a nuclear attack.
Actually, I did in the paragraph after the one you quoted. The type of potection the military offers is against things which the citizens cannot control, such as nuclear attack. People must, as I said, be held responsible for their own general wellbeing, such as holding a job.
Last time I checked, I wasn't able to control whether the company I was working for's CEO was conducting massive fraud, and about to make the company go kaput.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, because you are turning charity into entitlement, which is stupid.
A. Government has sworn to protect citizens.
B. Things threaten citizens.
C. Government does as much possible to protect citizens.
You are simply wrong T2. You don't get to declare that hobo's are no longer citizens, and therefore not worthy of that protection. I support government reasearch (guy who dies from cancer), I support Suicide laws and hotlines (guy who kills himself), I support soup kitchens and aid for the poor/drug addicted (hobo/guy driven out of buisness/criminial), and yes I support the military (Guns, Bombs, Tanks).
Any person has a right to donate to or help whomever they wish. However, it is neither the right nor the purpose of a gov't to do it for them.
It is your responsibility to obey the law. The law says you pay taxes to the government. Ergo it is your responsibility to give the government your money.
The government is responsible to protect it's citizens. Citizens need money to be protected, government is responsible to protect them.
The government is entitled to your money. The people are entitled to the govnernment's money.
Yes
Well, ya' know, when you're right you're right. May as well repeat it.
And here it is once again... You are simply wrong T2. If you agree that a hobo is a citizen, then he or she is entitled to the same rights granted by this ideal government, which would provide for the hobo's. Otherwise, I keep repeating this and you keep not replying, the system is not ideal. The system would be just as built to fail as Communism. Communism fails because it doesn't respect human nature and desire for power. Your system fails because it assumes everyone will follow it like a good little citizen. In capitalism, a majority of people are either driven out by their corporate opponents, or paid the lowest wages possible so the company can get by. If your system doesn't help, that majority will be pissed off (rightly so). Pissed off poor majority vs happy wealthy minority = Every European Civil war, basically ever.
Non-government-run programs cannot be guaranteed by the government (the same reason I don't approve of privatized Social Security). The government has a responsibility to citizens which is not fulfilled by hoping private organizations cover their asses.
No. Saying you watch your back and the government will watch it's. You pay taxes for governmental protection, and the government doles it out where necessary. You don't get to pick and choose where your money is spent.
Feel free to act like a child. It just makes my rightness more evident.
And wouldn't you know it! America does have an economic divide, but you know why that's not a satisfactory answer?! THATS NOT YOUR SYSTEM. America has massive economic support, social support, etc. So... Thanks for giving me more evidence?
Now, if you'll excuse me until tonight, I must be getting off to work...earning myself some money, dontcha know
It's not math.
Your money /=/ Other People's money. The government is the switching station where it stops being your money.
You are. You know perfectly well that a government has more than one responsibility we are arguing over a government's protection responsibility, but of course that is balanced with the rights of the citizens which must be protected as well.
Yes, and your counterexample wasn't one. The American schizms aren't gigantic, and are further padded because the government follows it's responsibility.
[thread=41221][my extendo sig][/thread] [thread=56664][moderator helpdesk][/thread] [Pen and Paper Inn]
Just add me on msn if you have any questions or just want to talk
The gap between rich and poor is far *less* now than it was 100-150 years ago. The US did get quite close to a revolution for economic reasons near to the end of the 19th century. It was stopped due to the actions of Teddy Roosevelt and others pushing through laws like the minimum wage and child labor restrictions.
There's a reason they list the beginning of the Depression at the crash- yes, those things did worsen the Depression, but they were not the primary causes.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
The Great Depression proved that laissez-faire does not work T2sux. Government regulation is necessary.
The Great Depression is the inevitable outcome of unrestricted capitalism. It's a simple matter of doing the math. Capitalism without government intervention will inevitably result in the major amount of wealth being monopolized by a privileged few, causing the economy to destroy itself.
Honestly, I still can't understand how you can possibly keep rehashing the same arguments. We disproved everything you've ever said on MTGNews.
And, of course, that is assuming that " you know perfectly well that the gov't has more than one responsibility." Do I know that? Hm. I believe that the gov't exists solely for keeping law and order. Since we must live together, we must have govt. To live in a free society, we must have as little of it as possible. The gov't is not an end in itself. It is a means to keep society safe for people to live and prosper: it has no right to interfere with anything else. So, a person has no right to decide where the money they paid is to go?
There seems to be a slight misunderstanding about my view on this topic, and if this misunderstanding is my fault, then I apologize, and I will clarify: I know that pure capitalism is not a perfect system. I am not, contrary to popular belief, an idiot; however, in my estimation, it is the best system out there.
Pure capitalism, in the form I speak of, has never existed. Just as pure communism, which some of you speak of, has never existed. Would it be fair of me to say that Marxism is stupid based upon Stalinist Russia?
American capitalism is not pure capitalism. The crash of the stock market was not the result of greedy capitalists. It was the result of stupid people(investors) trusting other stupid people(brokers) with their money, and getting scared. This sparked a rampage to get to the banks, which couldn't give everyone their money. This was not a result of the priveleged few destroying the rest. The depression was the result of, essentially, people getting scared.
That, however, is beside the point. The reason capitalism is preferable to other form is essentially by default. Communism, Socialism, and all the bastard systems conceived therefrom...they stifle or abolish the rights of the individual, including(but not limited to) the right to progress by your own effort. Capitalism is the only economic system which promotes prosperity and progress for those who earn it. Therefore, in my estimation, it is the only moral system.
Right there, however you named 2 responsibilities. Law and Order. Two seperate yet equally important groups who... *damn TNT marathons*
Anyways, you make it out as evil that you protect people from death, but that is precisely what you continually say as well. Isn't the military a nanny, by your theory? Pshaw, crazy old generals, taking away our freedom of choice to be killed in a nuclear attack? Death is not a right, life is. The government exists to protect rights, ergo, to protect life.
No. You elect people who do that, that's what a Representative Democracy is (IE, US). Were your ideal system a true Democracy, then yes you would have a choice (but your Constitution would be the most worthless piece of nothing ever, since it could be constantly overturned)
Heh. Not to be a dink or anything, but we've been separate from the monarchy for a long while. Queenie isn't in control, most places barely even recognize that the British royalty ever had control. I haven't seen a picture of the Queen in school since I was very little, and that's only because my teacher was old enough to have been one of the first settlers who came here. Don't mind me, I'm just bugging in good humour.
As for the topic, I really like my Canadian government as it is. I haven't taken a poli-sci class in years, so I'm admittedly rusty on the topic of government, but I have no complaints about how my country is run and organized. I'd love to pay less taxes, but as long as the money is going towards cool stuff like our awesome (more or less) health care system, I don't mind paying.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
~In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.~
Fu's Cab - Retired! ||| Trade thread dead for now; returning soon!
One day I will alt. art my Jace, The Mind Sculptors into 'Mentok! The Mind Takers!'
Quotes
I still find your view on taxes flawed. Who owns the land your house is built on? You don't, unless you're willing to defend it yourself. Who owns the land that cities, corporations, schools, etc. are built on? Again, property owners have no real right to claim property, unless they are willing to defend that property themselves. If you think you and you alone own the land your house sits on, then try to stop me from waging war on your land. In reality, the population is only "borrowing" or "renting" land from the government, and taxes serve to pay the rental fee and the services attached to it (such as military and police defense). The government secured the land for you in the first place.
Or maybe you would advocate privatization of the military and police? We can each own our own land, but we would have to pay private agencies for defense? And perhaps we would have to hire private judicial courts to legislate on our land? I could create personal laws for my property, and if you violated those laws, I would have you tried by my personal court (or whichever court I decided to hire).
You claimed that celebrities should be entitled to a cut of the profits that other people make off them. By that same logic, the government is entitled to a cut of the profits that you make off its land (and other services). It only makes sense that one owes the government, and that's what taxes are for.
@Stax: First off, I would like you to stand and take a bow: You have the honor of being the one to type the most idiotic statement of the thread!!!!! : I hope you were high on drugs when you typed that.
Now for the rest. The military is not, as you say, protecting people from the "choice to be killed in a nuclear attack"..(?). They are protecting the country from outside invaders. However, if someone would like to die, I invite them to do so: knives work quite well. Your comparison is worse than Senori's: Comparing the military protecting the citizens to welfare. I am not , I am making it out as evil to take the responsibility of making money and succeeding upon the gov't's shoulders, or more specifically, the tax payer's shoulders, ie my shoulders. The gov't *does* exist to protect rights. But not the rights that are the individual's to protect himself. Rights can only be violated by other people: if you go on a drinking spree, lose your job and end up homeless, it is not up to the gov't to be your mother and wipe your nose and make it better. People MUST be held responsible for certain aspects of their lives: while defending against a nuclear attack is not one of them, keeping yourself fed and in a home is.
What you seem to be completely missing is that a lot of the time being out of work/out of money is something that the person has no control over. You've bought into the whole mythology of the American dream. Anyone can become rich by working hard, and therefore if you're poor you're lazy and (by implication) immoral.
No one really responded to my earlier point about property, so I'll make it again. In capitalism, having property allows you to extort money from the people who actually earned it by producing. Unchecked, this system leads to the inevitable concentration of the vast majority of wealth and power in the hands of a few people, and your society becomes a plutocracy or a dictatorship. Since this extortion unfortunately is a necessary part of our economic system, it is the governement's responsibility to redistribute the wealth from those who benefit from this extortion to those who suffer from it. That is necessary to make the system fair (i.e. your income is in proportion to how hard you work for it, not how much property you have), and to counteract the natural tendency for capitalist systems to concentrate wealth (which is bad for the economy, and if left unchecked for too long, is a threat to civil rights).
Sorry. Your views must have changed since the good ol' days. I wouldn't have ever imagined you using the phrase, "gladly pay taxes."
In any case, I would still argue that the government is responsible for more than those three things. I mentioned in that old thread that I believed the government must assume responsibility for a few other things, notably infrastructure, a treasury (and along with it the responsibility to control inflation), and food/drug regulation.
As long as government supplies services that benefit the whole public, we cannot hope to have a voluntary taxation system. The free rider problem will always exist.
GMontag: Great post. Maybe T2 can field that one.
Oh. So you're one of those, eh? Well, I'll try to untangle this.
First off, your assertion that all wealth comes from extortion is not only wrong, but damn offensive. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who owns property does so as a result of mercilessly leeching off the hard work of others. And it is NOT the gov'ts job to play Robin Hood.
In addition to that: As it stands, a huge chunk of the country's wealth is in the hands of maybe 10 Americans...the lower class and middle class outnumber the upper class greatly. Where is your plutocracy? Some would argue that Bush is a dictator, but that is another story entirely d
No. I have always said that taxes are necessary to a society, even in "Government ad Perfecto". I did float around the word "voluntary", but that was the impractical, idealistic side of me jumping in. Ideally, infrastructure would eventually be privatized, however that would be one of the last things to happen in forming this system. A treasury: I took it for granted that a treasury was implied with the mention of taxes. Yes, it would exist. However, the Federal Banking System would not. It is not the gov'ts job to touch the economy. Seperation of Economy and State.
However, I would consider an FDA type thing. I refuse to limit production, but regulating what they produce, as far as safety goes, is another issues entirely.
You still haven't once said why the military is a special magic protection that's a-ok, but the rest are pointless.
What a revalation T2. If you did an ounce of research, however, you'd know that there are limitations both on the length you can be on Unemployment/Welfare, and there is a serious application process.
Amazingly enough, I know that. I know personally, oh, about 20 people who are currently on either Welfare or unemployment, and have heard them whine about the process. The fact that it takes *a while* for the gov't to give our money away doesn't make it right.
Which is a blatant lie. I agree that a guy who says "Hey, lets have a tequila party today" instead of briefing on the big account, therefore losing his job does not deserve protection. But when, for instance, Mom and Pop's General store gets shunted out by Walmart, that simply is beyond their control. It's not quite so nasty, but not their fault as a nuclear attack.
Last time I checked, I wasn't able to control whether the company I was working for's CEO was conducting massive fraud, and about to make the company go kaput.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.