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.
Yawg Will should be banned, but the rule is that a card can't be banned unless from illegal sets, ante, and Dexterity, so it will never happen
No. no no no no no. T1 is SUPPOSED TO BE BROKEN. That's why we play. As I said, if you ban will, then you have to ban Ancestral Recall, Black Lotus and a buttload of other cards that are FAR more powerful than Will. This is not like ext or T2 where they ban a card for being moderately powerful.
T1 is, and has always been, the broken format. No format has ever come close to being as insanely broken. If they ban Will, what message is that sending? The slippery slope, my friends, the slippery slope. If Will is too powerful, then surely Ancestral Recall is. After all, it basically wins the game for you when you resolve it. Or Black Lotus? The Moxen?!?!? Oh, that's right...this isn't 1.5.
Leave Will alone, he's had a hard enough life as it is.
Draven watches King suspiciously. He sizes him up, determining that he is no threat; However, he comes from the government, so Draven is wary nonetheless. He focuses, listening to what King has to say.
Voting begins on January 23 and lasts until January 30.Clans who participate but don't vote are not eligible for any points.
Each clan places a 1st place vote and a 2nd place vote.
The cards should be judged with flavor/humor as a main factor.
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.
Alright, I am really sick of thi tsunami crap. Tragedys happe ever hour of very day. Just because the media has chosen this as something the should constanley talk about 24/7,doesn't me it is actually anyworse than other things going on.
Actually...it is. Can you name another tragedy of late in which over 150,000 people died? No? Okay then.
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.
First off, I agree with your sentiments. You should not be forced to give your money, nor should you be attacked for your beliefs.
However, you handled it all wrong. What you did was an act of showmanship; meretricious to the extreme.
All you should have done was simply not donate when asked to. She can't force you to. Just say "no" to charity. To hold an arguement with someone where none is necessary is silly.
Oh, and the posterboard---come on, dude. Are you serious?
Are you guys up for a clan contest? We are hashing out the rules for a clan contest in the clan council, would anyone be interested?
We are discussing a card making contest: A set to represent the clan. It would be something to the effect of: 10 cards. 5 representing individual clan members, 1 representing philosophy, 1 land card representing where we "are", and 3 generic. How's that sound?(Damn, too bad there is already an Ivory Tower card...)
EDIT: Okay, here are the final rules, it seems:
Quote from SneakyHomunculus »
10 cards total.
5 are for members
1 representing clan philosophy
1 land representing the world/lair/domain/whatever
3 generic
The cards will be judged flavor-wise for the most part, but also by powerlevel.
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
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.
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.
T1 is, and has always been, the broken format. No format has ever come close to being as insanely broken. If they ban Will, what message is that sending? The slippery slope, my friends, the slippery slope. If Will is too powerful, then surely Ancestral Recall is. After all, it basically wins the game for you when you resolve it. Or Black Lotus? The Moxen?!?!? Oh, that's right...this isn't 1.5.
Leave Will alone, he's had a hard enough life as it is.
I need a banner. I hope I can describe it well.
I want a picture of the white tower from LotR, preferably on a sunny-day backround.
To the side(s) of it, I want this
In front of it I want, in pale blue letters, "The Ivory Tower"
If you could do that, it would be great. It might need some adjustments, cuz I'm not sure how that will come out.
Thanks!
@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.
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.
First off, I agree with your sentiments. You should not be forced to give your money, nor should you be attacked for your beliefs.
However, you handled it all wrong. What you did was an act of showmanship; meretricious to the extreme.
All you should have done was simply not donate when asked to. She can't force you to. Just say "no" to charity. To hold an arguement with someone where none is necessary is silly.
Oh, and the posterboard---come on, dude. Are you serious?
We are discussing a card making contest: A set to represent the clan. It would be something to the effect of: 10 cards. 5 representing individual clan members, 1 representing philosophy, 1 land card representing where we "are", and 3 generic. How's that sound?(Damn, too bad there is already an Ivory Tower card...)
EDIT: Okay, here are the final rules, it seems:
Now, if you'll excuse me until tonight, I must be getting off to work...earning myself some money, dontcha know