Tired of Sheep Being Referred to as "Americans"

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-06-22 05:03pm

.....if it wasn't for welfare....I wouldn't be living where I am now...Yea I lived most of my childhood in a one room apartment but 10 years later I am living in a 2 room apartment with a sizable living room so FUCK OFF!!! Probably been a bum if there was no welfare... ~Jason

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-06-22 05:04pm

The Question wrote:^^^

Yer dad should have sought private charities instead of being a moocher.

You can burn in Hell with the rest of your money. We need to give this guy the Fundie title.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-22 05:07pm

Two good quotes from Teh Mistar Capitalist himself:

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-22 05:08pm

And then there's that little line in the Conststition that says "To promote the general welfare.."

The much-abused general welfare clause is meant to be used in accordance with the enumerated powers, not to grant a whole slew of powers to the federal government. It is not an independent source of power.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 06:50pm

Durran Korr wrote:
And then there's that little line in the Conststition that says "To promote the general welfare.."
The much-abused general welfare clause is meant to be used in accordance with the enumerated powers, not to grant a whole slew of powers to the federal government. It is not an independent source of power.

Well said. And if wishes to go into specifics on the wording, it states "promote the general welfare" - not "provide the general welfare."

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 07:02pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:TQ, once more you're proving to be a fucking asshole.
Here's a great idea....since the government is not obligated to help people on hard times...dont give them a fucking penny after all its your money.....
Or is that a stupid idea?
Do you object to money spent on police or fire services?
After all your house isnt on fire right now so they are of no use to you....
You arent being robbed or mugged at the moment so damn spending money of police....

I know, lets stop paying the sanitation workers...you dont live in a literal shithole right now....but give it a week.....

Certainly sense must be applied to who gets what from the government, but have you forgotten that the government is BY the people FOR the people?
It isnt a fucking company out to make a profit.....

Government's sole proper and moral function is the protection of individual rights, and the punishment of those who violate them.

Rights are not obligatory - you do not have an inherent right and entitlement to that which others must provide. They impose the negative obligation not to violate the rights of others.

An example of this is: If you believe you have a right to food (distinguished from the right to enter voluntary trade for food without intereference from third parties) then how does nature provide this for you? Unless you make effort, you will gain no food if alone on a desert island. Therefore it is not a right.

Now, police, national defense, civil and criminal courts all deal with the adjudication of conflicting rights claims, punishment of those who violate rights, and protection of rights from violators, domestic and foreign.

Thus such functions are within the moral purview of government.

Stripped down to these proper functions, government need not cost the $1 trillion annual budget it does now.

Funding for these kinds of functions can be provided through voluntary means, obviating the need for the immoral theft called taxation. (And it is theft, no matter how you try to rationalize it - morality does not benefit from economy of scale.)

Now, as to how this may be funded voluntarily -

My particular favorite is contract insurance.

That is - and briefly - any person or entities who wish to engage in any form of voluntary contract, ranging from something as simple as a retail transaction to a multi-billion merger, would have the option of paying 1% or even up to 2% of the face value of the contract to the government, which would ensure them the right to access the civil courts should they need to as regards that contract.

Those who decline paying this 1-2% would be free to continue with their business transaction, but would have no access to civil courts as regards that contract should grievances arise.

Since sales tax - ranging in this country up to 10% in some states - would be null and void, no one can say that 1-2% optional fee would be onerous. And indeed it would be voluntary.

By replacing any and all sales and income tax with this simple option, you would raise more than enough money to fund the military, courts, police, etc.

That's just one way to raise funds voluntarily. There are others.

As to sewage and fire services - those too can be funded voluntarily and through user fees, among other mechanisms.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Making others pay for your lunch against their consent using the force of the state is immoral, and no different than a mugger with a gun.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-06-22 08:26pm

dont be even more of a fucking asshole....you think its right to leave people to starve?
Food is not a basic right?
Well, try this one on for size....
"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

No food = no life.
No water = no life.
No shelter = no life.

There's three things from welfare systems under the very first one.....

Note the order too, life comes first because without that there is nothing.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 08:37pm

The Question wrote: Funding for these kinds of functions can be provided through voluntary means, obviating the need for the immoral theft called taxation. (And it is theft, no matter how you try to rationalize it - morality does not benefit from economy of scale.)

"Taxes are part of an agreement that voters make with government, a contract in which citizens agree to exchange their money for the government's goods and services. To consume these goods and services without paying for them is itself theft, and is rightly punished as breach of contract. Some may object that they have not agreed to the contract, but if so, then they must not consume the government's goods and services. Furthermore, contract by majority rule is better than by minority rule, one-person rule or anarchy (which results in kill-or-be-killed). Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy."

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxestheft.htm

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-22 08:44pm

Keevan Colton wrote:"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Unfortunately, the Preamble has no basis in law, and those are not legally prescribed rights.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-06-22 08:48pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Keevan Colton wrote:"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Unfortunately, the Preamble has no basis in law, and those are not legally prescribed rights.

True, though it certainly could be cited in terms of the intent.....and it remains...dead people whether they die by starvation or by violence, are deprived of all but thier right to be dead and decompose.....which does mean its pretty high on the list of things the government should be looking out for.....

I also didnt think this was limited specifically to legal rights either....is there a law stating specifically we have the legal right to consume oxygen after all?

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 08:50pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Keevan Colton wrote:"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Unfortunately, the Preamble has no basis in law, and those are not legally prescribed rights.

The reason Jefferson wrote that in the Declaration of Independence was because he couldn't come up with a logical explanation of why everyone deserves rights.

"Liberals believe that rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement. Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. Rights cannot be inalienable, because governments frequently revoke rights. They cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today. Rights cannot be self-evident, because philosophers have been vigorously arguing over them for thousands of years. "

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-06-22 08:53pm

Ah, I see now. It's a knee-jerk argument against taxes, because Question doesn't understand how things work. Given human greed, though, his arguments for 'voluntary' payments are a load of hot air.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-06-22 08:55pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:I also didnt think this was limited specifically to legal rights either....is there a law stating specifically we have the legal right to consume oxygen after all?

I thought it was about government.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 08:56pm

Yes, it would appear The Question does not completely understand the concept of taxes and government. Nobody makes their money 100% on their own.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-06-22 09:02pm

Hobot wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Keevan Colton wrote:"The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
Unfortunately, the Preamble has no basis in law, and those are not legally prescribed rights.
The reason Jefferson wrote that in the Declaration of Independence was because he couldn't come up with a logical explanation of why everyone deserves rights.

"Liberals believe that rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement. Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. Rights cannot be inalienable, because governments frequently revoke rights. They cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today. Rights cannot be self-evident, because philosophers have been vigorously arguing over them for thousands of years. "

- http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm

Haha! I just finished reading a great rebuke of the Austrian school of economic thought from that site.

Hobot wrote:Yes, it would appear The Question does not completely understand the concept of taxes and government. Nobody makes their money 100% on their own.

Put a better way: there is no such thing as a "self-made" man.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-22 09:03pm

I also didnt think this was limited specifically to legal rights either....is there a law stating specifically we have the legal right to consume oxygen after all?

Yes, the right to life, which is impossible without oxygen.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-06-22 09:04pm

Durran Korr wrote:
I also didnt think this was limited specifically to legal rights either....is there a law stating specifically we have the legal right to consume oxygen after all?
Yes, the right to life, which is impossible without oxygen.

See my above point about food, water and shelter.......it's just as valid.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-22 09:04pm

SirNitram wrote:Ah, I see now. It's a knee-jerk argument against taxes, because Question doesn't understand how things work. Given human greed, though, his arguments for 'voluntary' payments are a load of hot air.

I always find it amusing when his breed of callous "no moral obligation to have sympathy for fellow humans" thinkers turns around and demonstrate the staggering naivete to assume that people will voluntarily fund a viable social services network out of their own pockets.

In any case, he persists in stating the tenets of his particular concept of ethics (based solely on his own rights, with no room for sympathy or social welfare) as facts. They are facts in the sense that he is accurately describing his own beliefs, but he persists in stating them as absolutes, despite not having any clear justification for doing so (a common trait of Randroids, who fall not far from the tree).

The fact is that he is describing one system of ethics, while we are describing another. But how does one decide which system is superior? When attempting to compare any two systems or models, we must look at two factors:

Goal: what is the goal of a system of ethics?
Performance: how successful are the competing systems at reaching that goal?

It is impossible to determine the performance of a system without defining the goal of that system. So what is the goal of a system of ethics? Humanists think that the goal of a system of ethics is to improve the human condition, ie- reduce suffering, improve living conditions, etc.

Of course, this leads to the next question: what do Randroids view as the goal of their system of ethics? To be honest, I don't know if I've ever heard a Randroid state what he thinks the purpose of an ethical system should be (how convenient, since that eliminates any possibility of evaluation and causes ethical debates with Randroids to degenerate into useless "you have your system and I have mine" stalemates); as far as they are concerned, an ethical system is simply a set of self-evident tenets which they repeat ad nauseum when challenged.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 09:08pm

The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean that no other man may rightfully take these away from any man, except as punishment for violating the selfsame rights of others, or by force used in defense.

The right to life means no man may initiate force to take it from you.

The right to life does not mean that others must provide you that which you need to continue to live. That is your own responsibility, as owner of your own life.

To suggest that the productive have an involuntary obligation to provide for those who do not produce is to advocate slavery.

No rationalizing or citation of "need" or existing immorality (i.e. "that's how government and taxes work") change this fact.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-06-22 09:12pm

A wonderful passage sprung to mind looking over this thread and the positions of the people involved....

"At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge," said the gentleman, taking up a pen, "it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.
"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."
"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.
"Both very busy, sir."
"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."
"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"
"Nothing!" replied Scrooge.
"You wish to be anonymous?"
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas, and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. ... It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"
? Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-06-22 09:17pm

Governments are formed to protect their citizens from threats to their well-being. Governments have armies to protect their citizens from invasion, police forces to protect them from criminals, fire departments to protect them from fire, disaster-relief funds to protect them from acts of God (just an expression!), public schools to protect them from their own ignorance, and welfare to protect them from economic problems that are not their fault.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-06-22 09:18pm

The Question wrote:The right to life does not mean that others must provide you that which you need to continue to live. That is your own responsibility, as owner of your own life.

While I agree with you to some extent, I don't think the government should sit by and leave citizens who have fallen on hard times unassisted. My dad's been out of a job for 6 months now because of this piece of shit economy we're living in. The government does bear some responsibility for those who are out of work because it is partially responsible for the massive economic downturn that we've taken.

Of course, I could also mention that the Supreme Court ruled that an accused man's right to legal council compelled the government to provide it if he could not afford it himself, too, which blows your argument completely out of the water.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 09:22pm

The Question wrote:The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mean that no other man may rightfully take these away from any man, except as punishment for violating the selfsame rights of others, or by force used in defense.

The right to life means no man may initiate force to take it from you.

The right to life does not mean that others must provide you that which you need to continue to live. That is your own responsibility, as owner of your own life.

To suggest that the productive have an involuntary obligation to provide for those who do not produce is to advocate slavery.

No rationalizing or citation of "need" or existing immorality (i.e. "that's how government and taxes work") change this fact.

If you don't help those who can't produce then they will never end up producing.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-22 09:24pm

If you don't help those who can't produce then they will never end up producing.

Neither will rewarding them not to produce. The system stops rewarding you when you become more productive, what do you think people are going to do? Subsidies tend to create more of whatever is being subsidized, and welfare recipients are no exception.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 09:25pm

Durandal wrote:My dad's been out of a job for 6 months now because of this piece of shit economy we're living in. The government does bear some responsibility for those who are out of work because it is partially responsible for the massive economic downturn that we've taken.

It's not exactly the government that bears responsibility. When your dad was working, his tax dollars went to supporting others who were out of work. Now that he's done on his luck others are supporting him. It's cliche but true, "No man is an island". We're all looking out for each other because in the end it benefits us.