Tired of Sheep Being Referred to as "Americans"

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-22 10:11pm

Proof?

The high illegitimacy rate among black Americans.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-06-22 10:12pm

Durran Korr wrote:
No, what the American poor can't afford is to have one of their few chances for income in this piss-poor economy taken away because people feel they shouldn't have to pay taxes. It's one thing to sit high and mighty, well out of the blast zone, and proclaim this and that, but as someone whose hit bottum(fuckin' economy) and used the local welfare until I got my current temp job, I can tell you that, while there are bad eggs abusing the system(What system is unabusable, exactly?), it's very necessary.
If you'll please notice, I'm not advocating that we just throw all welfare out, at least not yet. In a country as large as the United States, the federal government simply isn't going to be suited to deal with poverty as much as local governments are. The programs should be handed over to the states.

I'll admit I missed that, and agree. Conneticut, my old home, used to have a system where they just generated masses of simple government jobs for those occasions, but I doubt most states could even afford that(CT, one must remember, is about the richest state per capita in the Union).

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-06-22 10:15pm

Durandal wrote:People living on government assistance aren't living a life of luxury, I hate to tell you. The only reason my family's surviving right now is because my mom now works full-time (she only used to be part-time, but went full-time because of the benefits, even though her current salary is effectively less than what she used to get because she always worked overtime), and we have savings for times like this.

Even so, my dad is a productive citizen who pays his taxes. When he falls on hard times, it's in the government's best interest to help him out while he finds another job because he'll be paying taxes again and making money for the company he works for. We shouldn't eliminate government assistance; we should make it stricter so that people don't spend their lives on it while allowing productive people who got screwed to get back on their feet.

Wells said, and my opinion exactly. (Wow thought that wouldn't happen) Some welfare is necessary and expected. I pay buko taxes and if I should fall on hard times, I expect those taxes I paid to help me out while I get on my feet. However, one should not expect a free ride through life and limits should be put on the system so that I don't pay for some one elses life.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 10:49pm

Hobot wrote: And you think people in Scandanavian countries don't have those things?

Actually, people in Scandinavian countries have a lower per capita income than the demographic group in the United States which has the lowest per capita income - black Americans*.

* - note: this is a statement of statistical reality, not a judgement nor a suggestion that it is somehow a product of blackness, but rather the unfortunate black experience in American history.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2003-06-22 10:50pm

Take it to HoS people

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 10:56pm

Darth Wong wrote: 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.

A) You obviously missed where I outlined a clear and workable way for government to be funded by voluntary means.

B) A social services network is the proper responsibiliity of charities, churches and private organization - not government.

Of course, this leads to the next question: what do Randroids view as the goal of their system of ethics?

The removal of force from human relations and interactions, except force used in defense of rights.

The maximization of liberty.

Nothing you have said has refuted a single word I posted.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2003-06-22 10:58pm

I'm locking this thread temporarily while I finish splitting this shit off.

TAKE IT TO HoS.

Edit: thread unlocked, anymore posts by Mohammed in it or responses to Mohammed will be deleted.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-06-22 11:13pm

Something else I'd like to point out about Sweden in particular is that Sweden has a few advantages over other European countries; it has historically been quite prosperous, and it wasn't devastated in WWII. Take a look at countries like Spain and Italy who have neither of these advantages but have comparable welfare states, and you'll find that there aren't as well off as Sweden.

And there's also the possibility that the Swedish people are good at staying out of poverty. We have lots of people of Swedish decent in America and they tend to not be poor, either.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 11:13pm

The Question wrote:
Hobot wrote: And you think people in Scandanavian countries don't have those things?

Actually, people in Scandinavian countries have a lower per capita income than the demographic group in the United States which has the lowest per capita income - black Americans*.

* - note: this is a statement of statistical reality, not a judgement nor a suggestion that it is somehow a product of blackness, but rather the unfortunate black experience in American history.

You should examine the GDP (PPP) which gives you a better idea of countries' wealth in relation to each other.

Norway - 29,918
Sweden - 24,277

US - 34,142

Stats here.

Yes, the US has the second highest GDP (PPP) (Luxembourg's is 50,061!), but what that really means in terms of who lives a better life is questionable...

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 11:18pm

Durran Korr wrote:Something else I'd like to point out about Sweden in particular is that Sweden has a few advantages over other European countries; it has historically been quite prosperous, and it wasn't devastated in WWII. Take a look at countries like Spain and Italy who have neither of these advantages but have comparable welfare states, and you'll find that there aren't as well off as Sweden.

And there's also the possibility that the Swedish people are good at staying out of poverty. We have lots of people of Swedish decent in America and they tend to not be poor, either.

Norway had a rough time in WWII and they're 1st on the UN's HDI.

I'm mentioning Scandanavian countries in particular because they're socialist democracies.

Germanic people in general seem to be industrious, I'm not sure where that element in their culture comes from originally though.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 11:19pm

Hobot wrote:
The Question wrote:
Hobot wrote: ... but what that really means in terms of who lives a better life is questionable...

I prefer objective measures such as imaximized liberty and higher per capita income as a measure of my own quality of life.

The idea that a social safety is a value to justify a social safety net seem circular.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 11:23pm

The Question wrote:
Hobot wrote:
The Question wrote:
I prefer objective measures such as imaximized liberty and higher per capita income as a measure of my own quality of life.

The idea that a social safety is a value to justify a social safety net seem circular.

How does one determine maximized liberty and compare it to other countries?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 11:30pm

Hobot wrote: How does one determine maximized liberty and compare it to other countries?

Good question. None would come off spotless, would they?

One would examine the criminal laws and taxes, and set at the positive end of the spectrum those countries with the least amount of taxation, the most positive enforcement of individual rights (life, liberty and property), and the least amount of laws that restrict or regulate behavior between consenting adults - be it in the boardroom or the bedroom, as it were.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 11:32pm

The Question wrote:
Hobot wrote: How does one determine maximized liberty and compare it to other countries?

Good question. None would come off spotless, would they?

One would examine the criminal laws and taxes, and set at the positive end of the spectrum those countries with the least amount of taxation, the most positive enforcement of individual rights (life, liberty and property), and the least amount of laws that restrict or regulate behavior between consenting adults - be it in the boardroom or the bedroom, as it were.

I disagree with you on taxes but agree about the criminal laws (as long as they apply to things that do not harm others like personal drug use [not in a car though =P] and sex between consenting adults).

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-22 11:42pm

Hobot wrote:
The Question wrote:
Hobot wrote: How does one determine maximized liberty and compare it to other countries?

Good question. None would come off spotless, would they?

One would examine the criminal laws and taxes, and set at the positive end of the spectrum those countries with the least amount of taxation, the most positive enforcement of individual rights (life, liberty and property), and the least amount of laws that restrict or regulate behavior between consenting adults - be it in the boardroom or the bedroom, as it were.
I disagree with you on taxes but agree about the criminal laws (as long as they apply to things that do not harm others like personal drug use [not in a car though =P] and sex between consenting adults).

I believe our disagreement stems from the point that I do not see the right to one's property as any more fungible or brokerable than the right to one's own life and liberty.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-22 11:48pm

believe our disagreement stems from the point that I do not see the right to one's property as any more fungible or brokerable than the right to one's own life and liberty.

But nothing you earn is 100% yours. You are supported in a multitude of ways by society so that you can make your living. When you live in a country you are agreeing to contribute so that others contributions will help you. You pay taxes and get all sorts of government services as well as helping others who are in need. Should you ever need help, the taxes others pay will help you so that you may recover and once again contribute to society and live a happy life.

Taxes aren't theft. They are your responsibility to the rest of society.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-23 12:00am

Hobot wrote: But nothing you earn is 100% yours. You are supported in a multitude of ways by society so that you can make your living.

But it is 100% mine. I owe no one with whom I have entered voluntary trade because we each traded value for value.

The only thing that approximates what you refer to as "support by society" is that government has, as is it's proper role and for which I have paid through taxes* has protected my individual rights.

The actions of others in mutual consent that have an ancillary benefit to me do not create an obligation.

That is, if I put in a street light in front of my house for my own benefit, it also benefits others who walk along the street. That does not mean I have created in them a debt of any sort.

*- this does not mean I approve of the mechanism of involuntary taxation - as stated previously the same protections can be funded by other means.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-23 12:02am

"Many conservatives and libertarians have argued that the government has no right to tax their money; they earned it, and the government has no right to "steal" it.

However, these individuals could not have made a dime on the free market without any of the following government supports of the free market:

* Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
* Public roads.
* Rural electrification.
* Government subsidized telephone wiring.
* Satellite communications.
* Police protection.
* Military protection.
* A criminal justice system.
* Fire protection.
* Paramedic protection.
* An educated workforce.
* An immunized workforce.
* Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control.
* Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies.
* Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices.
* The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.
* Student loans.
* Government funded research and development.
* National Academy of Sciences.
* Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
* Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now).
* Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed.
* Federal Emergency Management Agency.
* Public libraries.
* Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture)
* National Biological Service.
* National Weather Service
* Public job training.

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them."

Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937)

Filene (of Boston's Filene's Department Stores) founded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to encourage businesses to contribute to the welfare of their communities. He eventually quit the organization, disappointed that it had become a bastion of right-wing conservatism and an anti-tax lobby."

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

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-06-23 12:03am

Hobot wrote:And you think people in Scandanavian countries don't have those things?

I don't want to burst your bubble, but I saw on TV that the Scandinavian still build primitive huts and swing their huge swords at everything they can't understand. They even sometimes raid villages and towns on those big-ass ships. And we all know that Hollywood never lies.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-23 12:04am

Wow, do you think they have some sort of connection with the Vikings or maybe even Hell's Angels?

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-23 12:06am

Hobot wrote:
* Police protection.
* Military protection.
* A criminal justice system.
* Protection from business fraud
* The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights.

Except for these - none of the others on that list are the proper function of government, and as such good facts cannot be based on bad precedent.

I have to go, as I have a busy week of pursuing my own self-interests ahead

but you may have the last word for the evening, and I will try to check in later this week.

Good evening, and well met.

Hobot · Post by **Hobot** » 2003-06-23 12:14am

Later.

For when you get back:

Except for these - none of the others on that list are the proper function of government, and as such good facts cannot be based on bad precedent.

I would ask what you believe the proper function of the government is. In addition, although you may think those on the list are not proper functions of hte government they happen to be run by the government anyway. They have to be supported somehow...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-06-23 01:07am

The Question wrote:A) You obviously missed where I outlined a clear and workable way for government to be funded by voluntary means.

I'm sorry, but if you look at the forum heading, this is not the "delusional fantasy" forum.

B) A social services network is the proper responsibiliity of charities, churches and private organization - not government.

And who decides what is the "proper responsibility" of government? You?

Of course, this leads to the next question: what do Randroids view as the goal of their system of ethics?
The removal of force from human relations and interactions, except force used in defense of rights.

The maximization of liberty.

Exactly as I predicted, your definition is circular. You state the tenets of your ethics system as the goal of your ethics system, then brag that they succeed. Quite amusing, really.

Nothing you have said has refuted a single word I posted.

Of course not, since you have not made an argument to refute. Instead, you stated a series of premises (eg- that property is no less important than life itself, no morality apart from defense of your own rights, etc) for which you have provided no real justification except for your self-declaration. There is literally nothing to refute, since a logical argument takes the form "A therefore B", and yours simply states "B".

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-06-23 01:39am

Is "opium dreams" a valid expression in english? Because that's what I'd call those rantings about how voluntaries around the world should solve society's problems with poverty and disease.

The Question · Post by **The Question** » 2003-06-23 01:45am

Darth Wong wrote: I'm sorry, but if you look at the forum heading, this is not the "delusional fantasy" forum.

And who decides what is the "proper responsibility" of government? You?

Exactly as I predicted, your definition is circular. You state the tenets of your ethics system as the goal of your ethics system, then brag that they succeed. Quite amusing, really.

Of course not, since you have not made an argument to refute. Instead, you stated a series of premises (eg- that property is no less important than life itself, no morality apart from defense of your own rights, etc) for which you have provided no real justification except for your self-declaration. There is literally nothing to refute, since a logical argument takes the form "A therefore B", and yours simply states "B".

I presume you are tired, have been drinking or are ill, as this whole response was far, far beneath the kind of argumentation I know you are capable of.

We'll talk when you are feeling more up to snuff.