Almost half of Americans don’t pay any federal income taxes, at all. How are they paying their share? Oh wait, they’re not. May have something to do with why they enjoy spending other people’s money so wantonly.
What purpose would that serve? I can’t fight for freedom in a prison cell.
The idea is for me and others to try and convince others that socialism is bad, and individual responsibility and limited government are good. It’s a continuous battle. Not sure whether we’re winning or losing.
And the people who don’t pay can ***always ***be counted on to vote for higher taxes.
You’re not fighting for freedom, dear. You’re whining on a message board. You understand that there’s a difference, right?
Can I *choose *to opt out of your plan? Are you pro-choice?
Here? Perhaps not. But how do you know what I do with the rest of my time?
Well, you’ll get arrested…
… and the government will give you free health care in prison.
No, I will not complain that you will get free care there, I want to keep my humanity.
Well, I had a feeling, but Mel Gibson only had one gun.
Oh, you’re definitely losing, but there’s always next century.
Rand Rover, you keep posing the issue in terms of people wanting, and provide similes about movie tickets and Bugattis that are so daft that they distract from the argument; Crafter_Man at least directly defines healthcare, to him, is a “luxury”.
But you both must realize that to the overwhelming majority of the rest of humanity, the Healthcare issue is NOT about wanting a luxury, it’s about a life-or-death NEED. The more accurate position from those on the other side is “I NEED it, you have it, give SOME to me”. Notice, that this does NOT per se create any more moral obligation upon you or Crafter_Man. But not every form of social benefit is someone merely seeking to live large for free. A NEED exists – that this may not be the best or the right way to fulfill the need, THAT can be debated.
However, at this point in history, the line of thought explained by Leaper prevails. A majority of society seems to agree with it. And all the counter-answer the harcore liberts ever give to his point is never mind that, you’re taking some of what’s mine!.
Well, that may be so. But we the society have organized into a polity that we have authorized to take some of what’s mine and of what’s yours in order to get things done that the polity deems good. If the libertopian can tell the poor “sucks to be you” when it comes to the necessities of life, then I can’t be too choked up when the majority tells the libertopian “sucks to be you” when it comes to exercise of power.
I don’t. I’m okay with that.
The more you explain your arguments, the more I am inclined toward socialism. I thought I liked capitalism and competition, but the way you explain it, it sounds evil and cruel. I am afraid you are not doing your philosophy much good. Perhaps anything, even freedom, becomes grotesque when taken to extremes (Barry Goldwater notwithstanding).
I have far less of a problem with C_M’s point of view than I do with Rand Rover’s, even though the latter’s ideal society is probably much closer to mine.
Now, can we get back to bashing the fuckwit? This isn’t GD, people.
I have to disagree with you on this. By this rationale, locking **Rand **in a cage too small for him to stand up and repeatedly poking him with a sharp stick would be good for society.
Wait, I think my argument’s self-defeating.
So, does this mean that Rand Rover will give me a bitchin’ 1973 Ford Falcon XB GT coupe with a supercharger, which of course will be just the thing to drive during an energy crisis?
Okay, I’m trying to make a Great Debate on this, but I’m having trouble finding the right words for it. So here’s another question I’d like to ask Crafter_Man, Rand Rover, and others who agree with them:
The reason why you get a lot of heat and contempt in threads like this is that your philosophy APPEARS to be saying that the poor have no right to live. After all, stuff like health care and food are vital to someone’s living or dying. And, by definition, the poor do not have the resources to obtain these on their own. Further, while many are able to GET the resources to obtain these things on their own, it is a given that there is a non-significant proportion who cannot. And again, there must be a non-significant proportion for whom these circumstances were out of their control.
So those who call you “inhumane” think that you would rather watch those people die rather than give up a few bucks. And yes, people die all the time from starvation and such, but since these debate threads are about making public policy in the U.S., it feels viscerally more direct and “at home” than debating about giving aid to Africa, for example.
How do you respond to that? How would you convince others that “letting people die” is a lesser evil? In comparison with what?
Very true. But the socialists will only be able to push us so far. The socialists are trying to compress a mass that resists being compressed. There will come a day when further compression will cause it to explode. Hence the reason most of us have been stocking up on guns and ammo.
Sigh. Individual freedom is not anarchy. If you can be a liberal and not be a marxist communist, people can certainly believe in increasing personal freedom without wanting anarchy.
Quit with the strawmen. I don’t think anyone here is advocating some sort of post-apocalyptic hobbsean wasteland, just like no one here is suggesting that the government take over everything and play Harrison Bergeron with our economy.
For a bunch of people deriding others for being sociopaths or stupid or dishonest, a lot of you are howling hypocrites.
Hmm. Good point. However, allow me to point out something you may have overlooked:
Me sucking a dick is not going to lead to thousands of citizens of the wealthiest nation in the world dying of easily treatable diseases. If we allow social policy to be set by high-functioning sociopaths such as Crafter_Man and yourself, we will have precisely that.
Ah, but stupidity is, indeed, a mental defect. And calling health care a luxury is indeed incredibly stupid, because a luxury is, by definition, something that a person can live without. Without health care, people will fucking die. So calling it a “luxury” is, at the very least, clear evidence of someone with a substandard intellect.
I’ll also go ahead and point out that I just said he was defective. I didn’t specify if it was a mental defect, or a moral defect. Considering his posting history, I’m prepared to allow that Crafter_Man’s problem is purely mental.
You, on the other hand, seem to fall more on the moral defect side of the scale.
Somehow, finding out that you, of all people, are on his side does not lead me to add any additional credence to his opinions.
No, “evil and cruel” is forcing people to give their property to others for their own, individual benefit.
So you can be slaughtered by the guys with planes and tanks?