Wow! You mean I could get a $600 rebate instead of $300? An entire $1.65 a day? How generous, considering it was my money to start with. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Pius, your stress on concepts like “theft” equaling “taxation” exposes the fundamental weakness of your philosophy. As relentlessly rational as you purport to be, you must, like all philosophys, come to rest on an assumption that you demand the listener accept as a given. In your case, it is the concept of “property”.
I have a cold, do I own it? If I give it to you, do I have half as much? I have sorrow, if I share it, it is halved, if I share joy, it is doubled. You and I, we share a soul, if you sully it, I must cleanse it. I have children, would you like one? (They’re rather expensive, were it not for the procedure, I doubt they would be very popular.)
I have a cat, my neighbor gave it to me. My cat is no more cognizant of my ownership than is my bicycle, in fact, a case could be made that she takes an entirely different view of the nature of our relationship.
Human rights, compassion, freedom…all of these are, ultimately, based on irrational assumptions, sooner or later, its “turtles all the way down”. Your elevation of property rights as some sort of overarching value depends on nothing more reasonable than my cat’s. Ms. Rand, the Vampirella of Phil. 101, would have us believe that her philosophy is founded on pure reason. Oddly enough, she shares this particular vanity with Marx. They are both full of beans, and for the same reason.
The rational mind is a tool, a most excellent tool for its purposes, but its limitations must not be ignored. In matters of philosophy, and most especially questions of the spirit, it is like hunting butterflys with a hammer: you may succeed, but the result is a dead and mangled thing, better left alone to flutter about, to wonder at and be exalted by.
It doesn’t logically follow, dear. The money going to social welfare is not yours. It first and foremost belongs to the government, because you entrusted your taxes to them. If it wasn’t going to social welfare, it would be going to something else. You may disagree with paying for foodstamps, just like I disagree that my money should be paying for this war. But I’m not foolish enough to think that the money was stolen from me. No, once I hand it over to the government, it’s not mine anymore. I don’t get to earmark my dollars. It sucks, but that’s how the system works.
No, actually it’s an odious view of you. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to be lectured to about the horrors of entitlement from someone who is still receiving an allowance. If you didn’t want me to go there, you shouldn’t have mentioned where you get your money.
Your father probably loves breaking you off of a piece. That’s his job, to care for his son even beyond childhood. He probably views his continual support as an investment that will eventually pay off. He knows that without his support, your chances of graduating magna cum laude are reduced. He also knows that without a good job after graduation, he’ll have to continue taking care of you. Well, I think the government should see its citizens in the same way by providing some basic level of support.
I wonder how many of the men and women fighting over in Iraq received free lunch and foodstamps growing up. I know it makes me grateful knowing that at least some of their brain cells were kept intact so that they could grow up and preserve freedom for wonderful college students like you and me.
Coerced ‘charity’ is wrong, regardless of the beneficiaries. You and others may cry yourselves to sleep, thinking of the poor children. Well…give out of your own pocket. But quit reaching into mine, eh?
No. If you are too morally bankrupt and spiritualy retarded, it is our duty to extend our compassion even unto you, that you may share in a virtue you are incapable of appreciating.
No need to thank us. Least we could do. Eat the rich.
How delightfully condescending, Elucidator!
I do indeed assert that property rights are commonly accepted by all. Would you care to argue the counter-point, that everything you own can be taken from you at any time, by anyone? Where property rights derive from is largely immaterial to this discussion, and I have chosen not to explore that in this thread.
If you accept this maxim, from Oliver Wendell Holmes that, “Your right to swing your fist ends at my noise” then I believe that everything I have postulated must logically follow, and that the only option if you disagree is to abandon the rule of reason and to embrace the rule of force. I believe that Socialism enshrines the notion that Might makes Right, that anything can be voted away by the majority.
And let it be pointed out that you chose not to attack my argument, but rather to snipe at my use of reason, apparently. If you do not believe that taxation is theft, then demonstrate why, if you would be so kind. And please, no semantic wordgames about how it’s not theft if it’s legal. We’re all smarter than that.
Go worship your butterflies, and be exalted by the pretty colors. I shall revere myself, and that which I have wrought and written.
monstro, your characterization of the tax system is a bit off. I do not give the government my money in the form of taxes. They take it from me. It is in no way a voluntary arrangement. I need a certain amount of money in order to live. In order to get that money, I must earn it somehow. The government then takes whatever portion of that money they desire. I have no say in what that portion is.
This is far different from the situation of a father giving an allowance to his children. In the case of the father, he has complete control over the amount of money he gives out. Further, it is entirely a voluntary action of the father. There is nothing voluntary about the US income tax system.
Not mine? “Entrusted”? The government takes from me what I would not willingly give because it has the guns and I don’t. Here again we see this tension. It’s okay for the government to do what you yourself would never do. If someone took fifty bucks from you without your permission, does that money cease to be yours?
We seem to agree, but not quite. Now I’m going to use the issue of subsidies to large corporations instead of war, because I believe it’s less contentious. We both agree that there should not be handouts of the money the government takes from us to “Big Oil.” What if you were a member of the Green Party, and would otherwise not contribute a cent to an oil producer? Why do you argue that property taken from that you would not otherwise give is not theft? And obviously, if you’re giving it freely, then it isn’t theft, but then why would you argue that money must be taken from those who would not give it freely?
Yeah, it was foolish of me to expect others to be adult enough to refrain from ad hominem attacks. I mentioned it because it was an illustration of property freely given rather than coerced, and because I desired to present all of the facts that could be construed as coloring my view of this issue. Your conflation of entitlement and allowance is ridiculous. My father has the moral right to not pay for my remaining semester, and I would not demand that money from him. I am an adult, and I make no claims of him unless he is willing to undertake them.
But there’s the problem. My father earns his money from his employer, and possesses the moral right to dispense it however he wishes. The government does not earn its money. The government takes its money. You may give it willfully, but neither myself nor my father does, and you have yet to defend the notion that the government is justified in taking the property of individuals who disagree with it. You’ve effectively just said that I should want to give it, and I agree that that would not be theft, just as it is not theft when I purchase any other product or service.
**
I wonder how many years we have left of freedom, given the growing power of our government.
I will tell you the truth, as best I can. What you make of it is entirely up to you. I regret that you feel condescended toward, but I’m not going to worry much about that, the young are frequently prickly as regards thier dignity. Myself, I delight in being underestimated, perhaps with time you’ll understand why.
Our soul, yours and mine, knows that compassion is noble, and enobling. If reason would lead you to turn away from a hungry child, then it is a cramped and unworthy thing, deserving only of contempt. If reasoning will show you how best to be of aid and assistance, then it shines, then it has value. Rationality that is not guided and advised by spirit is little more than an adding machine, it clatters and rattles, it is noise, not music.
An excellent idea, but they are not yet in season. There were fireflies when I was a boy, but they seem to have vanished. Oh, I’m sorry, am I keeping you from revering yourself? How very thoughtless. I shall trouble you no more.
Peace on you.
Last year I wrote a check to the US government for $700. Do you think I wrote that check at gunpoint? No one took it from me. I paid my taxes like I take care of all of my other obligations. I didn’t want to pay since I was flat broke. I even started a pit rant about it. But I did it. No one made me.
You can control how much the government takes out of your check. You can tell them not to take out anything and then it will be up to you pay your taxes on your own. You can leave it up to them to deduct from your pay check, and if they take too much, you can tell them and they’ll give you a refund. Or, you can tell them to not touch your pay check and then not pay taxes like a bad citizen. Maybe you’ll be found out. Maybe you won’t. But no one is forcing you to do anything. No one is even forcing you to live in this country, driving on all the fine roads and drinking up all the clean, chlolera-free water. Don’t want to pay taxes? Fine. Antarctica’s got some nice shoreline real estate, I hear.
How does the father have complete control over his money? When I was in college, if my father wrote me a check, I could spend it on books or I could spend it on pizza or I could spend it on clothes. Like a taxpayer, his father entrusts his son to do good things with that money. Yes, he could stop payment at the first sign of tomfoolery. But then again, I wasn’t using Pius Aeneas’ situation as an analogy for anything. As someone who is receiving money he has not earned, he has some nerve whining about people receiving HIS money without earning it. That’s all I was saying.
Oh yeah, like I said before, the US income tax system is completely voluntary. You can choose not to pay and then pray you don’t get caught. Or move to a place where there are no taxes. Good luck.
By your arguement, the prohibition against murder is voluntary, too. Just pray you don’t get caught, right?
I do not wish to provide for wealthy corporations, and don’t think the government should extract wealth from me for programs like this. However, I don’t have a choice.
Given a choice, I’d rather give that money to feed poor children than pad the pockets of an already-rich CEO.
Quite a few, I’d gander to say. No need to build a cabin in the mountians just yet. Despite the weakening of some civil liberties in the last year, I highly doubt the government is trying to “take over.” It’s actually in their best interest to keep us fat and happy. Americans are an unruly and rebellious people. If the government, for some strange reason, decided to try to become a tolitalarian state, you can bet your bippy there’d be another revolution.
Despite years of reading alarmist literature from militia-style government seperatists, (provided courtesy of a paranoid family member) I have yet to see the promised crack-down on freedom. I have also yet to see an explanation of * why * the government would bother with it in the first place. They’re already in control, and making a bundle off of it.
The conservative are the ones who cut student loan funding, thereby screwing you. Why do you think I would advocate such a thing?
It sounds like you have some issues with your “best friend,” which have nothing to do with my politics. You do realize that screwing him wouldn’t help you any, don’t you? Luckily we live in a rich country and have more than enough to go around. 
I’m sure the hilarity in your last paragraph was unintentional, Chula, but thanks nonetheless.
[sub]…screwing him wouldn’t help you any… Apparently hearing loss is the least of his inadequacies[/sub]
Barring the fact that this thread has descended into yet another debate about libertarianism and taxes, I’d like to ask milroyj what exactly he meant by this statement. Many are interpreting this as saying that we should withhold food (or assistance) from children because of the actions of their parents. I don’t believe, for some reason, he meant it that way, but I’m curious what he DID mean.
Should welfare agencies do investigations of parents who ask for aid? What are the standards for “bad decisions and behavior”? Should children be forcibly taken away from bad parents? Left to starve in their care?
(Note I’m not necessarily saying anything about what I think he’s actually saying; just tossing out questions I think MAY help clarify, because I’m grasping at straws. :))
I can’t believe I’m wasting my time on this. The NY Times has seven regular columnists, and at least two are well-known conservatives. If you’re not aware of these people, it’s your responsibility to do your homework. Two are probably liberals. Three I don’t know about, but my impression is that they’re middle of the road. If anyone has any information to the contrary, then cite it.
Here’s what was said:
I don’t see how this is far off from what I said. It might be relevant if you said, “I read Bob Herbert’s columns and he tends to be liberal.” But to say that NY Times columnists as a group are liberal does not reflect reality.
Oops. :o You know, I meant screwing him out of his student loans.
The fact that he is getting disability at all indicates that there is something wrong with the system. That he gets rewarded for doing nothing simply highlights it. (The FAFSA is a loan, not a handout. Perhaps if he actually worked, there’d be more tax money to finance FAFSA.)
He’s not the only slacker I know. I know three others (including the guy who gave me my first kiss at the tender age of 10 ;-)) who have no ambition except to live on welfare all their lives. They’re middle-class by birth, intelligent, free of physical pain/problems–just lazy. I blocked them off AIM because I can’t stand thinking that my own taxes are paying them to sit around, play video games, and so on.
Like I said… I’m only trying to help you understand why conservatives/libertarians feel as they do. We’re not spiteful or evil. We’re simply cynics who believe that the majority of people on welfare, disability, and such are there for no other reason from laziness. You may have different experiences than me… who knows. In any case, have a nice day…
No, I’m not saying food should be withheld from children because of the actions of their parents. That’s silly.
On the other hand, some people aren’t fit to be parents. No value judgement involved, just the facts. And they are forcibly taken away by the Dept of Child Services, or the equivalent in your state. Better to be in a foster home, or even an orphanage, than being starved, neglected, or worse.
So I’m saying neglected children should provided for. But not by giving money to the very same people who got them in such dire straits. Don’t provide money will-nilly when it will just go to sub-standard housing, little food, drugs, etc.
Can we find a way to feed the children, but NOT give money to welfare queens, crackheads, and other jerks?
Speaking as someone who pays lots and lots and lots of taxes, starts every year on a pure commission based income with zero dollars of income promised to me in any way shape or form, and has a pretty direct notion of the value of my labor, this conversation is absolutely hilarious.
Pius Aeneas - You’re a sincere and intelligent young man who is going to spanked silly by the real world. No forget spanked, you’re going to be caned so hard by the Signapore Sergeant of life outside college your eyes are going to bug out.
Monstro - In the end despite your strong feelings about social equity it’s not your money. Listen to Bricker. In a nominally capitalist society, making strong practical arguments about the necessity for giving and income re-distribution will get you a lot farther than treating the haves as greedy parasites, and asserting a moral entitlement to charity by those in need.
[Chris Rock voice]I have no mon-ey! [/Chris Rock voice]