|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
Rofl.
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Taco Technician
Groups: Registered User, {pDs} Member
Joined: 5/9/2006
Posts: 3,948
Points: 3,636
Location: Hi-Five City
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
Rik....your avatar is distracting from your arguement. A fat comical penguin with an mp5 doesn't carry the same weight and bravado that Dick can summon forth with his "jesus and a machingun". I mean, he has you beat on both counts....Jesus is the son of god...you are a flightless bird....he has a 5.62 rifle round, you have a crappy 9 mm.
How about my avatar? Are my objectivist rantings more frightening with Rorshach staring at you through those lifeless abyssal inkblots?
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?
Groups: Registered User
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 248
Points: 234
|
endyss wrote:
Rik,
You want a consistent image? You want liberty and equality? If I take something from you, I am violating your rights. I am taking away your liberty. Why is it different because the government does it? If Ron Paul was president he would take less from you than Barack Obama. Does Obama's election mean it's okay for the government to take more?.
I'm sorry this doesn't contribute to the over all conversation....but this totally just recreated the "I Drink your MILKSHAKE" scene for me when I read it....
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
endyss wrote:Dick,
Meritocracy, free markets, LIBERTY will create differences in income. Liberty means the freedom to succeed but also the freedom to fail. Bill Gates didn't start with a lot of money, but he became the richest man in the country. And he did it because he made a successful company. Someone else might not work as hard or might not be as smart. Should that person be "entitled to succeed" despite not having or doing what Gates did? More importantly, should he be entitled to some of Gates' success?
Rik,
You want a consistent image? You want liberty and equality? If I take something from you, I am violating your rights. I am taking away your liberty. Why is it different because the government does it? If Ron Paul was president he would take less from you than Barack Obama. Does Obama's election mean it's okay for the government to take more?
As to the "losses" that have come from abolition or suffrage, those are only real losses if you don't believe human beings of different sexes and ethicities are fundamentally equal. If you believe black people really are property, then the slave owners did suffer real losses. If you believe women shouldn't be able to vote, then the existing voter base did lose a real measure of control. I think we can all agree that neither of those to predicates are true, so the "losses" are immaterial. On the other hand, monetary success is by no means such a black and white issue (no pun intended). Referring back to Bill Gates, he succeeded by building Microsoft and earned his money by creating a product a lot of people bought. A person's success shouldn't entitle the government to take it from him (even though, in the reality of our current government, it does). The situation can be put into the same framework as the flawed examples above by saying: If you believe people have the right to keep what they legitimately earn, then taking it from them creates a real loss. Unlike sex and ethnicity, differences in skill and work ethic (a.k.a. merit) are fundamental differences between people that do and will exist in spite of "progressives'" attempts to say otherwise.
What so many people don't seem to get is... there is no such thing as government charity. Governments have only one function: force. Any time they create a program, any time they "help" someone by giving them healthcare or free education, they do it by first violating someone else's liberty to keep what they legitimately earn. A certain level of taxes is a necessary evil, if we want a national military or police force, for instance. But any more than what's a necessary evil is... simply... evil. Contrast that with real charity: when someone chooses to give money they themselves earned to help someone else, a number of things happen. First, the money is used infinitely better -- people will always be more careful spending their own money than someone else's. This means a dollar of real charity will go much further than a government-taken dollar ($600 toilet seats, anyone?). Most importantly, for someone concerned with consistency in advocating real liberty and equality for all people (yes, even the successful ones), real charity violates no one's rights, and makes the donor feel good in the process. You can't take Gates success out of context though. Had he been born in Somalia would he be the richest man alive? Would he be the richest man alive today if he was born poor and without access to a quality education? That's the problem with this whole libertarian mythos, you are so fixated on this idea of the heroic individual that you miss out on infrastructure that success in life depends on. Regarding entitlement to succeed, no one is entitled to success in life, but what makes liberal democracies work is that the government provides services which help the less fortunate in society succeed. It doesn't matter nearly as much if you are born poor when you have access to a quality education and health care. Re: Differences in income, I am not saying that they are inherently wrong. It's a natural byproduct of all market economies. The issue is that income is stagnant or declining for everyone but the richest 2% of Americans. If you exclude them from the data US per capita GDP growth over the past few decades has been atrocious and the worst of any OECD nation. France has a better performing economy than the US. We're seeing a serious and fundamental shift in wealth distribution that is, as far as I know, unprecendeted in any modern Western nation. There is something fundamentally broken about America when economic success is felt only by the rich while everyone else, despite the tremendous growth in worker productivity, is either worse or no better off than they were decades ago. In effect, the rich are ripping everyone else off. The vast majority of wealth generated by the rest of us working harder is going into their bank accounts. Re: What it is legitmate to spend tax money on; why should taxes be spent on the military or police? What makes it OK for the government to steal a little bit of Bill Gates money to pay for that but not for public schools? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
Rik....your avatar is distracting from your arguement. A fat comical penguin with an mp5 doesn't carry the same weight and bravado that Dick can summon forth with his "jesus and a machingun". I mean, he has you beat on both counts....Jesus is the son of god...you are a flightless bird....he has a 5.62 rifle round, you have a crappy 9 mm.
Jesus isn't real. MY PENGUIN IS.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
endyss wrote:Rik,
You want a consistent image? You want liberty and equality? If I take something from you, I am violating your rights. I am taking away your liberty. Why is it different because the government does it? If Ron Paul was president he would take less from you than Barack Obama. Does Obama's election mean it's okay for the government to take more? We're part democracy and part republic. Regardless of how they're spliced together, the people of this country are the government. Or at the very least we're suppose to be. Whether or not it's true in practice is another matter. That's why I feel democracy and socialism go hand-in-hand. It would conceptually lead to the people determining the allocation of the peoples' collective resources. And that's why I feel democracy and capitalism are like opposing magnets; one encourages equality, the other encourages inequality - and consequently, with how much our government is driven by money, it leads to the latter being able to easily corrupt the former. Let me ask you this. Who should have more political power: The rich, or the general population? Which, in practice, does?
|
|
|
Rank: You're gonna stick that where?
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 5/7/2008
Posts: 254
Points: 12
Location: Alaska
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:endyss wrote:Dick,
Meritocracy, free markets, LIBERTY will create differences in income. Liberty means the freedom to succeed but also the freedom to fail. Bill Gates didn't start with a lot of money, but he became the richest man in the country. And he did it because he made a successful company. Someone else might not work as hard or might not be as smart. Should that person be "entitled to succeed" despite not having or doing what Gates did? More importantly, should he be entitled to some of Gates' success?
Rik,
You want a consistent image? You want liberty and equality? If I take something from you, I am violating your rights. I am taking away your liberty. Why is it different because the government does it? If Ron Paul was president he would take less from you than Barack Obama. Does Obama's election mean it's okay for the government to take more?
As to the "losses" that have come from abolition or suffrage, those are only real losses if you don't believe human beings of different sexes and ethicities are fundamentally equal. If you believe black people really are property, then the slave owners did suffer real losses. If you believe women shouldn't be able to vote, then the existing voter base did lose a real measure of control. I think we can all agree that neither of those to predicates are true, so the "losses" are immaterial. On the other hand, monetary success is by no means such a black and white issue (no pun intended). Referring back to Bill Gates, he succeeded by building Microsoft and earned his money by creating a product a lot of people bought. A person's success shouldn't entitle the government to take it from him (even though, in the reality of our current government, it does). The situation can be put into the same framework as the flawed examples above by saying: If you believe people have the right to keep what they legitimately earn, then taking it from them creates a real loss. Unlike sex and ethnicity, differences in skill and work ethic (a.k.a. merit) are fundamental differences between people that do and will exist in spite of "progressives'" attempts to say otherwise.
What so many people don't seem to get is... there is no such thing as government charity. Governments have only one function: force. Any time they create a program, any time they "help" someone by giving them healthcare or free education, they do it by first violating someone else's liberty to keep what they legitimately earn. A certain level of taxes is a necessary evil, if we want a national military or police force, for instance. But any more than what's a necessary evil is... simply... evil. Contrast that with real charity: when someone chooses to give money they themselves earned to help someone else, a number of things happen. First, the money is used infinitely better -- people will always be more careful spending their own money than someone else's. This means a dollar of real charity will go much further than a government-taken dollar ($600 toilet seats, anyone?). Most importantly, for someone concerned with consistency in advocating real liberty and equality for all people (yes, even the successful ones), real charity violates no one's rights, and makes the donor feel good in the process. You can't take Gates success out of context though. Had he been born in Somalia would he be the richest man alive? Would he be the richest man alive today if he was born poor and without access to a quality education? That's the problem with this whole libertarian mythos, you are so fixated on this idea of the heroic individual that you miss out on infrastructure that success in life depends on. Regarding entitlement to succeed, no one is entitled to success in life, but what makes liberal democracies work is that the government provides services which help the less fortunate in society succeed. It doesn't matter nearly as much if you are born poor when you have access to a quality education and health care. Re: Differences in income, I am not saying that they are inherently wrong. It's a natural byproduct of all market economies. The issue is that income is stagnant or declining for everyone but the richest 2% of Americans. If you exclude them from the data US per capita GDP growth over the past few decades has been atrocious and the worst of any OECD nation. France has a better performing economy than the US. We're seeing a serious and fundamental shift in wealth distribution that is, as far as I know, unprecendeted in any modern Western nation. There is something fundamentally broken about America when economic success is felt only by the rich while everyone else, despite the tremendous growth in worker productivity, is either worse or no better off than they were decades ago. In effect, the rich are ripping everyone else off. The vast majority of wealth generated by the rest of us working harder is going into their bank accounts. Re: What it is legitmate to spend tax money on; why should taxes be spent on the military or police? What makes it OK for the government to steal a little bit of Bill Gates money to pay for that but not for public schools? I hate most people.
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Lots of good points raised. I will only chime in to say that Government programs are treacherous things. Remember they are supported by your and my promises to pay for them. If we are truly ready for "social equality" then we damn well better be prepared to pay for it, even if it means living in poverty. As Dick said, there is a massive transfer of wealth happening in our country, and I think you will find that even if we all agree to sleep on the floor, we will have a hard time keeping the pigs from sleeping in the beds (Animal Farm reference *nod*). You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member
Joined: 6/8/2006
Posts: 1,525
Points: 9
Location: US
|
My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Crass wrote:My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job. Directly, no. But taxes are the government's job (well.. sort of) and they affect the economy - as does relations with foreign countries. In World War 2 the government pumped so much money (>$200B) into the economy for war materials and got us out of the Great Depression. And put us at least $200B more in debt...
|
|
|
Rank: Dutchess of Doodoo
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin, WDFNews.com Official Mapper
Joined: 6/3/2006
Posts: 2,239
Points: 330
Location: $L
|
Crass wrote:My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job. Agreed 100% He is not qualified to do that nor is it his job. Rikaelus wrote:Crass wrote:My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job. Directly, no. But taxes are the government's job (well.. sort of) and they affect the economy - as does relations with foreign countries. In World War 2 the government pumped so much money (>$200B) into the economy for war materials and got us out of the Great Depression. And put us at least $200B more in debt... If by pumped you mean borrowed. That money wasn't raised by taxes (directly). You wanna take this to Fuck Town?
Oh gadzooks, yes!
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Rikaelus wrote:Crass wrote:My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job. Directly, no. But taxes are the government's job (well.. sort of) and they affect the economy - as does relations with foreign countries. In World War 2 the government pumped so much money (>$200B) into the economy for war materials and got us out of the Great Depression. And put us at least $200B more in debt... The government also campaigned heavily for individuals to purchase war bonds to help fund the war and, in fact, ran into problems with funding towards the end of the Pacific Campaign as less people purchased war bonds. I don't think the government has advertised for war bonds nearly as much, if at all, since.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member
Joined: 6/8/2006
Posts: 1,525
Points: 9
Location: US
|
Rikaelus wrote:Crass wrote:My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job. Directly, no. But taxes are the government's job (well.. sort of) and they affect the economy - as does relations with foreign countries. In World War 2 the government pumped so much money (>$200B) into the economy for war materials and got us out of the Great Depression. And put us at least $200B more in debt... And what industry can the government afford to tax? With the issues that we are having in the auto industry that really only leaves pharmaceuticals. And they are having massive lay offs and many have done away with there benefits which is a big sign of trouble. With our exports so low the only thing the government can tax is the rich. Although I like unions I have to say they are destroying our industry.
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Crass wrote:Rikaelus wrote:Crass wrote:My only problem with this whole election is the emphasis on the economy. That is not the presidents job. Directly, no. But taxes are the government's job (well.. sort of) and they affect the economy - as does relations with foreign countries. In World War 2 the government pumped so much money (>$200B) into the economy for war materials and got us out of the Great Depression. And put us at least $200B more in debt... And what industry can the government afford to tax? With the issues that we are having in the auto industry that really only leaves pharmaceuticals. And they are having massive lay offs and many have done away with there benefits which is a big sign of trouble. With our exports so low the only thing the government can tax is the rich. Although I like unions I have to say they are destroying our industry. Well, Unions have become their own monster.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
Business wrote:Rikaelus wrote:Directly, no. But taxes are the government's job (well.. sort of) and they affect the economy - as does relations with foreign countries. In World War 2 the government pumped so much money (>$200B) into the economy for war materials and got us out of the Great Depression. And put us at least $200B more in debt... If by pumped you mean borrowed. That money wasn't raised by taxes (directly). Hence the mention of it putting us that much further into debt. They borrowed over $200B to spend on war materials that boosted the economy out of the depression. I find it odd that I've heard so often that "WW2 saved us from the depression". No it didn't. The government could have borrowed $200B and put it into the economy without the war. They just would have been hard-pressed to justify it. Crass wrote:And what industry can the government afford to tax? With the issues that we are having in the auto industry that really only leaves pharmaceuticals. And they are having massive lay offs and many have done away with there benefits which is a big sign of trouble. With our exports so low the only thing the government can tax is the rich.
Although I like unions I have to say they are destroying our industry. Well they certainly can't not tax any industry. They need to get money somehow. But if they really really needed money, I'd say porn, alcohol, and tobacco. People will find ways to pay for those even in the shittiest of times. Or they could legalize and tax marijuana.
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|