Home » General Discussions » General Discussion » Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302276 is a reply to message #302169] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 10:54   |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 17:15 |
| Dover wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 20:06 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 December 2007 16:54 |
Who the fuck do you think you are to think that you should have a say about what I do with my wages? That's pretty damn arrogant to think that you or anybody else can tell me that I have to spend money on some half-wit that I don't give a fuck about. You're just as bad as those moral-crusading Republicans.
Do I think we have moral obligations to help out those less fortunate and in need? Absolutely, but in no way should we have any LEGAL obligations. You don't earn my wages, so step the fuck off of it.
How would you feel if your bank decides that the money you deposited isn't all going into your bank account because it figures that it has an obligation to take a chunk out of your deposit and give it to the people with considerably less in their accounts? If you don't care, then go ahead and give all your money to charity. That's fine by me. I'd respect you for being so willing to give away your money, but to turn around and tell our government that it's their job to make sure I do the same? Fuck your self-righteous bullshit.
Until you are the one earning my wage for me, you have no fucking right to have a hand in what I do with it.
|
No, you're right. You don't HAVE to give your money to anyone. You can save it hoard it and build a castle out of bills and coins if you'd like. You have every LEGAL right to.
But that still makes you a dick.
|
I'm not arguing that I'd be a complete asshole because of it. I just don't see where it's my government's job to tell me that I have to pay taxes that go towards helping people I don't feel deserve my money. I donate my money to children's hospitals. I give it to people that NEED the money, and I know that my money is going to people that NEED it.
Plus, the giving isn't as joyful to know that my government automatically takes my money out of my check and then writes a check to some nitwit whore who has 3 kids and is living off of food stamps.
Do welfare programs do some good and give money to people who deserve it? Yes, but so do private organizations, and private organizations do a shitload of a better job than government programs can do. Plus, what are the organizations fueled by? The desire to help people, and dedication that private organizations have to their projects is so much more than any government employee would have about their job.
Again, do I think people have a moral obligation to give money to people that truly deserve it? Absolutely, I feel that we, as people, should come together and help out the less fortunate. However, that's the government regulating morality and economics.
I may be a Capitalist, but I am still very capable of compassion. I just don't feel right about making the government into a Robin Hood character. I want to do good, and I should be able to do it alone without the government forcing me to.
|
The problem is, even if, IF you're as generous as you claim, not everyone is such. A handful of generousity in a system based on greed and "He who dies with the most toys wins" is a drop in the bucket. If you can think of a non-government solution that doesn't rely on the good of man (which sadly can go away when his stomach turns), I'd be glad to hear it.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302287 is a reply to message #301626] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 11:18 |
|
|
Why are people greedy? A good deal of it is human nature, but human nature also has a lot of compassion. I blame a lot of the hoarding and materialistic views on the government. They've been eager to help the less fortunate out with handing them over checks. Yes, there are people who receive it and do good with it, but most of it's wasted, and people don't try to improve.
A community will come together and help each other out in times of need. We've seen time and time again that communities come together after a natural disaster and help each other clean up and rebuild. There's very little government help in that. It's all the people working to rebuild their communities. If we force people to work with each other instead of turn to the government, we can survive.
Quite frankly, Americans have been living in luxury for the two centuries that we've been a nation. It wasn't until the 1930s-1960s did we see any welfare programs. What happened in the previous century and a half? We didn't have any welfare state, but our nation didn't fall apart. In fact, our nation flourished. It wasn't until the 1960s did we see people stop caring about actually working, and that's when most of the modern welfare system was formed. That fact isn't perfectly correlated, but it does show that it only helped to support the belief that people shouldn't have to work to earn their money.
So where am I going with this? For the most part, people are kind and generous. There are plenty of people willing to give more than their fair share to others, and then there are those of us who are willing to give, though we don't give much outside of our comfort zone. I, also, realize that there are people who will hoard their money, but those are the type of people who will also cheat on their taxes, so forcing them to pay doesn't work that well, either.
If we force people to rely on each other as mankind has done for THOUSANDS of years, a welfare system is not needed. The people will come together and assist each other when it's needed.
I see why the welfare state was created in the first place. The Great Depression happened, and it affected everyone, some more than others. The government did what it had to, and I feel that it did what was right to protect the nation. However, we're not in an economic depression, let alone one of a catastrophic magnitude. We don't need to rely on our government to survive, anymore.
Besides this, it's the sheer principle that you're trying to steal my money to give to someone else who I don't care to give to. Most people under welfare don't dare lift a finger, and they benefit from my and your hard work. Those people won't lift a finger after they received the check besides to spend it. They won't try to better themselves. If it was privatized, the organizations would be working with the people, making a much higher success rate.
Oh, and taxing me on my wages is wrong, too. Note, I'm not saying "income" because income defined by the Supreme Court is profit, and wages are not profit. They are, effectively, a barter. You exchanged your labor for currency. It's a trade between what you have and can offer to get what you want (labor for wages), and what they have and can offer to get what they want (wages for labor). It's not profit. It's like asking me for change for a $20, and then the government saying "oh, currency is being transfered, so I'm going to consider that to be income and tax it".
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302301 is a reply to message #302287] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 12:00 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
Why are people greedy? A good deal of it is human nature, but human nature also has a lot of compassion. I blame a lot of the hoarding and materialistic views on the government. They've been eager to help the less fortunate out with handing them over checks. Yes, there are people who receive it and do good with it, but most of it's wasted, and people don't try to improve.
|
I almost stopped reading right here. Ridiculous. "Human nature" is a LAZY excuse for flaws. "Oh, please pardon my greed. It's just the way I am".
People are (mostly) a product of their environment. Children raised in a world of greed are (usually) greedy. Children raised otherwise are (usually) not.
Furthermore, people are responsible for their own actions. If you are a drug addict, you attempt to get clean. If you damage public property, you pay for it. IF YOU ARE GREEDY, YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
A community will come together and help each other out in times of need. We've seen time and time again that communities come together after a natural disaster and help each other clean up and rebuild. There's very little government help in that. It's all the people working to rebuild their communities. If we force people to work with each other instead of turn to the government, we can survive.
|
Why must compassion only show it's face in times of natural (or unnatural) disaster? Is that really compassion at all?
And what is "government", if not people working together? If you took a group of citizens, organized them, apointed a leader and gave them a task, have you not just created government?
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
Quite frankly, Americans have been living in luxury for the two centuries that we've been a nation. It wasn't until the 1930s-1960s did we see any welfare programs. What happened in the previous century and a half? We didn't have any welfare state, but our nation didn't fall apart. In fact, our nation flourished. It wasn't until the 1960s did we see people stop caring about actually working, and that's when most of the modern welfare system was formed. That fact isn't perfectly correlated, but it does show that it only helped to support the belief that people shouldn't have to work to earn their money.
|
We'll ignore slave trade and exploitation of native Americans and minorities, and their hand in the "flourishing" of America, then.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
So where am I going with this? For the most part, people are kind and generous. There are plenty of people willing to give more than their fair share to others, and then there are those of us who are willing to give, though we don't give much outside of our comfort zone. I, also, realize that there are people who will hoard their money, but those are the type of people who will also cheat on their taxes, so forcing them to pay doesn't work that well, either.
|
In times where the top 1% of the population holds 20% of the wealth, and the top 20% of the population holds 80% of the wealth, I think there are more hoarders and cheaters and less givers than you realize.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
If we force people to rely on each other as mankind has done for THOUSANDS of years, a welfare system is not needed. The people will come together and assist each other when it's needed.
|
That's the idea behind a welfare state. Understand that "when it's needed" isn't only in case of hurricanes and terrorist attacks.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
I see why the welfare state was created in the first place. The Great Depression happened, and it affected everyone, some more than others. The government did what it had to, and I feel that it did what was right to protect the nation. However, we're not in an economic depression, let alone one of a catastrophic magnitude. We don't need to rely on our government to survive, anymore.
|
Except we ARE in hyperinflation at the moment. Are you aware that the Canadian doller is now more valuable than the US dollar? I submit that we are in an economic crisis.
And even IF we as a nation are not, that doesn't mean that there aren't people out that that need help.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
Besides this, it's the sheer principle that you're trying to steal my money to give to someone else who I don't care to give to. Most people under welfare don't dare lift a finger, and they benefit from my and your hard work. Those people won't lift a finger after they received the check besides to spend it. They won't try to better themselves. If it was privatized, the organizations would be working with the people, making a much higher success rate.
|
If it were privitized, you'd be holding millions of people's lives hostage to the whim of capitalist monoliths. I'd much rather have someone I can hold accountable.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 10:18 |
Oh, and taxing me on my wages is wrong, too. Note, I'm not saying "income" because income defined by the Supreme Court is profit, and wages are not profit. They are, effectively, a barter. You exchanged your labor for currency. It's a trade between what you have and can offer to get what you want (labor for wages), and what they have and can offer to get what they want (wages for labor). It's not profit. It's like asking me for change for a $20, and then the government saying "oh, currency is being transfered, so I'm going to consider that to be income and tax it".
|
Fudge over definitions all you want, the facts remain the same. You are in a certain income bracket, therefore you pay your income tax. If you were truely so stricken by these taxes, your earnings would be so low you would be exempt from all but social security taxes. Clearly, you have the money. Just deal with it and pay your 40 cents a month for needles.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 12:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302321 is a reply to message #301626] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21 |
|
|
Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different.
My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does.
When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it.
I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government.
The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money.
Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine.
I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
[Updated on: Mon, 10 December 2007 12:22] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302334 is a reply to message #302321] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 13:05 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different.
|
Disagreeing with your points does not consistute ignoring.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does.
|
And how, pray tell, do private organizations do that, if not "throwing checks"?
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it.
|
I fail to see why not.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government.
|
And I already addressed the problem with having "Private organizations" in charge of helping the needy. If I'm poor and on the street, I want someone I can hold accountable in charge of helping me out.
And churches?! Bleh! I'm agnostic, and if I'm ever in a position where I might require aid, I don't want to have to change my faith to recieve it. FUCK THAT.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money.
Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine.
|
I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm also sorry there's no nicer way to say it, but too fucking bad. Everyone else pays taxes, you're paying taxes. If you don't like it, pack up and start your own country.
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it.
|
Which is fine and dandy for you, but I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and capitalism is very, very fat.
Oh, and non-profit organizations != capitalism.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302343 is a reply to message #302334] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 13:21 |
|
|
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different.
|
Disagreeing with your points does not consistute ignoring.
|
I understand people disagreeing, but you ignored what I was saying to nitpick.
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does.
|
And how, pray tell, do private organizations do that, if not "throwing checks"?
|
They dedicate their time and effort to making sure people get what they need? They don't just do hand-outs like the government does.
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it.
|
I fail to see why not.
|
Because they don't have the force to enforce it?
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government.
|
And I already addressed the problem with having "Private organizations" in charge of helping the needy. If I'm poor and on the street, I want someone I can hold accountable in charge of helping me out.
And churches?! Bleh! I'm agnostic, and if I'm ever in a position where I might require aid, I don't want to have to change my faith to recieve it. FUCK THAT.
|
Who better to trust than someone with actual compassion and desire to go above and beyond their moral obligations to see that you have a meal that night?
Fuck you and your insinuations that churches only have one selfish goal in mind to gain more mindless drones. Most churches operate as soup kitchens and other outreach programs and have no silly objective to convert someone before they can give them assistance. Plus, if you're not willing to converse with them about your and their faith in order to get food and shelter, then you didn't really need it. Plus, you'd be awfully greedy to think that you should receive help without respecting their desires to talk to you.
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money.
Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine.
|
I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm also sorry there's no nicer way to say it, but too fucking bad. Everyone else pays taxes, you're paying taxes. If you don't like it, pack up and start your own country.
|
What a nice way to dodge my point. That way of justifying taxes is terrifyingly mindless and toolish.
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it.
|
Which is fine and dandy for you, but I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and capitalism is very, very fat.
Oh, and non-profit organizations != capitalism.
|
Yes, I realized this after I said it, but I was too lazy to change it.
Either way, Capitalism promotes high quality even in high quantity in an effort for businesses to make profit. It's a Hell of a lot better of a system than no competition and no desire to produce services and goods in a high quality and efficient way because the government regulates everything. Neal Boortz tells a story that's a perfect example of when he visited Soviet Russia a couple decades ago.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302384 is a reply to message #301795] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 15:01 |
 |
EvilWhiteDragon
Messages: 3751
Registered: October 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Sat, 08 December 2007 14:59 |
| z310 wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 23:30 |
| Aprime wrote on Fri, 07 December 2007 20:08 |
blah blah blah
|
Yes, I understand the logic behind it. And no, I'm not assuming that all drug users don't pay taxes; I'm just stating that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it.
I stand by what I said.
|
And what SHOULD taxpayers be spending money on, if not helping out their fellow man?
|
Tss, don't you get it, the goverment shouldn't be allowed to ask taxes, it's EVIL!
Like, you know, they can build roads with that, and fight crimes and stuff, all things that do not directly benefit you. Would've been way better if you could've kept the money so you could just pay for your own protection, and not the protection of the neightbours etc.
By the way, the USA goverment isn't spending that much of taxpayers money anymore...
They are more like spending money from Chinese investment companies and the like.
And they are doing so in a rate of about 1.52 Billion dollars a day 
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Another thing, did you know that your government is indeed stealing your money, and I don't mean by taxes.
By creating inflation, they are making more and more money, as in the psycal piece of paper. But by making more of them, they get less rare, and thus less valuable.
Thank Bush for that btw, with Clinton your government was indeed just paying taxpayers money.
BlackIntel admin/founder/PR dude (not a coder)
Please visit http://www.blackintel.org/
| V, V for Vendetta |
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302402 is a reply to message #302343] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 17:21 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21 |
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
Yes, go right ahead and ignore my point. Everybody else does, so I can't imagine why I would expect anything different.
|
Disagreeing with your points does not consistute ignoring.
|
I understand people disagreeing, but you ignored what I was saying to nitpick.
|
1) I didn't ignore, I addressed.
2) Nitpicking is not ignoring.
[quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21]| Dover |
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
My example of natural disasters is just that... an example, and a visible example, at that. It wasn't to say that charity is or should be limited to disasters, rather to show that when it's required (such as people living on the streets), there are people helping them get off their feet. That's something people and private organizations do... help people get off their feet, not just throw checks at them like our government does.
|
And how, pray tell, do private organizations do that, if not "throwing checks"?
|
They dedicate their time and effort to making sure people get what they need? They don't just do hand-outs like the government does.
|
Funny. I thought that's what government social workers did.
[quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21]| Dover |
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
When I mention government, I mean legislating actions. A group of people making decisions can be seen as a government, but they can't legislate things and use law to enforce it.
|
I fail to see why not.
|
Because they don't have the force to enforce it?
|
Neither do governments, in some cases.
In any case, nothing stops our hypothetical group of citizens from being able to enforce, either. Perhaps they have big sticks to hit people with.
[quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21]| Dover |
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
I already addressed the idea how to help the people who need our help. Private organizations and charities. Like interfaith shelters and churches, and they're not regulated by the government.
|
And I already addressed the problem with having "Private organizations" in charge of helping the needy. If I'm poor and on the street, I want someone I can hold accountable in charge of helping me out.
And churches?! Bleh! I'm agnostic, and if I'm ever in a position where I might require aid, I don't want to have to change my faith to recieve it. FUCK THAT.
|
Who better to trust than someone with actual compassion and desire to go above and beyond their moral obligations to see that you have a meal that night?
Fuck you and your insinuations that churches only have one selfish goal in mind to gain more mindless drones. Most churches operate as soup kitchens and other outreach programs and have no silly objective to convert someone before they can give them assistance. Plus, if you're not willing to converse with them about your and their faith in order to get food and shelter, then you didn't really need it. Plus, you'd be awfully greedy to think that you should receive help without respecting their desires to talk to you.
|
Funny, because when you say "private organization", I think "large multinational corporation with alterior motives", or "charity group of people that has to break even at the end of the day". The latter being only slightly more comforting than the former. Government suffers neither of these constraints.
Not all churches are so selfish, perhaps, but enough (even a few is enough) so that I wouldn't want them being my first, last, and only hope.
[quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21]| Dover |
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
The fact that I can afford to pay my taxes is irrelevant. I can afford to have my CDs stolen from me, but that doesn't make the theft any less wrong. "It's okay that they entered my house and stole my jewelry because I can live without it." If you're saying that my explanation of greed was laughable, then so is the justification of theft because I can afford to lose that money.
Oh, and you never did address the principle of the fact that it is stealing. I don't want you or my government reprising the fucking role of Robin Hood and his homosexual sidekicks. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is still stealing, regardless of what "good" you're doing with the money stolen. I don't care to reach into your pocketbook, so I'd appreciate that you respect mine.
|
I'm sorry you feel this way. I'm also sorry there's no nicer way to say it, but too fucking bad. Everyone else pays taxes, you're paying taxes. If you don't like it, pack up and start your own country.
|
What a nice way to dodge my point. That way of justifying taxes is terrifyingly mindless and toolish.
|
What can I say? We've reached an impasse. You clearly value your hard earned dollar much more than I, so go enjoy it. See how long the government you form lasts before "stealing".
[quote title=cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 12:21]| Dover |
| Dover |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 11:21 |
I trust Capitalism. Plus, private, non-profit organizations helping out their communities are never going to get corrupted. It's hard to hoard money when you're not allowed to profit from it.
|
Which is fine and dandy for you, but I don't trust capitalism as far as I can throw it, and capitalism is very, very fat.
Oh, and non-profit organizations != capitalism.
|
Yes, I realized this after I said it, but I was too lazy to change it.
Either way, Capitalism promotes high quality even in high quantity in an effort for businesses to make profit. It's a Hell of a lot better of a system than no competition and no desire to produce services and goods in a high quality and efficient way because the government regulates everything. Neal Boortz tells a story that's a perfect example of when he visited Soviet Russia a couple decades ago.
|
Which system is more efficiant is argueable. I doubt Boortz's objectiveness when writing his report. But really, at the end of the day, if I can know that a nation has achieved equality, I'd be jumping for joy, even if it meant there aren't enough iPods to go around.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302406 is a reply to message #301626] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 17:39 |
|
|
Equality of Outcome is a crock of shit. That's all I am going to say to this whole Marxist ideology.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
EWD, if you would have read my post where I talked about Minarchism, you wouldn't have posted what you did. Also, do you think I support my government causing inflation? I sure hope not, else you don't know jack shit about my leanings, which I've stated in more than one topic.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302419 is a reply to message #302406] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 20:49 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 16:39 |
Equality of Outcome is a crock of shit. That's all I am going to say to this whole Marxist ideology.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
EWD, if you would have read my post where I talked about Minarchism, you wouldn't have posted what you did. Also, do you think I support my government causing inflation? I sure hope not, else you don't know jack shit about my leanings, which I've stated in more than one topic.
|
I read your learnings, and I disagree with them. In your words, they are "a crock of shit".
I'm sorry you can't handle disagreement.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302425 is a reply to message #302420] |
Mon, 10 December 2007 22:25 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 20:05 |
I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA.
|
I don't know of any examples of equality of opportunity, historical or current.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302474 is a reply to message #302425] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 10:02 |
|
|
| Dover wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 00:25 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 20:05 |
I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA.
|
I don't know of any examples of equality of opportunity, historical or current.
|
I think most of history has relied on this principle. Most of the people that have made something out of themselves didn't thrive because the government stepped in and handed it to them. They made something out of themselves.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302482 is a reply to message #302474] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 10:23 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 09:02 |
| Dover wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 00:25 |
| cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 10 December 2007 20:05 |
I can handle disagreement just fine, but that doesn't mean I am going to sit here and accept the ideology of Equality of Outcome. It's a silly, fantasy ideology that has failed in real life on a large scale. Equality of Opportunity has worked and continues to work, especially for a nation the size of the USA.
|
I don't know of any examples of equality of opportunity, historical or current.
|
I think most of history has relied on this principle. Most of the people that have made something out of themselves didn't thrive because the government stepped in and handed it to them. They made something out of themselves.
|
What you just described has nothing to do with equality of opportunity. It just describes opportunity, leaving out the all-important "equality" part.
Look, this is getting nowhere. I'm pretty sure we've beaten out all the discussion we can out of this. You're a money-grubbing capitalist, I'm not. We disagree, and I'm okay with that. Clearly, nothing I say will influence you in the slightest, and you could say the same for me.
Feel free to put the dead horse down any time.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302488 is a reply to message #302485] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 10:44 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 09:32 |
Money-grubbing? Heh, at least, my ideology respects people instead of steals from them.
|
Wrong. Your ideology respects those who have money, and ignores those who don't. Which is why schools in intercity districts are so shitty, why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
Dead horse. Down.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Free Needles in Ukraine to Drug Users [message #302596 is a reply to message #302502] |
Tue, 11 December 2007 18:52 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Tue, 11 December 2007 10:32 |
Fact: Schools pay twice the amount per student than 3 decades ago (adjusted for inflation, too!), yet they're not any better.
Fact: More money isn't the answer.
Suggestion: Watch "Stupid in America".
Fact: John Stossel > you
|
Fact: Ad hominem gets you nowhere.
Fact: For any bit of statistic you can dig up, I can dig up another bit to contradict it.
Fact: Financial cost per student is much less three decades ago than it is now. Consider that any halfway decent school has a computer lab, and some have camera systems and metal detectors. Things that simply did not exist three decades ago.
Question: Why compare to 1977 anyway?
Suggestion: Don't turn this into a battle of statistics. It'll only wear us both out and turn into a contest of resolve.
Fact: John Stossel has a silly mustache, and he also not Borat, therefore Me > Him.
Suggestion: Ditch this bullshit.
Fact: This is the third time I'm asking you to stop pissing in the wind. I don't really care, I could go on for weeks, but this is far from the first time I've had this discussion, and it'd be nice if you offered something new or stfu.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
[Updated on: Tue, 11 December 2007 18:53] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 18:57:02 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01156 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
