Warrior General Games

I have a question for you. Say, for all of you.

Do you believe that we own our bodies? That nobody else owns our bodies, and that we are slaves to nobody? Doesn't it follow that we and only we have the right to profit from the use we put our bodies toward? That we have the right to profit from our work, a right that nobody else can take from us, and that profit becomes our property?

What moral justification is there for taking the property someone earned through selling his own labor, and giving part of it to someone who had nothing to do with that labor? Someone who may have been sleeping, or eating, or doing his own work? Why should they own just a little piece of my selling my labor for cash, and by extension own a tiny piece of me? Without my consent no less. What right have they?

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Pariah

Originally posted by tjking82


Originally posted by Pariah



I think that giving individual states more power and funding to be able to have "socialistic" systems in order to help people get state run health care, is a good thing. And this is just one snippet of an example, but it needs to start somewhere. People can always have the option to go the privatized route - but it shouldn't be the only option. That creates an oligarchy of power giving the control to only big business and the "elite."

I think the federal government should step down a peg and let states decide whether they want to operate as fully capitalist, fully socialist, or anywhere in between. That would be wonderful, I would love that. Why can't we do that right now?

That's extreme.

But the Massachusetts state run health care works well for those that need it. I can only use this example because I used to lived next door and the ones that have it and need it like it. Of course those that don't need it and are lucky enough to have privatized health care hate it and talk a lot of shit about it (typical).

I used the state level power because national programs tend to suck. So a national socialist system is not ideal. But to give more "power" or funding to states to run "socialist" style programs to help people, would eliminate the need for crappy nationally run programs in some aspects.



Wait so you want states to have the option to become more socialistic but not less? They already have this power. The only change is you want the federal government to fund their socialism. You want a federal government to pull even more taxes from the wealthy to support the poor in states where they do not live. I'm just clarifying, is that right?

I was mainly referring to the health care system, and I think that this country would never successfully implement a national health care system, so a state run system is the only thing I see as feasible.

But you have a good point about forcing them to become "more" or "less" socialist. I was using the term because a state or national run health care system would be a socialist system, similar to USPS. I just think if the federal gov stepped in and said "every state has to have some form of state run health care system" some states would have problems setting it up and need funding and assistance.

Obviously this is much more complex than a few paragraphs in a forum - but there would be some real serious debate on where the money for the funding would come from. Some states couldn't stand to raise taxes too much, yet the "wealthy" would fight tooth and nail to be taxed to help people hundreds of miles away.

I am for taxing the shit out of the rich. But I do solidly understand the problems that causes. Most evident would be the rising price of goods and the strain on the economy. I know if we tax big business and the wealthy then we would cause the services and products to be inflated in price, and then the "poor" would not be able to afford these services and products and then they would need more assistance.

Then this leads to the argument of how fucked up the welfare system is.

HEADACHE!!!

OK original point -

I do think states should try to independently adpopt a heath care system - but it might require national help, and the answer to how that might be set up is - I don't know for sure. I have read a bunch of proposed systems but they all have flaws. And I can't remedy them, I can only generalize what I would like to see in layman's terms. That is why I am in grad school for English not Political Science!

I have to go read John Milton for class in 12 hours. So when you tear up my post and I don't respond - its because I am reading John Milton not ignoring you!!!

Originally posted by Stickman

Actually the fact that this conversation has gone on as civilly as it has seems to indicate that this is likely one of the more intelligent leagues around....I have to say that I'm impressed that this hasn't spiraled into a FU fest....


As much trash talking and stuff that happens on this forum, I was going to mention the same thing, but didn't want to jinx anything. This is actually one of the better political threads I've seen on a message board, but I completely expected it to sidetrack at some point. But, this is actually a good thread. There's no "you're wrong because you're a Dem/Repub" type crap in here. Rather, those that have dissenting opinions are actually sharing them and why they feel that way.

Originally posted by Pariah

Damn son, you will never hear me say this outside this forum, but impressive. I fully agree. For most extreme left AND extreme right people, they would rather invest millions of dollars and countless amounts of time proving each other wrong that working in a truly "democratic" way to find out what is right.

And when I say "find out what is right" I mean find out what can work better to help strengthen and better our country now and going forward into the future. If that means adopting facets of other other "political belief systems" into our own (including socialism) and this can be applied and help us get better, then I am all for it.

I think that giving individual states more power and funding to be able to have "socialistic" systems in order to help people get state run health care, is a good thing. And this is just one snippet of an example, but it needs to start somewhere. People can always have the option to go the privatized route - but it shouldn't be the only option. That creates an oligarchy of power giving the control to only big business and the "elite."

And I won't get too deep into big business. There should be tax cuts for companies to remain in this country, and there should be penalties on those that move out of the country and don't bank within the country but are "American" corporations. I wrote a 19 page paper on this. I'm not going further here.

Great points. The problem that exists currently in the political party system is that most party members seem scared to do anything but toe the party line. And their odd ways of going about that aren't to tell you why they are better, they tell you why the opponent is worse. Why does every political ad document the shortcomings of the opponent rather than document their own success or their own plans for the office? Wouldn't that be a better way to decide a candidate, by seeing exactly what they have to offer, what they've done in the past, their plans for the future, instead of the current system of 'my opponent did this, is associated with that, etc?' The bridges between the left and right seem to be crumbling due to them each pulling apart. Soon they're going to meet on the other side of the world, and be so extreme who knows what will happen.

Originally posted by tjking82
I have a question for you. Say, for all of you.

Do you believe that we own our bodies? That nobody else owns our bodies, and that we are slaves to nobody? Doesn't it follow that we and only we have the right to profit from the use we put our bodies toward? That we have the right to profit from our work, a right that nobody else can take from us, and that profit becomes our property?

What moral justification is there for taking the property someone earned through selling his own labor, and giving part of it to someone who had nothing to do with that labor? Someone who may have been sleeping, or eating, or doing his own work? Why should they own just a little piece of my selling my labor for cash, and by extension own a tiny piece of me? Without my consent no less. What right have they?

I think that the power of an individual is amplified (to an extent) when resources are pooled. Look at the federal interstate highway system....It's effect now is that we pay taxes, which allows us and goods to be moved across country in a relatively economical manner. But without the resources of all of us, this would not be possible. Our military is another (maybe even better) example. Sure, we could all have guns and shoot the shit out of anyone trying to invade us, but would we have tanks, jets, satellites, SEAL teams and all that shit that let's our military be the most powerful conventional fighting force in the world?

Basically someone figured out that when resources are pooled, the society as a whole can be more powerful/effective. There are definitely limits to this, but those limits are defined partially by the actions of the people in charge (corruption) and partially on diminishing returns upon an investment.

Healthcare is a tricky one though. As I see it, the benefit to the rest of us for pooling our resources to take care of others is that hopefully we have fewer poor people (if you get sick enough where you lose your job, you're hosed) and helping other people just seems like a good thing to do (so we get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside). I also realize that my family is a possibly a serious illness or 2 away from being in that situation, and I'd like to think that there's some kind of system in place to help us after we've been helping other people. But while I'm willing to help people who are helping themselves (or at least trying) people who just work the system and leach off of it should be shot. This is why it's hard, how do you identify those people? Because the dishonest ones will work twice as hard as they would at a normal job to try and keep what they perceive as free benefits (We have a friend who quit her job as a social worker because she was so depressed by the people working the system, she wanted to help people who wanted to help themselves, not people just looking for a free ride).

So I think the "right" to take your profits (ie taxes) come from the power that pooled resources have over what an individual can accomplish without those resources. If you buy into the notion that by paying taxes you allow other people to own a little bit of you, then you in return own a little bit of everyone else. I don't see it quite the same way, where I'm happier to contribute to something larger than myself (to an extent). So I don't have a problem with paying taxes, but I want to see the "how much" and "where they go" questions addressed more specifically. Because I don't want to pay too much (sending us past the point of diminishing returns, thus becoming wasteful), and I don't want to see my tax dollars helping big corporations that don't need my help (Oil companies).

Thanks,
StickMan

Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by tjking82

I have a question for you. Say, for all of you.

Do you believe that we own our bodies? That nobody else owns our bodies, and that we are slaves to nobody? Doesn't it follow that we and only we have the right to profit from the use we put our bodies toward? That we have the right to profit from our work, a right that nobody else can take from us, and that profit becomes our property?

What moral justification is there for taking the property someone earned through selling his own labor, and giving part of it to someone who had nothing to do with that labor? Someone who may have been sleeping, or eating, or doing his own work? Why should they own just a little piece of my selling my labor for cash, and by extension own a tiny piece of me? Without my consent no less. What right have they?

I think that the power of an individual is amplified (to an extent) when resources are pooled. Look at the federal interstate highway system....It's effect now is that we pay taxes, which allows us and goods to be moved across country in a relatively economical manner. But without the resources of all of us, this would not be possible. Our military is another (maybe even better) example. Sure, we could all have guns and shoot the shit out of anyone trying to invade us, but would we have tanks, jets, satellites, SEAL teams and all that shit that let's our military be the most powerful conventional fighting force in the world?

Basically someone figured out that when resources are pooled, the society as a whole can be more powerful/effective. There are definitely limits to this, but those limits are defined partially by the actions of the people in charge (corruption) and partially on diminishing returns upon an investment.

Healthcare is a tricky one though. As I see it, the benefit to the rest of us for pooling our resources to take care of others is that hopefully we have fewer poor people (if you get sick enough where you lose your job, you're hosed) and helping other people just seems like a good thing to do (so we get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside). I also realize that my family is a possibly a serious illness or 2 away from being in that situation, and I'd like to think that there's some kind of system in place to help us after we've been helping other people. But while I'm willing to help people who are helping themselves (or at least trying) people who just work the system and leach off of it should be shot. This is why it's hard, how do you identify those people? Because the dishonest ones will work twice as hard as they would at a normal job to try and keep what they perceive as free benefits (We have a friend who quit her job as a social worker because she was so depressed by the people working the system, she wanted to help people who wanted to help themselves, not people just looking for a free ride).

So I think the "right" to take your profits (ie taxes) come from the power that pooled resources have over what an individual can accomplish without those resources. If you buy into the notion that by paying taxes you allow other people to own a little bit of you, then you in return own a little bit of everyone else. I don't see it quite the same way, where I'm happier to contribute to something larger than myself (to an extent). So I don't have a problem with paying taxes, but I want to see the "how much" and "where they go" questions addressed more specifically. Because I don't want to pay too much (sending us past the point of diminishing returns, thus becoming wasteful), and I don't want to see my tax dollars helping big corporations that don't need my help (Oil companies).

Thanks,
StickMan

I recognize your perspective, and you're certainly entitled to it. I would imagine that you do not object to redistributive taxation.

But don't you see that the government is not just taking money from people like you who consent to it? They are also taking money from me, and I do not consent to it; they are taking it by threat of force. The federal government says "You should give your money to the poor" and I say "You're right, that's a good idea, I'll think about that." Their rejoinder: "No you're giving now, we're taking it and if you don't pay, you go to jail."

This is what I don't understand. Under my system, if you want to give you can, and if I don't I don't. Nobody's rights are violated, everyone gets to dispose of their property as they choose. My system does not preventing helping the poor, or leave them out to dry. You can always contribute to something larger than yourself. The only question is whether you can forcibly compel others to act in accordance with your beliefs and against their own. Socialists decide that they have more right to determine what I do with my property than I do, and if I disagree I can go to jail. Given that I traded my individual ownership of my body in labor for that property, how is that not a violation of my individual sovereignty and how is it morally justified?

tjking, I think your ideas wouldn't be completely horrible if we lived in a completely different world without greed, corruption, selfishness, crime, war, etc. etc.
Unfortunately we do not and we never will.

Do you honestly believe that the individual is greater than the community? Because with your viewpoint you are almost suggesting just that.

Are you actually serious with what you are proposing, by the way?

Originally posted by Admerylous
tjking, I think your ideas wouldn't be completely horrible if we lived in a completely different world without greed, corruption, selfishness, crime, war, etc. etc.
Unfortunately we do not and we never will.

Do you honestly believe that the individual is greater than the community? Because with your viewpoint you are almost suggesting just that.

Are you actually serious with what you are proposing, by the way?

I am not suggesting that the individual is greater than the community in any way. Merely that the individual has certain rights which should not be violated by government. Further, I do not think the individual comes out ahead of the community if the economic incentives are set such that his self-interest furthers the good of the community at large.

BTW, the people who don't want me to force my beliefs upon them in social areas (think "get your laws off my body" in abortion context) seem to be the very same people who are forcing their beliefs upon me in economic areas. Hypocritical, methinks. I'm for a world of individual decisionmaking, where I can't force you to live by my beliefs, and vice versa. But some people only like one side of that coin.

Imagine a system which depends heavily upon a certain group of individuals, and yet treats those individuals the worst. A system which will collapse if that group of individuals opts out. Does that sound like a stable, sustainable system to you?

Originally posted by tjking82
Imagine a system which depends heavily upon a certain group of individuals, and yet treats those individuals the worst. A system which will collapse if that group of individuals opts out. Does that sound like a stable, sustainable system to you?

99% sure tjking82 has read a book by Ann Rand

Originally posted by tjking82
Imagine a system which depends heavily upon a certain group of individuals, and yet treats those individuals the worst. A system which will collapse if that group of individuals opts out. Does that sound like a stable, sustainable system to you?

It sounds like the relationship between China and the current American financial system.

Called the "China Effect"

Scary shit.

Originally posted by tjking82
Imagine a system which depends heavily upon a certain group of individuals, and yet treats those individuals the worst. A system which will collapse if that group of individuals opts out. Does that sound like a stable, sustainable system to you?

This sounds exactly like what you propose with a 'give if you want to' system. Say people give some money, but then decide to stop. How do you maintain any continuity of government in that kind of system?

Also I have to argue that your comparison of abortion rights to requiring taxes be paid is more of an apples to oranges comparison.

We all benefit to some extent or another by what the government does with our tax dollars. Do you benefit from roads? a police dept? a fire dept? you do, and that's why you have to pay taxes. There are other uses of tax dollars that can be debated, but there is a core set of expenditures that are necessary to maintain a safe and productive society.

With abortion, I don't think anyone wants to have one, but I don't like the idea of the government dictating that it's not even an option. The only person that it really affects is that person (and depending upon the stage of pregnancy, possibly the unborn child...again, a whole other argument in and of itself). The difference between this and say an assault weapon ban, is that the assault weapon ban is intended to protect the greater public (including law enforcement officials), whereas the abortion ban is imposing the morals of others (often the christian right) upon society as a whole, yet provides no safety benefit to the larger group.

Thanks,
StickMan

Originally posted by suckstobesara
Originally posted by tjking82

Imagine a system which depends heavily upon a certain group of individuals, and yet treats those individuals the worst. A system which will collapse if that group of individuals opts out. Does that sound like a stable, sustainable system to you?

99% sure tjking82 has read a book by Ann Rand

I have graduated college so that's pretty much a given.

Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by tjking82

Imagine a system which depends heavily upon a certain group of individuals, and yet treats those individuals the worst. A system which will collapse if that group of individuals opts out. Does that sound like a stable, sustainable system to you?

This sounds exactly like what you propose with a 'give if you want to' system. Say people give some money, but then decide to stop. How do you maintain any continuity of government in that kind of system?

Also I have to argue that your comparison of abortion rights to requiring taxes be paid is more of an apples to oranges comparison.

We all benefit to some extent or another by what the government does with our tax dollars. Do you benefit from roads? a police dept? a fire dept? you do, and that's why you have to pay taxes. There are other uses of tax dollars that can be debated, but there is a core set of expenditures that are necessary to maintain a safe and productive society.

With abortion, I don't think anyone wants to have one, but I don't like the idea of the government dictating that it's not even an option. The only person that it really affects is that person (and depending upon the stage of pregnancy, possibly the unborn child...again, a whole other argument in and of itself). The difference between this and say an assault weapon ban, is that the assault weapon ban is intended to protect the greater public (including law enforcement officials), whereas the abortion ban is imposing the morals of others (often the christian right) upon society as a whole, yet provides no safety benefit to the larger group.

Thanks,
StickMan

There are two categories of taxes, one to which I object and one to which I do not.

In the acceptable category are things which we agree benefit each citizen individually but which they cannot accomplish ourselves. This was the original purpose of our government. Provision of common goods, for example. Creating highway systems. A proper police force. Even a federal military, because you may not agree with the specific things they do, but the vast majority realize that in a global world, we need a military to protect us just like we need the police force of a state.

In the unacceptable category are things which do not benefit each citizen individually. This was not the original purpose of our government as contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution. Redistributing wealth is certainly something we could do ourselves, something we do not need government for. And quite obviously, it does not benefit each individual when the government takes property from some and gives it to others.

So you see that continuity of government is not a problem; I'm sorry I was not clear about that. Taxes will be given, but for government's enhancement of each of our lives.

Also, given that I only object to the second category, the abortion example seems perfectly illustrative, not apples to oranges at all. You don't want me to force my beliefs on you; you want individual autonomy to follow your own beliefs and abort your baby. But you DO want to force your beliefs on me; you want to take my property without my consent, earned by the labor of my body, and distribute it according to your whims.

Stickman's point remains. He does not want you to force your social ideals on him because you don't think it right as the people it affects are extremely few.
Wanting to obtain and use your tax dollars for health care, welfare, public education, etc. is a much different type of being told what to do; it benefits a great number of people -- including yourself whether you'd like to believe it or not, whether you use it or not.