Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Admerylous
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.

Fine, I believe it is hypocritical and you do not.

Even if not hypocritical, that still doesn't give any moral justification whatsoever. Again, what right do you have to dispose of my property without my consent? And even if you somehow believe that I have no rights to my own body and labor (!), or think your end of utopian equality justifies the means of violating my rights, how can you possibly believe it is good sustainable policy to treat as worst those upon whom our economy depends?

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Admerylous

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.

Fine, I believe it is hypocritical and you do not.

Even if not hypocritical, that still doesn't give any moral justification whatsoever. Again, what right do you have to dispose of my property without my consent? And even if you somehow believe you are justified in violating my right, or think the ends justifies the means of violating my right, how can you possibly believe it is good sustainable policy to treat as worst those upon whom our economy depends?

The government obtains the right to take your money, through elected representatives. They presumably represents what is best for the public/society rather then a specific person.

Originally posted by suckstobesara
Originally posted by tjking82

Originally posted by Admerylous


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.

Fine, I believe it is hypocritical and you do not.

Even if not hypocritical, that still doesn't give any moral justification whatsoever. Again, what right do you have to dispose of my property without my consent? And even if you somehow believe you are justified in violating my right, or think the ends justifies the means of violating my right, how can you possibly believe it is good sustainable policy to treat as worst those upon whom our economy depends?

The government obtains the right to take your money, through elected representatives. They presumably represents what is best for the public/society rather then a specific person.


I said moral justification. I'm well aware of the tyranny of the majority, thanks.

You choose to live in a system governed by those rules, where rules are imposed despite what you may want/desire. If it's you really desire to not have any interference on you as an individual then you have every right to pursue that.

Originally posted by suckstobesara
You choose to live in a system governed by those rules, where rules are imposed despite what you may want/desire. If it's you really desire to not have any interference on you as an individual then you have every right to pursue that.

That explains why they can be enforced upon me, which I don't disagree with. But explaining why they're morally justified, or "right" if you will, is something else entirely.

And fwiw, I am seriously considering leaving the country. I do not intend my children to be paying the debts of a foolish government.

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?

Living in northern Va, I'm almost in that situation right now. NoVa, as we call it, provides about 50% of all tax revenues in our state, yet we see about 10% of the state funds (crazy, huh, that half the money sits in about 1/12th of the state). If NoVa were to secede from the rest of the state (and the issue is often brought up), we'd be one of the richest states in the US, if not the richest. The rest of Va, however, would collapse because there's no way they can afford all the gov programs without us in NoVa. Is that fair to us in the northern part of the state? Probably not (read: no), but the alternative of a state collapsing is a lot worse and would be more costly and problematic, not just for us in the state or nearby, but the entire US.

So while we're not exactly happy about what the state does to our area, it works, somewhat. There needs to be a tiered system to where funds go for certain things (roads, police, fire), while maintaining a certain level for others (education, military, social services). That way you actually see the work that you've done in the area that you live while allowing the rest of the state to not lack funding for the absolute needs such as education.

In order for us to become stronger and move forward as a society and nation, we must pull the weaker up with us. No matter where you fall in the grand scheme of things, there will always be weaker and stronger members than you. If the members that are at the top decide they suddenly don't want to help those weaker ones anymore, then the divide becomes huge and the nation regresses.

You give your consent by choosing a government system to live in. Choosing to be a US citizen comes with a certain set of rights and responsibilities.

Hooray!!! Wall Street is getting $700 billion for realz now!

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Admerylous

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.

Fine, I believe it is hypocritical and you do not.

Even if not hypocritical, that still doesn't give any moral justification whatsoever. Again, what right do you have to dispose of my property without my consent? And even if you somehow believe that I have no rights to my own body and labor (!), or think your end of utopian equality justifies the means of violating my rights, how can you possibly believe it is good sustainable policy to treat as worst those upon whom our economy depends?

I don't feel that my position is hypocritical (who ever does?) due to the scope of the goals. When the government says you can't do something, what's the reasoning behind that? Some want to outlaw abortion because they feel it is morally wrong, typically due to their religious beliefs. Fine, then don't do it. Make that decision for yourself to not have an abortion. I don't see how it harms you if Jamie down the street has an abortion. Or if Jamie and Liza want to get married? how does that affect people to the point where they feel they need to pass a law to impose their views on other people?

Conversely, collecting taxes to fund schools allows us to have a better educated workforce, allowing for greater technological innovation. Collecting taxes for health care (ideally) would allow a healthier and more productive workforce, producing more goods at cheaper prices. Welfare is further down on the ladder, because I think people take advantage of it, and that blows. But the kids born into welfare families deserve the right to try and make something of themselves don't they? That's what welfare is supposed to do, to help feed and clothe kids born to parents who either fucked up or were too lazy to be successful. So then it's up to those kids to work hard and 'make it out'. Everybody deserves a chance, it's what you do with that chance that matters.

Having said all that, I think humanity as a whole is in trouble. We no longer have any selective pressures driving our species. There is no more survival of the fittest. We drag along the weakest and poorest among us, and use a lot of resources to do so. I'm all for giving everyone their shot, but man, once you constantly f it up, you should be done. Repeat offenders...banish them send them off to some island and let them live out their days there if you're not a fan of the death penalty. Unless people have something that they can use to demonstrate their value to society, send them off to another island. This will be pretty loose, as I'd say even a shoe salesman contributes to society. As long as you're employed and trying, then you're ok.

So while we most definitely have different opinions, I don't necessarily think yours are wrong. I would caution you against overstating my opinions though. I like these concepts in theory, (and I've taken a more theoretical approach to the issue here for contrast to your points) but the actual implementation of them doesn't work out as well, which leaves me more conflicted.

Just out of curiosity, what country are you thinking of moving to?

Thanks,
StickMan

Originally posted by suckstobesara
You give your consent by choosing a government system to live in. Choosing to be a US citizen comes with a certain set of rights and responsibilities.

Perhaps you neglect to recognize that not everybody chooses to be a US citizen? Those of us who were born here had no choice; we simply are US citizens by virtue of birth and are bound by those rules whether we consent or not. You can argue implicit consent by not leaving, but that's not really logical, at least until the point where we have the means to leave and choose to remain. Even then, we consent to the constitutional structure of government, but not necessarily to every action every legislator takes that is purportedly in the interest of the people he represents. Unless you believe it is impossible for your legislators to violate your rights because you've already consented? That would be a curious stance.

As for Stickman, it seems like you agree with me in a lot of areas. I don't think we have any moral justification to force our beliefs on others in social areas like abortion or gay marriage. And I lament the fact that many of our social programs take property from people who are trying and give it to people who are not. The difference appears to be that I believe everybody has equal rights to profit from selling their own labor, and you believe that those who are able to successfully and productively sell their labor should have less rights to profit from their labor than those who are not as productive with their labor. I believe that, upon giving a child an education, government has given them a fighting chance and has no more obligation or justification to continue to redistribute wealth, whereas you believe that as long as an individual is trying, we should continue leeching money from the more productive members of society to keep propping him up. Your primary conflict comes from telling which individuals are actually trying, but if they are you do not view taking money from other individuals who are also trying to be any sort of violation of their own rights.

Obviously this is NOT how you would frame your own opinions, but given what you have stated, I do not believe I am actually overstating them. However, I'm sure you will correct me, and I look forward to it. I feel you are one of the more intelligent people I have had discussions with on GLB.

Oh, and my plan to leave is long-term and I have not picked a new location. I am serious about moving, but I'm unfortunately tied to the States, at least for the next few years. I just landed a great job and have loans to pay off. But if people like Obama are elected and continue to raise tax rates on the upper class, I fully intend to take my productivity elsewhere. Which I guess brings into focus the end game, does it not?

Originally posted by dvdatm
Hooray!!! Wall Street is getting $700 billion for realz now!

Omg did they pass it? *shakes head* Dolts in Washington...

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by dvdatm

Hooray!!! Wall Street is getting $700 billion for realz now!

Omg did they pass it? *shakes head* Dolts in Washington...

It's not passed yet but is apparently close. Stupid idea, IMO. These companies will do the same shit again if they survive with this.

Originally posted by Kono22
Originally posted by tjking82

Originally posted by dvdatm


Hooray!!! Wall Street is getting $700 billion for realz now!

Omg did they pass it? *shakes head* Dolts in Washington...

It's not passed yet but is apparently close. Stupid idea, IMO. These companies will do the same shit again if they survive with this.

The government is playing russian roulette with the interest rates and they've shown no inclination to stop. This will certainly happen again, we're just out $700 billion. No big whoop, right?

Originally posted by tjking82
Originally posted by Kono22

Originally posted by tjking82


Originally posted by dvdatm



Hooray!!! Wall Street is getting $700 billion for realz now!

Omg did they pass it? *shakes head* Dolts in Washington...

It's not passed yet but is apparently close. Stupid idea, IMO. These companies will do the same shit again if they survive with this.

The government is playing russian roulette with the interest rates and they've shown no inclination to stop. This will certainly happen again, we're just out $700 billion. No big whoop, right?

How is it that everyone and thier brother sees this has a bad idea that will not work, but our elected officials can not. Do they not listen to the people they represent. I have yet to talk to one person who thinks this is a good idea. Does anyone have any insight to what they are thinking, is this another scam by our goverment?

I find it funny that we can not trust/believe our represented officials but term after term they are voted back in.

I believe that they think it will work because it hasn't been proven wrong yet. Nothing of this size has ever been attempted, and therefore never failed. Trial and error, my friends.