Yes, since this is the way things work - I proclaim myself the winner of the Republican primary in CA! Yea for me!
Congratulations! You do have an issue there though. Ron Paul's more vocal backers are suing the CA Republican Party since they claimed that he won that state in August of 2005.
I believe in social programs that make life possible for people who can't make it on their own.
Me too! I just don't believe in backing those programs with violence.
I believe those social programs guarantee rights rather than infringing upon them.
They don't "guarantee rights". They provide services. The very fact that you're advocating forcibly taking something from someone and giving it to someone else demostrates that what you're providing is obviously not a right. You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.
I believe that sustanance for the many is more important than luxury for the few.
I believe that neither you nor I has a right to determine "importance" for other people. I certainly agree that helping others meet basic levels of sustanence is more important to me than indulging in frivolous luxuries. But I'm not about to advocate the use of violence on either those in need or those with excess in order to shirk the responsibilities of living out my own values.
Me too! I just don't believe in backing those programs with violence.
They don't "guarantee rights". They provide services. The very fact that you're advocating forcibly taking something from someone and giving it to someone else demostrates that what you're providing is obviously not a right. You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.
I believe that neither you nor I has a right to determine "importance" for other people. I certainly agree that helping others meet basic levels of sustanence is more important to me than indulging in frivolous luxuries. But I'm not about to advocate the use of violence on either those in need or those with excess in order to shirk the responsibilities of living out my own values.
More things we disagree on.
If we want to work on extremes, taxes are as much an exercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay.
What justifies private property in your view? Who decides which jobs are more lucrative?
Also, do you really think that a right cannot be guaranteed by taking something forcibly from someone else? How is not even our sheer survival a zero sum game?
Everyone has the right to basic necessities: food, health shelter, and I believe it is the job of the government to guarantee that those rights are guaranteed.
I don't believe I have the right to decide what is important for other people, but I know what is important for me and I have the right to make my voice heard in politics and to vote for people who share my views.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.
I genuinely don't understand this.
Do you not think the employer has a right to make money off of the worker's work? Doesn't the worker provide that work for the employer?
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
More things we disagree on.
If we want to work on extremes, taxes are as much an exercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay.
Taxes are certainly as much as an excercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay! We don't disagree at all there.
What justifies private property in your view?
As it stands today, nothing.
Who decides which jobs are more lucrative?
Whoever is willing to pay for those jobs, of course.
Also, do you really think that a right cannot be guaranteed by taking something forcibly from someone else?
Absolutely. If you have to forcibly take it from someone else, how could it be a right?
How is not even our sheer survival a zero sum game?
Our sheer survival is not a zero sum game. Our sheer survival is simply the result of the correct answer to the questions posed to us by nature.
Everyone has the right to basic necessities: food, health shelter
Huh? That's ridiculous. Food must be hunted or produced. Health must be achieved through good choices and knowledge. Shelter must be constructed. None of those things are "rights".
and I believe it is the job of the government to guarantee that those rights are guaranteed.
No, you believe that is it the job of government to use violence to extract food, health, and shelter from those who are able to acquire it and give it to those who are not.
I don't believe I have the right to decide what is important for other people, but I know what is important for me and I have the right to make my voice heard in politics and to vote for people who share my views.
Huh? You obviously believe that you have a right to decide what is important for other people as you're advocating taking things from some people, regardless of what they value, and doing with it what you wish, based on your values.
By all means, "make your voice heard". But I'm not really going to respect that sentiment when you'll be taking property from people even in the event that they disagree with what's coming out of your mouth.
Or just life, liberty, and property... doesn't the government have to provide this for me?
Absolutely not. You're born with life and you're born with liberty. The government only acts to take those things from you. In terms of property, the government does not need to provide you with property. If anything, governments tend to provide property through force and violence. All one needs to have a right to property is for his or her neighbors to respect the delineation between the products of the labor of each.
No, you believe that is it the job of government to use violence to extract food, health, and shelter from those who are able to acquire it and give it to those who are not.
Huh? You obviously believe that you have a right to decide what is important for other people as you're advocating taking things from some people, regardless of what they value, and doing with it what you wish, based on your values.
By all means, "make your voice heard". But I'm not really going to respect that sentiment when you'll be taking property from people even in the event that they disagree with what's coming out of your mouth.
If as it stands today nothing justifies property, how can there be theft?
I do not see how enforcing a tax system is less deserving of respect than forcing people into an economic system they criticize. I am not walking up to a wealthy guy and take money from him. I am part of a political process whereby ideally people decide together what they think is right. It has been found that it keeps the peace if it is done how the majority decides. Right now it appears that the majority has decided to relinquishing part of each individual's earning so that some public services are provided. Since it doesn't work fairly without enforcement, a system of enforcement has been enacted.
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
Absolutely not. You're born with life and you're born with liberty. The government only acts to take those things from you. In terms of property, the government does not need to provide you with property. If anything, governments tend to provide property through force and violence. All one needs to have a right to property is for his or her neighbors to respect the delineation between the products of the labor of each.
Same question: are you an anarchist?
And if not, how would it be wrong for someone to take your life and property at their whim?
... and the will to show I will always be better than before.
If as it stands today nothing justifies property, how can there be theft?
What justifies property is everytime people like you use the words "right" and "own".
I'd certainly agree that property rights, as they stand today, are pretty tenuous. But you can't both advocate them and reject them at the same time via a whim.
I do not see how enforcing a tax system is less deserving of respect than forcing people into an economic system they criticize.
I'm not advocating forcing anyone into an economic system they don't like.
I am not walking up to a wealthy guy and take money from him. I am part of a political process whereby ideally people decide together what they think is right.
Wow...that's awesome. Hitler should have used that one.
It has been found that it keeps the peace if it is done how the majority decides.
Really? This is peace?
Right now it appears that the majority has decided to relinquishing part of each individual's earning so that some public services are provided.
When did the majority decide this?
Since it doesn't work fairly without enforcement, a system of enforcement has been enacted.
Hehe...."fairly"???? Fair is giving each person the option to buy the products of a government or not to, based on their values.
considering the day before super tuesday we have a 6 page thread going about obama, and literally not one thread devoted to hillary in months, if ever... i think it is safe to say the wave of change and a fresh direction are about to crash from shore to shining shore tommorow...
dont let us down
change like that democratic house has brought...hoo ah!
Comments
Congratulations! You do have an issue there though. Ron Paul's more vocal backers are suing the CA Republican Party since they claimed that he won that state in August of 2005.
Me too! I just don't believe in backing those programs with violence.
They don't "guarantee rights". They provide services. The very fact that you're advocating forcibly taking something from someone and giving it to someone else demostrates that what you're providing is obviously not a right. You can't have a right to something if someone else has to provide it to you.
I believe that neither you nor I has a right to determine "importance" for other people. I certainly agree that helping others meet basic levels of sustanence is more important to me than indulging in frivolous luxuries. But I'm not about to advocate the use of violence on either those in need or those with excess in order to shirk the responsibilities of living out my own values.
I wish the folks who demand healthcare or advocate higher taxes for everyone would understand this.
More things we disagree on.
If we want to work on extremes, taxes are as much an exercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay.
What justifies private property in your view? Who decides which jobs are more lucrative?
Also, do you really think that a right cannot be guaranteed by taking something forcibly from someone else? How is not even our sheer survival a zero sum game?
Everyone has the right to basic necessities: food, health shelter, and I believe it is the job of the government to guarantee that those rights are guaranteed.
I don't believe I have the right to decide what is important for other people, but I know what is important for me and I have the right to make my voice heard in politics and to vote for people who share my views.
I genuinely don't understand this.
Do you not think the employer has a right to make money off of the worker's work? Doesn't the worker provide that work for the employer?
Or just life, liberty, and property... doesn't the government have to provide this for me?
Taxes are certainly as much as an excercise of violence as forcing someone to work for pay! We don't disagree at all there.
As it stands today, nothing.
Whoever is willing to pay for those jobs, of course.
Absolutely. If you have to forcibly take it from someone else, how could it be a right?
Our sheer survival is not a zero sum game. Our sheer survival is simply the result of the correct answer to the questions posed to us by nature.
Huh? That's ridiculous. Food must be hunted or produced. Health must be achieved through good choices and knowledge. Shelter must be constructed. None of those things are "rights".
No, you believe that is it the job of government to use violence to extract food, health, and shelter from those who are able to acquire it and give it to those who are not.
Huh? You obviously believe that you have a right to decide what is important for other people as you're advocating taking things from some people, regardless of what they value, and doing with it what you wish, based on your values.
By all means, "make your voice heard". But I'm not really going to respect that sentiment when you'll be taking property from people even in the event that they disagree with what's coming out of your mouth.
No. How does the gov't provide life? and property? AS far as liberty they should get out of the way not provide it.
Not against a worker's will, no.
Absolutely! That's why the worker deserves payment.
Absolutely not. You're born with life and you're born with liberty. The government only acts to take those things from you. In terms of property, the government does not need to provide you with property. If anything, governments tend to provide property through force and violence. All one needs to have a right to property is for his or her neighbors to respect the delineation between the products of the labor of each.
If as it stands today nothing justifies property, how can there be theft?
I do not see how enforcing a tax system is less deserving of respect than forcing people into an economic system they criticize. I am not walking up to a wealthy guy and take money from him. I am part of a political process whereby ideally people decide together what they think is right. It has been found that it keeps the peace if it is done how the majority decides. Right now it appears that the majority has decided to relinquishing part of each individual's earning so that some public services are provided. Since it doesn't work fairly without enforcement, a system of enforcement has been enacted.
Are you an anarchist?
Same question: are you an anarchist?
And if not, how would it be wrong for someone to take your life and property at their whim?
maybe they are nonarchists?
http://www.mises.org/story/2801
What justifies property is everytime people like you use the words "right" and "own".
I'd certainly agree that property rights, as they stand today, are pretty tenuous. But you can't both advocate them and reject them at the same time via a whim.
I'm not advocating forcing anyone into an economic system they don't like.
Wow...that's awesome. Hitler should have used that one.
Really? This is peace?
When did the majority decide this?
Hehe...."fairly"???? Fair is giving each person the option to buy the products of a government or not to, based on their values.
Sure.
It wouldn't! What would be wrong is for that person to then suggest they have the right to own it.
change like that democratic house has brought...hoo ah!
wow that's official.
i have to talk to a lot of poor people, and most of them say they aren't even trying.
guess you weren't here after the vote for change tour.
bump
saying change doesn't mean a thing, show me a plan.........
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08