Lucien LaCroix

I really need to start revisiting threads I post on more often.

What is wrong with it is that charity should be a matter of choice in this country, not a matter of government policy.

Our Constitution is supposed to represent equal treatment of everyone (granted, this country has not always adhered to the concept in the past). When you start taking money out of citizens' pockets to fund matters of PERSONAL responsibility for other citizens, then the government is enforcing the concept of economic class warfare. And that, most certainly, does not embody the concept of true equality.

Everybody who wants "government money" for what should be personal responsibilities always has an excuse that is always rooted in evoking the emotions of sympathy or guilt in those they expect to foot the bill. It's an ethically blind process--blind to any attempt to evaluate the deservedness of its recipients and blind to the consequences for those being forced to pay.

It never stops with just one program. Pay for my prescription medications...or I will suffer and it'll be your fault because I'm old and helpless! Subsidize day care costs for my kids...or my children will suffer!

Never mind that their predicaments are probably the result of repeated mistakes In their lives--mismanagement of money, quick and easy sex resulting in the birth of unexpected children, drug use, alcohol abuse, criminal behavior...etc., etc., etc.

__________________
"If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."

PaulG

Must piss you off knowing the most taxed class in US society is subsidizing all those bums while the richer classes get to keep their dollars.

You are a blind such and such. Hasn't it occurred to you yet why the middle class pays most tax? Its not a tax really, more of a income reducer. You may think you are getting say 60k a year, but its really 50k. Those taxes going to the poor are only stoping of along the way back to the rich.

The poor have disposable incomes, the middle class don't. Why let you keep that extra 10k when they could give it back to themselves via the poor. Keeps the consuming (not consumer)driven economy cruising along at the same time.
Instead of 10k a year to build your capital nestegg a little bigger, it travels straight back to fat cat!

To cap it all of, and this is the funniest bit, the middle class are the biggest defenders of this system that screws em over in favour of the filthy rich, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, classic divide and conquer ahahahaha instead of you demanding they help the poor, you defend them!!!

AHAHAHAHA oh my ive burst a valve laughing so hard.

mostlymad

(mostly looks over at Lucien, then at Paul, sits back with her coffee and waits for the new member, Veni the cop to show up...)

Lucien LaCroix

Suffices to say that your diatribe seems to be little more than a railing against the rich. I don't demand that they "help" the poor, because it's not their responsibility either. I'm sure you visualize the rich as sitting upon their piles of money and living in solid gold houses. That's the Hollywood mindset for you. The fact is that most wealthy people try to make more money. They do that by owning businesses and through investment of their money. That, in turn, provides jobs and a measure of economic security for others.

Anon

"Must piss you off knowing the most taxed class in US society is subsidizing all those bums while the richer classes get to keep their dollars."

Well it does amuse me to know that you know so little about who pays the majority of taxes in the US, but that regardless you feel as if you should go ahead and post your theories anyway.

Ray

All I can state is that the US at least worries and has better arrangements for the homeless and deprived, than what is there in my country.

That is why you guys will never understand our hassles. And folks like Leader abuse us. May he be born in a third world in his next life!

There are guys who don't get two square meals or even 'rectangular' meals.

Even the poor in the US are way better off than what I see here.

Say what one wants, the US looks after is poor better. Almost Communist like!

Praxus

The middle class doesn't pay the most tax, the rich do. In fact the top 10% pay over 90% of the taxes!

News flash, looting doesn't help the economy.

I agree, we need Capitalism now!

Confed999

I'm not a communist or a fascist, so I do not demand people do anything they do not want to do.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

porsteamboy

"Egoism, in a broader sense, has been...presented as the source of moral action. It has been said that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bind up the wounds of the man beaten by thieves, pour oil and wine into them, set him on our beast and bring him to the inn, because we receive ourselves pleasure from these acts...these good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and succor their distresses... The creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule." -- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814

Praxus

So you proved that people want to give to the poor withour coercian, and this counters his argument... how?

Praxus

Why did you waste a paragraph on agreeing with me?

Then how come every single system designed in the spirit of social cooperation ranging from nazism to marxism has not only failed but failed misrably leaving poverty and death in it's wake?

How exactly are the workers treated like "automatons"?

PaulG

I didnt agree, you said money is the main motivation, i said it wasn't


Nazism, was not about social co-operation in the sense of raising the living standars of humantiy. It has social aspects, if you are classed in the ruling race, but it was more to do with social cohesion and loyalty to 'race' rather than doing the best for humanty.

On Marxism, firstly in the meaning of the word, 'Marxism' there are supposed to be a few differences with the phiosophy of Marx. The philosophy of Marx has never been used in a system, i don't think it ever was meant to be. The Soviets, used a radically transformed type of communism that Lenin (mostly) created to fit the realities of the situation in Russia. So you can't call it a failure of communism.

The Soviet Union achieved many great things in its lifetime, look at Tsarist Russia then and later on post WW2 in the 60's etc. It was a very different country on all levels, social, industrial etc. Regretably there was Stalin, but he had some very positive affects, if you ignore the negatives for the sake of argument.It had many reasons for its eventual demise, having to compete militarily with the west for its entire existence was one.

There are successful Marxist states around, the most successful Cuba, if you consider the opposition it has endured for 50 years by leading superpoer, they have managed to punch above their weight.


Read Max's Aliention of Labour for an understanding of that, its very good.

Praxus

No I didn't say that.


Nope, they felt what they were doing was the best for humanity. That's what social co-operation was, and it left 20 million dead people in it's turbulence.

Communism in the Marxian sense of the word never exsisted and it can't. It's a system of Anarchy, where the power of the Socialist state get's devided among groups of workers. Even if it could exsist the Communist state would still retain the totalitarian powers found in a Socialist state. Your right, nor did I, but I can call it a failure of marxian theory.

What exactly did Stalin do good? What did the Soviet Union achieve that was good? That was supperior to that in the west? Name me one damn thing!

"Communism" exsists in Cuba only because of the fact that we have no vested interest in removing Castro. How exactly has Cuba "punched above their weight"?

How about you read the following...

Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises

Let's examine Alienation of Labour...

He is claiming the more that an individual worker produces the less said worker will be paid because the less his labor is worth (in a Capitalist system). The simple facts of reality refute this, the average wages of workers was increasing along with a general decrease in the price of good all throughout the Industrial Revolution. The result was a tremendous increase in the purchasing power of the averager worker.

This is just outright rediculous. The idea that labor becomes embodied in an object is straight out lunicy.

The entirity of the article is based on these two false premises.

Now how about you answer my question instead of refering me to Marx's nonsense.

porsteamboy

Not a counter, I agree with what he stated. Moral Instinct, its the right thing to do and obviously congress felt them same...hence the McKinny Act of 87

Praxus

LOL ok