Inequality: Should the government be concerned about it?

[MachZer0]

Keyphase that you miss there.

Then they should have planned better for a career

 

[MachZer0]

MachZer0,

I'm sorry, but truth is not established by posting one line zingers. The uninformed might be impressed, but does this zinger hold up to scrutiny? Simple examination can show its fallacy. But alas, I find it hard to get you to address those questions.

Here for instance is a line of questioning I asked you several times on this thread, and you avoid:

Suppose a poor man without insurance shows up at a hospital with a life-threatening but treatable condition. Would it be okay for the government to pay to treat that person in that hospital, financing it through taxes on others? Would that violate your conscience to force tax money to go to helping that man? Would you rather leave him to die in the streets rather than force people to pay taxes to help him?​

And you avoid that question every time I ask. And I can see why you avoid it. For if you say it would be Ok to use tax money to help this man, your entire argument that it is never right to use tax money to give something to the needy disappears. But if you say this act of compassion is not moral, your philosophy is exposed for the barrenness it is. And so you ignore the question, yes? And instead you come back with a few more one line zingers, as though that resolves it, yes?

The question does not go away. This is a very real situation that happens everyday. People arrive at emergency rooms with no insurance and no means to pay. Since Nixon it has been the law that the hospital needs to treat this man, with the government ultimately on the hook. What should we do in this situation? If nobody else will help, should the government leave him out on the streets to die?

The founding fathers declared their intentions that the people should get to decide what government will be like so that it will best effect their safety and happiness. Your form of government does nothing to help the safety and happiness of this man dying outside the emergency room, does it?

Ok, now to your quote. How shall we define what a man earns? Here is an example. A man robs a million dollars from the bank and invests it in a business that brings back $200,000 a year profit to this man. How much is that man earning?

Another example: A man makes a deal that he will manage somebody else's business and get to keep 30% of what he earns by running the company. He makes $200,000 a year. How much of that earnings does he get to keep? Should he not be forced to keep his end of the bargain?

Another example: The people of the United States decided they owned the land and set up government to enact their will. That government has a deal that you can live and work here, but you need to pay the applicable taxes. A man works here and makes $200,000. The IRS says he only gets to keep $140,000 and owes the rest to them. That was the deal. You live here, you are subject to the taxes. How much does he get to keep of the money he earned? A deal is a deal.

And after the government gets the money it is owed, we then get to decide what to do with it. And if we decide to use if for Medicaid so we can feed and shelter an elderly woman with no other means for survival, we can do that.

So yes, it is greed for a rich man to earn money here and not want the government to take some of it, and no it is not greed for the people to expect people to live up to their end of the bargain and pay our government what they owe.

So do you now understand why it is indeed greed to want to nullify one's lawfully owed tax burden and keep all the money one "earns", and it is not greed for the government to take what the law says he owes?

The government should not be doing anything that requires forcibly taking money from one person to give to another. Now you answer the question posed by Sowell

 

[KarateCowboy]

Suppose a poor man without insurance shows up at a hospital with a life-threatening but treatable condition. Would it be okay for the government to pay to treat that person in that hospital, financing it through taxes on others? Would that violate your conscience to force tax money to go to helping that man? Would you rather leave him to die in the streets rather than force people to pay taxes to help him?​

If it is not acceptable for me to go into your house and take money from you to pay for someone else's medical bills then it is not acceptable for the government to do so. The basis of modern, republican government is the self-evident truth that governments derive their powers from the governed, with their consent. This is an act of delegation, and the hard fact remains that you cannot delegate a power or right that you do not have. If the government has the right to do that, then it is only because it received that right through delegation. If you, doubtingmerle, do not have that right, then the government cannot have that right.

This is not a matter of opinion, and is a basic tenet from which both sides must reason. Hence, your philosophy says that it would be fine for me to forcibly take money from someone else to pay for my sister's medical bills. It is simply a matter of might makes right, because someone else's consent does not matter. This is your philosophy when we look at its core: "You have it. I want it. I am going to take it".

 

[super animator]

Then they should have planned better for a career

You are literately blaming the victim here.

 

[KarateCowboy]

You are literately blaming the victim here.

Regardless of this particular edgecase, the bottom line remains: if it's unethical for you or I to do it, then it is unethical for others to do it, even if they call themselves "Government". Saying "I'm the government" has been the justification for the greatest atrocities known to our race. The notion you harbor --that when the government does it then it is somehow ethical --is the same notion that says "I have the divine right to rule; it is right and just". By what magic do you think something unethical for an individual or group of individuals suddenly becomes ethical because they adopt the label "Government"?

 

[super animator]

Regardless of this particular edgecase, the bottom line remains: if it's unethical for you or I to do it, then it is unethical for others to do it, even if they call themselves "Government". Saying "I'm the government" has been the justification for the greatest atrocities known to our race. The notion you harbor --that when the government does it then it is somehow ethical --is the same notion that says "I have the divine right to rule; it is right and just". By what magic do you think something unethical for an individual or group of individuals suddenly becomes ethical because they adopt the label "Government"?

What are you talk about? All I see from your post is incoherent rambling.

 

[KarateCowboy]

What are you talk about? All I see from your post is incoherent rambling.

"What are you talk about?".... but I am incoherent...Go back and reread. There is quite a bit of cohesion in my last few posts in this thread.

 

[super animator]

"What are you talk about?".... but I am incoherent...Go back and reread. There is quite a bit of cohesion in my last few posts in this thread.

No, you are not being coherent, because I have no idea of what you are trying to say nor do I see relation to the sentience that I made earlier.

 

[MachZer0]

You are literately blaming the victim here.

What victim? I'm not blaming any victim. I'm saying that it isn't government's job to make sure we have a certain level of existence.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

sell all you have and give it to the poor

That's a pretty generic statement that doesn't really play out in the real world.

If I'm rich and you're poor, and I give you all of my money, now you're rich and I'm poor...so that means you'd have to give it all back.

I know this idea of "hey everyone, let's share everything equally" sounds like a nice life to you...but you have to remember, not everyone is going to want to take that equal share of the work that goes into it...only an equal share of the money.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The government should not be doing anything that requires forcibly taking money from one person to give to another. Now you answer the question posed by Sowell

So the government can't force people to pay taxes to raise money to give to the soldiers, policemen, or congressmen? Silly me. I thought they could.

Sowell did not ask a question. Do you have a question you want me to answer?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If it is not acceptable for me to go into your house and take money from you to pay for someone else's medical bills then it is not acceptable for the government to do so.

Its a simple fact that governments have the right to do things you and I cannot do.

Governments can force people to pay taxes so they can pay the army. I can't.

Governments can even force people to serve in an army. I can't.

Governments can force people to pay taxes so they can pay for the government offices. I can't.

Government can hold people in prison after due process. I can't.

Governments can declare war and bomb the stuff out of an enemy. Guess what? You and I can't.

So yes, governments can do lots of things that I can't. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

 

[Inkfingers]

So yes, governments can do lots of things that I can't. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

"Can do" does not mean "its right to"

 

[doubtingmerle]

sell all you have and give it to the poor

That's a pretty generic statement that doesn't really play out in the real world.

Are you saying that Jesus really goofed on this one?

 

[doubtingmerle]

"Can do" does not mean "its right to"

Of course.

But the statement was made that since I cannot forcibly make somebody pay money to pay for x, that therefore the government cannot do it either. I was simply pointing out that though it is illegal for me to force you to pay taxes to me, that does not prove that it is illegal for the government to force people to pay taxes to them.

Its basic civics 101.

 

[super animator]

Its a simple fact that governments have the right to do things you and I cannot do.

Governments can force people to pay taxes so they can pay the army. I can't.

Governments can even force people to serve in an army. I can't.

Governments can force people to pay taxes so they can pay for the government offices. I can't.

Government can hold people in prison after due process. I can't.

Governments can declare war and bomb the out of an enemy. Guess what? You and I can't.

So yes, governments can do lots of things that I can't. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

To save you from moderation, it's against the rules to partial cuss here.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To save you from moderation, it's against the rules to partial cuss here.

Thanks, I changed it to "bomb the stuff out of the enemy". Not quite the same ring, but it makes the point.

 

[Inkfingers]

Of course.

But the statement was made that since I cannot forcibly make somebody pay money to pay for x, that therefore the government cannot do it either. I was simply pointing out that though it is illegal for me to force you to pay taxes to me, that does not prove that it is illegal for the government to force people to pay taxes to them.

Its basic civics 101.

I think the argument is that you cannot legitimately force someone to pay you. Of course you can actually DO it, but it would not be right. Similarly, the government can actually DO it, but that does not make it right.

I cannot legally forcibly impregnate someone (its called rape) but is the government allowed to do that?

 

[super animator]

I think the argument is that you cannot legitimately force someone to pay you. Of course you can actually DO it, but it would not be right. Similarly, the government can actually DO it, but that does not make it right.

I think it's part of the "promotion of the common welfare" when it comes to police, firemen, etc.

 

[MachZer0]

So the government can't force people to pay taxes to raise money to give to the soldiers, policemen, or congressmen? Silly me. I thought they could.

Sowell did not ask a question. Do you have a question you want me to answer?

Those are people who earned money. My point has always been about taking money from the person who earned it to give to a person who didn't earn it.