Liberals, why do you believe people are entitled to the work of others?

[NotreDame]

Many of us distrust our elected officials on both sides. I became totally convinced when the SCOTUS gave corporations personhood for campaign contributions. It was the conservative members and Kennedy. Kennedy who usually sides with the liberal justices. That convinced me that there are very wealthy and powerful people in charge of our government and our courts.
The only Dem. that I currently trust to say what he really believes, is Bernie Sanders. At one time I would have included one of the Dems from Ohio but I can't recall her name right now, she was a Blue Dog.
On the Rep side of those running, I haven't decided yet. I've eliminated several though, for different reasons. Trump reminds me of a Palin character only with an IQ above 90.

My goodness. Misinformation strikes again. SCOTUS never gave corporations personhood for campaign contributions. This is a factually incorrect statement and has no basis in the facts or decision of the case Citizens United v FEC. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

 

[JustOneWay]

That isn't the job of the government. That is for charities to do. As it is, the government is doing it to such a degree that it has created a class of dependents that they can count on for votes. It should never have gotten to that point.

You don't want the government to do it and you want the right for yourself. I said that already and you disagreed

Boy you sure seem to be flip-flopping with me....

 

[NotreDame]

Are you nutters?

"Compassion is great, I am all for rich giving to the poor, but there is no morality in taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor."

That's from the opening post.

No, because it isn't only the rich who have their income siphoned off for the poor. Those who aren't rich do as well.

He invoked the rich as an example but looking at his other remarks, which are more general statements and principles not confined to the "rich" in his opening post, shows he isn't confining his remarks to the rich.

 

[rambot]

Maybe they do not concur with your belief to "help someone" is the "right thing to do." As I told you previously, your mere belief is hardly persuasive.

I really don't care if it's not persuasive NotreDame. The question in the thread was a "why do you BELIEVE" question; I neither saw, nor read in in the title, any obligation to try to persuade anyone to agree with me. I believe Christians should have a helpful heart and should be servants of their fellow man. If Christians choose to ignore that, that is their folly, not mine.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, because it isn't only the rich who have their income siphoned off for the poor. Those who aren't rich do as well.

Where is that said in the opening post?

 

[NotreDame]

I really don't care if it's not persuasive NotreDame. The question in the thread was a "why do you BELIEVE" question; I neither saw, nor read in in the title, any obligation to try to persuade anyone to agree with me. I believe Christians should have a helpful heart and should be servants of their fellow man. If Christians choose to ignore that, that is their folly, not mine.

There ya go, hide behind the opening post to avoid any obligation on your behalf to make sense of your view to anyone here, and/or to avoid making a logical and rational argument to support your belief. Bravo!

Oh, by the way when the opening post asks "WHY" do you believe, this isn't a request for your belief but a request for the reasoning, some logical, lucid, and hopefully rational thought/justification for why you believe what you believe.

So your comment about trying to not "persuade" in light of the opening post is an epic fail.

Your comment about "Christians" is equally unconvincing as not every person working, earning an income, and having a portion of their income redistributed to someone else is a Christian.

 

[NotreDame]

Where is that said in the opening post?

Hmmm, the third paragraph is a very general statement, a general principle, whose operation is not exclusively applicable to the rich. Indeed, the author didn't limit the general statement or principle to rich people. People who aren't rich are logically entitled to the fruits of their labor and no one else is entitled to these fruits of people who aren't rich.

 

[Sean611]

Taxation is nothing more than organized theft. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens. Men with guns show up and demand payment and if you can't, you get locked in a government cage (also known as prison for those keeping score at home). When you tell people that and tell them you are for little to no taxes, they act like you're greedy, yet it is somehow not greedy to think that you are entitled to the work of someone else...strange how that works. To them, wasting $.70 on every dollar to government bureaucracy is somehow charity and noble. Government will even go as far as banning private charity if it is more effective than government, I mean government can't have any competition after all. People might actually wake up and decide they are tired of being slaves! We can't have any of that!

Back on topic, I think it comes down to two different philosophies. On the one hand, you have liberty oriented people who tend to view civil liberty as the most important aspect of human interaction. These people believe that true freedom only exists at the individual level and only free individuals can be truly free. To the freedom-loving individual, good ideas don't require force or aggression.

The other group are collectivists/authoritarians. In their view, we should be divided into groups and the interests of these groups should be pitted against one another (black vs. Hispanic, white vs. black, religious vs. non-religious, liberal vs. conservative, old vs. young, men vs. women, and on and on). The collectivist/authoritarian believes that force and aggression should govern human relationships. We must also always have a constant "enemy," whether it be terrorists abroad or another powerful nation. Fear is what the authoritarian depends on to keep people from questioning the loss of civil liberties. Furthermore, there will be constant appeals to the common good and only giving up a little bit of liberty in the name of safety. The collectivist/authoritarian is also concerned with those who commit "wrong think," which is anybody who questions the prevailing narrative of the all powerful state and their many branches. To support such a system and to support the greedy political class requires a lot of revenue and, thus, taxation is essential. A powerful and tyrannical state fears nothing more than a population that doesn't need them. Therfore, things like poverty and dependence are vital to the survival of the authoritarian. The true purpose of such dependency systems is to keep people dependent on government and the political class. Hopefully this clears things up!

Before I get attacked by an angry mob of progressive liberals, let me say that the Republican Party follows the collectivist/authoritarian philosophy, as do many conservatives.

 

[grasping the after wind]

You think you would have done as well if you'd been born in Mogadishu?

As well as what? How ell do you imagine i have done? The fact is that there is no possible way I could ever have been born at any time or in anyplace other than the exact time and place I was born so the question is silly and off point.

So what company are you CEO of?

I have never been anywhere close to working in upper management. I have a modest income and am able to pay my bills. I do not see how my personal circumstances have anything to do with whether incompetent people might blame luck for their circumstances. People do not get rich from luck. Why do you think so many lottery winners end up penniless? Why did not their good fortune keep them rich?

No. Work-for-the-dole schemes have been tried.

They end up making people resentful, make it harder to get back into real employment, and undermine real jobs.

But that's what it's really about? You being jealous that somebody gets something?

How many welfare recipients are resentful without working for their benefits? How many have an easy time getting into"real" employment and how would the government paying people to do real work undermine "real jobs"?
Who is really jealous the one that insists that other people's earnings are the result of luck so they don't deserve them or me pointing out that working for one's livelihood even if it must be provided by the government gives one a sense of accomplishment? If I was jealous of those on welfare I could simply stop working and collect benefits myself. Not as easily solved as jealousy of the rich . Its not like one could decide one day to just go where the rich go and collect money the way they do. I'm not jealous of the rich or of the people that need to depend on the government. there seems to be a knee jerk reaction to any criticism of the current flawed system that causes people to assume that one that criticizes it must have something against the people that are dependent upon it. those people are the ones that are being the most harmed by this system as it takes ore away from them then it does from the rich. The rich are only giving up money.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hmmm, the third paragraph is a very general statement, a general principle, whose operation is not exclusively applicable to the rich. Indeed, the author didn't limit the general statement or principle to rich people. People who aren't rich are logically entitled to the fruits of their labor.

The author specifically described taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It's right there. That was the main argument of the opening post.

 

[ebia]

This is perhaps a commendable belief but your mere belief really isn't sufficient to mandate another individual take care of another individual.

But when it's the consensus of the community, it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Taxation is nothing more than organized theft. Don't believe me? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens.

Try doing anything without using infrastructure built with tax money.

 

[NotreDame]

The author specifically described taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It's right there. That was the main argument of the opening post.

And then in the same post espoused a general principle and statement applicable not only to the rich but also to those who aren't rich. Unless of course we are to believe only rich have the fruits of their labor redistributed to others, which we know isn't true.

 

[NotreDame]

But when it's the consensus of the community, it is.

Really? Some mere consensus of the community, rule of the majority., is sufficient to take another's property, their income, and redistribute it? Ponder the profound implications of this logic and then tell me whether you still agree with this reasoning.

 

[DaisyDay]

Liberal Compassion in the UK...

Mr. & Mrs. Buttons

By Taylor Caldwell​

http://babylontoday.com/liberal_compassion.htm

A good article each of us should read and understand.

Taylor Caldwell? She writes about the International banking conspiracy with a wink and a nod. A truly atrocious writer of torrid potboilers. I only know this because a friend of mine was a fan of hers and from that I learned not to judge people on their tasted |) in literature (I had been a bit of a snob before then).

 

[JustOneWay]

Try doing anything without using infrastructure built with tax money.

I think he would prefer to toss a nickel into a slot on every road he turns on to get around.

Send a check to every cop on the job....buy his personal soldier and send him to war....

It's his turn to pay for a tank of gas for the fire department.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No it isn't. If a baby is unlucky enough to be born disabled is that incompetence?

Perhaps think a little about the far reaching implications of your pithy sound bites.

A baby that is born disabled is not unlucky nor incompetent. A disabled baby has already beaten the odds to be born. But you are changing the subject. We are talking about how people acquire money. What does a disabled baby, as poignant as the plight of that child nmight be, have to do with how one acquires one's of material wealth? If you wish to make an appeal to emotion you probably ought to appeal to emotion in a way that is relevant to the subject we are discussing.

 

[Sean611]

Try doing anything without using infrastructure built with tax money.

I would prefer anybody that responds take the whole of my post into account, rather than cherry-pick and then respond with a one liner.

Regarding your post, exactly how much tax money does "infrastructure" need? Very little of what people pay in actually goes to infrastructure and when it does, most of it is wasted and contracts are given to the friend's of the politicians or to the highest bidder. We can surely do better than that?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why do you feel "forced" to help someone? Why can't you just help someone cause it's the right thing to do?

And nope, he has a bad attitude because he has a bad attitude; it's not apples/oranges.

I do not feel forced to help anyone. I do help others all the time without anyone using coercion to make me do it either and not always by giving them things ( why must compassion be measured by how much stuff you are willing to give away) . I do not even begrudge paying taxes that are used to help others( I do wonder how much those programs actually help though and how much they may actually harm those receiving benefits). But why should people who do not see things as I do be compelled by force to help others? When the government forcefully takes money from one person to give it to another that is not charity because charity requires some form of loving going on no matter how debased the word has become and how much it has been equated with giving people stuff. You are comparing charity( ( care for the welfare of others ) with coercion (being told you will give stuff to another whether you like it or not). My original point was correct. Apples and oranges.

 

[Sean611]

I think he would prefer to toss a nickel into a slot on every road he turns on to get around.

Send a check to every cop on the job....buy his personal soldier and send him to war....

It's his turn to pay for a tank of gas for the fire department.

So not being a fan of my hard earned money going toward wasted government bureaucracy and corruption is a ridiculous notion? I should just send my money in without question and hope they spend wisely?

Also, give examples where the public sector of government is more efficient than the private sector of business. I'll be waiting or maybe you can continue entertaining yourself with your funny posts, which attempts to make everybody who doesn't think like you look foolish! Just make a big joke out of it and try to look smart, while avoiding saying anything with substance. Either way you go, I'm sure to be entertained.