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

[Jan Volkes]

Thanks for quoting, or perhaps plagiarizing, a talk point straight from page 9 of the left wing propaganda and talking points memo.

Please show me what you are talking about.
You don't like what I said because you are a republican and you know it's the truth, republicans can be bought and you know it.
Don't worry about it because the republican party are a joke at the moment so it doesn't make much difference what they do.

 

[JustOneWay]

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.

Funny or not, without a pooling of money for the common infrastructure, prisons, police, fire and military (and all the rest) would leave each individual to pay for each and every part which is now paid through taxes. Sure there is some waste and theft, but there will always be waste and theft and in the end the end user pays.

You want privatization of everything, you post examples to make your point....after all, it was your point.

 

[Jan Volkes]

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?

Don't you think that everyone feels the same way as you do about some things? we live in democracies and we all have a vote, our votes do not always give us the government we would like but that's just the way it is, you either live with that fact or leave and go live somewhere else, what you don't do is work secretly to bring the government you don't like down because that won't do anyone any good.

 

[ebia]

Try doing anything without using infrastructure built with tax money.

Why do people who want to eliminate taxation and government think they will get utopia not Somalia?

 

[rambot]

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!

Yeah. I did it on the INTERNET too. Something that's never been done before. Underinformed, unconvincing posts regarding an a topic on a discussion forum. And I feel really bad about it.

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.

Is the OP a sock of yours cause this would be the second time you are trying to explain what the OP meant.

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

And that's where you're wrong. I'm not trying to persuade any one with my posts on this thread; that was my intent. Why is that a fail? You seem to be failing much harder; trying to convince me that I should be providing a "logical and rational argument" and getting no where with no chance of it happenning on the horizon. I'd suggest you give up, in fact, cause it won't happen.

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.

Wait, what? Really?

 

[NotreDame]

Please show me what you are talking about.
You don't like what I said because you are a republican and you know it's the truth, republicans can be bought and you know it.
Don't worry about it because the republican party are a joke at the moment so it doesn't make much difference what they do.

I am quite familiar with the content of your posts in this forum, your modus operandi is to make broad, generalized, indeed stereotyped statements about Republicans and conservatives.

The post you made which inspired my satirical and cynical comment is nothing more than a generalized and stereotyped statement. One need read only your posts and thread titles and thread topics for the evidence of your generalized and stereotyped statements of Republicans and conservatives.

Now before you make the error accusing me of being partisan and defensive of Republicans and conservatives, any number of posters here will tell you I have criticized conservatives and Republicans in this forum.

 

[NotreDame]

Yeah. I did it on the INTERNET too. Something that's never been done before. Underinformed, unconvincing posts regarding an a topic on a discussion forum. And I feel really bad about it.

Is the OP a sock of yours cause this would be the second time you are trying to explain what the OP meant.

And that's where you're wrong. I'm not trying to persuade any one with my posts on this thread; that was my intent. Why is that a fail? You seem to be failing much harder; trying to convince me that I should be providing a "logical and rational argument" and getting no where with no chance of it happenning on the horizon. I'd suggest you give up, in fact, cause it won't happen.

Wait, what? Really?

Thank you for confessing, unashamed, that you will not be making any arguments, logical or otherwise.

Oh, and let's recall you tried, but failed, to use the opening post to justify the conspicuous lack of any argument made by yourself. When the clear content of the opening post really provided you no refuge, you then just admitted you aren't going to make any argument. Could have just said from the beginning you do not make arguments but are here to just enlighten the rest of us of what you believe.

 

[ebia]

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.

Ultimately, in a democracy, consensus of the community (which is not identical to a simple majority) is how we try to resolve disagreement, yes.

 

[JustOneWay]

Why do people who want to eliminate taxation and government think they will get utopia not Somalia?

greed

 

[rambot]

Thank you for confessing, unashamed, that you will not be making any arguments, logical or otherwise.

Note: In THIS thread, yes. I'm honestly not being sarcastic here. I'm also not trying to be (too much of a) jerk. I'm just in a very bad headspace, too lazy to convince anyone of the intricacies of a position that feels more instinctual and righteous than actually logical or rational.

 

[NotreDame]

Ultimately, in a democracy, consensus of the community (which is not identical to a simple majority) is how we try to resolve disagreement, yes.

Not in the U.S., as there is a notion of "tyranny of the majority" and as a result there are mechanisms to preclude tyranny of the majority. In other words, majority rule is inherently a thread to the liberties, life, and property of the people which is why majority rule is never a sufficient justification to take property from people.

 

[ebia]

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.

Funding healthcare
Education
Police
Justice system

 

[SnowyMacie]

Why do you think the less successful are entitled to things from the more successful?

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.

No one is entitled to the fruits and labor of another. If that were the case, society would cease to progress forward.

What am I missing?

I believe we have an obligation to take care of those who are less fortunate.

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

If it was a common enough belief where enough people got elected into power that did believe it, it would.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why do people who want to eliminate taxation and government think they will get utopia not Somalia?

Anarchists are not looking for a utopia any more than conservatives are. Are there really that many anarchists posting here? I don't know but those of us that are conservative and do not want to eliminate taxation or government but want to keep government from controlling every aspect of our lives do not believe in utopias.

 

[NotreDame]

If it was a common enough belief where enough people got elected into power that did believe it, it would.

No. Mere majority rule is not sufficient here.

 

[SnowyMacie]

No. Mere majority rule is not sufficient here.

Re-read what I wrote. I described a republic, not a democracy.

 

[NotreDame]

Re-read what I wrote. I described a republic, not a democracy.

First of all, your comment did not exclusively reference a republic as opposed to a democracy as a democracy can be a representative form of government.

Second, republic or democracy is irrelevant, the majority, consensus, whether by direct or representatives, is not sufficient enough of reason here.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Re-read what I wrote. Republic or democracy, the majority, consensus, whether by direct or representatives, is not sufficient enough of reason.

Your original claim was sufficient enough to mandate it, and last time I checked, if the majority of Congress rules on something, that's enough to mandate it (barring presidential or SCOTUS interference).

 

[NotreDame]

Your original claim was sufficient enough to mandate it, and last time I checked, if the majority of Congress rules on something, that's enough to mandate it (barring presidential or SCOTUS interference).

No, your statement is again incorrect as a matter of law in the U.S. and unpersuasive philosophically.

The very idea of majority rule concerned the framers and founders as they understood majority rule could trample the rights and property of people and become "tyranny of he majority." So, they expressly and specifically sought to limit majority rule with the existence of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As I said before, the justification of a consensus or majority rule exists is not a sufficient reason, not legally or philosophically.

 

[Sean611]

Funding healthcare
Education

We have never tried free-market health care in the U.S., only the crony capitalism that ensures big insurance stays alive and thrives (see Obamacare). I would wager that a competitive health care marketplace and health insurance marketplace would drive costs down.

Private education is leaps and bounds ahead of public education in the states. Public education is (mostly) horrible here in the states.