Posted 14 October 2002 - 03:39 PM
First of all Mr. O'Rights I must ask the question: Do you know how to use the quote button?
It's very easy really, if you want to quote something another member has said, you click the "quote" button at the top of the reply screen in advanced mode and then copy what someone may have said. When you are done, you should click the quote button again, and that will end the quote. For example:
[quote ] hello [/quote ]
[quote]hello[/quote]
If you found that rude because you may have known this already, it is only in response to your quoting style which is hard to read because I do not know if you are saying "Mangala," as if you are talking to me, or quoting me.
Also, what's with all the different posts? You could fit your whole essay into just one post, why do you confuse the reader with 10 or 20 posts he has to read when the standard posting method works is easier to read?
Anyway, Now for the responses:
[quote]Of course, another way you could proceed would be to vote for a tax to purchase and maintain the park. If a large enough gang of your neighbors voted for it, George’s hard-earned dollars would be used for a park he didn’t want and wouldn’t use. If he refused to pay what your gang dictated, law enforcement agents, acting on behalf of the winning voters, would extract the tax, at gunpoint, if necessary. If he resisted too vehemently, George might even get killed In the scuffle.[/quote]
What?!? Get killed in the scuffle? I hardly think we live in such a country Mr. O'Rights. Everyone knows George could always bring up his case in court, if he worked hard enough to prove that the majority was violating his right not to pay this kind of tax, the judge would probably see George's dilemma. People are not machines; we know that George probably won't go to that park.
Not every single element of civil life exists under the control of the government, nor should it be.
And what of this gang and gun-toting government agents? What town do you live in? We live in a society where civil people are treated with civility. If a group of people want a park, and some people do not want one, the majority does not always rule out. For instance, if 51% of a certain town in this country wanted to kill a man even though he had not broken any law, (which may have been the case of certain civil rights leaders) that man would still be protected by the government and it would be made sure that this man was not threatened by these people. Society created laws to help themselves, never to hurt themselves.
[quote]Wouldn’t you alternate as victims and aggressors, as minorities and majorities? [/quote]
You are dramatizing the world in which we currently live in. There are not thousands of cases everyday of the government holding citizens at gunpoint or even citizens feeling as if guns could be used against them. We have rule of the majority, but rights to protect the minority.
[quote]Through taxation, pacifists are forced at gunpoint to pay for killing machines; vegetarians are forced at gunpoint to subsidize grazing land for cattle; nonsmokers are forced at gunpoint to support both the production of tobacco and the research to counter its impact on health. These minorities are the victims, not the initiators of aggression. Their only crime is not agreeing with the priorities of the majority. [/quote]
First of all, these taxes are used for a number of reasons besides just paying for things certain people do not like. And the only reason we use the same taxing system for everyone is because it would be too beauracratic to have people check off what they do not want to pay for. We have committees elected by the people to make sure that the money goes mostly to things they want to pay for, and if the people do not want to pay for a certain things, they bring the issue up in congress or the house to make sure that we don't have to pay for it!
Taxation is not aggressive; we all know that the government needs to tax its people or it wouldn't be able to serve its purpose. As you said the government is big now, bigger than it was before, not some small group of people trying to suck more and more money out of its "consumers." I am glad the government gets so much money and is able to do so much, for we would not have as much public programs to help people as we do today.
But then again this is only my perception.
I have never actually seen where every dime goes; I have never seen what programs get funded and what programs do not. It could very well be that every dime I think is going to a good place is actually going to things I would detest.
But I simply doubt it.
[quote]Today, we have an enlightened perspective on slavery, just as one day we will have an enlightened perspective on taxes and other forms of aggression we now think of as “the only way.”[/quote]
Taxation is not slavery. I know it, and I'm sure you know it deep down. We do not live in a society where taxes break us, where taxes are what we most fear at the end of the month. Taxes do not force us to work; taxes do not control our lives. Taxes are simply what helps the government protect our country, protect our schools, and give medical care to our people. If you do not like a few programs that taxes go to, this is only because taxes have to mediate. Taxes must please most of the people most of the time and if you do not like a few programs currently being funded by the government, taking them away might take a few programs funded by the government that you enjoy yourself.
And before the government started, according to you, taking more and more taxes earlier on in the twentieth century, people were not living like kings. More money around was not the benefit of less taxes, because people were paid less when people could live on fewer dollars.
That is the free market, serving the interests of the profit margin rather than the employees.
[quote]In future posts, I'll show how our well-meaning aggression has created poverty, compromised our health, destroyed our environment, and fostered monopolies and cartels that manipulate us. [/quote]
I don't think you need to bother. I as well as others who will read this post know that aggression is not very good. Aggression is not how we have people pay for taxes; people pay taxes because we know it's necessary for our country to do all the good it does. I personally have never heard of a gun-toting government agent killing someone in the process of inquiring about someone’s tax history.
[quote][quote]Very good analogy. The question is where do the majority’s rights end and the individual's rights begin? I would like your opinion on this. As specific as possible please.[/quote]
O'Rights, I have an answer to this, but this is something that you need to reflect on, for it is the basic problem of you Socialistic ideal. I would like to see you answer this in great detail first. [/quote]
I need to reflect on? Who are you my father? You didn't even ask a question. How am I supposed to right a response to that? Please just give your answer on this and then I will "reflect" on whether or not socialism actually helps or hurts those ideals.
I'm asking for your opinion first because it seems you and Sophianic seem to have thought about this in greater detail. I would like to learn about your view of "individual rights" that seems to have such a conflict with socialism. You two are the only ones who have brought this idea up so much when confronted with Socialism.
[quote]Even the wealthiest of the ancients did not have many things we take for granted. [/quote]
OK. Point taken. Let's move on from there as wealth is defined.
[quote]Economic control of wealth is not merely control of a sector of human life that can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. [/quote]
THIS is a fundamental part of socialism. Would you rather have random people you do not know model your products for you, or the people you have elected and trust.
"Why do we fight like dogs for democracy, but once we enter the office the case is closed?"
[quote]No matter how worthy the cause, it is robbery, theft, and injustice to confiscate the property of one person and give it to another to whom it does not belong. [/quote]
What about if we were to take weapons away from terrorists and use it as our own to fight them?
There are hardly any absolutes when it comes to law-making.
[quote]Socialist believe that individuals should give according to their ability and receive according to their needs. In this way, they hope to achieve an even distribution of wealth, so that no one will be in need. Socialist see selfish others, who won’t voluntarily share the wealth they have created, as the primary obstacle to their goal. The Socialist solution is to force selfish others, at gunpoint, if necessary-to relinquish the wealth they have created. [/quote]
I believe that the entire concept of giving ten times the amount of money you would give to a secretary, to her superior is ludicrous. The "wealth" that these people have accrued is only that much wealth because we have defined it as necessary to give that much to these people. What is the basis for giving someone $85,000? Is it a science, does it have to do with the amount of time spent on the phone the number of flicks of the wrist while typing up a proposal? There is no basis! We estimate who deserves what, and when! Why estimate based on nothing? Why believe in something just because those before you have believed it? Just as the religious know that God exists because their predecessors told them, we believe that a CEO should make more money because our predecessors told us! This does not make sense because many times a high paid person does less work than a lower paid worker! Where is the logic in that? What are we paying these people based on, their work ethic, their demeanor, their will to work, what?!?
Before we just say that someone deserves that much money we must consider whether or not someone actually deserves that much money . Because we have no science to salary and because money can make so much of a difference in our country, because the difference between a car and no car is so different between a Dodge Neon or a BMW, we need to make sure that we are paying people according to some system, and I believe that that system should be based upon what that worker needs to enjoy his life just as anyone else, the same salary for everyone in this country.
I do not care how insane that may sound to some of you because I have not heard any argument so far as to why that does not benefit society and progress.
[quote]In choosing aggression as their means, Communists create poverty, strife, and inequality-the opposite of what they intend. [/quote]
Well, I'm glad there aren't any Communists in the post, more work for all of us.
[quote]Parents can keep the wealth they create for themselves, but they are likely to generously share with their children. No one points a gun at Moms and Dads to get them to comply. Parents choose to give out of love. [/quote]
Parents choose to give children their money because they see it as a form of immortality. They see it as a way to extend themselves beyond what their life has produced in order to accumulate more wealth. No one would force a parent to give money to their children anyway. Parents do this out of selfishness.
[quote]Socialist believe that we should all be family to one another. If we won’t voluntarily give to others until the available wealth is gone, we are considered selfish.
[/quote]
I am going to comment on the transitional stage. I really shouldn't as this should be saved for another post.
In the transitional stage no ones hoarded wealth should be taken away, as people can make as much money as they want. But the vast majority of the products made for people after the transition will be in the range of the average salary, about $55,000 to $75,000. So if richer people want to spend their hoarded wealth on some expensive thing they can do but others can't, there is no crime in that.
For having more money than someone else is not a crime.
However, receiving more, in an undeserving way is.
[quote]"The creation of the world is the victory of persuasion over force. Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent
persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative.
The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the
general society or in a remnant of individuals.[/quote]
Great, aggression is bad.
[quote]Why should we expect teachers employed by the government to show our children the importance of limiting government? [/quote]
What?!? I can't believe you said that. My teacher Mrs. Rosen went on and on about how the government in this country needs to be stopped in it's rampage of taxes and creating wars!
That is really crazy to say. Just because you are employed by a certain organization does not mean that you are necessarily bound to love it. That is the problem with business today, people do not actually choose their job because they think they want to do it, they do it so they can get paid. Most people do not live their dream job, they just live.
I am sure many teachers do not love the government, or are always against showing its problems or how the free market works.
There are hardly any teachers that are socialists.
[quote]Why should we expect teachers who work for a monopoly institution to teach our children how the free market works? [/quote]
That really is just point to point rhetoric. We all know economics is still a class and socialism is not.
[quote]We shouldn't be surprised that our children are taught to believe that government saved America from the Great Depression, that only government can protect the environment, that government prevents private companies from running roughshod over us, that government ended segregation andracial injustice (when government caused these things in the first place).[/quote]
The government did cause these things and cleaned them up. The government is made up of people, and people can change. People have always changed and that is why we have progress. For if the government did not work to help end these things, Brown vs. Board of Education would have never happened because...I don't know...in your fantasy world there would be no overbearing supreme court to rule on these things. The government can help or hurt; it depends on the people we elect.
[quote]Fortunately, the teachers didn't waste classroom time urging students to badger parents to recycle, or inspiring students to march in protest parades, or encouraging students to believe they knew the answers to all the world's problems.
[/quote]
I personally am glad teachers teach these things, because if we only found out about them when we entered college, we would just end up as close-minded pricks like those who run the country today.
[quote]Of course students learned little about the Bill of Rights, voluntary association, or the free market. Quite the
opposite, they are taught all the ways government can overcome the supposed defects of freedom. [/quote]
As a student I feel it is my duty to say simply "no." I've learned about it and so have many students across the country. It's called American History.
[quote]You simply can't reform government schools. Whether promoted by a Democrat or Republican, every "reform" is bound to make the situation worse.
[/quote]
Well not that I'm a Bush supporter, but as I remember he received many votes based on the fact that he radically reformed the Texas school system by giving more local control. To point blank say that the government cannot do anything about the state of our school system is too narrow for this discussion. It has happened in the past.
[quote]Only one reform will improve education: get government completely out of education -- and repeal the property taxes that pay for government schools. Then you will control your children's education.
What about children whose parents can't afford a private school? There undoubtedly are more than enough generous people in America to take care of every poor child - especially when those generous people no longer have to pay school taxes.
[/quote]
What would these generous people have to do in order to pay for these poor, reactive, low lives? They would have to form an organization that actually gave money to those who deserved it.
You are then just instituting what the government would have done in the first place to equalize the amount of money each person can spend on their child in terms of education!!
All you want to do is just say that the government can't do it! The government is just a group of people organized to serve the good of the people!
In terms of this situation the civic government would simply be an organization that helped the generous people give money to the poor! There is no point whatsoever in making sure the dreaded government does not aggressively take the money from the generous people and give it to the poor. You want equal education as well and you statements support it!!!!
To simply not want the government to do this is a waste of time and creates bad systems because these groups probably could be better put together by asking the government to do this for them.
Look, I do not support people without children having to pay school taxes, but as long as it interferes with the tax process to much to pick out who wants to pay what for what and schools are under funded, I see no problem with the current tax system.
And I think you know private schools are unjust. I think you realize that no child deserves more than another simply based on what their parents may have done.
[quote]Even if private donations couldn't take care of every child, should we abandon freedom just so poor children can get a terrible education?[/quote]
OK, now you're just rationalizing not caring about poor children. We should reform school districts that are under funded and we should make sure that every child has a chance to show that he really is "smarter" than the rest of the crowd. Every child deserves the same starting line. End of story.
I think you actually want the same things I want Mr. O'Rights, you are just afraid to discard the old ways. As for the individual's rights, I think you may have good points, but you need to expand on why you think the individual's rights are hindered by socialism. I know your system, I live in it, point out why my system is wrong.
No one deserves a better right to pursue happiness
A better right to education
Or a better right to life than anyone else.
