Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Goldenville west of Lurkerville
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2015 - 09:38pm PT
|
That's jeffrey Immelt...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
over and over and over again they say it
for the last time: "socialism" is government OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
socialism is NOT corporate tax breaks, it is NOT enriching the Defense Contractors
socialism is NOT food stamps for the poorest Americans
socialism is not unemployment checks when the Tyson Chicken plant lays off 700
So shut the fvck up about "socialism" and the Nazi images you fear mongering dumass
|
|
MisterE
Gym climber
Being In Sierra Happy Of Place
|
|
^^Awesome rant that I can only assume is a product of Faux News or some such?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
or the last time: "socialism" is government OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
Well, it's not even that, really.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
for the last time: "socialism" is government OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION
Nope. That's communism. Socialism and communism often go hand-in-hand, but more often you see socialism without communism.
socialism is NOT corporate tax breaks, it is NOT enriching the Defense Contractors
Actually, the former can be, while the latter almost certainly is not.
socialism is NOT food stamps for the poorest Americans
Actually, that is a classic example of socialism.
socialism is not unemployment checks when the Tyson Chicken plant lays off 700
Correct, as long as the unemployment checks come from unemployment INSURANCE that was purchased (typically) by the employer.
So shut the fvck up about "socialism" and the Nazi images you fear mongering dumass
Now that was a HILARIOUS (and ironic) epithet, given that YOU are conflating the left and the right. Socialism is left, while Nazism (and other forms of fascism) are right.
Socialism at its core is wealth-redistribution, where Peter is taxed in some way to pay for the "needs" of Paul, and where Peter's taxes purchase NOTHING in the way of goods or services that directly benefit Peter.
That is why the comparisons to the collective purchasing of roads, bridges, fire and police departments, and all other such things are NOT proper comparisons to socialism. When Peter pays into the collective purchase of a road or national defense, Peter is getting a tangible BENEFIT for his small-scale contribution to a common good of which HE directly benefits.
By contrast, when Peter pays a tax that is directed to buy Paul's food, housing, healthcare, or others of Paul's "needs," Peter receives no benefit to HIMSELF for that purchase. Only Paul receives the benefit from Peter's purchase. THAT is wealth-redistribution, the theft of Peter's assets to add to the assets of Paul.
And don't try to get around this by claiming something like, "It's a benefit to Peter to not have to ultimately pay for the uninsured emergency room visit of Paul, so it's better for Peter that Paul is now insured." That's just pushing the "paying" back one level. In NO sense should Peter have to pay for Paul's medical care, and any government force to the effect that Peter MUST pay for Paul's healthcare IS socialism.
You might now say, "Okay, whatever it is, it is GOOD that 'rich' Peter can contribute to 'poor' Paul's healthcare (selfish bastard!). And, after all, Obamacare WAS upheld by the SCOTUS on the basis of it BEING a 'tax' on Peter to help cover Paul."
Fine, but then at least don't conflate THAT sort of extraction from Peter with Peter's paying gas taxes for roads or property taxes for schools and the police and fire departments. Obamacare IS socialism and one of the best examples of it. It is literally robbing Peter to pay Paul, which IS why it has SUCH support among the Pauls and SUCH angst among the Peters.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Cragman's distaste for the fraud that occurs may be small in dollars, but those abuses of the system and the perverse incentives those programs create are certainly having a negative affect on our culture.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan talked about this decades ago, and his fears are now reality.
The family is the foundation of a culture and society. This demographic has changed dramatically in our lifetime.
Pure socialism demoralizes motivated citizens and financially it is not sustainable.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
I Truely hope NORTON opens his eyes, his mind, and his heart someday soon..
Meanwhile, I wish we could see Bernie as pres. And Carson as VP. I think we'd experience 8yrs of America at its GREATEST!
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
By contrast, when Peter pays a tax that is directed to buy Paul's food, housing, healthcare, or others of Paul's "needs," Peter receives no benefit to HIMSELF for that purchase. Only Paul receives the benefit from Peter's purchase. THAT is wealth-redistribution, the theft of Peter's assets to add to the assets of Paul.
I disagree with this to an extent. When "Paul" doles out his monies for services and food it puts money back into a community that can then buy products from the "Peters". Pretty much the same as if it came from one working.
Edit,
Wealth redistribution has been going on to long already. It's been going from the poor to the rich.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
When "Paul" doles out his monies for services and food it puts money back into a community that can then buy products from "Peter". Pretty much the same as if it came from one working.
Ahh, I see now: The perpetual motion machine.
Seriously, can you actually say "pretty much the same as if it came from one working" with a straight face?
Okay, then on your model, the government should be ENCOURAGING interpersonal theft, since that's "pretty much the same as if it came from one working." After all, the government can't possibly be as efficient at this miracle of perpetual motion as all of us working together on it!
You steal and sell my TV, then you buy "services and food" with that money, which "puts money back into the community that then buy products from" me. So it's really like you were working and pouring my own money back to me? No loss? No harm, no foul? It's all good?
Do you REALLY believe that? Do you REALLY believe in perpetual motion machines?
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
Come on, get real. I said I disagree to an extent, not to your now extreme.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Wealth redistribution has been going on to long already. It's been going from the poor to the rich.
Now THAT'S a different claim.
But what you'd need to show for that one is that the "redistribution" you are talking about is theft. You'd have to explain how people that pay no taxes, actually get money from the government BACK in tax refunds that they didn't pay into, and that receive government-subsidized housing, food, healthcare, and so on are actually being stolen from.
IF you could somehow manage that, you'd THEN need to explain how theft morally justifies other theft.
Finally, you'd need to explain how the masterminds in the government are going to "get it right" with the organized theft, so that ALL and ONLY the right people (just the "guilty" ones) have THEIR wealth distributed back to ALL and ONLY the ones from whom it was stolen in the first place.
Of course, that is, IF you actually care about property rights at all and care to ensure that the proposed redistribution is genuinely moral.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Come on, get real. I said I disagree to an extent, not to your now extreme.
Well, then, to EXACTLY what extent?
Look, ANY time you steal from somebody, there is a net loss in "return" to that person in the sense you are trying to float. And that net loss is HUGE compared to that person directly spending HIS/HER money on goods/services!
So, it's just flatly ridiculous to try to argue that the person being stolen from is "getting something back" from the theft that somehow justifies socialism!
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
I never insinuated that people that didnt work were getting robbed.
Those that don't work can't be part of that equation.
Anything else you want you need cleard up?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Anything else you want you need cleard up?
What your point is. Oh, and SOME good reason to believe it, whatever it is.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
I dont mind getting robbed a little to help support someone that truely needs it, I can live with a small net lose. That's just the way its supposed to work.
They're called taxes, to you its theft. Sorry you feel that way.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I dont mind getting robbed a little
At least somebody on your side is being honest about WHAT is going on!
Now, let's turn to "a little."
If I walk into your house, hold you at gunpoint (which doesn't even start to describe the police-state powers the IRS has), and demand all of the money in your wallet, do you feel okay about it because you have LOTS more in the bank, so in proportion I took only "a little" from you?
Exactly how much do I have to steal before you go from feeling good about it to bad about it? When does "a little" start feeling like "a lot"?
Oh, right, that's a bad analogy because "we all" decided that "a little" robbery was okay, which makes it VERY different from me just unilaterally deciding to do it.
But wait.
So you're saying that if the robbery is systematized, and it's done by the agreement of the "majority," THAT makes it okay?
If you really think that, then you really need to read Federalist 10 on the subject of faction, what "faction" is, and the horror our founders had of it. And it was not just the federalists that were in horror of it. The anti-federalists were even more horrified of it... horrified that the federalist form of government would ITSELF usher in the tyranny of the majority, which is EXACTLY what has happened.
The point you are missing from what I wrote above is that THIS "robbed just a little" is not properly "called taxes" in the sense that makes it legitimate. You cannot LEGITIMATELY just wave a magic "it's a tax" wand over theft, as the SCOTUS did. That IS tyranny, because not all taxes are legitimate, yet "the power to tax is the power to destroy."
There are legitimate, constitutional taxes, and then there is socialism. THE difference rests upon a clear, bright line.
On the one side of the line are the constitutional powers of the government, and these powers must be paid for by we the people. National defense is an example. This is a benefit I receive from my nation that is explicitly mentioned by the constitution. When I am taxed for national defense, I directly benefit from the very thing my taxes go to pay for.
On the other side of the line are the powers the government has now usurped to ITSELF (exactly as the anti-federalists feared) that were never mentioned nor contemplated by the constitution. Federally-subsidized housing is an example. There is nowhere either expressed or implied in the constitution that provides the power to subsidize housing. When I am taxed for subsidized housing, I receive exactly ZERO benefit from my tax dollar.
Don't respond to "there is nowhere in the constitution" with the hoary, old line, "But it says, 'the general welfare.'" Please, really, it's absolutely ridiculous. What "welfare" meant to the founders was NOTHING like what "welfare" now means. And "general welfare" was NOT about putting stolen money into the hands of INDIVIDUALS!
We can debate until the cows come home about how MUCH national defense we need, how MUCH money should be spent on that and how the military should be deployed. I personally think we spend FAR too much on that and then use too much military on all sorts of inappropriate and even wrong endeavors! But at least that discussion would be about a legitimate power of the government, with legitimate taxation that each taxpayer spends to purchase a tangible benefit to HIM/HERSELF.
Wealth redistribution, such as subsidized housing, is THEFT rather than "taxation" because it is DESIGNED TO take money from one person and give it directly to another, with the person being stolen from receiving NO benefit from the theft. THAT is nothing more than theft, plain and simple; it is not legitimate taxation, regardless of what you call it.
It's a simple point based upon a clear, bright line. It's not hard to understand.
What's hard is to employ tortured logic and misapplied terminology to ATTEMPT to justify what is flatly outright theft. Socialism is theft, and it was never contemplated by the constitution, the founders, nor the anti-federalists that feared the ever-broadening power of the federal government.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!