Leftists

[Behind The Mask]

This is stupid. If you earn money, its yours.

I do hope you exclude the earning of money through illegal means.

Because, basically they would still earn the money through the work put into their illegal activities...

By any chance are you familiar with a chap by the name of Andrew Ryan>

 

[Duo]

I read an article recently, that told of someone who died because of something stuck inside of her that could have been easily taken out, in ENGLAND! BECAUSE OF THE NHS!

Nobody has ever died in the US from malpractice. They probably encourage this in the UK anyways, that means the evil socialist doctors and their politician pals can just roll around in all the money they've kept for themselves by letting people die (because that's how socialism works!!)... I can't believe this would happen IN ENGLAND! BECAUSE OF THE NHS!!

 

[GhostWriter16]

I do hope you exclude the earning of money through illegal means.

Because, basically they would still earn the money through the work put into their illegal activities...

By any chance are you familiar with a chap by the name of Andrew Ryan>

Yes. I exclude illegal money. Its a bit paradoxical the IRS Law "All illegal income is taxable," and I think you can see why, but...

I'm not against taxes either, but I'm against the redistribution of wealth.

 

[Princeps]

I'm not against taxes either

This is stupid. If you earn money, its yours.

But this an obvious contradiction in your logic.

 

[Behind The Mask]

I'm not against taxes either, but I'm against the redistribution of wealth.

If you'd care to argue semantics then one could consider taxation, regardless of anything, its simple redistribution; whether it be to the military, social programs or otherwise...

Or, if it is simply collected and nothing done with it then its just as bad as its no longer circulated into the economy.

So it could be argued in this case, whether its by definition 'redistributed' in this case it is needed.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is stupid. If you earn money, its yours.

You acknowledge that there are two ways to get money: you can earn it, or you can take it. So how do you define earning money? What action or circumstance which yields money for you constitutes you having "earned" it? And, thus, what actions or circumstances constitute acquiring money by "taking" it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You acknowledge that there are two ways to get money: you can earn it, or you can take it. So how do you define earning money? What action or circumstance which yields money for you constitutes you having "earned" it? And, thus, what actions or circumstances constitute acquiring money by "taking" it?

Taking=stealing

 

[Princeps]

Taking=stealing

You can't make this objection anymore, because you already said you have nothing against "theft" (taxes).

Theft is a legal concept that is entirely contextual to legal system (the same legal system that enforces both property and taxes, which are therefore equally legitimate).

 

[GhostWriter16]

You can't make this objection anymore, because you already said you have nothing against "theft" (taxes).

Theft is a legal concept that is entirely contextual to legal system (the same legal system that enforces both property and taxes, which are therefore equally legitimate).

The government steals when it takes from the over-achieving and gives to the under-achieving.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Taking=stealing

This is only a half-assed response to only one of the questions I asked.

I'll play this game for only so long...how do you define stealing? Wait, don't say it, its "taking what's not yours." So then what makes something rightfully "yours?"

 

[Princeps]

The government steals when it takes from the over-achieving and gives to the under-achieving.

No. The government would be stealing if it were depriving wealth in manner or scope that is beyond the democratic authorization for taxes.

Your notion of theft is not derived from any legal code, therefore it isn't the definition of theft.

Also, I seriously object to your use of the terms "over-achieving and under-achieving". Few people are wealthy because they're willing to achieve more or work more. The poor work the hardest in all societies.

 

[spryllino]

@Sprillino- Government run business is wrong.

Why? Justify yourself. What's so wrong about it, and don't say "It's socialist" because that, in itself, is no reason to think that it's wrong. Isn't the army a government-run business, for example? Isn't the entire tax system a government run business?

I will give Britain credit where its due, we need Tort Reform to kill all the stupid lawsuits. You should also be able to buy health insurance across state lines. This is the kind of reform we needed.

I don't care how much "credit" you decide to give Britain. I want you to discuss the issue objectively without reference to political or national divisions that bear no relevance to the matter in hand.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No. The government would be stealing if it were depriving wealth in manner or scope that is beyond the democratic authorization for taxes.

Your notion of theft is not derived from any legal code, therefore it isn't the definition of theft.

Also, I seriously object to your use of the terms "over-achieving and under-achieving". Few people are wealthy because they're willing to achieve more or work more. The poor work the hardest in all societies.

This is the issue. The majority taking from the minority, see my sig.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, this is fun.



FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter...

Not to mention that Obama is to the right of Ike, Nixon, JFK, Teddy R, at the very least.

 

[Princeps]

This is the issue. The majority taking from the minority, see my sig.

But it isn't an issue. Who cares if the rich are taxed more than others, as long as they are not overburdened (which they are not).

 

[History_Buff]

This is stupid. If you earn money, its yours.

Incorrect. Libertarians seem to love this whole taxation = theft delusion. You can't just look at one end of the market, and draw your only conclusions from there. You only earned the money because the government has explicitly created a system which allows you to do so.

This is the issue. The majority taking from the minority, see my sig.

No, it's redistribution of money. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, even the upper-class wealthiest members of society have an interest in maintaining a strong middle class and a small lower class, because it is the labour of those middle classmen who allowed them to get rich in the first place.

When you have societies that are strongly divided between poor and rich, the economy falls apart due to lack of skilled workers. It's happened many time in history.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Duh, that's why you need slaves. It's like a Libertarian wet dream, and it's supported by the Bible!

 

[GhostWriter16]

Duh, that's why you need slaves. It's like a Libertarian wet dream, and it's supported by the Bible!

Slavery in the Bible was like Indentured Servitude, it was like, you were in debt so you worked for them for a certain amount of time to pay the debt.

Modern slavery and the Bible do not match.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A lot of things and the Bible do not match. Reality for instance.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Sounds like Libertarianism to me.