The Obama gun ban list is out

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think that one of two things are the case with charities:

1. If government reduced the tax burden, people would give more to charities voluntarily, and charities could replace the government for social welfare.

OR

2. Liberals are absolute, total hypocrites.

Liberals are hypocrites? Excuse me?

Are liberals the ones who are claiming Charity can provide for the poor? No sir, that's libertarians. But the moment Libertarians get what they want, the removal of force, all noble sentiments go out the window, because: "I got mine". All this noise about freedom this and that, and it all boils down to not wanting to contribute to society.

The "liberal" position as you call it is far more realistic. We're all greedy selfish bastards who care more about having the latest iphone than helping some poor sod.

You are one dishonest bro, hombre.

I'm not even liberal and I'd voluntarily give money to charity if I could afford it... If the people who are voting for higher taxes on "The wealthy" (Including some wealthy people) would not voluntarily give more to charity under a smaller tax rate there is something very, very wrong.

Oh you would would you. Sure you would.

I am what you'd call a liberal, and I do give to charity. And I pay my taxes without complaining. That's worth a whole lot more than your empty promises what you'd do if you could afford it. I'll tell you what you'd do, you'd buy that iphone and give some token amount to charity ti ease your conscience. And you know why I'm so certain of that?

It's what almost all of us do.

 

[Leoreth]

I still don't understand by what mechanism the existence of welfare prevents more people from donating their money or time, so that governments could phase out welfare.

Why does welfare have to end before people can start donating sufficient amounts? Seems like the easiest way to prove your point.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And lets not forget, even when enough money was donated in order for charities to grow enough to provide the same security net, they will need to interact and communicate in order to make sure some people will not receive aid twice, while others are left wanting. And they will need to keep books on that. And people will need to go through procedures to get that. And they will grow and become just as inefficient as every large organisation on Earth.

So it's not only a pipedream, it's a pipedream which on closer inspection is just a mirror image of the current situation. So as far as pipedreams go, it's a pretty sad one.

And when a crisis hits, the poor will be the first to go. Well done GW, you've just introduced survival of the wealthiest.

 

[Global Skeptic]

And lets not forget, even when enough money was donated in order for charities to grow enough to provide the same security net, they will need to interact and communicate in order to make sure some people will not receive aid twice, while others are left wanting. And they will need to keep books on that. And people will need to go through procedures to get that. And they will grow and become just as inefficient as every large organisation on Earth.

So it's not only a pipedream, it's a pipedream which on closer inspection is just a mirror image of the current situation. So as far as pipedreams go, it's a pretty sad one.

And when a crisis hits, the poor will be the first to go. Well done GW, you've just introduced survival of the wealthiest.

Further the complication of not receiving any charity, because you are wrong/evil and whatnot.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Liberals are hypocrites? Excuse me?

Are liberals the ones who are claiming Charity can provide for the poor? No sir, that's libertarians. But the moment Libertarians get what they want, the removal of force, all noble sentiments go out the window, because: "I got mine". All this noise about freedom this and that, and it all boils down to not wanting to contribute to society.

The "liberal" position as you call it is far more realistic. We're all greedy selfish bastards who care more about having the latest iphone than helping some poor sod.

You are one dishonest bro, hombre.

Oh you would would you. Sure you would.

I am what you'd call a liberal, and I do give to charity. And I pay my taxes without complaining. That's worth a whole lot more than your empty promises what you'd do if you could afford it. I'll tell you what you'd do, you'd buy that iphone and give some token amount to charity ti ease your conscience. And you know why I'm so certain of that?

It's what almost all of us do.

The reason I'm saying liberals would be proven to be hypocrites is because they advocate taxing people to create a larger safety net (Some are willing to also tax themselves higher... I can at least respect them, others want to pay less but want those more fortunate to them to pay more, which really strikes me as a "Make someone else pay for it" type of response) yet if the taxes were lower they still would not give to charity to make up the shortfall. If that were the case, they would indeed prove the left to be hypocritical, because they want to tax other people to pay for charity but are unwilling to contribute anything of their own.

I don't think that is what would happen. I think people would step up. I think people don't precisely because they know government is there to provide assistance. I'm not even necessarily saying they shouldn't in emergency situations. But I still think the fact that government will do it makes all that much easier to do nothing. If its a choice between taxing the rich higher or giving to charity, a LOT of people would choose to tax the rich higher. If the choice is between doing something or letting someone starve, I think if people were aware of the situation at least some people would do something.

I still don't understand by what mechanism the existence of welfare prevents more people from donating their money or time, so that governments could phase out welfare.

Why does welfare have to end before people can start donating sufficient amounts? Seems like the easiest way to prove your point.

 

[kochman]

Liberals are hypocrites? Excuse me?

Are liberals the ones who are claiming Charity can provide for the poor? No sir, that's libertarians. But the moment Libertarians get what they want, the removal of force, all noble sentiments go out the window, because: "I got mine". All this noise about freedom this and that, and it all boils down to not wanting to contribute to society.

The "liberal" position as you call it is far more realistic. We're all greedy selfish bastards who care more about having the latest iphone than helping some poor sod.

You are one dishonest bro, hombre.

Oh you would would you. Sure you would.

I am what you'd call a liberal, and I do give to charity. And I pay my taxes without complaining. That's worth a whole lot more than your empty promises what you'd do if you could afford it. I'll tell you what you'd do, you'd buy that iphone and give some token amount to charity ti ease your conscience. And you know why I'm so certain of that?

It's what almost all of us do.

I have to agree... 100%
If we got rid of all taxes, and depended on charities (tax breaks are now unnecessary after all) the world would quickly fall back into medieval or classical times as far as wealth distribution goes... meaning, little to no middle class, a handful of wealthy, and tons of peasants.
Almost no one would give to charity.

I think most people can say they complain about how the taxes are spent rather than the concept of them in general... to completely go against them is completely unrealistic.

 

[Arwon]

Oh you believe in a state funded police force but you aren't an armed vigilante? Hypocrite.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Free-market capitalism didn't exist back then though. Back then the King owned literally everything, and specifically gave certain people the right to use it, who in turn specifically gave certain people rights, and down the line. They didn't compete on a market.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The reason I'm saying liberals would be proven to be hypocrites is because they advocate taxing people to create a larger safety net (Some are willing to also tax themselves higher... I can at least respect them, others want to pay less but want those more fortunate to them to pay more, which really strikes me as a "Make someone else pay for it" type of response) yet if the taxes were lower they still would not give to charity to make up the shortfall. If that were the case, they would indeed prove the left to be hypocritical, because they want to tax other people to pay for charity but are unwilling to contribute anything of their own.

No, that's not what you're saying, this is:

I think that one of two things are the case with charities:

1. If government reduced the tax burden, people would give more to charities voluntarily, and charities could replace the government for social welfare.

OR

2. Liberals are absolute, total hypocrites.

Either you stick to, and defend that offensive load of bollocks

OR

you withdraw it.

You're not going to weasel you're way out by saying: I meant to say liberals would be proven to be hypocrites is because they advocate taxing people to create a larger safety net

I don't think that is what would happen. I think people would step up. I think people don't precisely because they know government is there to provide assistance. I'm not even necessarily saying they shouldn't in emergency situations. But I still think the fact that government will do it makes all that much easier to do nothing. If its a choice between taxing the rich higher or giving to charity, a LOT of people would choose to tax the rich higher. If the choice is between doing something or letting someone starve, I think if people were aware of the situation at least some people would do something.

Again, absolute bollocks. The reason people don't opt for the charity option is that it's unrealistic. Again, it's unrealistic. Once more, it's unrealistic. Because of the reasons I gave. Am I getting through?

What on Earth makes you think people will step up in a society where greed is rewarded? Hell, it's even seen as some noble characteristic by people who seem to think that the greatest aspiration anyone could have is to become CEO. That corporations are the answer to all social problems through the free market. You know. Libertarians. And when one of those .... people has the nerve to say: well if my stupid idea doesn't work, it's because of liberals, I do have to pick my jaw up from the floor.

What happened to personal responsibility? What happened to the disdain for blaming others for your poor choices?

And the choices you put up there are laughable. If the choice is between doing something or letting someone starve, I think if people were aware of the situation at least some people would do something

So starving is where we put the minimum of living standards is it? As long as you survive, stop complaining and blaming others. That's our territory. We get to blame liberals for our poor choices, you get to blame lack of bootstraps when your poorly clothed arse gets kicked out of another job interview.

I think most people can say they complain about how the taxes are spent rather than the concept of them in general...

Valid complaint, reasonable area for debate.

Further the complication of not receiving any charity, because you are wrong/evil and whatnot.

Another good point. Who forces charities to distribute to those they may not like so much? No one, since force is evil.

 

[Arwon]

There is also the fact that a lot of charity does stuff states don't or cannot. Medecins Sans Frontiers and Oxfam get most of my money and sometimes the UNHCR when I feel guilty about Australian refugee policies. Disability and terminal illness support and research charities also get many people's money.

Niche or specialist focus in charity is viable because a civilised state has unemployment, veterans and old age pensions, disability instance and basic health care and education covered.

That value adding NGO work probably wouldn't happen if some idiot abolished the welfare system expecting private people to pick up the slack in trying to prevent the place becoming a Dickensian nightmare.

 

[Leoreth]

(Some are willing to also tax themselves higher... I can at least respect them, others want to pay less but want those more fortunate to them to pay more, which really strikes me as a "Make someone else pay for it" type of response)

Before you continue accusing people of being hypocrites again, would you please tell us what you have donated, say, this year?

I've asked you this two posts back because it sounded as if you don't, in fact, give to charity yourself. You might have missed that.

 

[kochman]

Before you continue accusing people of being hypocrites again, would you please tell us what you have donated, say, this year?

I've asked you this two posts back because it sounded as if you don't, in fact, give to charity yourself. You might have missed that.

The kids in high school! He isn't paying taxes really either...
I imagine his parents donate, and that he will once gainfully employed.

Jeez.

 

[Leoreth]

The kids in high school! He isn't paying taxes really either...
I imagine his parents donate, and that he will once gainfully employed.

Jeez.

What a convenient situation to be judgmental, isn't it?

Hint: money isn't the only thing you can give to charity.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The kids in high school! He isn't paying taxes really either...
I imagine his parents donate, and that he will once gainfully employed.

Jeez.

Indeed. And I'm not the one suggesting huge tax rates on other people to sustain a huge welfare state either, so I'm irrelevant to this.

 

[kochman]

What a convenient situation to be judgmental, isn't it?

Hint: money isn't the only thing you can give to charity.

I dare say we have a commie or two here that is in the same boat and just as opinionated...
But yes, you have a point... I'm just saying, let's take it easy on the lad! He means well, and is coming around on some issues, slowly... weren't you stubborn at that age?

 

[galdre]

Indeed. And I'm not the one suggesting huge tax rates on other people to sustain a huge welfare state either, so I'm irrelevant to this.

It's not taxing other people's money, it's taxing everyone's money to support a welfare state. It seems like a pretty simple (and obvious) concept to me that society exists to try to ensure the welfare of its members; individual members do not get to opt out from that duty.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Irts obvious until you put the forcible redistribution of property into it.

Is it obvious that people should indeed have good will and help their neighbors? Obviously. That's not the question. The question is whether it is OK for government to steal in order to do so.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I dare say we have a commie or two here that is in the same boat and just as opinionated...
But yes, you have a point... I'm just saying, let's take it easy on the lad! He means well, and is coming around on some issues, slowly... weren't you stubborn at that age?

If you can't take criticism, don't post in the kitchen.

Meanwhile, he is not his argument. If he means well he still can be as wrong as a bag of wet mice. If he calls a large group of people hypocrites, nothing wrong with asking him to put up or shut up. If he'd voice his less than thoughtout ideas (I'm being extraspecial nice here) with a less cocksurr attitude, he'd get less of a backlash as he is now.

A learningprocess if you will.

And I'm sure he'll appreciate being talked about as if he's not in the roon

 

[galdre]

Irts obvious until you put the forcible redistribution of property into it.

Is it obvious that people should indeed have good will and help their neighbors? Obviously. That's not the question. The question is whether it is OK for government to steal in order to do so.

If you really want to tackle forcible distribution of wealth then welfare is a good thing - it helps those that would otherwise fall victim to an economic system that distributes wealth from the masses to the rich.

The question is not regarding theft by the govt but what each person owes society, whether or not they want to pay it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Wealth is indeed forcible redistributed to the wealthy. Anytime anyone is forcibly kept out of any market for the benefit of big businesses, or a corporate subsidy or bailout occurs (Even if bailouts helped in the short term they send the message that stupid policy will be rewarded with a bailout) THAT is redistribution to the rich.

If this is what you meant, we agree, burn it.

I think you likely included voluntary contracts in that as well, however. If so, that is wrong.

As for people "Owing society", that's incompatible with freedom and is a proposal of pure convenience rather than anything else. You don't owe the world anything merely by being born into it (Perhaps against your will.) And you cannot enslave individuals for the collective.