Don't Drug Test Welfare Reciepients?!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
holy shit , do you see a conundrum :slight_smile:
[/quote]

The conundrum I am faced with is one of two questions:

  1. Why did so many people commit suicide in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s USSR?
    OR
  2. Why do the American people accept the crimes committed against them by those who call themselves their leaders?

I am also left wondering how many countries in the history of the world have been as successful at perverting property rights as our own. Not only does one not need to pay taxes to have a say in how money is spent in this country, but one can actually vote to give himself the money of others.

62

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would contend “they” don’t own any property. I would also contend you are a member of the community that was developed prior to your property ownership. Therefore, they (as in us) do have a right to a % of your property to pay for community goods.

What that percentage is and what goods/services are community, is where I believe the real debate is.
[/quote]

This is essentially the very idea behind Obama’s you didn’t build that. I don’t agree with everything Nick says, but he’s pretty spot on in here. He’s more anarcho-capitalist than I am, and probably less pragmatic, but I admire him for calling a spade a spade in much of this thread.

Some of your views aren’t always real consistent usmc, and I like you, but this is a very liberal type statement. It is the very idea behind Obama’s “you didn’t build that.”

63

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Any program Obama would like would be socialism or communism, The AHC act was originally a Republican plan
[/quote]

Oh, the Republicans might pretend to oppose socialism and communism, but as you point out, they don’t. Americans have a visceral reaction to the words ‘socialism,’ and ‘communism,’ which they don’t have when those policies are presented by the team they support. Cowboys and Redskins fans may dislike each other a couple times a year, but when it comes right down to it, both teams are paying people to play football and have the same goal. [/quote]

I’ve been saying this for a long time. If you pay close attention on almost ALL the big stuff Republicans and Democrats agree on the solution being big government. Sure they tell you they aren’t when not in power (lefties are anti-war…except when in power, righties are small government…except when in power, etc.) how different they are.

I beat this horn and beat this horn and some people still fail to realize it. They still get caught up in the letter and buy into all the differences the two parties want you to believe. After they burn you then they play the purity game (oh, we’re NEW Republicans, we don’t associate with what those guys did) which I’m guessing the left is going to start doing in 2016 as well. It’s all a guise to get you to let them have another chance at running the show. And once they are running it? Yeah…back to the good old ways.

64

[quote]H factor wrote:
I beat this horn and beat this horn and some people still fail to realize it. They still get caught up in the letter and buy into all the differences the two parties want you to believe. After they burn you then they play the purity game (oh, we’re NEW Republicans, we don’t associate with what those guys did) which I’m guessing the left is going to start doing in 2016 as well. It’s all a guise to get you to let them have another chance at running the show. And once they are running it? Yeah…back to the good old ways. [/quote]

Additionally; there have many so many ‘barries to entry’ created that the possibility of a third party exists in theory only. It’s like the right to assemble and protest; you still have it as long as you have a permit and do it in the designated area; otherwise you are arrested and charged.

65

[quote]H factor wrote:
I beat this horn and beat this horn and some people still fail to realize it.[/quote]

No wonder…what does it sound like when you beat a horn?

…just teasing.

66

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would contend “they” don’t own any property. I would also contend you are a member of the community that was developed prior to your property ownership. Therefore, they (as in us) do have a right to a % of your property to pay for community goods.

What that percentage is and what goods/services are community, is where I believe the real debate is.
[/quote]

This is essentially the very idea behind Obama’s you didn’t build that. I don’t agree with everything Nick says, but he’s pretty spot on in here. He’s more anarcho-capitalist than I am, and probably less pragmatic, but I admire him for calling a spade a spade in much of this thread.

Some of your views aren’t always real consistent usmc, and I like you, but this is a very liberal type statement. It is the very idea behind Obama’s “you didn’t build that.” [/quote]

H, you misunderstood and that is why I said never mind to Nick. I expected this response. Maybe next week I’ll take the time to explain it, but I don’t have that time now. What I will say is that I do not have the us vs them mentality that many here do. We are the government, we are the community, and every single issue we have we are the root cause of. It’s not some nefarious “leader” or “the man”.

It is no where close to the “didn’t build that” mentality.

67

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
We are the government, we are the community, [/quote]

Could not agree more , I think we should strive to make it the best and that does not happen when people can not discuss their points of view

68

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would contend “they” don’t own any property. I would also contend you are a member of the community that was developed prior to your property ownership. Therefore, they (as in us) do have a right to a % of your property to pay for community goods.

What that percentage is and what goods/services are community, is where I believe the real debate is.
[/quote]

This is essentially the very idea behind Obama’s you didn’t build that. I don’t agree with everything Nick says, but he’s pretty spot on in here. He’s more anarcho-capitalist than I am, and probably less pragmatic, but I admire him for calling a spade a spade in much of this thread.

Some of your views aren’t always real consistent usmc, and I like you, but this is a very liberal type statement. It is the very idea behind Obama’s “you didn’t build that.” [/quote]

H, you misunderstood and that is why I said never mind to Nick. I expected this response. Maybe next week I’ll take the time to explain it, but I don’t have that time now. What I will say is that I do not have the us vs them mentality that many here do. We are the government, we are the community, and every single issue we have we are the root cause of. It’s not some nefarious “leader” or “the man”.

It is no where close to the “didn’t build that” mentality. [/quote]

Didn’t build that was de-emphasizing the individual, and we have a right to a % of your property is exactly the same line.

69

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I would contend “they” don’t own any property. I would also contend you are a member of the community that was developed prior to your property ownership. Therefore, they (as in us) do have a right to a % of your property to pay for community goods.

What that percentage is and what goods/services are community, is where I believe the real debate is.
[/quote]

This is essentially the very idea behind Obama’s you didn’t build that. I don’t agree with everything Nick says, but he’s pretty spot on in here. He’s more anarcho-capitalist than I am, and probably less pragmatic, but I admire him for calling a spade a spade in much of this thread.

Some of your views aren’t always real consistent usmc, and I like you, but this is a very liberal type statement. It is the very idea behind Obama’s “you didn’t build that.” [/quote]

H, you misunderstood and that is why I said never mind to Nick. I expected this response. Maybe next week I’ll take the time to explain it, but I don’t have that time now. What I will say is that I do not have the us vs them mentality that many here do. We are the government, we are the community, and every single issue we have we are the root cause of. It’s not some nefarious “leader” or “the man”.

It is no where close to the “didn’t build that” mentality. [/quote]

Didn’t build that was de-emphasizing the individual, and we have a right to a % of your property is exactly the same line. [/quote]

In my opinion, they are completely different. Apples to oranges. Right to left. Which again is why I just said never mind.

To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. Where as my statement implies (or at least I meant for it to imply) the collective facilitates success through opportunities otherwise not available. Similar, but much different in my mind. I don’t believe an individual owes their success to anyone, however, every successful or unsuccessful person for that matter should acknowledge the opportunities our society provides.

And for the record I wish Nick’s ideas were possible, but I have yet to hear, see, or experience anything in my life that suggests even a fraction of what he writes about is possible.

You will always have government. You will always need government. I’m open to ideas to the contrary, I just don’t see how it’s possible.

70

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. [/quote]

to a degree all have to owe the collective some degree to their success

71

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. [/quote]

to a degree all have to owe the collective some degree to their success
[/quote]

Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible (at least more possible), but I don’t agree that you owe society for your success.

As an analogy, I don’t owe my parents for my success, but I acknowledge their role in said success. Food, clothing, shelter, advice, and support offered by them for 18+ years helped facilitate that success, without question.

72

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. [/quote]

to a degree all have to owe the collective some degree to their success
[/quote]

Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible (at least more possible), but I don’t agree that you owe society for your success.

As an analogy, I don’t owe my parents for my success, but I acknowledge their role in said success. Food, clothing, shelter, advice, and support offered by them for 18+ years helped facilitate that success, without question. [/quote]

I could not agree more

73

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. [/quote]

to a degree all have to owe the collective some degree to their success
[/quote]

I disagree. If that were true then successful people would achieve success due to the goodwill of others. This is not what happens in the private sector. One party supplies a good or service that another needs or wants. Both parties benefit in a free market. The person who receives the good or service owes just as much to the person who provided the good or service. You, as well as most every other person, cannot provide 99% of the goods and services you need for yourselves and must depend on others to do that. You should be thankful some company built your vehicle so you didn’t have to walk to a job somewhere within a mile or two of your home.

The best thing the government can do is stay out of the way. It’s involvement in the free market should be limited to ensuring private property rights and preventing theft and fraud.

74

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

I disagree. If that were true then successful people would achieve success due to the goodwill of others.
[/quote]

We dis agree , at least to a degree

75

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

To me you didn’t build that implies you owe the collective for your success. [/quote]

to a degree all have to owe the collective some degree to their success
[/quote]

Like I said, I think if your honest you have to acknowledged society makes your success possible (at least more possible), but I don’t agree that you owe society for your success.

As an analogy, I don’t owe my parents for my success, but I acknowledge their role in said success. Food, clothing, shelter, advice, and support offered by them for 18+ years helped facilitate that success, without question. [/quote]

You don’t “owe” the collective a damn thing. You can choose to feel you want to give back, but, and this concept escapes many people, your success is in and of itself giving back.

Anytime you have a market that is more free than planned, you cannot achieve success without cooperation. That is, two people acting in their own self interests who benefit from each other, on the most basic level.

SO in any remotely free market/society, you cannot achieve success (legally/morally) without someone else benefitting as well. Therefore by default, your success “pays back” any “debt” to society you had, if you had one in the first place.

Every paycheck you or anyone earns benefits so many people to list the multiplication of that earning would take many posts, and much typing…

76

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
If that were true then successful people would achieve success due to the goodwill of others. This is not what happens in the private sector. One party supplies a good or service that another needs or wants. Both parties benefit in a free market. The person who receives the good or service owes just as much to the person who provided the good or service. You, as well as most every other person, cannot provide 99% of the goods and services you need for yourselves and must depend on others to do that. You should be thankful some company built your vehicle so you didn’t have to walk to a job somewhere within a mile or two of your home.

The best thing the government can do is stay out of the way. It’s involvement in the free market should be limited to ensuring private property rights and preventing theft and fraud.
[/quote]

You pretty much beat me to it. I should read threads, lol.

77

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I’d rather hand it over. I don’t want the government to be able to create any illusions about what is happening to the taxpayers’ money. If a project needs to be done, it will be done. Leave the government out of projects. Let the government present itself as what it is: a criminal, a thief, a robber.[/quote]

If the government is facilitating a project, like say, senior housing, and pays a contractor 3m to do the site work & the building, it isn’t creating any illusion what-so-ever. If people are too moronic to understand it this their tax dollars being spent on this project or too lazy to go to the town meeting and pressure selectmen, it is on them.

Now if the same government had able bodied transfer recipients out shoveling sidewalks and clearing the left over hypo needles from playgrounds at schools on Monday morning in exchange for their transfer payment, I’m not so sure that creates an illusion either.

I’m paying for the park. I don’t mind that because it is a nice park, and I like going there. I’m paying for the money going to the recipient. So if you are telling me, my payment to the transfer recipient can now be in return for making sure the park I like is cleaner than it was yesterday, I call that value not illusion.

The only illusion is government will stop doing all this facilitation if we elect the right leaders… Isn’t going to happen, not without total collapse of the system, which is about as likely as “tits on a bull” given the modern convenience, and overall apathy towards knowledge in developed nations.

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You don’t “owe” the collective a damn thing.
[/quote]

If you did not have power or roads or security. It is unlikely you could have much of a business. Unless you were some type of drug cartel

79

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You don’t “owe” the collective a damn thing.
[/quote]

If you did not have power or roads or security. It is unlikely you could have much of a business. Unless you were some type of drug cartel
[/quote]

Sigh…

You failed to read the rest of the post I see.

There would be no funds in the government coffers, or money for security if I didn’t earn a paycheck and then spend at least a portion of it. In fact without everyone doing so we have none of that. So therefore, purely by interacting in society in a free and non-harmful way, you pay back any debt, as does everyone.

I understand this concept is hard to grasp when you worship the collective, so I don’t expect you to get it. It is also economics 101, so again…

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

You don’t “owe” the collective a damn thing.
[/quote]

If you did not have power or roads or security. It is unlikely you could have much of a business. Unless you were some type of drug cartel
[/quote]

I think we would have all of those things. If people want to facilitate business, then there will be businesses who will help facilitate business. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure that out.

And comparing us to a third world country is ridiculous. Could there possibly be small parts of the US turn into that? Sure. The entire Country? Please. There are way to many smart people for that to happen.

One thing that would have to change though is corporations start considering ALL stakeholders equally rather than just the shareholders.