I Voted Today, and I'm Pissed!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?

If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.

That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.

That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.

Which it will.

A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.

I find that amazing.

Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

No that is not sarcasm.

That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.

My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.

[/quote]

But a perfect society has to start somewhere, and one way or another it would have to deal with the baggage of whatever came before. Otherwise it’s just a pie in the sky fantasy, and therefore a waste of time.

Also, why wouldn’t a contribution of blood be worth at least as much as a contribution of taxes?

42

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?

If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.

That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.

That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.

Which it will.

A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.

I find that amazing.

Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

No that is not sarcasm.

That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.

My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.

[/quote]

So, your perfect utopia has no need for armed forces.

Sign me up!

43

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?

If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.

That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.

That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.

Which it will.

A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.

I find that amazing.

Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

No that is not sarcasm.

That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.

My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.

But a perfect society has to start somewhere, and one way or another it would have to deal with the baggage of whatever came before. Otherwise it’s just a pie in the sky fantasy, and therefore a waste of time.

Also, why wouldn’t a contribution of blood be worth at least as much as a contribution of taxes?[/quote]

Quite frankly because

a) it has been paid whereas people pay month after month now. Once they get welfare their past contributions would not matter either.

and

b) blood don´t pay our bills.

and

c) the American people would be much less gung-ho if the actually knew what war costs them.

If there has to be a war, pay it with taxes and let the soldiers insure themselves in the private market against death or disabilities. I am afraid you would have to pay them an appropriate salary to be able to afford this.

That way the real cost of a war became immediately apparent and people wounded in battle would not live off of welfare.

44

[quote]Christine wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?

If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.

That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.

That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.

Which it will.

A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.

I find that amazing.

Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

No that is not sarcasm.

That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.

My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.

So, your perfect utopia has no need for armed forces.

Sign me up!
[/quote]

Sure it has.

Just not for offensive wars that get paid through inflation and debt, which both happen to re-distribute from the poor to the rich, while the poor are doing the actual fighting.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?

If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.

That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.

That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.

Which it will.

A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.

I find that amazing.

Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

No that is not sarcasm.

That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.

My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.

But a perfect society has to start somewhere, and one way or another it would have to deal with the baggage of whatever came before. Otherwise it’s just a pie in the sky fantasy, and therefore a waste of time.

Also, why wouldn’t a contribution of blood be worth at least as much as a contribution of taxes?

Quite frankly because

a) it has been paid whereas people pay month after month now. Once they get welfare their past contributions would not matter either.

and

b) blood don´t pay our bills.

and

c) the American people would be much less gung-ho if the actually knew what war costs them.

If there has to be a war, pay it with taxes and let the soldiers insure themselves in the private market against death or disabilities. I am afraid you would have to pay them an appropriate salary to be able to afford this.

That way the real cost of a war became immediately apparent and people wounded in battle would not live off of welfare.

[/quote]
Then you end up with nobody willing to defend that anti-utopia of yours, and it gets quickly overrun by, just about anybody.

46

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the last 100 years have shown us that it is next to impossible to agree on what a fair share actually is.[/quote]

Maybe we could vote on it?

Have a bunch of smart people submit various systems, from “flat tax” to progressive tax with all in betweens; let various experts explain the pros and cons of each and finally, let the people decide.

Of course, that supposes that “the people” are mostly smart and able to think for themselves; so my idea is pretty much a non-starter.

Unless you’re very poor or very rich, you’re probably paying too much.

47

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?[/quote]

Whatever the system, I think service to the country should guarantee the right to vote for life.

If someone doesn’t wish to serve, no problem, but they have to contribute in some other way to earn their vote.

48

Shouldn’t we start by asking ourselves what a governement, governing freedom and liberty loving individuals, should be limited to spending our money on?

49

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
No?

If he received an income from a private insurance, yes, of course.

That is a question though that concerns how to move todays society to my private little utopia.

That is next to impossible though unless this system collapses.

Which it will.

A nice little nugget of knowledge I learned today is that private insurance companies could go bankrupt if the government stopped making debts.

I find that amazing.

Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

No that is not sarcasm.

That is a problem that arises because you want to know how my perfect little society would deal with a problem this existing society has caused.

My only answer is that this problem would not exist, and if it still existed, then for other reasons.

But a perfect society has to start somewhere, and one way or another it would have to deal with the baggage of whatever came before. Otherwise it’s just a pie in the sky fantasy, and therefore a waste of time.

Also, why wouldn’t a contribution of blood be worth at least as much as a contribution of taxes?

Quite frankly because

a) it has been paid whereas people pay month after month now. Once they get welfare their past contributions would not matter either.

and

b) blood don´t pay our bills.

and

c) the American people would be much less gung-ho if the actually knew what war costs them.

If there has to be a war, pay it with taxes and let the soldiers insure themselves in the private market against death or disabilities. I am afraid you would have to pay them an appropriate salary to be able to afford this.

That way the real cost of a war became immediately apparent and people wounded in battle would not live off of welfare.

Then you end up with nobody willing to defend that anti-utopia of yours, and it gets quickly overrun by, just about anybody.
[/quote]

I highly doubt that, and Switzerland proves you wrong.

They have the draft though.

Offensive wars could prove to be a bit trick though.

Anyway, you have an ocean to the left, an ocean to the right, Canada on top and Mexico below.

And enough nukes to destroy the solar system.

50

[quote]pookie wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Is that sarcasm? He lost his legs in the service of his country, but he shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Whatever the system, I think service to the country should guarantee the right to vote for life.

If someone doesn’t wish to serve, no problem, but they have to contribute in some other way to earn their vote.

[/quote]

That will only lead to a BS definition of “service”.

If you want people to defend your country, build a country worth fighting for.

51

I voted today. They checked a form of ID (to insure address, I believe) and I had to show up on their registration list which they also checked.

52

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
So some of you guys are saying only people with money should vote and pick officials that only care about people with money.

Am I close?

I am saying that in some Greek city states only those men voted who were able (and allowed to) bear arms.

I am also saying that in this day and age only those people get to decide how the money is divided who actually have to fork it over.

Those who cannot even support themselves, let alone support others, do not get to vote until they can.

This way, the temptation to use the state to steal from your neighbor is significantly diminished.

Or to put it another way, if you can´t handle your life, you do not get to make decisions that concern someone else life.

Especially not economic decisions.

Holy crap I agree with Orion! Didn’t see that one coming.

[/quote]

yep

53

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
So some of you guys are saying only people with money should vote and pick officials that only care about people with money.

Am I close?

I am saying that in some Greek city states only those men voted who were able (and allowed to) bear arms.

I am also saying that in this day and age only those people get to decide how the money is divided who actually have to fork it over.

Those who cannot even support themselves, let alone support others, do not get to vote until they can.

This way, the temptation to use the state to steal from your neighbor is significantly diminished.

Or to put it another way, if you can´t handle your life, you do not get to make decisions that concern someone else life.

Especially not economic decisions.

Holy crap I agree with Orion! Didn’t see that one coming.

yep

[/quote]

Heh. Me and him have disagree on a number of things. However, when it comes to the defense of free market capitalism, I happen to think he’s a worthy ally.

54

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
So some of you guys are saying only people with money should vote and pick officials that only care about people with money.

Am I close?

I am saying that in some Greek city states only those men voted who were able (and allowed to) bear arms.

I am also saying that in this day and age only those people get to decide how the money is divided who actually have to fork it over.

Those who cannot even support themselves, let alone support others, do not get to vote until they can.

This way, the temptation to use the state to steal from your neighbor is significantly diminished.

Or to put it another way, if you can´t handle your life, you do not get to make decisions that concern someone else life.

Especially not economic decisions.

Holy crap I agree with Orion! Didn’t see that one coming.

yep

Heh. Me and him have disagree on a number of things. However, when it comes to the defense of free market capitalism, I happen to think he’s a worthy ally.[/quote]

How can you be from Austria and not believe in free market capitalism. That would be sacreligious.