Thank You, President Clinton!

[Headhunter]

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
1 - Who is forcing you to pay these horrible taxes? You can always leave the country, no one is making you pay.

2 - Are you saying taxes are bad? I’m getting the vibe from you that you feel we should have barely enough taxes to operate a small government, which leads me to wonder,

3 - what do you even want from a government? And finally,

4 - How should we respond and/or be prepared for a completely innocent child getting in an accident, and denied any healthcare because his family is too poor to get basic insurance?

Now as for your questions:

Do you believe that it is correct and moral for some members of a society to be enslaved because of THEIR ABILITY?

Define ability… but I know where you’re going with this, so for the sake of this argument, of course not.

Is intelligence here to serve stupidity?

No. The world isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t do everything in our power to make it more so, therefore, those who work hard should not be forced to help those who do not.

Do the ambitious exist for the sake of the lazy?

No, for the same reason as above.

Think of someone here like Nephorm or Boston Barrister. Are they supposed to work for the benefit of those who didn’t want to be bothered?

I don’t understand… who doesn’t want to be bothered? Those helped? No one is being forced to be helped. I think I know how you meant to phrase this, but it came out poorly, so whatever, we’ll let it slide.

Then, if so, how do you propose to make this work? THINKING cannot be forced. Creativity doesn’t work well under jail threats. (The person forced either shuts down or seeks escape).

Now this is where you fall apart. Where does creativity come into the mix? Are you saying that intelligent men forced to pay taxes they don’t want to makes them less creative? Makes them shut down? You were going along logically and then you introduced a whole new concept (that of creativity) to the end result.

The idea that I think you’re trying to get across is that those who work hard for their money should not be forced to pay those who don’t. And they damn well shouldn’t. That’s not what liberalism is. My liberal idea of a welfare program isn’t to throw money down the streets of the Bronx. I don’t agree with taking money from one person just to give to another.

Where we differ is in our ideas of taxation, and frankly, I don’t think you even believe in taxation as a whole. Government needs taxes from all members of a community to function properly. Everyone is taxes so everyone can be equal. I don’t want to tax some millionaire 50% of his/her income and distribute it in food stamps. I want to pool all taxes from all US citizens and build stronger cities, better schools, create a better job industry, so that EVERYONE benefits. You think of taxation as a Robin Hood ideal of wealth redistribution. I think of taxation as a federal source of income from the people, to the people.

That’s what taxes are for. We don’t even need to get into a detailed discussion about the where/how much/why etc. of the tax spending, but can we agree that what I described is the basic idea behind taxes?

If you don’t even agree with that, then your idea of a working community is skewed. A nation cannot sustain itself without help in the form of taxes. If that’s “being forced” to you, then go live elsewhere.[/quote]

You want a utopia, all the while pointing a gun at those who’re expected to produce it. How irrational is that?

BTW: I do not run away from problems, I stay and confront them. Please quit suggesting I leave the country.

Don’t you come from Hungary or something?

HH

[danmaftei]

I can’t believe I even NUMBERED the questions, wrote a completely rational and non-offensive post, and you still didn’t answer them, and even attacked my nationality!

I’m from Romania.

[Headhunter]

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
I can’t believe I even NUMBERED the questions, wrote a completely rational and non-offensive post, and you still didn’t answer them, and even attacked my nationality!

I’m from Romania.[/quote]

Why didn’t you stay in Bucherest and change Romania for the better? And how’d I attack your nationality? My point was that you keep telling me to leave my country and avoid solving our problems (impossible, btw), when you bailed out on your own country.

Okay, I’ve answered your questions continuously and even more so over the past couple of years of posting. In case you haven’t been keeping up with current events, I’VE ANSWERED YOU MANY TIMES. Too many, in fact. I know english is your second language but, if your going to live here, learn to fucking read english!

HH

[Junior]

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
What is your idea of “liberalism,” HH?

Liberalism has its roots in the Marxist dictum: 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Liberals believe that they may use government action to secure a better life for the members of a country, by taking from those with ability and giving to those in need.

There are so many problems with that scheme as to believe evil of Marx: Who determines if someone is working up to his ability? What if someone doesn’t want to work according to his ability? What if that person doesn’t WANT to help others? The only way to secure their ‘cooperation’ is with a brutal dictatorship, with force against unarmed victims.

Then, who determines what someones needs are? A gang of bandits?

This is why liberalism must eventually descend into fascism. Since liberals believe that force is practical, they simply follow that scheme to its logical conclusion.

Interesting view, but you put a negative twist on things. For one, you can leave this country. No one is forcing you to stay and “cooperate.” On a smaller scale, you can head off to a nearby state with a more republican government. No matter what anyone says, states do and will forever have a huge influence on daily life, down to the local level. Local and state laws play into my daily life more than federal laws.

The other negative twist is your idea of re-distribution of wealth. Likewise there was a case, dubbed the Claremont Decision, here in New Hampshire, which essentially increased property taxes, using this extra revenue to help Claremont, a filthy poor city (with restrictions, of course, which, of course, were poorly enforced and Claremont ended up splurging on shit they shouldn’t have).

I don’t see liberalism in the same way the guys who passed the Claremont Decision do. It’s not a Robin Hood, steal from the rich, give to the poor ideal. It’s a method of higher taxes into increasing government size so it can provide basic human rights to everyone.

On that note, you’re not distinguishing correctly between good and bad. I don’t want to see a guy who made millions in the stock market have to pay half his fortunes in taxes to some bum on the street who got there through a gambling addiction. No one is telling anyone what’s right and what’s wrong. But there are universal standards of living that all human rights should have access to.

And that’s why spending money on education, on eliminating poverty (and by this I don’t mean throwing cash around in the city), on providing better healthcare, etc. Everyone, no matter what their financial situation, should be able to have access to those most basic of needs.

For the record, I have many “republican” views. For example, I believe in state rights over big government, in which regard I’m a lot more moderate than “liberal.” Off the top of my head, that’s the most major one, but you’ll find in many issues I’m quite moderate, if not leaning towards the right. That said, I fucking hate dividing people into liberals and republicans. We all want what’s best for the country. I’m not “evil incarnate” because I believe in higher taxes. [/quote]

I don’t think you’re evil. There IS something inherently evil (or at least it has been called insane) about trying something over and over again and expecting to get a different result. The case in point being your description of your liberal side, which leans socialst, or western, secular-socialist in its ideology. We’ve more examples of failures in giant ways than we do of successes from this and similar models–please spare me the “But in (Europe/Canada, etc) they’ve got universal (name a program)-care!!” I don’t buy it and anyone that enthusiastic about other places should seriously consider going/staying there.

Since I am one of a very few admirers of Coulter in this thread-- how about Victor Davis Hanson, of Stanford? Ring a bell with anyone? He’s a lifelong democrat, but of the old school. Please try and find some of his recent articles. We all know too many very upstanding, good democrats from a different generation of ‘liberals’ to lump them in with the rats running that party right now.

To hate dividing up the country into libs and conservatives, however, is to almost deny reality. Besides, there is a positive side to the polarization in this country, I think. We can finally cut through the crap and get to the crux of a matter more quickly in most cases as a result. It also makes it harder for a person to ‘fence-sit’, ’ ‘remain more open-minded, objective’, ‘to stay above the fray’ or whatever other expressions of a lack of real resolve and intellectual honesty apply. People doing this are usually too frustrated to really look at both sides closely enough to come to a reasoned opinion of issues, and are not likely to vote, anyway.

Debatable arguements on any matter supported with reports, stats, or hearsay from various websites and news sources really remain conjecture at the end of an arguement-- they are seldom completely proven (eg., “I was not actually ON any of the planes that hit the towers on 911, so it could have been orchestrated by Bush!!!”) So, it is ultimately your worldview that will determine your position on most issues. Anyway, Check out Victor Davis Hanson’s work. Read some of it, don’t read ABOUT it.

[danmaftei]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
danmaftei wrote:
I can’t believe I even NUMBERED the questions, wrote a completely rational and non-offensive post, and you still didn’t answer them, and even attacked my nationality!

I’m from Romania.

Why didn’t you stay in Bucherest and change Romania for the better? And how’d I attack your nationality? My point was that you keep telling me to leave my country and avoid solving our problems (impossible, btw), when you bailed out on your own country.

Okay, I’ve answered your questions continuously and even more so over the past couple of years of posting. In case you haven’t been keeping up with current events, I’VE ANSWERED YOU MANY TIMES. Too many, in fact. I know english is your second language but, if your going to live here, learn to fucking read english!

HH

[/quote]

I left Romania when I was nine, because my family decided to follow our cousin’s family and start a better life in the US. I begged them to let me stay so I could change the political hierarchy, but it was a no-go… =/

And I don’t see where you’ve answered them. This is the only thread I really check on T-Nation, between my job and getting in as much time with friends and family as I can before college, and I only do so because of this little discussion.

Unless you quote yourself specifically answering those questions, or better yet, answer them now, I won’t let up. Or you can just wear me out until the 19th.

[danmaftei]

[quote]Junior wrote:

I don’t think you’re evil. There IS something inherently evil (or at least it has been called insane) about trying something over and over again and expecting to get a different result. The case in point being your description of your liberal side, which leans socialst, or western, secular-socialist in its ideology. We’ve more examples of failures in giant ways than we do of successes from this and similar models–please spare me the “But in (Europe/Canada, etc) they’ve got universal (name a program)-care!!” I don’t buy it and anyone that enthusiastic about other places should seriously consider going/staying there.

Since I am one of a very few admirers of Coulter in this thread-- how about Victor Davis Hanson, of Stanford? Ring a bell with anyone? He’s a lifelong democrat, but of the old school. Please try and find some of his recent articles. We all know too many very upstanding, good democrats from a different generation of ‘liberals’ to lump them in with the rats running that party right now.

To hate dividing up the country into libs and conservatives, however, is to almost deny reality. Besides, there is a positive side to the polarization in this country, I think. We can finally cut through the crap and get to the crux of a matter more quickly in most cases as a result. It also makes it harder for a person to ‘fence-sit’, ’ ‘remain more open-minded, objective’, ‘to stay above the fray’ or whatever other expressions of a lack of real resolve and intellectual honesty apply. People doing this are usually too frustrated to really look at both sides closely enough to come to a reasoned opinion of issues, and are not likely to vote, anyway.

Debatable arguements on any matter supported with reports, stats, or hearsay from various websites and news sources really remain conjecture at the end of an arguement-- they are seldom completely proven (eg., “I was not actually ON any of the planes that hit the towers on 911, so it could have been orchestrated by Bush!!!”) So, it is ultimately your worldview that will determine your position on most issues. Anyway, Check out Victor Davis Hanson’s work. Read some of it, don’t read ABOUT it.[/quote]

Yeah, I have thought of moving to Sweden. Sadly, it’ll be a matter of years until I’m out of college, then I have to ask myself, “Will my music be more succesful in Sweden, or in the US?” And then you have to factor in costs of moving, etc.

Anywhoo, thanks for the recommendation. But how am I leaning towards a socialist viewpoint? I don’t see myself going to that extreme in any way. Small government and state rights aren’t socialist at all… universal “insert whatever here” may be, but kept to the bare essentials, and regulated with as small a government as possible, isn’t as extreme as many socialists/communists.

[Headhunter]

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
1 - Who is forcing you to pay these horrible taxes?

You are with your irrational votes.

2 - Are you saying taxes are bad? I’m getting the vibe from you that you feel we should have barely enough taxes to operate a small government, which leads me to wonder,

No! I’ve only been saying this for years!! Yes, taxes are banditry.

3 - what do you even want from a government? And finally,

To be left alone. To become rich or to starve on my own.

4 - How should we respond and/or be prepared for a completely innocent child getting in an accident, and denied any healthcare because his family is too poor to get basic insurance?

“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” — Ayn Rand

Now as for your questions:

Do you believe that it is correct and moral for some members of a society to be enslaved because of THEIR ABILITY?

Define ability… but I know where you’re going with this, so for the sake of this argument, of course not.

Is intelligence here to serve stupidity?

No. The world isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t do everything in our power to make it more so, therefore, those who work hard should not be forced to help those who do not.

Do the ambitious exist for the sake of the lazy?

No, for the same reason as above.

Think of someone here like Nephorm or Boston Barrister. Are they supposed to work for the benefit of those who didn’t want to be bothered?

I don’t understand… who doesn’t want to be bothered? Those helped? No one is being forced to be helped. I think I know how you meant to phrase this, but it came out poorly, so whatever, we’ll let it slide.

Then, if so, how do you propose to make this work? THINKING cannot be forced. Creativity doesn’t work well under jail threats. (The person forced either shuts down or seeks escape).

Now this is where you fall apart. Where does creativity come into the mix? Are you saying that intelligent men forced to pay taxes they don’t want to makes them less creative? Makes them shut down? You were going along logically and then you introduced a whole new concept (that of creativity) to the end result.

The idea that I think you’re trying to get across is that those who work hard for their money should not be forced to pay those who don’t. And they damn well shouldn’t. That’s not what liberalism is. My liberal idea of a welfare program isn’t to throw money down the streets of the Bronx. I don’t agree with taking money from one person just to give to another.

Where we differ is in our ideas of taxation, and frankly, I don’t think you even believe in taxation as a whole. Government needs taxes from all members of a community to function properly. Everyone is taxes so everyone can be equal. I don’t want to tax some millionaire 50% of his/her income and distribute it in food stamps. I want to pool all taxes from all US citizens and build stronger cities, better schools, create a better job industry, so that EVERYONE benefits. You think of taxation as a Robin Hood ideal of wealth redistribution. I think of taxation as a federal source of income from the people, to the people.

That’s what taxes are for. We don’t even need to get into a detailed discussion about the where/how much/why etc. of the tax spending, but can we agree that what I described is the basic idea behind taxes?

If you don’t even agree with that, then your idea of a working community is skewed. A nation cannot sustain itself without help in the form of taxes. If that’s “being forced” to you, then go live elsewhere.[/quote]

[Headhunter]

Danmaftei,

You are young, a college student. You are letting the worship of NEED infect your soul. You owe nothing to any other person. Your life, your work, your mind, your property belong TO YOU. These things are sacred. No one has ANY claim on you. Now, go LIVE.

“I do not recognize anyone’s ‘right’ to one minute of my life, no matter who makes the claim, how large their number, or how great their need. It had to be said — the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.”
— The Fountainhead

Headhunter

[pookie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Only Hspder and Pookie could invoke the Holocaust as a source for their amusement. Just more indication of the true nature of the Liberals.

HH[/quote]

Yeah, yeah, yeah… that’s very amusing. Chortles and guffaws all around.

Still, I’d like to hear your answer to the previous, serious question of how your envisioned utopia would work. I still don’t get how the poor population manages to survive without turning on the rich. “Let them be men”… that’s your answer? The only image I get from reading your posts is that of a feudal regime, where the detentors of power let the least amount of crumbs dribble down to the masses; just enough to be able to use their manpower and exploit them for all they’re worth. Do you think that if all taxes and most laws were removed, the poor could simply ask the rich for a helping hand and they’d get it? I mean, really?

I could go on, but there must be something I’m missing. I’ll let you enlighten me on those points before going on.

[Headhunter]

Pookie,

Are you familiar with the economic history of the United States? The 19th century was one of tremendous growth in income and standard of living for the working man. Sure, early capitalism had it faults, and the capitalists tried to screw the workers. But, the capitalist class discovered a fundamental law of economics: if everyone is underpaid, then no one can buy your product. Wages HAD to rise as productivity soared. Its called ‘the market’.

You’ve been tricked into thinking that the free market is like jungle warfare. The libs have tricked you into believing that capitalists are too stupid and greedy to have a permanently viable system. Just remember, in a free economy, any company that pays low wages loses its workers AND underpaid people can’t buy what they produce. Wages have to rise for these reasons. (Would you prefer a closed economy, like the old Soviet Union?)

You are very mistrustful of government, but trust them enough to manage an economy. You’re trusting those who produce nothing to give orders to those who produce. How irrational is that?

More later.

HH

[Junior]

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
Junior wrote:

I don’t think you’re evil. There IS something inherently evil (or at least it has been called insane) about trying something over and over again and expecting to get a different result. The case in point being your description of your liberal side, which leans socialst, or western, secular-socialist in its ideology. We’ve more examples of failures in giant ways than we do of successes from this and similar models–please spare me the “But in (Europe/Canada, etc) they’ve got universal (name a program)-care!!” I don’t buy it and anyone that enthusiastic about other places should seriously consider going/staying there.

Since I am one of a very few admirers of Coulter in this thread-- how about Victor Davis Hanson, of Stanford? Ring a bell with anyone? He’s a lifelong democrat, but of the old school. Please try and find some of his recent articles. We all know too many very upstanding, good democrats from a different generation of ‘liberals’ to lump them in with the rats running that party right now.

To hate dividing up the country into libs and conservatives, however, is to almost deny reality. Besides, there is a positive side to the polarization in this country, I think. We can finally cut through the crap and get to the crux of a matter more quickly in most cases as a result. It also makes it harder for a person to ‘fence-sit’, ’ ‘remain more open-minded, objective’, ‘to stay above the fray’ or whatever other expressions of a lack of real resolve and intellectual honesty apply. People doing this are usually too frustrated to really look at both sides closely enough to come to a reasoned opinion of issues, and are not likely to vote, anyway.

Debatable arguements on any matter supported with reports, stats, or hearsay from various websites and news sources really remain conjecture at the end of an arguement-- they are seldom completely proven (eg., “I was not actually ON any of the planes that hit the towers on 911, so it could have been orchestrated by Bush!!!”) So, it is ultimately your worldview that will determine your position on most issues. Anyway, Check out Victor Davis Hanson’s work. Read some of it, don’t read ABOUT it.

Yeah, I have thought of moving to Sweden. Sadly, it’ll be a matter of years until I’m out of college, then I have to ask myself, “Will my music be more succesful in Sweden, or in the US?” And then you have to factor in costs of moving, etc.

Anywhoo, thanks for the recommendation. But how am I leaning towards a socialist viewpoint? I don’t see myself going to that extreme in any way. Small government and state rights aren’t socialist at all… universal “insert whatever here” may be, but kept to the bare essentials, and regulated with as small a government as possible, isn’t as extreme as many socialists/communists.[/quote]

I think the emphasis on stronger central gov’t for much more than a strong national defense would shade you more socialist from my far right- wing perspective. The definitions have changed with this polarity in the country as well; liberal once meant well, someone like me. Someone for civil rights, taking up for the little guy, etc.

A central gov’t whose primary resposibility was defense and equity across the field of improving one’s economic situation, American dream, if you will. “Liberal” is now more often equated with those that want a federal gov’t of socialist proportions, overemphasis on problems that are relatively minor or perhaps don’t exist at all )for the sake of expanding social programs to remedy every ill former conservative democrats would’ve balked at) pro-abortion, etc.

I don’t know if it’s right or fair, but that’s what people think when they hear “liberal” and even “progressive” now. We CAN thank the liberals of old for the forty-hour work week and a lot of good stuff, but they’ve outlived their usefelness much like most labor unions. Far left is just too far gone for most people.

[danmaftei]

[quote]Junior wrote:

I think the emphasis on stronger central gov’t for much more than a strong national defense would shade you more socialist from my far right- wing perspective. The definitions have changed with this polarity in the country as well; liberal once meant well, someone like me. Someone for civil rights, taking up for the little guy, etc.

A central gov’t whose primary resposibility was defense and equity across the field of improving one’s economic situation, American dream, if you will. “Liberal” is now more often equated with those that want a federal gov’t of socialist proportions, overemphasis on problems that are relatively minor or perhaps don’t exist at all )for the sake of expanding social programs to remedy every ill former conservative democrats would’ve balked at) pro-abortion, etc.

I don’t know if it’s right or fair, but that’s what people think when they hear “liberal” and even “progressive” now. We CAN thank the liberals of old for the forty-hour work week and a lot of good stuff, but they’ve outlived their usefelness much like most labor unions. Far left is just too far gone for most people.[/quote]

Well now we’re just caught in semantics. I understand why the two-party system has dominated American politics, and perhaps will continue to dominate for many years to come. I still think it’s no reason to lump me in with millions of others because I lean left.

I believe that the federal government’s role should be minimal in people’s lives, beyond making sure that everyone within the national community lives up to a certain standard of care. All those silly issues you are thinking of, abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, I have NO fucking clue why that is at a federal level. Leave that to the states. My ideal federal government deals with nation-wide poverty, healthcare, and defense, as well as, because it is the most important aspect in the fight against poverty, education.

[pookie]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Pookie,

Are you familiar with the economic history of the United States? The 19th century was one of tremendous growth in income and standard of living for the working man. Sure, early capitalism had it faults, and the capitalists tried to screw the workers. But, the capitalist class discovered a fundamental law of economics: if everyone is underpaid, then no one can buy your product. Wages HAD to rise as productivity soared. Its called ‘the market’.

You’ve been tricked into thinking that the free market is like jungle warfare. The libs have tricked you into believing that capitalists are too stupid and greedy to have a permanently viable system. Just remember, in a free economy, any company that pays low wages loses its workers AND underpaid people can’t buy what they produce. Wages have to rise for these reasons. (Would you prefer a closed economy, like the old Soviet Union?)

You are very mistrustful of government, but trust them enough to manage an economy. You’re trusting those who produce nothing to give orders to those who produce. How irrational is that?[/quote]

How is paying taxes and supporting a garanteed basic standard of living incompatible with a free market economy?

Does your free-market economy prevent child labor? Does it promote education? Does it prevent a producer for polluting the environment? Or from completely depleting non-renewable or slowly-renewable ressources?

[Wreckless]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Pookie,

Are you familiar with the economic history of the United States? The 19th century was one of tremendous growth in income and standard of living for the working man. Sure, early capitalism had it faults, and the capitalists tried to screw the workers. But, the capitalist class discovered a fundamental law of economics: if everyone is underpaid, then no one can buy your product. Wages HAD to rise as productivity soared. Its called ‘the market’.
[/quote]
No, it was called “the union”.