pox wrote:
“but God forbid we help some minorities in New Orleans. This shit is disgusting, but obviously, I am just seeing things.”
Pure pox.
Note: The 90’s are over.
People are openly discussing problems these days (even in minority communities).
If you don’t think something was broken in NEW ORLEANS (even if there were minorities present) then you have real problems.
I’d be interested in hearing you openly state that people in New Orleans (even minorities) share a measure of the blame.
JeffR
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Dorso wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What if I don’t want to fund other people’s irresponsibility? “Well, we’ve got guns and jails, so you’ll pay or else!” Like most liberals, since they can’t convince someone to cooperate, they resort to violence.
This is the best paragraph of your little rant.
Now it’s the LIBERALS that are using the guns and jails to forward their agenda? Politics changes so quickly these days.
Isn’t the government funding their own irresponsibility, since they allowed the city to be built there in the first place?
I’m confused, would you care to elaborate?
Hmmm… I’m telling you all to be free and I’m being attacked. Okay, cool.
Look, the philosophy of liberals has been that government should be used to solve problems. For example, LBJ’s Great Society Program. Government grows and so do its extortions. Now, would you voluntarily pay your income taxes to support this? Some would, surely. Many will not. The government then uses the threat of confiscation, jail, guns, to force those people to comply.
The former residents of New Orleans are demanding that you pay for their choice. They chose to live in a dangerous place. They gambled that the levees would hold and that they could live in a city that should actually be underwater. They were wrong. If someone decided to bet their life savings at a roulette wheel, are you responsible for them if they lose?
I don’t wish to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility. They made a choice. Now, they should have to rely on private charity for help. Their need does not give them the right to get the government to point a gun at my head.
Clear?
As far as I know, we still live in a representative democracy. “The Government” (please specify what you mean) does not really do much without the authority of the electorate…us.
If an elected member of the federal government does something the people do not like, they elect somebody else and the system will slowly change, as it did between LBJ and Reagan.
So to bitch about paying taxes for Katrina victims, you are really bitching about a policy the majority is either likely to support or repeal in the future, so what is the point?
As for blaming the victims of Katrina for choosing to live in N.O. despite the danger, I have to agree with the poster who compaired them to people who currently inhabit California and Florida despite the potential disasters. Aren’t those people just as irresponsible right now for not relocating, since the fault was in not moving before the disaster?
And I don’t think it is anymore the choice of those people to live in those places than it is your to live in the U.S. If you have a problem with this nation’s tax policy than why don’t you leave.
We are all free by natural law and have the choice whether or not we want to live in this society (Dec. of Ind.) If you choose to become or remain a citizen, you have to sacrifice some of you freedoms, like the freedom to kill another person or steal property from another, for the collective good.
To be a member of a civilization you have to abide by the rules you disagree with, like paying taxes, as well as the ones you agree with. This is the loyal opposition and it is the reason that we do not have a revolution every 4 years.
So see, nobody is forcing you to pay taxes to support Katrina victims. It is your choice and their are several ways you can change this immediately or in the future.
But personally I do think that complaining about paying a little more in taxes to support your countrymen in a time of need sounds selfish and, quite frankly, unpatriotic. I understand the idea of being entitled to keep what you earn. That is a good principle.
But by sharing the privilige of living in this nation you are also privy to benifits such as security, justice, rule of law, and infrastructure.
To enjoy these benifits without being willing to contribute back to your fellow Americans and your country, I would see you as the “parasite,” not the people whose jobs and homes were destroyed.
An intelligient post! There are others but some people cluttered.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: (these are called axioms) that all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (This is from memory so excuse any minor mistakes.)
Now, where is the part about how a civilised society is allowed to force some members of the society to subsidize other members? Where’s the part about how I have to willingly surrender my earnings so that people who got what they deserved (living in a dangerous area that was bound to flood someday) get extortion money from me?
I wish everyone who comments would please read all my posts before attacking me. If you can refute anything I said, w/o the vile namecalling, I will hear it gladly. Except for Fightin Irish – he’s beyond help.
[/quote]
Good memory. While we know their is no part of the Declatation uses the terms you did, the line I was refering to directly follows the one you quoted.
“? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
From your quote we see that men are already free by natural law and that their freedom comes from their natural equality.
My original point was that government is are not something imposed on its citizens but something entered into willingly, but reluctantly, in order to secure those rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).
The problem is that in order to secure those rights, some must initially be sacrificed. That is the problem with democracy/majority rule…it is a necessary evil, and tyranny of the majority was specifically warned about in the Federalist Papers.
I think that Winston Churchill once said; “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.”
I don’t know if you were refering to me in you last paragraph. If so I apologize if I came accross as attacking you. I meant it to be entirely friendly, although I disagree with you. I only used the word “parasite” because I thought you had used it in an earlier post to refer to the victims.
Still curious if you think all people west of the San Andreas are irresponsible for living in Cali.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
pox wrote:
“but God forbid we help some minorities in New Orleans. This shit is disgusting, but obviously, I am just seeing things.”
Pure pox.
Note: The 90’s are over.
People are openly discussing problems these days (even in minority communities).
If you don’t think something was broken in NEW ORLEANS (even if there were minorities present) then you have real problems.
I’d be interested in hearing you openly state that people in New Orleans (even minorities) share a measure of the blame.
JeffR
[/quote]
Are you retarded? Damn it, I forgot who I’m speaking with.
pulls out big crayons
“Yes, the people in New Orleans do share some blame if they didn’t listen to any evacuation warnings and actually had a means of escape.”
There you go. You thought I believed otherwise? I noticed one poster above wrote about looting. I wonder if everything that was looted equals half of what was stolen in Florida.
Somebody get back to me with why one action seems to slide right under the radar…but LOOK…THEY’RE LOOTING!!! And we all know one 17" Samsung tv costs 27 million dollars.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
pox wrote:
Somebody get back to me with why one action seems to slide right under the radar…but LOOK…THEY’RE LOOTING!!! And we all know one 17" Samsung tv costs 27 million dollars.[/quote]
X,
Isn’t that the military contract price these days:)
[quote]Dorso wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Dorso wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What if I don’t want to fund other people’s irresponsibility? “Well, we’ve got guns and jails, so you’ll pay or else!” Like most liberals, since they can’t convince someone to cooperate, they resort to violence.
This is the best paragraph of your little rant.
Now it’s the LIBERALS that are using the guns and jails to forward their agenda? Politics changes so quickly these days.
Isn’t the government funding their own irresponsibility, since they allowed the city to be built there in the first place?
I’m confused, would you care to elaborate?
Hmmm… I’m telling you all to be free and I’m being attacked. Okay, cool.
Look, the philosophy of liberals has been that government should be used to solve problems. For example, LBJ’s Great Society Program. Government grows and so do its extortions. Now, would you voluntarily pay your income taxes to support this? Some would, surely. Many will not. The government then uses the threat of confiscation, jail, guns, to force those people to comply.
The former residents of New Orleans are demanding that you pay for their choice. They chose to live in a dangerous place. They gambled that the levees would hold and that they could live in a city that should actually be underwater. They were wrong. If someone decided to bet their life savings at a roulette wheel, are you responsible for them if they lose?
I don’t wish to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility. They made a choice. Now, they should have to rely on private charity for help. Their need does not give them the right to get the government to point a gun at my head.
Clear?
As far as I know, we still live in a representative democracy. “The Government” (please specify what you mean) does not really do much without the authority of the electorate…us.
If an elected member of the federal government does something the people do not like, they elect somebody else and the system will slowly change, as it did between LBJ and Reagan.
So to bitch about paying taxes for Katrina victims, you are really bitching about a policy the majority is either likely to support or repeal in the future, so what is the point?
As for blaming the victims of Katrina for choosing to live in N.O. despite the danger, I have to agree with the poster who compaired them to people who currently inhabit California and Florida despite the potential disasters. Aren’t those people just as irresponsible right now for not relocating, since the fault was in not moving before the disaster?
And I don’t think it is anymore the choice of those people to live in those places than it is your to live in the U.S. If you have a problem with this nation’s tax policy than why don’t you leave.
We are all free by natural law and have the choice whether or not we want to live in this society (Dec. of Ind.) If you choose to become or remain a citizen, you have to sacrifice some of you freedoms, like the freedom to kill another person or steal property from another, for the collective good.
To be a member of a civilization you have to abide by the rules you disagree with, like paying taxes, as well as the ones you agree with. This is the loyal opposition and it is the reason that we do not have a revolution every 4 years.
So see, nobody is forcing you to pay taxes to support Katrina victims. It is your choice and their are several ways you can change this immediately or in the future.
But personally I do think that complaining about paying a little more in taxes to support your countrymen in a time of need sounds selfish and, quite frankly, unpatriotic. I understand the idea of being entitled to keep what you earn. That is a good principle.
But by sharing the privilige of living in this nation you are also privy to benifits such as security, justice, rule of law, and infrastructure.
To enjoy these benifits without being willing to contribute back to your fellow Americans and your country, I would see you as the “parasite,” not the people whose jobs and homes were destroyed.
An intelligient post! There are others but some people cluttered.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: (these are called axioms) that all men are created equal – that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” (This is from memory so excuse any minor mistakes.)
Now, where is the part about how a civilised society is allowed to force some members of the society to subsidize other members? Where’s the part about how I have to willingly surrender my earnings so that people who got what they deserved (living in a dangerous area that was bound to flood someday) get extortion money from me?
I wish everyone who comments would please read all my posts before attacking me. If you can refute anything I said, w/o the vile namecalling, I will hear it gladly. Except for Fightin Irish – he’s beyond help.
Good memory. While we know their is no part of the Declatation uses the terms you did, the line I was refering to directly follows the one you quoted.
“? That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”
From your quote we see that men are already free by natural law and that their freedom comes from their natural equality.
My original point was that government is are not something imposed on its citizens but something entered into willingly, but reluctantly, in order to secure those rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).
The problem is that in order to secure those rights, some must initially be sacrificed. That is the problem with democracy/majority rule…it is a necessary evil, and tyranny of the majority was specifically warned about in the Federalist Papers.
I think that Winston Churchill once said; “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others.”
I don’t know if you were refering to me in you last paragraph. If so I apologize if I came accross as attacking you. I meant it to be entirely friendly, although I disagree with you. I only used the word “parasite” because I thought you had used it in an earlier post to refer to the victims.
Still curious if you think all people west of the San Andreas are irresponsible for living in Cali.
[/quote]
Good response. I think the Founding Fathers knew and understood that freedom means ‘freedom from other men’. My point is that, along with the Founding Fathers, no one group of citizens is allowed to exploit another group. They realized that the electorate would just as soon vote to take wealth away from those who have it as would a mob loot an electronics store.
Now, taxes are a necessary evil, as you say. But the purpose is: police, courts, nilitary. They did not intend that one region of the country could exploit any others or the entire country. They knew that this would lead to group warfare, with groups continually fighting for power.
So, can the people of New Orleans demand my tax money for the purpose of rebuilding their homes.
No. It’s really that simple.
Again, good post.
Let me make it clear: I am all for helping the poor, helping the homeless, and so forth. I AM NOT in favor of anyone, myself included, being FORCED to help others. That means that those who are forced to help are slaves.
Why is this unclear? Why am I an ‘asshole’ for saying this?
If someone came to your door and said, “Since you have so much, you will now pay for Charlie’s health insurance. The vacation fund you accumulated will be just enough. And surely, you taking a vacation is not as important as Charlie here. Get me a check.”
Is there anyone here who doesn’t see how evil this is? Hell, even Fightin Irish ought to be able to figure this out.
pox wrote:
“Yes, the people in New Orleans do share some blame if they didn’t listen to any evacuation warnings and actually had a means of escape.”
Thank you. You surprised me.
It’s a novel sensation.
JeffR
We are all victims of this disaster in small or large ways.
I am fortunate that it has only cost me the money I have donated and the portion of my taxes that will be spent on the repairs.
I am disgusted by all the bullshit and blame that I have seen come out of this. I rarely see stories of people working together and sacrificing for the greater good.
I am not sure if the shitty media has reported on this accurately or if they have done their usual utcher job on the stories.
I wish I could do more to help but I am not sure how and all the negative things I have seen has made me hesitate to volunteer my time.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Thank you. You surprised me.
It’s a novel sensation.
JeffR[/quote]
That’s funny…you didn’t surprise me.
HeadHunter I can appreciate your view to some extent regarding people who have a sense of entitlement but that’s not the case here, this is a natural disaster and you are way off base. Now if you were to start a thread refuting the charges of racism being levied by some of the storm victims towards the government’s response to the Katrina disaster then I would definitely be on board with you there.
Following your logic no one should live in any part of the country because we are all at risk of catastrophic natural disasters that we should have advanced knowledge of. If you live in the west then you are susceptible to earthquakes and wildfires as well as the folks living in the Midwest and believe it or not the northeast. Anyone along the eastern seaboard is susceptible to Hurricanes too.
Any part of the country is susceptible to catastrophic flooding. The Midwest and central plains are susceptible to Tornados as is nearly any part of the country and 2/3s of the country are susceptible to snow and ice storms.
So what you are advocating is total anarchy. Should everyone be responsible for themselves and to hell with everyone else? I’m not going to insult you or call you names, but I don’t think you really thought your arguments through very well.
It’s sad to see people that seem fairly intelligent but so stubborn that they stand by their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to refute it. Sounds sort of like the President and the war in Iraq, but that should be a different thread. Why not just admit you didn’t really think your position through rather than make yourself look ridiculous by futilely trying to defend it?
A.B.
How about these “oil companies” that made “record profits” kick some money back? What a joke!
Headhunter,
Don’t tax payers pay your salary? And the Master’s that you earned - didn’t tax payers contribute towards that? I assume that your argument is that you are bettering society, but what if I do not personally value education? Should I have to contribute towards your education?
While you oppose personal welfare, how do you feel about corporate welfare? Bush’s recent energy gill included 9 billion dollars in tax rebates for the oil and coal companies…I guess that their billion dollar profits were not enough. That is 9 billion dollars removed from the tax pool, money that come right out of our pockets. Are you feeling outraged? Or do you reserve your outrage for acts of humanitarian charity?
Assbuster and Dermo,
I do appreciate your posts. Polite and no name calling – a refreshing change.
My point is that a disaster for one person, or group of people, is not an automatic claim on the wealth or earnings of others. If your neighbor’s house burned down, are you morally required to help him rebuild? It’s certainly nice if you do, but what would your response be if he came demanding your help? So, when a former New Orleans resident goes on TV demanding my earnings to help them rebuild, my response is the same as yours.
A disaster is not a positive. It is not a value. To take earnings from helpless victims is to claim (morally) that the wealth is subservient to the disaster. This is evil – a zero cannot have a mortgage on life.
I’ll delve into this more later.
Headhunter,
Why won’t you see the problem with your arguement here? The insurance correlation is a good one.
If your neighbor’s house burns down and you have the same insurance company, you are being forced to pay for his rebuilding. The insurance company doesn’t write you a letter asking if you agree with the settlement, they just pay it. Taxes are a pool of money to be used at the discretion of the government we elected and gave decision making power to.
Taxes and your insurance premiums are no different in this regard.
Headhunter,
If you could clarify for me a little further. You oppose mandated charitable giving, feeling that it should be a personal perogative. Do you feel the same way about farm subsidies and corporate giveaways? I would prefer not to contribute to oil companies as a personal charity…my charity of choice is the supplement industry.
As for not mandating humanitarian charity, this is an administration that insists that this country was founded on Judeo principals, and that our constitution was constructed in accordance with our christian heritage. Given that the new testament references helping the poor more than 3,500 times (with very few allusions to creating an ownership society), isn’t necessitating charitable giving in alignment with the values of our constitutional forefathers? If we are going to argue in favor of the government creating laws in accordance with biblical precepts, than it is logical that we should mandate caring for the poor.
[quote]dermo wrote:
Headhunter,
If you could clarify for me a little further. You oppose mandated charitable giving, feeling that it should be a personal perogative. Do you feel the same way about farm subsidies and corporate giveaways? I would prefer not to contribute to oil companies as a personal charity…my charity of choice is the supplement industry.
As for not mandating humanitarian charity, this is an administration that insists that this country was founded on Judeo principals, and that our constitution was constructed in accordance with our christian heritage. Given that the new testament references helping the poor more than 3,500 times (with very few allusions to creating an ownership society), isn’t necessitating charitable giving in alignment with the values of our constitutional forefathers? If we are going to argue in favor of the government creating laws in accordance with biblical precepts, than it is logical that we should mandate caring for the poor. [/quote]
Damn, why didn’t I think of that!?
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter,
Why won’t you see the problem with your arguement here? The insurance correlation is a good one.
If your neighbor’s house burns down and you have the same insurance company, you are being forced to pay for his rebuilding. The insurance company doesn’t write you a letter asking if you agree with the settlement, they just pay it. Taxes are a pool of money to be used at the discretion of the government we elected and gave decision making power to.
Taxes and your insurance premiums are no different in this regard.
I think this is a good point, but I also hear what Headhunter is saying.
Using health insurance as an example, I can choose to use it or not use it. I run the risk of having to pay a high medical bill, but if I had the will power to save the money that I would be paying for health insurance, I might be able to cover the expenses, and have some left over.
I personally like having the choice to pay for the insurance or not. I don’t like that I HAVE to have a minimum amount of insurance to legaly drive my vehicle, but then again driving is a privilage, not a right.
I would also like the choice to not have home owner’s insurance, but when I bought my house, I was told I HAD to have it.
It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t buy certain insurance, I just want to have that choice.
I like the comparison of taxes to insurance because in a way, it is insurance for the citizens’ safety in the country. It wouldn’t be fair to those who want the safety and security of a government, if everyone could choose not to pay their taxes.
So we’re left with having to rely on government officials to dictate how our money gets spent. If we don’t like the way they’re spending it, we would need far too many people to agree, but there are too many people who don’t care enough to try to make a difference.
I think one alternative could be that we should be allowed to purchase a piece of land from the government we live in, and if we choose not to pay taxes, we give up any and all benefits of having a government including police, fire and other emergency care. This can still work because private companies could exist to cater to these governmentless people, but those companies would lose out on getting any government aid or funding.
[quote]dermo wrote:
Headhunter,
If you could clarify for me a little further. You oppose mandated charitable giving, feeling that it should be a personal perogative. Do you feel the same way about farm subsidies and corporate giveaways?[/quote]
Yes, I do. I know you aren’t talking to me. And I’ll give you something else to chew on: corporations don’t pay a dime of taxes (this is another thread, however).
Sell your car and quit driving, maybe?
It was. Five minutes of research will confirm it.
A) What difference does it make since, based on your comment above, you don’t believe those precepts anyway?
B) Jesus did not go around with a cadre of armed agents confiscating the property of those who did not comply with the “charitable giving code” set forth in the Bible. This does raise the point, though, of the abysmal giving habits of the average Christian (i.e. tithing). If all of us regularly gave 10% as per Biblical guidelines, N.O. would probably be rebuilt by now.
C) I STRONGLY recommend reading the David Crockett speech I linked in an earlier post to help understand my and others’ position. He said it better 100+ years ago than I ever could hope to today.
Bottom line: The key difference you are missing is that charity under coercion is no longer charity. There is no simpler way to say it. No one has a claim on the fruits of another man’s labor. However, we DO have a duty to help our fellow man in need as we are able, on an individual basis. BIG difference.
[Yes, I do. I know you aren’t talking to me. And I’ll give you something else to chew on: corporations don’t pay a dime of taxes (this is another thread, however).
* I know all about this...I agree with you here.
I would prefer not to contribute to oil companies as a personal charity…
Sell your car and quit driving, maybe?
******Huh? I have no problem paying for gas for my car...I choose to drive, so I pay for gas. I was referring to the $9 billion in tax rebates for the oil and coal industry in the most recent energy bill. Why are they being refunded tax billions, when they are in the midst of record profits? This causes a tax gap which we are forced to bridge. Buying gas is not the same as government tax refunds. One is a voluntary purchase of goods, the other is a government corporate giveaway.
Given that the new testament references helping the poor more than 3,500 times (with very few allusions to creating an ownership society), isn’t necessitating charitable giving in alignment with the values of our constitutional forefathers? If we are going to argue in favor of the government creating laws in accordance with biblical precepts, than it is logical that we should mandate caring for the poor.
A) What difference does it make since, based on your comment above, you don’t believe those precepts anyway?
******I did not indicate my beliefs - I just stated that the administration believes it. Most of those on the right who oppose welfare and social funding also believe that our government is steeped in christian values, and that it is impossible to divorce current policies from our christian roots.
B) Jesus did not go around with a cadre of armed agents confiscating the property of those who did not comply with the “charitable giving code” set forth in the Bible. This does raise the point, though, of the abysmal giving habits of the average Christian (i.e. tithing). If all of us regularly gave 10% as per Biblical guidelines, N.O. would probably be rebuilt by now.
C) I STRONGLY recommend reading the David Crockett speech I linked in an earlier post to help understand my and others’ position. He said it better 100+ years ago than I ever could hope to today.
Bottom line: The key difference you are missing is that charity under coercion is no longer charity. There is no simpler way to say it. No one has a claim on the fruits of another man’s labor. However, we DO have a duty to help our fellow man in need as we are able, on an individual basis. BIG difference. [/quote]
*****I do understand the difference. My point is that many people who are outraged by individual welfare are often indifferent towards corporate welfare. The recent bankruptcy bill makes it very difficult for individuals to declare bankruptcy, but does not toughen the standards for corporate bankruptcy.
If you asserting that we should not be compelled towards charitable giving, then define charitable giving? Does it include education funding, bailing out corporations, and faith-based initiatives? As for Jesus, he provided the template for how we should live our lives. Is it unreasonable that a christian nation should model its policies to be consistent with how Jesus lived his life, with an emphasis on helping the poor?
[quote]Fonebone wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I want to be clear that I am not against helping the poor, or those in desperate circumstances. I AM against being FORCED to contribute against my will. Many people are against the war, for example. They should not be forced to pay for something they find objectionable. My philosophy of life is that ALL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS MUST BE VOLUNTARY, ON ALL SIDES. Otherwise, someone is the master and someone is their slave. We many not be able to attain the ideal, but there it is.
Those who wish to contribute to the people made homeless and so forth by the hurricane are free to do so. When I am forced to contribute, however, I do so but only with the threat of jail or a gun pointed at me. I refuse to allow the system to disguise what they do as benevolence – it is not. It is a system of blackmail, designed to rob the productive for the expense of the non-productive. It is altruism taken to its logical conclusion. It is the philosophy of the parasite.
Very well said. Coerced charity has another name: Communism.
I recommend looking up a speech given by Tenneseee Rep. Davy Crockett entitled “Not Yours to Give”. Here, I’ll save you the time.
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm[/quote]
My deepest regret is that I did not read the Crockett speech earlier; his words are much better than mine.
Your life, your property, your earnings belong to no one else. They are yours to enjoy, to help others, to improve yourself.
How far we have strayed from our roots! I now detest governmental aid for New Orleans more than ever. Thank you, Fonebone!