Well you’re getting closer to reasonable points here. I feel like we’ve went down the same path in other threads that aren’t that old.
Just have to agree to disagree on the theft part. Maybe it is and I look at it wrong. But my long post basically covers why I feel the way I do. And I’m really not a giant government do all person. I just may seem that way when compared to you and Nick.
Ahh…this reeled me back into this thread. You are, in principle, at the very least. Can you think of anything a government shouldn’t do if it can be of immediate benefit to someone? I can’t think of a single issue that’s been debated on this board on which you’ve opposed intervention on principle. I don’t believe you have ever even opposed Federal intervention in favor of state or local intervention.
Your answer to billionaires benefitting from X, Y, and Z(government policies) is “tax them moar.” The “not a giant government do all person” response is, “Get rid of X, Y, and Z.”
You’re probably a good guy, but you definitely don’t have any problem with giant government doing it all.
Speaking strictly from the position he is talking about–that is not true. A person is REQUIRED to pay in. As in, by law. The fact that SS money is robbed to pay for other stuff by the govt does not relieve us from having to pay in.
It’s not something you can sign up for without paying and get some. In that sense you could consider WIC or SNAP entitlements (simmer down H factor…I’m just making a point). And, for example, there are laws against fraud–meaning trying to get out of a contract.
If you’re required to pay in, and the law says you get X after Y years, then that is a contract of sorts.
Right, but the point is that we don’t have a choice–we are required by law to pay into it. Hence the argument can be made, as hardartery did, that there is a form of contract in place.
I think in some respects you’re right, but it’s less so than any other form of government currently available. Also, and more importantly to me at least, is the fact that money is leverage. The people at the top will ALWAYS be able to prosper when others don’t simply by having more leverage. What’s that Archimedes quote? “Give me a lever long enough and I will move the world” or something like that. I don’t believe arbitrarily taking money from those who are rich is fair (hence I’m not a socialist or anything). But the fact that money + human nature makes it easier for them than us is to me more like the laws of Newton’s physics.
Again, could be considered Newton’s 4th law…
Agree 100%
I absolutely get where you’re coming from here. And largely I agree.
I agree. This was partly what I was talking about when I said just above that you could almost consider the wealthy as a 4th physical law–they will always try to get pork/special exceptions.
A lot of self employed business owners are considered middle class or even upper middle by the IRS, even though they’re walking much more of a tightrope than regular employees at this “upper middle class” range. I even know of some 1%ers that are in this boat (granted more rare, the point is that it happens for self employed and very small owners)
I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
I have tons of things I’ve been against. Bailouts without restrictions, most of what we do with the military, all sorts of regulations that need altered or abolished. I don’t think the free market is a bad thing, but don’t think it exists in a lot of America. And the idea that if we just abolished everything the market would make life perfect is insane. Where has that ever been the case? The idea that churches and communities will figure it out for all humans is simply insane to me.
No. Take away those benefits that occur. Get rid of Citizens United, change lobbying rules, I can think of a shit ton of stuff we do with campaigns that encourage corruption. How about fix those rules instead of keep those rules in place AND tax them less?
Not true in the least. I’m for programs that help vulnerable people. I’m for giving kids the best chance of success even if they are born to bullshit situations. I can probably get on board with giant reforms to all entitlements. But let’s change them in a way that doesn’t fuck over poor people. Hell let’s not change anything that fucks over poor people until we fix the issues that create an incredibly unbalanced power structure.
We have tons of things in the government that I would change. But I wouldn’t start at the bottom and work my way up. An obese person getting food stamps seems to be a very weird place to begin the process.
You’ve lost me if you’re trying to say Social Security is not entitlement spending. Is there a law saying how much you will get from Social Security?
Well respectfully, to me this means you either need to be an AnCap, or readjust. ALL taxation is redistribution, whether it goes to other citizens or not. You pay in, then either government employees or corruption or bureaucracy takes your money.
Well, first I was responding from hardartery’s point of view. I wasn’t necessarily saying something that I fully agree with.
If your money is taken by the government under an agreement, wouldn’t you say that a contract exists?
Do you believe in the social contract or no?
Edit–i am not talking about exactly how much one gets back. I am saying that a person is REQUIRED to pay in, and thus from a certain standpoint it is not truly an entitlement.
Agreed. But I think they have even more influence than could be. I think most of our system has been built with the wealthiest people in mind. They have shaped and molded it to a bigger extent in the last 50 years than any other thing imo.
Yeah and that’s stupid as hell. Our taxation system is bonkers but I also think it has been shaped and molded by big business and wealthy people. The answer to that to me isn’t cut taxes at the top and hope for the best. That seems to be a lot of what has been done in regards to taxation since the 80’s.
Sure. I’m unaware of such an agreement when it comes to Social Security, but the existence of such would cement it as entitlement spending that much more strongly.
Again I think that’s splitting hairs which is why I’ve tried to avoid the what’s an entitlement debate. I agree with A if taxation is theft then it’s all theft. If one has a problem with Social Security (few do according to polls) change the law.
I think I come off as more pro all government than I am when in debates with people who think government shouldn’t exist (or hardly exist).
As do I. The second is easier said than done, and(before you “move to Somalia” it) leaving is difficult(if not pointless anyway) if one has any concern for his friends, family, and culture.
If you moved to Somalia how would we have these debates? I heard despite such limited government the Wi-Fi sucks!
Two things–first, if there’s a contract how would it be entitlement? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding how you are using the word entitlement here/connotation.
Second, the agreement is not necessarily voluntary, which means that you are being forced to pay it (having it withheld from your paycheck by your employer is the same thing)…
But, while you can call it theft (I don’t want to go to that conversation here), you can hardly call an involuntary tax entitlement. Particularly when the government both enforces the tax and promises you something in return. There’s no opt out.
H is right, this is a semantic thing. My original point was only that calling it entitlement when one is forced into paying is perhaps less accurate than calling other services entitlements.
Render unto Caesar…
Did he say that?
Finish the quote, then think about it for more than a split second and you will realize you’ve argued my point.
Taxation isn’t theft - if it were, under the same theory, the rule saying we have to drive on the right side of the road is false imprisonment. It’s silly.
This is why libertarians can’t have nice things. Like elected office.
I don’t think you know what you’re arguing in that case.
Then there’s, whatsoever you do for the least of my people…
There is also this, from the Talmud, whoever saves a life, saves the world.
Me too, and really enjoying your and @H_factor’s take on this.
Question for me is, for people who generally think like this - no problem with capitalism and people getting/being rich but they shouldn’t be able to bend the law to enrich themselves, while being ok with some relief and protection for the vulnerable - who do you vote for? Which party deserves that vote?
Appreciated sir. This is the million dollar question isn’t it? We don’t have a voice currently. I think this is one reason I am in favor of voting your conscience–I don’t believe that we should feel obligated to vote for someone that does not reflect our important views for fear of “the Other One” being elected.
Interesting
Of all the things that can or should be taxed, income has got to be pretty high on the list of the worst. It’s just somewhat easy to implement