It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Pretty simple question...

Is it moral to use government force to take from one to give to another with an unwilling party on the taking side?

Seems like a pretty simple question right? The obvious answer to me is no, forcefully stealing from someone against their will is not moral or ok.

Apparently modern liberalism does not agree with me, but are they really liberals??? The answer is NO!!!!! The 2 main political philosophies prevelant in American culture are fundamentally simple as they should be. One side wants bigger government and wealth equality by stealing from one set of people to give to another using force, aka police and jails to enforce tax laws. The other side which is the conservative side (I am including Libertarians as I consider the Christian right far right not right) wants the free market to solve social issues and wants to empower individuals to do this by expecting them to create a valued skill set and employing in an entrepreneurial way to lift themselves out of poverty.

On one hand we have a group of people who want to give the government more power and expand it's influence into our lives and on the other they want to reduce it. What blows is mind is people who otherwise have a problem with the government interfering in their lives also tend to be left leaning and the people who want to empower police and law and order tend to be right.

Both of these issues are perplexing to me because you would think that free market constitutional conservatives would be more interested in a self policed organized militia like community to stay true to our founding philosophy and the liberals would actually be a lot more like conservatives wanting to reduce the size and scope of government in exchange for more freedom.

Liberal



Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man).’ The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man,’ hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts . Another early sense, ‘generous’ (sense 4 of the adjective), gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint,’ leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).


A "free man" would not want to empower government but would prefer rugged individualism and the free market to solve issues so in fact liberals are actually suppose to be a lot more like conservatives than Marxist which is where there current philosophy is.

Conserve



late Middle English: from Old French conserver (verb), conserve (noun), from Latin conservare ‘to preserve,’ from con- ‘together’ + servare ‘to keep.’


So, as you can see the conservative and liberal are actually more aligned than the media would have you believe but they have you at each others throats using a cultural Marxist philosophy to turn you against each other. A true conservative would want to "keep together" the Republic and constitution which means freedom and the free market.

A true Liberal would want less government interference so they can play out their own idea of freedom locally in their community using the power of the free market as well.

Hopefully we can actually move past this attempted Marxist coup which is probably an intel op by the Chinese or Russians or Zionist I mean who really knows. The New World Order is co-opting your movement and confusing you to take over the country internally using a Julius Ceasar like divide and conquer strategy, probably individuals from the same mystery school as the Ceasar's themselves.


edit on 26-12-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?

What about corporations comparing their pay with each other with in a specific area/region and all of them setting the pay rate accordingly? Is that moral?


.
edit on 26-12-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
No matter what country one lives in, man is just not to be free but controlled by the not so good forces of a leader that is ruthless in human nature.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?

What about corporations comparing their pay with each other with in a specific area/region and all of them setting the pay rate accordingly? Is that moral?


.


Do you know when it stops being moral? When the union blocks people from working unless they belong to it, it becomes immoral. If a union really is a good thing, then it shouldn't have to force workers to belong. Right?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I recall when Obama talked about his version of "sharing." In his example, there were two children. One had a sandwich and one did not, but instead of the kid with no sandwich sharing his sandwich, Obama talked about how the teacher should come along and take the whole sandwich away and break it up and give it back in two parts.

Obviously, this is the role he sees government as having - taking and redistributing as it sees fit.

But which version is more like to engender a more generous populace? The one where the children see the needs of their fellows and freely share amongst themselves ... or the one where nothing any of them have is safe from the teacher who takes and gives as she see fit without any warning?

Which on creates food insecurity? Which on creates resentment both of those who have and those who don't and the one who takes without warning?
edit on 26-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

You act as if it's only the Liberals that levy taxes and it's the conservatives with the moral high ground.

Remember when Republican Bush said "no new taxes" then what happened?

I get it...just another right wing circle jerk for flags and stars. Not really a discussion....


edit on 26-12-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The free market allows an entrepreneur to come along and offer more competitive pricing to lower income individuals or uses non-profit status to collect money and resources from WILLING participants to solve hunger problems.

When the government solves the problem what they do is remove competition from the marketplace meaning that other food companies can charge higher prices for food because the government eliminate competition.

The only thing we need government to do is break up monopolies including natural monopolies.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: toysforadults

You act as if it's only the Liberals that levy taxes and it's the conservatives with the moral high ground.

Remember when Republican Bush said "no new taxes" then what happened?



Recall how he got re-elected?

Oh, wait ...



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I never said conservatives have the moral high ground but in it's literal sense it actually really does by providing the freedom to solve these issues.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: ketsuko

The free market allows an entrepreneur to come along and offer more competitive pricing to lower income individuals or uses non-profit status to collect money and resources from WILLING participants to solve hunger problems.

When the government solves the problem what they do is remove competition from the marketplace meaning that other food companies can charge higher prices for food because the government eliminate competition.

The only thing we need government to do is break up monopolies including natural monopolies.


The free market generally stays away from propositions that don't involve making profits. Non market based entities may come in and provide assistance though. Not always though and that is why the government needs to come in and provide it as well.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   


Is it moral to use government force to take from one to give to another with an unwilling party on the taking side?


No it's not moral and it directly violates the 14th amendment.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal




What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?


Nope not moral.

Because that PRIVILEGE comes at a price.

Monthly dues.

Collective interest versus personal interest.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You neglected to mention industry collectively comparing hourly compensation and then setting the wages universally.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko





Do you know when it stops being moral? When the union blocks people from working unless they belong to it, it becomes immoral. If a union really is a good thing, then it shouldn't have to force workers to belong. Right?



That is illegal.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: musicismagic

Isn't that true. We're just pawns in a chess game. We're used to fight their wars. Our tax money is used for a war machine, to create overseas conflicts and to live under the threat of nuclear annihilation.

We can complain all we want about using our tax dollars to help our fellow man, but in the end, most of our tax dollars are being used to control people and create conflicts in the world. The word "Peace" is not in the vocabulary of any of these leaders. "Power and Control" is all they thrive on.

What a wonderful and peaceful world we live in.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: neo96

You neglected to mention industry collectively comparing hourly compensation and then setting the wages universally.


People neglect to tell the truth about unions.

That compensation comes at a price sacrificing the individual.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You realize when you go to work you are no longer an individual...right?

Who on earth doen't know about union dues?



.
edit on 26-12-2017 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
These are real questions. One thing conservatives neglect to mention is that much of the extreme wealth is ill gotten and not "earned." Much of it is from rapacious business practices, or even illegal activities or unethical ones going back generations in some families. If your analysis fails to acknowledge this historical fact, then it's not an honest analysis.

originally posted by: toysforadults
Pretty simple question...

Is it moral to use government force to take from one to give to another with an unwilling party on the taking side?

Seems like a pretty simple question right? The obvious answer to me is no, forcefully stealing from someone against their will is not moral or ok.

Apparently modern liberalism does not agree with me, but are they really liberals??? The answer is NO!!!!! The 2 main political philosophies prevelant in American culture are fundamentally simple as they should be. One side wants bigger government and wealth equality by stealing from one set of people to give to another using force, aka police and jails to enforce tax laws. The other side which is the conservative side (I am including Libertarians as I consider the Christian right far right not right) wants the free market to solve social issues and wants to empower individuals to do this by expecting them to create a valued skill set and employing in an entrepreneurial way to lift themselves out of poverty.

On one hand we have a group of people who want to give the government more power and expand it's influence into our lives and on the other they want to reduce it. What blows is mind is people who otherwise have a problem with the government interfering in their lives also tend to be left leaning and the people who want to empower police and law and order tend to be right.

Both of these issues are perplexing to me because you would think that free market constitutional conservatives would be more interested in a self policed organized militia like community to stay true to our founding philosophy and the liberals would actually be a lot more like conservatives wanting to reduce the size and scope of government in exchange for more freedom.

Liberal



Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man).’ The original sense was ‘suitable for a free man,’ hence ‘suitable for a gentleman’ (one not tied to a trade), surviving in liberal arts . Another early sense, ‘generous’ (sense 4 of the adjective), gave rise to an obsolete meaning ‘free from restraint,’ leading to sense 1 of the adjective (late 18th century).


A "free man" would not want to empower government but would prefer rugged individualism and the free market to solve issues so in fact liberals are actually suppose to be a lot more like conservatives than Marxist which is where there current philosophy is.

Conserve



late Middle English: from Old French conserver (verb), conserve (noun), from Latin conservare ‘to preserve,’ from con- ‘together’ + servare ‘to keep.’


So, as you can see the conservative and liberal are actually more aligned than the media would have you believe but they have you at each others throats using a cultural Marxist philosophy to turn you against each other. A true conservative would want to "keep together" the Republic and constitution which means freedom and the free market.

A true Liberal would want less government interference so they can play out their own idea of freedom locally in their community using the power of the free market as well.

Hopefully we can actually move past this attempted Marxist coup which is probably an intel op by the Chinese or Russians or Zionist I mean who really knows. The New World Order is co-opting your movement and confusing you to take over the country internally using a Julius Ceasar like divide and conquer strategy, probably individuals from the same mystery school as the Ceasar's themselves.




posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


We elect people to oversee the nation. We get what we voted for...what we deserve. No?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seasonal




What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?


Nope not moral.

Because that PRIVILEGE comes at a price.

Monthly dues.

Collective interest versus personal interest.


I'll gladly pay my dues because my union provides healthcare, retirement, and a brotherhood that will provide support when the company flexes it's corporate muscle in intimidation of the working man.

Union proud, Union Strong

Don't let your ideology get in the way of your common sense...




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join