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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Agreed.

Better pay, better benefits and better retirements. That is horrible, and drive jobs out of the US. Just keep in mind huge portions of those lost jobs are NOT unionized.




posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


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 is robbery, which I definitely do not consider moral.

I understand the concept of providing for the poor. I am all for providing for the poor. That might sound like a contradiction, because the only way government can hand out money to those who need it is to take it first from others. But the apparent contradiction lies in the definition of 'helping the poor.'

Ketsuko said something that caught my eye earlier: the Obama statement about taking a sandwich from a student who had one to divide it with someone who didn't. That is not right. The right thing to do is for the student with the sandwich to voluntarily give the other student half of his sandwich. That is charity. It should give the student with the sandwich a feeling of satisfaction and the other student a feeling of appreciation. Obama's way, which is not charity, gives the student with the sandwich a feeling of resentment and the other student a feeling of entitlement.

Over time, the student with the sandwich will become greedy and miserly, because he will realize that he has to protect everything he has or it will be taken away. The other student will develop greater feelings of entitlement, which will lead to laziness because who really should work for what they want when it is so much easier to just demand it from others? The end result is a society such as we have now: deeply divided between those who want this idealized version of 'equity' and those who are trying to hold on to what they worked hard to get.

Your definitions of liberal and conservative are not correct. They once were, but the words have been hijacked from a moral stance (as you posted) to a political stance. I tend to define myself as a conservative (the closest actual label that fits appears to be paleo-conservative), but that does not mean I agree with all modern conservative political stances. I actually agree with a progressive tax bracket system instead of some flat tax rate, because it more closely approximates a taxation based on work expended. One aspect of capitalism is that those with money can make more money easier than those with a lack of money. A progressive tax rate compensates for that. But I also want the taxes to be as low as possible, because all taxes are a brake on the economy.

I mentioned above the apparent contradiction and hinted that money from the government was not the answer. In a thriving economy, the number of people who, for reasons not of their own doing, cannot succeed and thus need direct financial help are very small. There is, therefore, a very small tradeoff between a legalized version of robbery and government-provided assistance. Instead of taking one sandwich from the have and giving half of it to the have-not, it is more akin to taking a small corner from 20 haves and giving them to a single have-not. That is far less onerous.

Thus, the best way for government to help the poor is by helping the economy in general. That cannot be achieved by class warfare; each class makes their own unique contribution to the economy, from the upper class providing jobs to the upper middle class running the companies to keep them profitable, to the middle class doing the skilled and professional labor, to the lower class doing the menial jobs that keep costs down. There is no dishonorable work; only dishonorable workers.

As our economy expands, it provides more for everyone. Even most of the poor in this country are wealthy compared to those in third-world countries; that is due to 200 years of free-market, community-driven capitalism. A prosperous society is a compassionate society, which is why the people of the USA give so much private charity, further reducing the need for institutional social programs.

That is how government needs to be helping the poor... by giving them the opportunities to succeed and making it easier for them to get the tools needed to take advantage of those opportunities. That is moral. That is constitutional. That is fair. That is realistic.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
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.


No it isn't. It's called a union shop where the employer agrees to either only hire union workers or any non-union labor must join the resident union after a certain period of time.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Right to work.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

Right to work.


Only in certain states. I live in a state that only become Right to Work recently.
edit on 26-12-2017 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes well over 1/2.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes well over 1/2.


It is immoral for unions to do what they do in non-Right to Work states though. You tell me how likely it is that California will ever be right to work, for example.

Now, if you like your union, that's one thing, but if you don't ...

And what about government workers' unions?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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

I think in this thread, as well as "Hey Liberals you want to use government force to take my money", you are starting off with the wrong idea. Government is going to take your money no matter what.

IMO, conservatives want the money used one way and liberals want the money spent another way and they both probably think they have the moral high ground.

Free markets? Yeah right.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It's not about what the money is used for.

It's a simple question: Is it moral to take someone's money (their property really) to pay for things?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Why is it immoral for unions to do what they do in right to work states?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Who would you suggest pay the bills of the govt?

Is it moral, isn't really the question that should be asked. Is it necessary is a question that is closer to being remotely useful.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's not about what the money is used for.

For some it is.

ETA: the title of the thread is "Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?" which is all about what the money is used for.


It's a simple question: Is it moral to take someone's money (their property really) to pay for things?

No, now what?
edit on 26-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ketsuko
It's not about what the money is used for.

For some it is.

ETA: the title of the thread is "Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?" which is all about what the money is used for.


It's a simple question: Is it moral to take someone's money (their property really) to pay for things?

No, now what?


So then why do people try to claim a moral high ground when they make arguments for taxation for any purpose?

There is no moral high ground there. Taxation is nothing more than the attempt to legalize theft no matter what purpose you propose putting it to. Just legalizing a thing does not make it moral.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
So then why do people try to claim a moral high ground when they make arguments for taxation for any purpose?

You will have to ask them.


There is no moral high ground there. Taxation is nothing more than the attempt to legalize theft no matter what purpose you propose putting it to. Just legalizing a thing does not make it moral.

Is it theft or is it you paying your dues for living in that society?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
If you think taxes are "taking from me and giving to others" then you are ideologically at odds with this country, and should find a new country to move to.

To me, paying my taxes isn't "taking from me and giving to others", it's how I contribute to keeping America great. It pays for my roads, firemen, police, military, science grants for university research...and a bunch of other things that make "civilized life" possible.

That's part of the social contract I willingly and gladly accept.

If you are opposed to this, then move to Tanzania or Uganda. I hear you can do whatever the hell you want there and no one will "take mah monies!".



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ketsuko
So then why do people try to claim a moral high ground when they make arguments for taxation for any purpose?

You will have to ask them.


There is no moral high ground there. Taxation is nothing more than the attempt to legalize theft no matter what purpose you propose putting it to. Just legalizing a thing does not make it moral.

Is it theft or is it you paying your dues for living in that society?


You already answered that question above. It's theft. You don't get to weasel out of it now that you find out where I am going with it.

At it's base, it is theft to take from those who make to give to others or use for your own purposes. Just because we are trying to assuage our guilt by telling ourselves it's "for the greater good" doesn't change what it really is -- immoral.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Kettu

Accepting it doesn't change the basic immorality of it and that's what the question posed to us is all about.



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kettu

Accepting it doesn't change the basic immorality of it and that's what the question posed to us is all about.


I'm not "accepting" anything. I'm willingly participating.

"Theft" is when someone takes something of yours without your permission. I give the government permission to take a portion of my income to be a participating citizen of the United States.

If people don't want to participate because they feel as if they are being robbed, then they need to leave.

For example, freeloaders are kicked out of communes where everyone is expected to participate and pitch in. If you don't help out, you are asked to leave.

In any case, the economy and government that I fund with my taxes (that are apparently 'stolen' from me) help create the very system and environment that enables me to make an income to pay my taxes from.

If it wasn't for the organizational structure of the government itself, I wouldn't have the income I do have in the first place.
edit on 26-12-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Kettu

Accepting it doesn't change the basic immorality of it and that's what the question posed to us is all about.


I'm not "accepting" anything. I'm willingly participating.

"Theft" is when someone takes something of yours without your permission. I give the government permission to take a portion of my income to be a participating citizen of the United States.

If people don't want to participate because they feel as if they are being robbed, then they need to leave.

For example, freeloaders are kicked out of communes where everyone is expected to participate and pitch in. If you don't help out, you are asked to leave.

In any case, the economy and government that I fund with my taxes (that are apparently 'stolen' from me) help create the very system and environment that enables me to make an income to pay my taxes from.

If it wasn't for the organizational structure of the government itself, I wouldn't have the income I do have in the first place.


So you want to pay taxes?

How much do you think you should pay?

What is your fair share?

What is mine?

What should other people pay?

This is the next problem. Everyone thinks everyone else deserves to pay more because they can obviously afford it. So they are willing to vote for more and more taxes because they think others will pay and not them, not as much.

So you vote your hands into the pockets of others. You take from them whether they want to be taken from or not. You steal. And that's immoral, and you justify it in the tirade you just typed.

It's not that *you're* immoral by stealing from them ... OH NO ... They're really the bad ones because they don't want to pony up what *you* think they should, and you are the very person this thread and question was aimed at to begin with.

What percentage of my annual income do you think I should pay for the privilege of living in your *your* country?



posted on Dec, 26 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I was playing devil's advocate. Even if it was what are you or anyone else going to do about it?

Now, if you pay taxes and in exchange you get defense, infrastructure, services etc., is it theft or is it a legal exchange. The only reason I bring it up is because people will often say "I don't want my taxes going to this or that" which brings it back to it actually being about what the money is being spent on and people not feeling like it is theft if it is spent how they wish.


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



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join