Short and sweet

A and B see that D is very poor. He lost his job, health coverage, and is going underwater with his mortgage. So A and B get together to discuss how to help D. They decide that A, B, and C will all help D relieve the poverty. C was never consulted though. So they go to F to get this into law and F makes it a law to help D. C wants to make the decisions himself with his own money so he refuses to participate. F tells him he must go by the law. C still refuses so F sends out E to enforce the law by force and arrest if necessary.

It is all intimidation and control. They determine what is right for you without your consent thus it is involuntary. All actions should be voluntary so long as you are not harming someone's person, property, or liberty.




That is just my take on redistribution of wealth, social welfare policies, and income taxes for those purposes.

So what would you do about D's poverty? What happens when much of the alphabet is living in poverty apart from a few letters who own all the wealth? Lets say X and Y, X and Y own the majority of the wealth and dont want to share it with the rest of the alphabet instead they want more wealth and choose to take it from the rest of the alphabet which has already helped out X and Y's get their wealth in the first place.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


I personally would help D and would hope my fellow members of the alphabet would help those in poverty as well but it would be on the grounds of volunteerism not "I got the bigger gun so give me your money so I can give it to someone I deem more needy". All actions should be voluntary so long as they are not hurting another person's life, property, or liberty.

Just to keep in the theme of the thread. . . .
Short and sweet. Right now, the government TAKES our money to help the "poor". But like the OP said, if we KEPT our money, we'd be able to help the "poor".

Unfortunately, the government doesn't trust us with our own money. And since they are doing such a bang-up job (bwahahahahaha) with our money, I don't see them relinquishing control anytime soon.

nice try misoir it really is but they will never agree that everyone is entitled to their money except the people who earned it.

class warfare will never end reminds me much like 1930s germany and the rise of the fascists they blame a small group of people for all their problems.

today that has bred hatred to the point where if they could they would march all those evil rich people into the gas chambers.

its truly sad.

you earn the money its your choice on what to do with that choice because you earned it the government has not and the people whining the most have not they have no rights to their money and the irony is if someone tries to take money away from them its " oh hell no you dont".

its hypocrisy.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


First I would need to know exactly how X and Y "steal" the wealth from the others. Is it through government and manipulation of laws? Or is this "stealing" actually a market function you happen to deem "stealing"? It is crucial to the answer I will provide.

reply to post by Misoir


What you desribe is socialism. Here in New Zealand we have had this scenario for ages, to the extent that there is a whole "class"' of people who now utterly rely on this system and are claiming this largesse as a right, not a privilege.

This type of thinking is the root cause of countries (including New Zealand) going bankrupt.

I honestly have a much bigger issue with the fact that our taxes are used to fund illegal wars overseas which kill countless innocent people. Also am having more troubling accepting the fact that our taxes are used in a stealthy "war" against the American people in order to fulfill TPTB's dream of mass population reduction. Even more disturbing is the non-taxation of enormous corporations (which politicians deal with under the table) which don't place any priority on consumer health or safety. So if a few of my hard earned dollars go to help my neighbors buy some food for their kids or pay for a roof over their heads....doesn't seem so awful to me in retrospect.

You get an A for short and an F in sweet.

I am C and I hope all the best to D but cant help, less I myself turn D.

Yes, it is socialism and it's foolish.

Helping out those that choose not to help themselves doesn't strengthen our species.

We may feel good in doing so, but it's a short sighted gain that over times leads to social/civil decay.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
So what would you do about D's poverty? What happens when much of the alphabet is living in poverty apart from a few letters who own all the wealth? Lets say X and Y, X and Y own the majority of the wealth and dont want to share it with the rest of the alphabet instead they want more wealth and choose to take it from the rest of the alphabet which has already helped out X and Y's get their wealth in the first place.

edit on 9-5-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

Typical Marxist logic. D's poverty is not my concern. What if D was making $50,000 a year and bought a $400,000 house that he had no chance of ever affording? What if D had $90,000 in credit card debt? What if D didn't have his priorities straight? What if D smoked 2 packs a day for 40 years and now has lung cancer but no insurance? Now granted, this isn't always the case, although the vast majority of people out there have lived way beyond their means and are now suffering the consequences. There are plenty of people out there that have done it the right way and just can't get ahead. That's what private charity is for. I help people all the time if I see that they need help and it is within my means to do so. Someone's lack of planning and common sense doesn't make it any less wrong for the government to take what I worked hard for by way of the IRS's gun and redistribute it to whoever they see fit.

As far as X and Y are concerned.... This is America, so if X and Y made their money legally and ethically then it is theirs to do as they wish with it. Maybe X and Y payed attention in school. Maybe X and Y studied hard and earned their MBA's or whatever and worked their way up the corporate ladder, or better yet, maybe X and Y had a great idea and figured out how to market it, and got filthy stinking rich because of it. X and Y don't owe anyone anything. You say the "other letters" helped X and Y get there, and that is true to an extent. X and Y also helped the other letters by giving them a job and opportunity. It works both ways. How many millionaires has Bill Gates and Steve Jobs created? Thousands I'm sure.

reply to post by Misoir


What you describe here is true democracy. Mob rule. 50% + 1. This is exactly why we were founded as a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy.

You know the old cliche... "Democracy is 4 wolves and 3 lambs sitting around a table discussing what's for dinner."

A Constitutional Republic is the same 4 wolves and 3 sheep, except the sheep are well educated, well informed and ARMED, and they dare the wolves to try it.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
So what would you do about D's poverty? What happens when much of the alphabet is living in poverty apart from a few letters who own all the wealth? Lets say X and Y, X and Y own the majority of the wealth and dont want to share it with the rest of the alphabet instead they want more wealth and choose to take it from the rest of the alphabet which has already helped out X and Y's get their wealth in the first place.

edit on 9-5-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

By the way... what you have described here is nothing more than the end result of Progressive policies. This is what America is starting to look like, and it will continue to look like this more and more as long as we keep electing Progressives like Obama and Bush.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


What you just said is not only hilarious but makes perfect sense.
Did you come up with that second part or is it borrowed?

Originally posted by Misoir
A and B see that D is very poor. He lost his job, health coverage, and is going underwater with his mortgage. So A and B get together to discuss how to help D. They decide that A, B, and C will all help D relieve the poverty. C was never consulted though. So they go to F to get this into law and F makes it a law to help D. C wants to make the decisions himself with his own money so he refuses to participate. F tells him he must go by the law. C still refuses so F sends out E to enforce the law by force and arrest if necessary.

It is all intimidation and control. They determine what is right for you without your consent thus it is involuntary. All actions should be voluntary so long as you are not harming someone's person, property, or liberty.




That is just my take on redistribution of wealth, social welfare policies, and income taxes for those purposes.

edit on 5/9/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

But often C got its wealthy position by contributing to the downfall of D through tax subsidies, loop holes, legislation led by lobbyists, etc. All of which were done without consulting D.

You can't have a federal system that helps the ultra-rich but not the poor. You either have all or none. 100% capitalism works and so does 100% socialism. This hybrid we have here in the States gives us the worse of both worlds. We have regulations but it only keeps the barrier-to-entry too high for anybody but the Monsantos, CitiGroups, etc. We have socialist institutions but stop short where it would really help (medicine and education) which further plays into the hands of big corporatism.

Both ideologies work. We just somehow screwed them both up.

reply to post by Cuervo


Liberty for all, special privileges for none.

That about sums up my position on what you brought up.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Liberty for all, special privileges for none.

That about sums up my position on what you brought up.

Yeah, but you can't have privileges for your own group and complain about the privileges the other group gets. Either all or none.

reply to post by Cuervo


No -group- should get any privileges neither should any individual. The law should be equal for all people regardless of class, race, gender, ethnicity, or other. No one should get subsidies. No one should get direct welfare benefits either corporate or individual. Get my point? Absolute liberty for all in their personal lives and equality in the law.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Cuervo

 

No -group- should get any privileges neither should any individual. The law should be equal for all people regardless of class, race, gender, ethnicity, or other. No one should get subsidies. No one should get direct welfare benefits either corporate or individual. Get my point? Absolute liberty for all in their personal lives and equality in the law.

Oh, I agree. It's just that most people tend to overlook how the wealthy got wealthy in the first place: privileges. If we lived in a truly anarcho-capitalist nation, we'd see a homogeneous distribution in wealth similar to socialist nations. Our flavor in the states leans more towards liberty and deregulation so I think that's the way we should go, for sure.

Just keep in mind that deregulated capitalism will still lead to a redistribution of wealth (strikes, boycotts, defamatory campaigns, etc)

Originally posted by Misoir
A and B see that D is very poor. He lost his job, health coverage, and is going underwater with his mortgage. So A and B get together to discuss how to help D. They decide that A, B, and C will all help D relieve the poverty. C was never consulted though. So they go to F to get this into law and F makes it a law to help D. C wants to make the decisions himself with his own money so he refuses to participate. F tells him he must go by the law. C still refuses so F sends out E to enforce the law by force and arrest if necessary.

It is all intimidation and control. They determine what is right for you without your consent thus it is involuntary. All actions should be voluntary so long as you are not harming someone's person, property, or liberty.

That is just my take on redistribution of wealth, social welfare policies, and income taxes for those purposes.

edit on 5/9/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)

You just gave an example of Democracy. So you are saying that government shouldn't work through voting and representation? That's pretty funny.

Here's an Example for you that is actually somewhat closer to reality:

A and B see that D is very poor. He lost his job, health coverage, and is going underwater with his mortgage because C collapsed the economy and nearly sent the entire alphabet into a horrific depression.

F gives a ton of money to C so that A, B, and D aren't all left on the street. C also enjoys the lowest taxes since 1958 and continues to capture American wealth and owns more than 98% of the US wealth. After F gives C money, C continues to see their wealth grow at hundreds of times a faster rate than A, B, and D combined. C controls the media and creates a meme that all of their poor money is being taken, while actively framing the homeless, jobless, sick and dying as leeches on society.

Armchair warriors gleefully log on and spread the meme like a crabs outbreak in college dorms. Meanwhile, Cs enact legislation through their influence on F that further taxes A, B, and D. They continue their meme, continue collecting power, and those same fervent ideologues continue to work against their best interests in the name of their new feudal lords.

In order to keep their ideologues completely blinded, Cs create scapegoats in society. Italiced Ds are having too many lower case anchor "d"s and taking all the coveted lawn mowing and burger flipping jobs of the rightful alphabets of the nation. Gay Ds are destroying the fabric of society. Black Ds are all drug using welfare queens with 10 babies.

All the while the Cs continue to amass huge amounts of wealth - to the point that the income inequality in their country is worse than some third world countries like the Ivory Coast, Pakistan, and Kazahkstan - but go ahead, attack the Ds - they truly are the enemy here.