Effort or Luck?

Indie

The charge that I’ve nailed to your door several times now is that you seem to be promoting the interests of a few in society rather than the many.

You’ve denied this but so far you haven’t actually put up any rational argument to back up that denial.

I mean come on, do you think telling me to look up the meaning of Freedom and Liberty (with capitals no less) is a substitute for a rational reply?

It’s not - in fact I’m sorry to say it just makes you come across as a bit dizzy and bewildered.

 

I do promote the rights of each individual to live their lives as they choose to, acquire whatever they wish, and share as they are able and personally see fit. Want and/or need are not a means for government or a democratic majority to justify taking from one group of people and giving to another.

Although I might share some of your emotional feelings, you appear to feel that it is the duty of government to create laws to try and make life more equal for all members of society, and I do not.

 

Indie

You still are not tackling what seem to be the flaws in your views and you’re not answering my question of why you hold these views.

A baby cannot choose

A baby cannot personally acquire

[/quote]and share as they are able and personally see fit[/quote]

A baby is unable to make rational decisions about sharing.

You agree that one of the greatest effects on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born, because this can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure.
These advantages or disadvantages are not personal achievements, not acquired through personal effort they are not about personal choice, because no-one can choose to whom they are to be born.

You want law and order to protect person and property and you think defence is needed; you therefore think that a government should be entitled to take money from its citizens to pay for such things.

You are not in principal against the idea of taking only to what you think it should be given.

I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

You seem to want an unfair society, in fact you seem to want to make it even more unfair, and you seem to want to limit opportunity by stifling the potential of those born (through no fault of their own) into disadvantage.

 

individual has a nearly religious feeling about the power of choice

whereas the majority of us feel somewhat agnostic about our choices, or worse

he may feel he is the master of his ship; many of us feel we are mere corks . . .

 

You seem to feel that disagreement is a flaw.

In general that's correct.

The point being?

and share as they are able and personally see fit[/quote] [/QUOTE]

Toys?

Nor are many adults.

It can be, but need not be. You really build a great case for not allowing poor people to have children.

So I assume that you are claiming it to be a fact that all those who are successful were born into wealthy families?

Government should not be taking money in the form of taxes to redistribute wealth.

Meaning?

That should be the responsibility of those who make up the society, not government.

No one wishes to make anything less fair, but taking from one to give to another is not a fair method of accomplishing fairness. You seem to feel that money can purchase anything, and I put more trust in the human mind.

 

The major difference between us is that my choices impose nothing upon you or others, and yes, I am the master of my own ship and will continue to be.

Life is more like a chess game, and I refuse to become a pawn.

 

your choices do in fact impose upon the rest of us

you did not make those choices in a vacuum

how do you not understand that?

 

[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Toys?



Nor are many adults.



It can be, but need not be. You really build a great case for not allowing poor people to have children.



So I assume that you are claiming it to be a fact that all those who are successful were born into wealthy families?



Government should not be taking money in the form of taxes to redistribute wealth.



Meaning?



That should be the responsibility of those who make up the society, not government.



No one wishes to make anything less fair, but taking from one to give to another is not a fair method of accomplishing fairness. You seem to feel that money can purchase anything, and I put more trust in the human mind.[/QUOTE]

You're a teen. It's obvious. Haven't had time yet to think about life or the nature of civilization.

 

You're a teen. It's obvious. Haven't had time yet to think about life or the nature of civilization.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm 15 years your senior, and it's the nature of humans we need to think about. Civilization is just a byproduct created as a result of the actions and interactions of humans, who come and go over time.

 

You have to really stretch to make your case, while I do not.

 

Based upon the quality of your responses to Balbus, there is every indication that you are, in fact, a teenager.

As to making a point, after reading your posts in this thread it would appear that your only point is that you dislike paying taxes if you don't get to decide how they're spent. But, as that's pretty much how everybody feels it's not much of a point.

 

They were some good days.

Then you've obviously missed the point entirely. Although I agree that most people probably would like to not have to pay taxes, there are government functions that we ALL benefit from that require funding. The main point you appear to have missed entirely is that government, and even more importantly, Courts have no Constitutional right to seek what is proposed as justice through application of emotions. While it is sad that some parents bring children into the world that they are incapable of caring for, by doing so they have assumed a responsibility for which they, and not the society in which they live, should be held accountable. Charity flows as a source from individuals, NOT government.

Perhaps it's time you, Balbus, and others who feel government should create laws and raise taxes to provide for the irresponsible members of society, should grow up and start facing responsibility instead of trying to shift it to someone else.

 

Government is empowered to do the will of the citizenry. The will of the citizenry is enabled through taxation. As time goes by, some problems arise that the government must address, even if those problems were unforeseen in past times. Progress and civility will ultimately win out because there's no longer any true choice. Corporate-statism has so damaged the underpinnings of democracy, resulting in a growing and seemingly permanent underclass, that even the most blinkered of conservatives will come to realize that their own safety - their own survival - hangs in the balance. It's a large country with a lot of people and if the social order is not re-structured for far greater inclusion of life-quality for the majority, it'll eventually burn. Change can come through co-operation or you can wait until selfishness lights the fire of revolution.

 

Indie

Just repeating that does not answer the question or make the flaws go away - as I said last time -

“…I tend to see a criticism of a viewpoint that is unaddressed as a flaw and an argument that can’t seem to be defended as flawed.
Especially when all opportunity has been given to the person whose views have been criticized to address them but who instead prefers to try and evade addressing them…”

*

You are not in principal against the idea of taking only to what you think it should be given.

Virtually all taxes are a redistribute of wealth, if used to pay for defence the money is taken from all given to a few and not just the armed soldiers/sailors/pilots but to the contractors, the office staff, etc, same with law and order it pays for the police and judges and all the bureaucracy that is needed to support them.
So in fact you are not in principal against the idea of the redistribute of wealth only in where the redistribution should go, so it seems to me that your opposition is more about the money being raised going to the disadvantaged to realise their potential and I’m wondering why?

*

I want to make societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

And how do the people in a society make there feelings and opinions heard?
For me a democratic government should be of the people, by the people and for the people, charged with the responsibility to bring about a fairer and better society for all.
You seem more inclined toward some type of wealth based oligarchy, since you clearly want to give more power and influence to wealth and give it extra voting power so it can block the influence of the people.

 

you think?

there's a pie

one person takes a really big piece

what happens when the rest try to divide the remainder?

how is that a stretch?

 

Worldsofdarkblue

 

Indie

So you would make the child suffer for something they had nothing to do with?
Which would seem to imply that you think it justified to make the innocent suffer?
I’m sorry but such treatment of the guiltless doesn’t seem fair or a good basis for a healthy society.

*

Anyway it’s not so much a matter of parents being ‘incapable of caring’ for their child but parents not having the resources that would realise a child’s potential. Both advantaged and disadvantaged children can have loving, caring parents but access to advantage is likely to bring about an advantage, I would like to release the potential of those that through no fault of their own are disadvantaged.

*

To repeat, to me, a guiltless child cannot be held responsible for the actions of others.

 

To a small degree you are correct, but the purpose of the Constitution is to put limits upon the federal government which over the past century in particular have been virtually ignored by both the politicians and the courts, not to mention the citizens themselves. It was never the intent to allow either the people or the government to determine right and wrong simply by a majority vote, as can be done in a pure democracy which is little more than a form of mob rule.
The so called "seemingly permanent underclass" in a free society exists only as a transitional stage which many go through at some period of their lives. It may remain permanent for some, but as a case of "no fault of their own" that number should be very small.
I agree that any changes should come through co-operation, but not through government imposition or mandates. The revolution began nearly a century ago, moving the nation more and more toward the left, and I feel a counter revolution is beginning to take root. Let's see what transpires between now and the elections in 2012.

 

You've yet to point out anything which I feel is a flaw that requires my attention.

And I see your criticism of my answer to nothing more than a relentless desire for me to change my view.

Our philosophies are opposites, I believe government has no business deciding what one person deserves or who to impose responsibility upon.

There is a difference handing out money (redistribution) and paying wages/salaries (for providing goods and/or services).
If money needs to be raised for the "disadvantaged" I think that is a job for charitable organizations NOT government and tax funds. Charity is donated by choice, not mandated by law. That is my answer to WHY>

But primarily you wish to impose your desires upon others rather than take on the burden yourself.

I would assume verbal and/or written communications would be the best method, however one can also resort to violence.

Where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence do you find either the authority or the intent to accomplish that? The 17th amendment went a long way in corrupting the form of democracy that was intended under the Constitution.

Actually I would only like to see the influence of both government and the wealthy reduced.

 

Who owns the pie? And don't tell me everyone, as someone had to create it, and it only takes one person to make a pie.