- #106
BilPrestonEsq
- 43
- 0
russ_watters said:Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.
HEY! A real answer!
russ_watters said:Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.
BilPrestonEsq said:radical right wing propaganda BS
russ_watters said:Well I'd use my health insurance and disability benefits to pay for all that, plus my wife would have had a life insurance policy.
WhoWee said:This is your response to the question:
"I'm sure someone will be willing to help. You, for example? "
Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?
BilPrestonEsq said:I would be willing to help pay for people in need yes. I am not willing to bear the responsibility alone.
russ_watters said:Were you aware that despite the current extreme deficit spending, inflation is currently very low? Inflation is not what is driving us toward bankrupcy - it is the simple issue of decreased tax revenue due to a slowdown in the economy combined with increased spending on government bailouts (which doesn't include an increase in social security spending).
In fact, you have the issue backwards: inflation helps a debt problem by reducing the amount you owe.
BilPrestonEsq said:Unless you want to return to the animal kingdom than stop pestering me with this radical right wing propaganda BS.
Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals.
An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection.
WhoWee said:Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?
thephysicsman said:Without law, without organization and regulations nothing separates us from animals.
I'm not against law. As for the rest of your argument, it's nonsense. Humans have free will.
An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection.
I'll buy that. But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.
Whowee asked Bil:
Are you not willing to be one of the people who pay taxes - used to benefit others?
I guess Bil is only willing to help with other people's money. He has no respect for other people's hard work, especially affluent people's work. The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the aninals, according to Bil's reasoning.
But the winners don't win at the expense of the others. They win because they are really good at helping other people.
ME: An unregulated market is the definition of natural selection. Money is a necessity of survival in our civilization. If you create a financial incentive NOT to help those in need than in order to compete in the market and for survival you will have to stop giving to the weak. Eventually it will become impossible to do so in order to compete for survival. These are the laws of natural selection. The nice guy cannot win.
The rich should be forced to give money to the poor, at gunpoint or the threat of jail. If we don't do this, there'll be nothing that separates us from the animals, according to Bil's reasoning.
BilPrestonEsq said:Why is my argument nonsense?
thephysicsman said:Depends what kind of drugs.
They win because they are really good at helping people? What?!? Can you expain that as well?
How can you have a winner without a loser?
The same people that cheat are the same people not willing to give to the weak. This gives them an advantage in natural selection.
With natural selection you cannot afford to help the weak and so there can be no 'nice guys'.
Now, I am a nice guy! So while I am willing to help the weak I am not willing to to help the weak in trade for my own survival.
WhoWee said:Illegal drugs.
"Fortunate" implies luck, to me. Though I was lucky enough to be born with good parents, I've worked hard to earn the money I get.BilPrestonEsq said:You are fortunate enough to be able to afford insurance in the first place.
Well that's the main point of the thread: an able-bodied person should be able to do these things for themselves and when they don't, that's a personal responsibility failure. Bailing such people out reinforces their conclusion that they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Ie, if poverty is comfortable, it will perpetuate itself.And as an able bodied person you should be able to pay for this kind of thing. Not everyone can which is a problem that really is to big for this post.
Well in my opinion, they should only be allowed social benefits if they make a reasonable effort to provide for themselves and through bad luck that is no fault of their own, they can't. Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.What I was trying to point out is that sometimes people need things and they can't afford them and that's when SS should come in and not 'volunteer charity' (I already explained my reason for this).
russ_watters said:Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.
thephysicsman said:Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.
thephysicsman said:What do you mean? A lot of people make this claim, but a closer scrutiny reveals that they respect our position just like Stalin "respected" the position of Christians in the Soviet Union. The Christians were allowed to hold their beliefs in their heads, but as soon as they tried to live out their beliefs in practice (building churches, organizing prayer meetings etc.), they were sent to jail. Is this the way you respect the position of people who believe they have the right to keep their own money?
WhoWee said:This is a matter of personal responsibility and respect for the law.
WhoWee said:Who else thinks Russ is going to be accused of promoting socialism (as I was) in this thread?:rofl: (sorry)
thephysicsman said:The law is not worthy of respect in itself. The only reason one should follow illegitimate laws is to avoid anarchy.
Adults should be free to do put whatever they want in their own body. It's not the duty of the government to protect people from their own stupidity.
thephysicsman said:He's promoting a mild form of fascism.
WhoWee said:Again, the Kentucky plan is to not pay welfare benefits to people who choose to break the law. It's a question of personal choice and personal responsibility - which is more important to you - getting high or Government benefits. The proposed Kentucky law says your need to choose. I think it's fair.
thephysicsman said:Note the choice pro-welfare activists give us a biased choice: 1) a welfare state with rich being forced to help the poor, or 2) freedom where nobody ever helps anybody for any reason, whatsoever.
Is that what I said? Or was it a more complicated problem cause by the inequality between compassionate and incompassionate that you still haven't addressed?
This is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" !
The best thing would be getting rid of all the government programs. Voluntary donations are more effective and the moral thing to do.
Except that you can't count on them. I will ask you again would you bet the well being of yourself or the well being of your family on volunteer donations? It is easy to say that "people can just give to charity" when you yourself are not the one in need.
Sure. To succeed in the free market competition, you must constantly improve your products or services in order to offer the best value to other people. If customers can find people who are better at helping them, your business may fail.
It is also a matter of undercutting another business through the powers of a larger investment capitol. So it is not always the case that it is because of superior quality that a product or company will excell in a free market. Also successful PR and advertisements contribute to the success of a company which again can be possible through a larger investment capitol than your competitor.
Because economics is not a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum" game.
So if there are two competitive companies in the same market your saying that one company's profits don't translate to lower profits of the other?
You can boycott those people, rendering them disadvantaged.
This again is only an option and a possibility just as a volunteer charity is only a possible outcome. Taking the money out of taxes is a guarantee that those in need will receive what they need to survive.
Lots of very successful people help the weak.
Thats true and many successful people don't also true.
False dilemma.
Is is a very real dilemma. I challenge you to come up with an argument that proves otherwise.
Well, Marihuana is for example a harmless drug compared to the legal drug of alcohol. The prohibition is far more harmful.
russ_watters said:"Fortunate" implies luck, to me. Though I was lucky enough to be born with good parents, I've worked hard to earn the money I get. Well that's the main point of the thread: an able-bodied person should be able to do these things for themselves and when they don't, that's a personal responsibility failure. Bailing such people out reinforces their conclusion that they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Ie, if poverty is comfortable, it will perpetuate itself. Well in my opinion, they should only be allowed social benefits if they make a reasonable effort to provide for themselves and through bad luck that is no fault of their own, they can't. Others take that a step further that all charity should be private and I respect that position, but disagree.
thephysicsman said:He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".
thephysicsman said:He seems to want to force people at a gunpoint to give money to the poor. This is concentration of power at the expense of individual liberty, which is the essence of fascism. "Everbody must join, nobody is allowed to escape".
BilPrestonEsq said:Except that you can't count on them.
would you bet the well being of yourself or the well being of your family on volunteer donations?
it is not always the case that it is because of superior quality that a product or company will excell in a free market.
Also successful PR and advertisements contribute to the success of a company which again can be possible through a larger investment capitol than your competitor
So if there are two competitive companies in the same market your saying that one company's profits don't translate to lower profits of the other?
Taking the money out of taxes is a guarantee that those in need will receive what they need to survive.
WhoWee said:You might have misunderstood - I REALLY don't believe russ_watters is in that camp.
BilPrestonEsq said:Do you want to give money to the poor? If so why carry this burden yourself?(please note my full argument on this problem). So Am I a Nazi now? Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?
BilPrestonEsq said:Let me guess you've been listening to Glenn Beck a lot lately?
BilPrestonEsq said:Physicsman I do want you to understand that I wish things could work the way you say they will or do. I wish that everyone could be 'good' and that people will take care of each other and that the 'free market' would only improve the quality and efficiency of our lives in it's evolution. It is simply not the case.
BilPrestonEsq said:Can I prove that all people aren't good?!?