|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted July 07, 2010 06:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, I really can't see a justification for stealing from one person to give to another person. Instead of reaching in the pockets of others to help the poor reach into your own pocket and give to the poor.
Yet you have nothing against the government reaching in the pockets of people and funding more tanks, often completely against their will (pacifists). How nice of you. If stealing is what you are against, why to limit yourself to JUST theft for charity? Is theft for war any better? I'd say much worse. At least charity brings some good, and what has your puny war gave us? Forced destruction = good and needed, forced charity = bad and limiting, that's what you think?. I have nothing to add - What a load of... well, never mind. Have a nice day.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 06:44 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. None of this "decreasing the gap" nonsense. It's about public planning of industrial and agricultural policy. The government decides prices and wages.
Quote:
1) Luxury taxes are mostly missing or too low, if there are any, which is as such suspicious: If you are able to pay $100 for a bottle of wine, you should be able to pay $200 as well; if you can buy a car for $250.000, you can pay a lot more than that; if you can buy a 10.000.000 luxury villa, well...
But why should you have to?
Quote:
3) Income tax rates are MUCH too low for the really high incomes.
Too low for what?
Quote:
The rich; they have basically all freedom they want, pay marginal sums - and get everything back, since a large part of the taxes is flwoing back to them
How's that?
Bak:
But the options are quite different. You can spend your money on whatever you like.
Fauch:
So what if they hire sociologists? The most a sociologist/psychologist can say is "people tend to act like this". And they do, I don't deny that. But that doesn't mean they're not free to act otherwise. Subconsciously manipulating people isn't infringing on their liberty.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 06:53 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:54, 07 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
I don't see your problem - there it is. Whether Jefferson, Madison or whoever else would FEEL, COMMENT and OPINE out of 18th century, that something should or should not be included, is irrelevant at this stage. The times, they are a-changing, and so does constitutions, necessities, regulations, education, and about everything, and relevant is only the letter of the constitution, not what people thought over 200 years ago - they couldn't see the future..
Sorry, but I already proved what the "general welfare" clause means and it has nothing to do with stealing money from one person and giveing to another.
No, the Constituion does not just change with the times. The only way the Constitution changes is through a Constitutional ammendment.
The Constitution must be interpreted according to the orignial intent of the founders, not what liberal activist judges wish it meant.
Below is a good discussion of how to interpret the Constitution.
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 06:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, the Constituion does not just change with the times. The only way the Constitution changes is through a Constitutional ammendment.
So... it's only okay if it's amended into the constitution? What if it all eventually is?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 07:01 PM |
|
|
mvass:
thing is, most of us "socialists" are in fact supporting social democracy, not "pure" socialism. I'm not even sure whether pure socialism is an option nowadays. I guess not.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 07:05 PM |
|
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 07:08 PM |
|
|
I guess we shouldn't, true.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 08:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. None of this "decreasing the gap" nonsense. It's about public planning of industrial and agricultural policy. The government decides prices and wages.
Untrue. In fact there is no general defintion. Socialism has a lot of special historical meaning and is as well used for a plethora of ideas. Common to all of them is the purpose to create an alternative to liberal capitalism. This may include more public ownership of means of productions, but not necessarily all, since the actual goal is more "egalité". Moreover, there is no revolution involved - as in communism - which means that it is to be an evolutionary process, and evolutionary processes start somewhere.
Quote:
Quote:
1) Luxury taxes ... if you can buy a 10.000.000 luxury villa, well...
But why should you have to?
Because the individual is nothing without other people, and if you can afford buying something that only, say, 10 or less% of said society can afford, you should "give to the poor" (and pay luxury tax).
Quote:
Quote:
3) Income tax rates are MUCH too low for the really high incomes.
Too low for what?
Too low to be just.
Quote:
Quote:
The rich; they have basically all freedom they want, pay marginal sums - and get everything back, since a large part of the taxes is flwoing back to them
How's that?
How that is? The tax money is spent. Owners of means of productions make a profit. ONLY from their profit they pay taxes.
@ Elodin
Quote:
The Constitution must be interpreted according to the orignial intent of the founders, not what liberal activist judges wish it meant.
Interesting. That would be
Foundingfatherism,
which would be on the same level than Maoism.
The founding fathers are just HUMANS like everyone else.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 08:37 PM |
|
|
No, the ultimate goal of socialism is total economic equality between all people and public ownership of all the means of production.
Quote:
if you can afford buying something that only, say, 10 or less% of said society can afford, you should "give to the poor" (and pay luxury tax)
Oh? Why's that?
Quote:
Too low to be just.
Ah, social justice. AKA theft.
Quote:
How that is? The tax money is spent. Owners of means of productions make a profit. ONLY from their profit they pay taxes.
What does the spent tax money have to do with the owners of the means of production?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 08:53 PM |
|
|
@Shyranis
Quote:
So... it's only okay if it's amended into the constitution? What if it all eventually is?
Are you asking if it would be legal or if it would be moral? A law can never make theft moral.
@JJ
Quote:
Because the individual is nothing without other people, and if you can afford buying something that only, say, 10 or less% of said society can afford, you should "give to the poor" (and pay luxury tax).
Why should a person be punished simply because he buys what most others can't afford to buy?
Quote:
Too low to be just.
Why is it unjust if those with "extremely high incomes" don't pay extremely high tax rates? What makes it fair to require Bob to pay 90% of his income in taxes and Bill to only pay 10% of his income in taxes?
Quote:
Quote:
(Elodin)
The Constitution must be interpreted according to the orignial intent of the founders, not what liberal activist judges wish it meant.
(JJ)
Interesting. That would be
Foundingfatherism,
which would be on the same level than Maoism.
No, that is ludicrous. it means that the Constitution is a written document. Written documents have fixed meanings and must be taken in context. The Constitution only changes in meaning if it is amended. Perhaps you are not familiar with the process involved in amending the Constitution, but it is not through the judicial branch wishing that it said something else.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 07, 2010 11:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Shyranis
Quote:
So... it's only okay if it's amended into the constitution? What if it all eventually is?
Are you asking if it would be legal or if it would be moral? A law can never make theft moral.
So the constitution is immoral right now?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 12:05 AM |
|
|
I hardly understand how you could interpret my statement in such a light.
Stealing money from one to give to another is immoral. That provision is not to be found in the Constitution.
Quote:
To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.
-Thomas Jefferson
____________
Revelation
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 12:08 AM |
|
|
Yet stealing money from one to give to the army is completely moral.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 01:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Subconsciously manipulating people isn't infringing on their liberty.
what about nazis? did they kill by their own free will?
|
|
shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 01:43 AM |
|
|
So that Jefferson quote basically translates to "don't take from people to give to others". So why have a government at all if it cannot spend tax money?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 01:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
what about nazis? did they kill by their own free will?
Yeah, which is why many of them were rightly punished.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 02:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
So that Jefferson quote basically translates to "don't take from people to give to others". So why have a government at all if it cannot spend tax money?
You seem to not be reading what I have written. The government has the power to tax and spend for certain purposes enumerated in the Constitution.
National defnese is a legitimate duty of the federal government. Charity is not. Maybe you want to go back and read where I posted Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution as the first sentence mentions the power of the government to tax and spend to carry out the enumerated powers.
Quote:
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
-James Madison
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 02:42 AM |
|
|
Look, you guys, we're obviously not going to reach any conclusion here, so I think it's best to change the subject to something we can all agree is not only much more rational but also more interesting as well.
So Elodin.
Would you rather your son was:
a) a white supremacist
b) gay
c) muslim
d) a socialist and member of the Democratic party
e) born with two heads
Please answer as honestly as you can.
This is an important question.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 03:25 AM |
|
|
I agree. Baklava posed an important question.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 08, 2010 04:33 AM |
|
|
@Baklava
Sorry, if I answered your off-topic question I would likely be banished from the kingdom. Let us stick to the topic of socialism here.
____________
Revelation
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
