By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
osamanobama on 29 November 2011
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:
SamuelRSmith said:
richardhutnik said:
Would it be preferable that government tax dollars go directly to charities if charities are superior for administering it, or just make it all voluntary and hope people give enough?

You can't be charitable with other people's money. As I have outlayed in this thread, if taxes were lower, fewer people would require charity, and more people would have enough money to be able to give to charity - sure, some won't, but I think most people have atleast one issue where they'd be willing to donate, especially if given a large enough disposable income.

At the end of the day, we all have a responsibility to give to charity, that is my view. However, that doesn't give me the right to steal your money and give that to charity, just because you won't if I don't.

This notion of theft only applies if the government has not made this decision as a result of the people's due will. If we, as a community, agree that such donations should be made, everyone should give their share, or give their share while they work to change that will, but abide by the system nevertheless

Now, forgive me if my comprehension is not up to scratch, here, but are you seriously arguing that it isn't theft if the majority have voted for it? Do you not care about rights at all?

People vote for all kinds of shit, especially with the right propaganda.

Well this goes back to the varying definition of "rights" at the end of the day. But as with most of our supposedly inalienable rights, they only extend so far. Even if we are to entertain the idea that private property is inalienable, that should not quench the notion that private property can be curtailed in extreme scenarios (e.g. excessive wealth) or in small doses across the board, much like so many elements of the Bill of Rights are undermined, and yet these underminings are accepted (can't create a clear and present danger with free speech, the right to own assault weapons is not protected, etc.). My point is not that the government can get away with these things, but that they are tolerated because we have common sense in our applications of rights.

The right to private property and against slavery is, at its moral foundation, meant to stop the government from crushing the middle and underclass, not meant to keep the government from taking Mr. Howe's third yacht.

so who should be the overlord determining if you have to much wealth or not. who are you or anyone else to decide if someone has too much money.

 

as for the right to own an "assault weapon" not being protected, that is  flase. and the term "assault weapon" is erroneous in it self. any weapon can be an assault weapons, they are all assault weapons. and we do have the right to have, much to liberals disdain.