By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thranx on 20 June 2012
Edit Thread
Aielyn said:
thranx said:
Than why not force people into labor camps? they aren't doing their part if they aren't wortking are they? Why not force people who burden the health care system to change their diets? they aren't doing their part to help the society if they are using all of the medical resources. Why not force people into the army or police force? they aren't doing their part to help society if they aren't protecting others and puting their lives at risk.

I think we have differnet views of the government. In my view the governmnet is not there to hold your hand from cradle to grave, rather it is there to protect you from other people.

 

And demanding that people part with what they work for instead of working for yor own is ludacris. Why should i work when i can get others to do it for me seems to be your view.

Yeah.... the argument stops right here. If you're going to throw such absurd, ignorant, arrogant, bullshit at me like that, then why the hell should I waste my time continuing what had, until now, been a relatively reasonable debate?

If you would actually compare having a portion of your income used by the government to do things that help not just you, but everyone else around you, in a way that no one individual would do on their own, to forcing people into labour camps and into the army, then there's really no help for you.

And I not once said that other people should pay instead of me. Indeed, that's YOUR argument - that people who feel that keeping society running should be choosing to give up their money, while those who aren't as concerned should get to keep all of their money. In other words, conservatives want only liberals to pay for all of those wonderful things that government actually does for them, like subsidies, road construction/maintenance, KEEPING THE ENTIRE COUNTRY RUNNING.

And for the record, the word is "ludicrous", not "ludacris". Ludacris is a rapper and an actor.

Now, when you're willing to be reasonable, we'll return to actually continuing the debate. But I expect some sort of recognition, first, that you went way beyond reasonability.

Are you not argueing that some poeple should pay more than others, ie the rich should have taxes raised? The government should stick to what the private secotr can not reasonbly supply, which would be a police/fire force, a judicail system, and an army to protect the people. Everything else should be left to private secotr that has incentives to increase productivity. Instead of the government where the incentive is to get the most money for your department. It would be a different story if the US government was capable of spening tax payer money well. But they don't, its wasted all over tha place so its best they don't have it. I am allways reasonable. Just because you dont agree with my veiwpoint does not make it unreasonable. Taking peoples money is the same as forcing them to do things, it removes their ability to make choices with their money. If the reasoning for doing so is for the btterment of the country, they why not take it a step further. Where do you draw the line?