By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Screw it: secede from the Union!

akuma587 on 17 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

The government is the only one with those kinds of resources.

 

The government has no resources. All they have is power. The power to take resources from the people. I am all for that to run the country. I am very much against it to just take from one man to give to another.

Something we very much disagree on :)

Technically if the government collects any money from people and spends it someone will benefit more from it than someone else.  Are you saying that the only difference is whether the government hands someone a check rather than spend the money?

Can you explain to me one situation where the government spends money and one person doesn't benefit more from it than another?

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 17 April 2009
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

The government is the only one with those kinds of resources.

 

The government has no resources. All they have is power. The power to take resources from the people. I am all for that to run the country. I am very much against it to just take from one man to give to another.

Something we very much disagree on :)

Technically if the government collects any money from people and spends it someone will benefit more from it than someone else.  Are you saying that the only difference is whether the government hands someone a check rather than spend the money?

Can you explain to me one situation where the government spends money and one person doesn't benefit more from it than another?

 

 

So you see no difference in someone earning a dollar, and someone being given a dollar?



akuma587 on 17 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:

The government is the only one with those kinds of resources.

 

The government has no resources. All they have is power. The power to take resources from the people. I am all for that to run the country. I am very much against it to just take from one man to give to another.

Something we very much disagree on :)

Technically if the government collects any money from people and spends it someone will benefit more from it than someone else.  Are you saying that the only difference is whether the government hands someone a check rather than spend the money?

Can you explain to me one situation where the government spends money and one person doesn't benefit more from it than another?

 

 

So you see no difference in someone earning a dollar, and someone being given a dollar?

I do see the difference, but I am asking you to explain how taxing people in any way shape or form and then spending that money doesn't take from one person and give to another.  One person will always benefit more than another person when the government spends money.  Your rationale for why this shouldn't be done is flawed because it would mean that the government couldn't collect or spend any money.

Now if you want to say it isn't fair, that is something different and a rationale that can be defended.  But society decides what is fair at the ballot box unless there is a constitutional provision or statute that says otherwise.  And I would love for you to point out a constitutional provision that protects people from the government raising their taxes.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 17 April 2009
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

So you see no difference in someone earning a dollar, and someone being given a dollar?

I do see the difference, but I am asking you to explain how taxing people in any way shape or form and then spending that money doesn't take from one person and give to another.  One person will always benefit more than another person when the government spends money.  Your rationale for why this shouldn't be done is flawed because it would mean that the government couldn't collect or spend any money.

Now if you want to say it isn't fair, that is something different and a rationale that can be defended.  But society decides what is fair at the ballot box unless there is a constitutional provision or statute that says otherwise.  And I would love for you to point out a constitutional provision that protects people from the government raising their taxes.

 

When the government spends money on the Military to protect me, on police to protect me, on the FDA to make sure my food is safe, on the fire department to protect me, on roads, emergency evacuation planning, and all the other things they spend money on, they do it to benefit me. I pay for services. I pay, so I do not have to go out and build a road myself, or train how to put out a fire, or police my surroundings.

Taxes should be collected, so we can pay people to do these things for us. If applied correctly, I get as much value from that money, as the person collecting it.

It's a transfer of my time, into someone else's time, to do the day to day work of maintaining a country, so I don't have to do it.

That's vastly different, then taking my time, to give to someone else, with no transfer of value back to me.



Quickdraw McGraw on 17 April 2009
The Ghost of RubangB said:
Nobody really knows what goes on in the minds of 20 year old Halo gamers who want to secede from the union to protect the union.

This is the perfect summation of this thread. Fantastic, sir.



Around the Network
The Ghost of RubangB on 17 April 2009

I think we need a lower class to survive, so I think paying so they don't die off actually does benefit all of us.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Quickdraw McGraw on 17 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

When the government spends money on the Military to protect me, on police to protect me, on the FDA to make sure my food is safe, on the fire department to protect me, on roads, emergency evacuation planning, and all the other things they spend money on, they do it to benefit me. I pay for services. I pay, so I do not have to go out and build a road myself, or train how to put out a fire, or police my surroundings.

With this rationale - why is healthcare unreasonable? Education? The stance that healthcare is a fundamental right is as easy to defend, or more so, than any service on that list.
Why is it instantly socialism when new programs are brought into the mix?

 



akuma587 on 17 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

 

When the government spends money on the Military to protect me, on police to protect me, on the FDA to make sure my food is safe, on the fire department to protect me, on roads, emergency evacuation planning, and all the other things they spend money on, they do it to benefit me. I pay for services. I pay, so I do not have to go out and build a road myself, or train how to put out a fire, or police my surroundings.

Taxes should be collected, so we can pay people to do these things for us. If applied correctly, I get as much value from that money, as the person collecting it.

It's a transfer of my time, into someone else's time, to do the day to day work of maintaining a country, so I don't have to do it.

That's vastly different, then taking my time, to give to someone else, with no transfer of value back to me.

But don't people who have more property have more to lose if the country is unstable and there is no police power to protect their property rights?  Don't they have more of an interest in having police protection than poor people?  Shouldn't they have to pay more for that if it requires more police protection to protect their property than poorer people's property?

The same applies if there house is on fire.  Don't they have more property at stake to lose if the fire continues?  What about people who are just renting apartments that they don't actually own?  Shouldn't they have to pay less to the fire department?

And what about people who have a stronger natural immunity to bacteria and spoiled foods and toxins?  Why should they have to pay the FDA so that food is safer?  They don't benefit from those safety standards.

What about people who don't drive cars?  Why should they have to pay for roads?  What if they just walk everywhere?

What about pacifists who don't believe in wars?  Why should they have to pay for the military?

What if someone has their own private jet to escape from the country if things go wrong?  Why should they have to pay for any kind of evacuation planning?

 

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo on 17 April 2009

akuma587 said:

But don't people who have more property have more to lose if the country is unstable and there is no police power to protect their property rights?  Don't they have more of an interest in having police protection than poor people?  Shouldn't they have to pay more for that if it requires more police protection to protect their property than poorer people's property?

Flat tax takes care of this, and is constitutional.

 

akuma587 said:

The same applies if there house is on fire.  Don't they have more property at stake to lose if the fire continues?  What about people who are just renting apartments that they don't actually own?  Shouldn't they have to pay less to the fire department?

Most taxes for the fire department is paid for from property tax. Taken care of.

 

akuma587 said:

And what about people who have a stronger natural immunity to bacteria and spoiled foods and toxins?  Why should they have to pay the FDA so that food is safer?  They don't benefit from those safety standards.

You really believe this? If there were no safety standards, that a subset of people would still never get sick? Now your just arguing to argue.

 

akuma587 said:

What about people who don't drive cars?  Why should they have to pay for roads?  What if they just walk everywhere?

Gas tax. Done.

 

akuma587 said:

What about pacifists who don't believe in wars?  Why should they have to pay for the military?

I think all people believe in protection. if they don't, then what do they care if you take everything they have? They sure don't care.

 

akuma587 said:

What if someone has their own private jet to escape from the country if things go wrong?  Why should they have to pay for any kind of evacuation planning?

How are they going to get to the airport, make sure they have clear skies, get there plain gassed up... etc... they still need an evacuation plan. Some leave in cars, some in boats, and some in plains.

I do like the way some of these are just funny. You asked me how it's different to give someone money then it is to hire someone, and I explained it fairly well. Just say "I get your point", and stop this... your starting to look like someone who wants to just win an argument now.



TheRealMafoo on 17 April 2009
Quickdraw McGraw said:
TheRealMafoo said:

When the government spends money on the Military to protect me, on police to protect me, on the FDA to make sure my food is safe, on the fire department to protect me, on roads, emergency evacuation planning, and all the other things they spend money on, they do it to benefit me. I pay for services. I pay, so I do not have to go out and build a road myself, or train how to put out a fire, or police my surroundings.

With this rationale - why is healthcare unreasonable? Education? The stance that healthcare is a fundamental right is as easy to defend, or more so, than any service on that list.
Why is it instantly socialism when new programs are brought into the mix?

 

 

It's against the law for any hospital to not treat someone with a life threatening condition in the USA. Life is a right today, and we follow it.

Healthcare as you are thinking, is really more like health maintenance, and quality of life issues. Quality of life is the responsibility of the individual.

It's the governments job to protect you. It's your job to provide for you.