[blackoyster]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It [the type of socialist govenmenrt you are talking about] also punishes the lazy rich and protects and nurtures the hard-working poor. Socialism does things to pure capatalism like "require a fair wage" and "protect natural reasources from depletion" and "control pollution".

Actually, it gives the poor the idea that they have a right to take what they haven't earned. This is called "reaping where you have not sown" in the Word of God.

Circular reasoning. So what if the government [legally] took your money and gave it to someone else? They did it legally.

Not circular reasoning at all. Paris gets her money from her parents. They got it lawfully. The problem with goverments is that they decide, say, a new school needs to be built. SO, they make up some new tax, which often has nothing to do with their "brilliant idea", such as property tax. The people this hits the hardest are those who are single or have no kids. Why should it be Mr. or Ms. Nokids' responsibility to educate someone else's kids? So while they did it "legally", the taxation was built upon a faulty, socialistic premise.

Wow, talk about rhetoric. Could you explain, please, why there are so many people with money who are not advocating pure capatalism?

Guilt. Wanting to show their adoring public taht they're "one of the guys (or girls)". Because they want the approval of the socialist higher-ups. Remember, there is no true government socialism. Once government gets invovled, it becomes communism.

[JerryLove]

Actually, it gives the poor the idea that they have a right to take what they haven't earned. This is called "reaping where you have not sown" in the Word of God.

You mean like the apostles who, while following Jesus made no wares and grew no food and so lived off the charity of others... For that matter, Jesus had no job that I can recall.

What is "earned". Do you really think Paris Hilton has "earned" what she got? I'm sure Bill Gates is a gread guy, but do you think he's "earned" $200,000,000,000 or so?

Do you have something more than a soundbyte?

Not circular reasoning at all. Paris gets her money from her parents. They got it lawfully. The problem with goverments is that they decide, say, a new school needs to be built. SO, they make up some new tax, which often has nothing to do with their "brilliant idea", such as property tax.

Which is, by definition, lawful. Therefore the government did it lawfully (just as the Hiltons did)... which seems to be the crux of your complain. Taxation and welfare, if dony though the enaction of law (as it is), is lawful.

The people this hits the hardest are those who are single or have no kids. Why should it be Mr. or Ms. Nokids' responsibility to educate someone else's kids?

Why should people without cars pay taxes for roads? Why should a person living in the woods pay for a millitary to protect people in New York from terrorism? Why should I pay money that goes to park Rangers? I don't visit parks. I suppose, when those people with no kids are old, they should not be allowed to use the roads or hospitals subsidized by those kids they refused to pay their share of education taxes for.

Other than the absurd burden of trying to determine who is going ot use how much of what, they should because they are required to by law.

So while they did it "legally", the taxation was built upon a faulty, socialistic premise.

What faulty premise is that? I don't see a false premise used in education taxation.

Guilt. Wanting to show their adoring public taht they're "one of the guys (or girls)". Because they want the approval of the socialist higher-ups.

And can you support this rhetoric at all?

Remember, there is no true government socialism. Once government gets invovled, it becomes communism.

I would gladly remember it if it were at all true. It is, however, false. There is no economy on th eface of the Earth without government intervention... so you've just asserted that every government in existance is communist.

I don't know what you are smoking, but I gotta get me some.

[+Donny]

English defines it that way. Please feel free to resume this conversation with me when you would like to use English.

You know as well as I do that the definitions of capitalism and socialism have not been very established in this thread (ashkay, for example, seemed to suggest that capitalism was anarchy, or at least virtual anarchy). If you would consider the government being involved in the justice system and the defense of the country as partially socialist, then fine, I am in part a socialist. You either read too much into my statement, or overreacted, so I await a response to the rest of my post.

[smhatahy]

(ashkay, for example, seemed to suggest that capitalism was anarchy, or at least virtual anarchy).

which is similar to calling socialism a dictatorship

If you would consider the government being involved in the justice system and the defense of the country as partially socialist.

actually that would still be capitalist... at least in my book.

[blackoyster]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You mean like the apostles who, while following Jesus made no wares and grew no food and so lived off the charity of others... For that matter, Jesus had no job that I can recall.

There's a difference in people giving to a ministry or any other cause willingly, and people being forced to give. The forced part is what's wrong.

What is "earned". Do you really think Paris Hilton has "earned" what she got? I'm sure Bill Gates is a gread guy, but do you think he's "earned" $200,000,000,000 or so?

Bill Gates, yep, no doubt. Paris Hilton? Nope, but it doesn't matter. Someone earned it and gave it to her, namely her family. That's how things work in a free society, you put your money where you want to put it.

Which is, by definition, lawful. Therefore the government did it lawfully (just as the Hiltons did)... which seems to be the crux of your complain. Taxation and welfare, if dony though the enaction of law (as it is), is lawful.

So the Holocaust was lawful, because the German government OK'd it? How about slavery? That was OK in the US for a long time, but is it lawful, or morally correct? You're right about one thing, perhaps. If the government OK's it, it's "lawful" under that government. But lawful doesn't necessarily mean right.

Why should people without cars pay taxes for roads? Why should a person living in the woods pay for a millitary to protect people in New York from terrorism? Why should I pay money that goes to park Rangers? I don't visit parks. I suppose, when those people with no kids are old, they should not be allowed to use the roads or hospitals subsidized by those kids they refused to pay their share of education taxes for.

Your argument crumbles on this one premise: What you're talking about is the common good. Even if you don't have a car, you use something that does use the roads. The trucks that bring the food to your grocery store, if nothing else. As for terrorists, the military protects all Americans, or should, anyway. It doesn't matter if you live in a survivalist cult with Jack T. Chick and John Todd Lance in Area 51. Hospitals should not be subsidized at all.

Other than the absurd burden of trying to determine who is going ot use how much of what, they should because they are required to by law.

So we're back to everything that is lawful is good. That doesn't wash, pally.

What faulty premise is that? I don't see a false premise used in education taxation.

The false premise that it takes a village to raise a child. You should put your kids through school, and let me put mine through school. If you can't afford to, either don't have them or put them up for adoption.

And can you support this rhetoric at all?

The left controls Hollywood. I don't need to demonstrate it, because they do a fine job of demonstrating it every day. Just look at Runaway Jury, if you have any doubts.

I would gladly remember it if it were at all true. It is, however, false. There is no economy on th eface of the Earth without government intervention... so you've just asserted that every government in existance is communist.

Creating a common currency as a store of value is not communism. Nowhere did I ever make any statement to this effect. The point is, there are limits to what our government should be allowed to do, delineated in the Constitution. Unfortunately, the government hasn't abided by it for at least the last century and a half, and no one has had either the power or the guts to make them do so.

[JerryLove]

BlackOyster: Actually, it gives the poor the idea that they have a right to take what they haven't earned. This is called "reaping where you have not sown" in the Word of God.

Jerry:You mean like the apostles who, while following Jesus made no wares and grew no food and so lived off the charity of others... For that matter, Jesus had no job that I can recall.

BlackOyster: There's a difference in people giving to a ministry or any other cause willingly, and people being forced to give. The forced part is what's wrong.

You just changed topics. You were discussing the idea of reaping what they did not sow; now you are complaining about taxation. Well, as has been mentioned many times: Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's... the money does not belong to yu and therefore cannot be, as you put it "stolen" from you by the government.

Bill Gates, yep, no doubt. Paris Hilton? Nope, but it doesn't matter. Someone earned it and gave it to her, namely her family. That's how things work in a free society, you put your money where you want to put it.

Again, you have changed subjects... you were discussing the idea of someone personally taking what they did not earn... now you are discussing inherentence by family vs welfare. I worry that your inability to stay on-point is indicative of your lack of solid foundation.

So the Holocaust was lawful, because the German government OK'd it?

Actually, it was unlawful because the Allies took that power away.

How about slavery?

The Bible thinks it's lawful. Do you dispute God?

was OK in the US for a long time, but is it lawful, or morally correct? You're right about one thing, perhaps. If the government OK's it, it's "lawful" under that government. But lawful doesn't necessarily mean right.

No one said it did... but you didn't use the word "right" now did you? You kept complaining about "lawful".

Your argument crumbles on this one premise: What you're talking about is the common good. Even if you don't have a car, you use something that does use the roads. The trucks that bring the food to your grocery store, if nothing else. As for terrorists, the military protects all Americans, or should, anyway.

I grow [hypotetically] my own food in Alaska. The terrorists will not come up here to me, the invading army will not scour the wilderness to find my house and I do not need truckloads of groceries... You have not made your case that road taxes or a governental millitairy (for which I am personally taxed) does me any direct good. Not to mention that those people paying school taxes, themselves, had school available (wheather they choose to ignore the opportunity or not).

That said, welfare, unemployment, public education, pretty much everything against which you rail is there for the common good... unless you think being surrounded by a bunch of illiterate, desperate, sick, starving people with no job skills in an economy with no skilled labor will make my life better.

So we're back to everything that is lawful is good. That doesn't wash, pally.

I never said anything of the kind. You only falsely assumed I did so as to try to prop up your "argument".

The false premise that it takes a village to raise a child. You should put your kids through school, and let me put mine through school. If you can't afford to, either don't have them or put them up for adoption.

So eaither way, I should make the child I can't afford to educate someone else's burden.. but rather than a education tax, yo uthink I should dump them on the government's doorstep?

BTW, without government foster-care and orphan care; where will the child go? Not all babies get adopted. I know you want to live surrounded by uneducated, desperate hungry people that were never actually raised by anyone.. but I do not.

Fortunately, my country will outompete yours and then (unfortunately) be forced to invade (you'v essentiually made a model for Afghanistan pre-invasion).

The left controls Hollywood. I don't need to demonstrate it, because they do a fine job of demonstrating it every day. Just look at Runaway Jury, if you have any doubts.

I'm still waiting for support... which seems to be my folly... you've yet to support a single such assertion.

In fact, that's been the crux of everything I've seen you post over the past several days... I'm all for an opposing opinion but you support nothing, cite nothing and seem unable to stay on-point (even when you made the point).

[+Donny]

which is similar to calling socialism a dictatorship

...

actually that would still be capitalist... at least in my book.

I agree with both statements.