Good points. What the US needs and would turn fascist for is oil, as much of our high standard of living has a basis in oil. I think a lot of our monkeying around in the middle east over the years has been to have access to it. Do we cross the line to being fascist? Not in my opinion. But good, thought provoking discussion.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Good points. What the US needs and would turn fascist for is oil, as much of our high standard of living has a basis in oil. I think a lot of our monkeying around in the middle east over the years has been to have access to it. Do we cross the line to being fascist? Not in my opinion. But good, thought provoking discussion.

Well, it was stated that governments are intrinsically evil.

I disagree heavily. Now, what I'm going to say is SURE to piss people off...

So here goes:

The US government is a product of it's own society. You cannot blame AN ELECTED government for making the policy changes that it does. You *CAN* vote them back out. Now, if the government incumbent is doing something sneaky to stay in... That's a bit of a different story. I have real problems with the Bush administration. I make no secret of it.

The problem I find is the US citizenship don't really have a good idea of what they are doing when they vote. In the states, you vote for a representative to your area. The Electoral college thingy. We have the same thing in Canada. However, US politics have sunk to the point where the representatives have little or no interest in the (er) interests of their electorate, but rather have to conform to the party at large.

Which means that it doesn't matter how moderate or extreme your representative is, he's going to hop when the PARTY says "frog"

And yes, its getting to be the same up here.

IMHO, that's a BFMW (big f***ing monkey wrench) in the democratic process. It removes politics from the PEOPLE. Which is the whole point of democracy

The concept of lobbyist makes me froth at the mouth, so I won't even get into it

The thing is, I'm not so sure that the American people quite understood what they got into when they elected GW for the second time. The economy is nose-diving, jobs are being lost... Basically to pay for (IMHO) a superfluous war. Bush's policies are definitely swinging in the facist direction. The question is how far will everyone tolerate it? A good leader moderates himself in his actions. To date, I haven't seen George Bush NOT do anything he wanted to do. But hey, he can reap what he sows.

(IF after 4 years, the US economy is stronger than ever, relative peace, and unemployment on the sharp decline, I will CHEERFULLY eat crow. To date, though, my predictions (economic, political) about his term have come true.)

Ok, I wandered a little... Sorry

It isn't enough to excuse a heavy facist swing by saying that need justifies the end. A concientious restructuring of government to a pure capitalist of technocratic system would easily provide the US with it's energy and resource needs. The current system seems to focus on the here-and-now with no real long-term strategy.

Face it, Oil is NOT a renewable resource. No amount of political tapdancing will change that fact. Americans need to wean themselves OFF the barrel, not dig themselves deeper. Just because the end isn't within our generation is no reason to squander it. Things like the Kyoto protocol (flawed as it is) give possible solutions. But they ask for sacrifice in return. Ironically, oil prices would go DOWN if the demand for it fell. So in a way, it IS possible to have the best of both worlds, as long as there is compromise.

Left or right wing, in the long run it doesn't matter. People get born, grow up, get married (or whatever), have children and die. The difference is the quality of life that you enjoy. NOTHING is gained by being inflexible and obstinate in your views. This is the reason why facists fall, and communism collapses. Neither extreme left nor extreme right has any chance of long-term survival.

Is America becoming a fascist nation? Possibly. Personally, I'd say America is becoming a socialist nation. This is what happens with extremism. The extreme right leans toward fascism, the extreme left towards socialism.

The following was written by Walter E. William:

***

According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

***

------------------
- Liberty in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.org -
- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin - How Big Do You Want Your TV to Be? " TARGET=_blank>http://www.LumenLab.com/-

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Is America becoming a fascist nation? Possibly. Personally, I'd say America is becoming a socialist nation. This is what happens with extremism. The extreme right leans toward fascism, the extreme left towards socialism.

I disagree totally with that article. So, I'm going to pick it apart

quote According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution. It's not just left-wingers and Democrats who call for and admire socialism but right-wingers and Republicans as well.

The marxist school of thought isn't through forceful redistribution of wealth as the McCarthyists would have you believe. Marx envisioned a world where people gave up their possessions FREELY, to be free of the evils of greed and poverty. The problem is, people are coniving bastards. Communism works fine with ants and bees, but not with sentient animals with an innate desire to accumulate. Even from childhood, humans have the need to get more. Or have you never seen a 2 year old throw a tantrum for a favored toy?

quote Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

This doesn't make a lot of sense. Social program funding has traditionally always been a low priority when election day was over, and it was time to hit the books. What William fails to understand is that (and I stress) REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS CRITICAL TO ALL FORMS OF CIVILIZATION Without redistribution of wealth, everyone would still be hunter-gatherers. William is an ignorant fool.

quote Regardless of the purpose, such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all, what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, Social Security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

God, it keeps coming

So, how exactly does William propose to pay for ANY government functions? Taxation is a necessary evil. Evil only 'cos they are taking my money. William is of the school of thought that EVERYONE deserves the place they are at. IOW, if you are poor, it is because you are lazy and stupid. If you weren't you'd be rich. Black and white. Cut and dried.

quote The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

crap...crap...crap... it just keeps pouring out. WHERE would the government get the money if not from taxation? Can't see the forest for the trees. William is indirectly pointing at the only government system (hehehe) that would function under his ideal conditions; Anarchy. You don't have to pay taxes, and there are no social programs. Just you, your neighbor, and an axe-handle.

quote Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Great... So now he's equating taxation and social programs to the holocaust? I mean, COME ON, I'm paying WAY more taxes than he is... Don't see ME fire-roasting jews :S

quote Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... Marxism/Socialism isn't about coercion, it's about charity at ALL levels. It's only a bad idea because people are corruptible. NOT because the system is inherently evil.... It's just inherently flawed. Pure marxism treats EVERYONE equally. Marx's beef was with the idea that the shop forman was paid more wages than the poor bugger actually doing the work. Marx had a problem with the idea that your wage did not increase proportionally to how hard you worked. Under a Marxist government EVERYONE would have every opportunity to realize their full potential. Again, unfortunately, this went the same for power-hungry manipulators.

quote An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Blah. blah. blah. Repeat, repeat, repeat.... I think this guy got audited, and is just bitter. Hire a better accountant next time...

quote For the Christians among us, socialism and the welfare state must be seen as sinful. When God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless there's a majority vote. And I'm sure that if you asked God if it's OK just being a recipient of stolen property, He would deem that a sin as well.

William is a fool for bringing commandments into the equation. it's totally out of context, and just stupid. The bible makes a big deal about giving to the poor and less fortunate. Which is more or less what socialism is about; Everything you do was for the good of your society, not your bankroll.

[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 11-25-2004).]

Well said, Mach 10.

that was pretty impressive Mach10

Nice reply

quote The problem is, people are coniving bastards. Communism works fine with ants and bees, but not with sentient animals with an innate desire to accumulate. Even from childhood, humans have the need to get more. Or have you never seen a 2 year old throw a tantrum for a favored toy?

Right, everyone’s evil. Gotcha.

quote This doesn't make a lot of sense. Social program funding has traditionally always been a low priority when election day was over, and it was time to hit the books. What William fails to understand is that (and I stress) REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IS CRITICAL TO ALL FORMS OF CIVILIZATION Without redistribution of wealth, everyone would still be hunter-gatherers. William is an ignorant fool.

You missed the point. He didn’t say redistribution of wealth was unnecessary , or even wrong. What he said was that the abuse of the tax code has been given euphemisms such as “redistribution of wealth” as a means to hide the theft.

quote So, how exactly does William propose to pay for ANY government functions? Taxation is a necessary evil. Evil only 'cos they are taking my money.

I agree that taxation is necessary. Excess taxation to pay for excess (and failing, I might add) social programs is not only unnecessary, but, as Williams states, theft.

quote William is of the school of thought that EVERYONE deserves the place they are at. IOW, if you are poor, it is because you are lazy and stupid. If you weren't you'd be rich. Black and white. Cut and dried.

Hmm, you must have read a different article than I did. I’d say that’s an unfair assumption to make.

quote crap...crap...crap... it just keeps pouring out.

funny, I was beginning to think the same about your argument.

quote WHERE would the government get the money if not from taxation? Can't see the forest for the trees. William is indirectly pointing at the only government system (hehehe) that would function under his ideal conditions; Anarchy. You don't have to pay taxes, and there are no social programs. Just you, your neighbor, and an axe-handle.

Again, I didn’t read “all taxation is slavery”. Merely, taxation for the express purpose of social programs.

quote Great... So now he's equating taxation and social programs to the holocaust? I mean, COME ON, I'm paying WAY more taxes than he is... Don't see ME fire-roasting jews :S

Out of context again. what he said was “Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral” The holocaust was ‘legal’ in the Germans eyes, was it not?

quote wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong... Marxism/Socialism isn't about coercion, it's about charity at ALL levels. It's only a bad idea because people are corruptible. NOT because the system is inherently evil.... It's just inherently flawed. Pure marxism treats EVERYONE equally.

wow, finally something we agree on.

quote Marx's beef was with the idea that the shop forman was paid more wages than the poor bugger actually doing the work. Marx had a problem with the idea that your wage did not increase proportionally to how hard you worked. Under a Marxist government EVERYONE would have every opportunity to realize their full potential. Again, unfortunately, this went the same for power-hungry manipulators.

Hmm, let’s not forget Marx’ most well known quote “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. This has little to do with equality. What that statement implies is those that have the ability, do. Those that have the need, get. Both Communism and Socialism in theory are utopian systems, where everyone is equal. But in practice, they just don’t work. You say its because man is inherently evil and corruptible. I disagree. I say its because it holds those with ability at a higher standard than those with need.

I now live in Oklahoma. I moved here five years ago from California. In California I was being taxed and worked to death. I had a <$20,000 income, paid huge amounts in taxes, yet somehow made ‘too much’ to gain access to any CA social program. While I lived in squalor trying to make ends meet, my neighbor, my fellow man, with his great ‘need’ bought $100 basketball shoes for his children with money from the state WIC program, ate free everyday with money from the state EBT program, and collected unemployent and disability besides. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, indeed.

Also, your ‘poor bugger’ in the shop may be working harder, in the ‘back breaking’ sense. But a foreman has administrative duties that may be beyond the ‘bugger’s’ mental capacity. Is the foreman then entitled to less just because he sweats less?

quote Blah. blah. blah. Repeat, repeat, repeat.... I think this guy got audited, and is just bitter. Hire a better accountant next time...

and the sarcasm continues...

quote William is a fool for bringing commandments into the equation. it's totally out of context, and just stupid. The bible makes a big deal about giving to the poor and less fortunate.

Yes, it does. the operative word being “give” to the poor, out of your own pocket. not steal for the poor. I don’t believe the reference to the 10 commandments was out of context at all.

Well, it seems we disagree on just about everything. All I can say is its a good thing you’re in Canada and have no bearing on future US elections.

Peace out!

------------------
- Liberty in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.org -
- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin - How Big Do You Want Your TV to Be? <A Class="HTMLBodyLink" HREF="http://www.LumenLab.com/-
" TARGET=_blank>http://www.LumenLab.com/-
</A>

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-25-2004).]

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Yes, it does. the operative word being “give” to the poor, out of your own pocket. not steal for the poor. I don’t believe the reference to the 10 commandments was out of context at all. Well, it seems we disagree on just about everything. All I can say is its a good thing you’re in Canada and have no bearing on future US elections. Peace out!

I'm not gonna copy-paste the quotes, since it'll fluff the post a bit too much. Forgive me if I miss any points.

In order, top to bottom:

1)
No, not evil. But everyone is on the lookout for their own interests. Breakdown of communist society begins when the old lady gets paranoid and starts hoarding her medication. Evil? No. But eventually you have a lady who has more medication than her neighbor. And so on, and so forth.

2) Taxation is not theft if it is law. Plain and simple. William does not offer a distinction between tax dollars spent on law-enforcement (for example) or on social programs, except for a vague "it's theft" label. And as far as editorials go, he doesn't offer any possible solution, nor does he set a line at which it IS abuse. In short, the article (and I use the term loosely) is basically inflammatory trash. So you'll forgive my sarcasm... Never mind the fact that I'm a terminal cynic. He's quick to demonize the system in place (which I might add is not light-years-away-different from any other 1st world or industrial company) without any real logical following in his argument.

Granted, the concept of "theft" varies from culture to culture, as most certainly is the concept of "redistribution of wealth." The difference is that "theft" is taking of something away from somebody ILLEGALLY and by force or guile. If it's the law, it cannot possibly be theft. You don't like it? You're in a democracy. Vote somebody in that will change the law.

3) The trouble is that your definition of "excess" isn't well defined. Neither is William's. Diversion of government money to social programs is NOT theft. Any problems associated WITH that social program is mutually exclusive. If you were--for example--to fix the social problems, it would no longer fall under William's definition of theft, because William appears to be qualifying that statement with the end-result. Is the American social program system faulty? Absolutely. It is vastly under-funded (yes, UNDER funded) and what money IS going into it is going in all kinds of goofy directions. That doesn't make the money stolen; It makes it mis-used. Kind of like using a steak-knife as a screwdriver. Doesn't mean that the screw is being used wrong.

4) No, I'd say it is a perfectly good assumption to make, based on the fact that he does NOT differentiate between those that NEED the social programs to survive (for whatever reason) and those misappropriating. I think that speaks volumes. If you interpret it differently, offer some evidence to the contrary.

5) hehehe... But *I* wrote more than a couple lines per item Whatever, we can agree to disagree. But you CANNOT tell me not to be sarcastic

6) You can't make that distinction. You can't say that someone only HALF stole something. Nor can you say that you are half-enslaved. His argument just doesn't doesn't hold. The government either stole the entire thing or it didn't. You can't get mugged, have a $20 bill stolen, then charge him for stealing only the $6 he used to buy booze (the rest going to his family). Well, actually, you probably could... But it wouldn't make a lot of sense

7) But we're talking a HUGE range of extremes. Hyperbole is the sign of the sarcastic, or those with a feeble argument. You can't compare social programs to apartheid just because some jackass next door is milking the system.

8)

9)Right, so a person next to you was milking the system for what it's worth, therefore it renders the whole system faulty. It's a logical fallacy. It's the same thing as having a friend die in an airplane accident, and then travelling across the city on a motorcycle because you don't know anyone who's put down a bike on the highway.

Yeah, it's SHITTY that that dog-f***er managed to clean up shop with his WIC. But it doesn't mean the system should be halted. Remember, you'll only ever hear about the horror stories, since the people for whom WIC is designed for don't stay on it long, and don't usually complain.

Actually, that brings a thought to mind. You haven't stated what that guy next door's issue was? That implies that you don't know. Was he injured at work? What if he made 4x as much as you did until something went wrong? Since he paid taxes for those years (and if he's being payed Unemployment it's definitely implied), why exactly ISN'T he entitled to reap those benefits? What if he was a structural engineer, working for $120,000 per year until some jackass broke his back with a crane? Should he be reduced to squalor just because you have trouble making ends meet? Why should his standard of living be reduced due to something beyond his control? A good WIC program would treat each case individually.

Of course, if he's a deadbeat, he deserves to be kicked off the system (or severly reigned back)

If you pay your taxes, you are ENTITLED to those benefits if you need them. That's the whole point.

On a side note, "Social Program" funding in the states also pays out to:
-Long term disability (those who CANNOT work, ever. What, should they be forced to live under a bridge?)
-Veteran Benefits
-Medical care for poor

But of course, those are evil too, right?

[This message has been edited by Mach10 (edited 11-26-2004).]

quote It's a logical fallacy

Okay... but you started it.

Nice argument, but I’m going to poke some holes of my own, mm-kay?

quote 1) No, not evil. But everyone is on the lookout for their own interests. Breakdown of communist society begins when the old lady gets paranoid and starts hoarding her medication. Evil? No. But eventually you have a lady who has more medication than her neighbor. And so on, and so forth.

Fallacy: Slippery Slope.

quote 2) Taxation is not theft if it is law. Plain and simple... Granted, the concept of "theft" varies from culture to culture, as most certainly is the concept of "redistribution of wealth." The difference is that "theft" is taking of something away from somebody ILLEGALLY and by force or guile. If it's the law, it cannot possibly be theft.

theft
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e.

1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Yes, it does say felonious. But I could argue semantics on that one by taking you back to the Hitler analogy you don’t like. Just because its legal, doesn’t mean its moral. I guess the term more suited to the true nature of taxes for social programs is extortion:

extortion
\Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.] 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.

2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.

3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.

Syn: Oppression; rapacity; exaction; overcharge.

quote You don't like it? You're in a democracy. Vote somebody in that will change the law.

Fallacy: Get Out Fallacy (a version of a Red Herring Fallacy. for example “If you don’t like it, move to Russia. etc.)

quote 4) No, I'd say it is a perfectly good assumption to make, based on the fact that he does NOT differentiate between those that NEED the social programs to survive (for whatever reason) and those misappropriating. I think that speaks volumes. If you interpret it differently, offer some evidence to the contrary.

Fallacy: Negative Proof Fallacy (if you can’t prove me wrong, then I must be right)

Okay nether do these:

United States Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

United States Constitution

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States (emphasis mine)

However, they at least point out that all burdens should be equal. Those with need in a socialist society are not burdened equally.

quote Whatever, we can agree to disagree. But you CANNOT tell me not to be sarcastic

You’re right. I can’t. But I can continue with what you started by pointing out:
Fallacy: Humor Fallacy. (Humor fallacy keeps people ‘in their place’ by making them the subject of derision and scorn.)

quote 7) But we're talking a HUGE range of extremes. Hyperbole is the sign of the sarcastic, or those with a feeble argument. You can't compare social programs to apartheid just because some jackass next door is milking the system.

Well, you’d be right, because it would end up being a Slippery Slope Fallacy, if there were not real world Communist/socialist failures to point to as examples. My wife’s Russian, I’ve spent a great deal of time studying communism lately.

quote 9)Right, so a person next to you was milking the system for what it's worth, therefore it renders the whole system faulty. It's a logical fallacy. It's the same thing as having a friend die in an airplane accident, and then travelling across the city on a motorcycle because you don't know anyone who's put down a bike on the highway.

That is the weirdest analogy I’ve ever seen. I’m not even sure where to go with that...

quote Yeah, it's SHITTY that that dog-f***er managed to clean up shop with his WIC. But it doesn't mean the system should be halted.

I find it telling that you latched on to my example (which was rhetorical, BTW. I had several neighbors abusing the CA welfare program growing up, the example was really an amalgamation) rather than address the major downfall of communism/socialism. As I said earlier:

***

Hmm, let’s not forget Marx’ most well known quote “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. This has little to do with equality. What that statement implies is those that have the ability, do. Those that have the need, get. Both Communism and Socialism in theory are utopian systems, where everyone is equal. But in practice, they just don’t work. You say its because man is inherently evil and corruptible. I disagree. I say its because it holds those with ability at a higher standard than those with need.

Also, your ‘poor bugger’ in the shop may be working harder, in the ‘back breaking’ sense. But a foreman has administrative duties that may be beyond the ‘bugger’s’ mental capacity. Is the foreman then entitled to less just because he sweats less?

***

quote On a side note, "Social Program" funding in the states also pays out to: -Long term disability (those who CANNOT work, ever. What, should they be forced to live under a bridge?) -Veteran Benefits -Medical care for poor

Fallacy: Appealing to Pity and/or Vanity. ("Those poor children!" or "You‘re kind enough not want them to live under a bridge, right?")

quote But of course, those are evil too, right?

Evil? No. But not my problem. Let me be as clear as I can be on this issue. I am a Christian. I believe it is my duty as a Christian to take care of those less fortunate than myself. To that end I have or still do 1) Donate to the United Way, YMCA, Habitat for Humanity, in addition to local Church functions 2) Volunteer my time with the BSA (Including keeping the Scouting for Food program running on the local level even after they decided to scrap it at the Council level) 3) Raised money for the orphanage in Yaraslov (Tulsa’s sister city in Russia)

With that said, it is my duty as a Christian, not a citizen. Ayn Rand said it best when she said (paraphrasing) “Charity at the point of a gun ceases to be charity, and becomes extortion.” Nowhere in our foundation as a nation did we guarantee the right of our citizens to be happy, merely the right to be free to pursue happiness. It is not the governments place to provide for the less fortunate, nor is it the individual taxpayer’s duty. The Duty lies only in those who feel it in their hearts. That is the essence of altruism, doing for others even though you don’t have to.

------------------
- Liberty in our lifetime: http://www.freestateproject.org -
- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin - How Big Do You Want Your TV to Be? http://www.LumenLab.com/-

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-29-2004).]