When Did Personal Responsibility Become More Important Than Helping Ot

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352670450' post='2508213']
In what world is this relevant as to whether or not what he is saying is correct?
That is like me prefacing every single religious debate by asking how many times the other party has been to Mass in the last month.
[/quote]

Its relevent since HE said he was staying and fighting. So unless i am unallowed to question all who make statements, i guess my question is relevent.

Next time, read the entire topic before you jump in and say something like you did.

Edited November 11, 2012 by havok579257

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352672057' post='2508218']
Its relevent since HE said he was staying and fighting. So unless i am unallowed to question all who make statements, i guess my question is relevent.

Next time, read the entire topic before you jump in and say something like you did.
[/quote]
Dude, perhaps you should step back and take a couple deep breaths. I have been reading this thread from the start, not that I need to justify myself to you.

[tojo]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1352663938' post='2508185']
And if I don't want the military to ensure my safety and freedoms, and would rather ensure it myself, can I withhold my tax money from the military? Why should I take a handout for my safety and freedom and not for my bread and butter?
[/quote]

Whether you like it or not, the military, police, fire departments, etc ARE doing substantial work to ensure your safety, along with that of all others in our country (they could do better but without them it would be FAR worse). They cannot work to secure the safety of everyone around you with out also ensuring yours. Since they cannot provide this service without providing it to everyone, and everyone benefits from it, everyone must pay for it.

You should "take a handout for my safety and freedom and not for my bread and butter" because our government cannot "handout" safety to everyone but you, but they can pick and choose who to hand-out bread and butter to. Regardless of who that should be to, and how much they should get, which is debatable, it can be done without being done for everyone.

Edited November 11, 2012 by tomasio127

[Era Might]

[quote name='tomasio127' timestamp='1352672363' post='2508221']
Whether you like it or not, the military, police, fire departments, etc ARE doing substantial work to ensure your safety, along with that of all others in our country (they could do better but without them it would be FAR worse). They cannot work to secure the safety of everyone around you with out also ensuring yours. Since they cannot provide this service without providing it to everyone, and everyone benefits from it, everyone must pay for it.

You should "take a handout for my safety and freedom and not for my bread and butter" because our government cannot "handout" safety to everyone but you, but they can pick and choose who to hand-out bread and butter too. Regardless of who that should be to, and how much they should get, which is debatable, it can be done without being done for everyone.
[/quote]
If the government does not exist to secure our bodily needs, why should it exist to secure our safety and freedom?

If it's wrong to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (any taxes) are wrong. If you're going to accept taxation, then by definition you are accepting the redistribution of wealth, and the rest of the discussion is just a matter of how much wealth you want to confiscate and distribute.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Era Might

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352672287' post='2508220']
Dude, perhaps you should step back and take a couple deep breaths. I have been reading this thread from the start, not that I need to justify myself to you.
[/quote]


my question was relevent. so if you've been reading the tread what exactly is your problem with my question?

[Nihil Obstat]

It actually is pretty [i]ir[/i]relevant, in a logical sense. I do hope you can see that.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352677263' post='2508262']
It actually is pretty [i]ir[/i]relevant, in a logical sense. I do hope you can see that.
[/quote]


your question? i would agree since my first question was not directed at you yet you chose to jump in.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1352673016' post='2508224']

If the government does not exist to secure our bodily needs, why should it exist to secure our safety and freedom?

If it's wrong to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (any taxes) are wrong. If you're going to accept taxation, then by definition you are accepting the redistribution of wealth, and the rest of the discussion is just a matter of how much wealth you want to confiscate and distribute.
[/quote]i feel dizzy. I almost never agree with Era's views in society, but I don't seem to see anything I would disagree with in these last few posts.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352677551' post='2508263']


your question? i would agree since my first question was not directed at you yet you chose to jump in.
[/quote]
You really do need to step back and take a couple breaths.

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1352678557' post='2508269']
i feel dizzy. I almost never agree with Era's views in society, but I don't seem to see anything I would disagree with in these last few posts.
[/quote]
To clarify what you said here: You agree with the immorality of taxation?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352679047' post='2508274']
To clarify what you said here: You agree with the immorality of taxation?
[/quote]I misread Era's post.

I don't think taxes are immoral as long as the populace has say, majority rules. It does need conversation of how much and for what and who. It's part of the baggage we drag along with a sophisticated and imperfect society.

Edited November 12, 2012 by Anomaly

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1352679988' post='2508279']
I misread Era's post.

I don't think taxes are immoral as long as the populace has say, majority rules. It does need conversation of how much and for what and who. It's part of the baggage we drag along with a sophisticated and imperfect society.
[/quote]
Ah, ok. Glad I got the clarification.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352679047' post='2508274']To clarify what you said here: You agree with the immorality of taxation?
[/quote]
I wasn't saying that taxation is immoral, just that it is a redistribution of wealth. If I did believe that redistribution of wealth were immoral, then I would have to be opposed to all taxes. My point was about the nature of taxation, not a judgment on whether it is moral or not.

[tojo]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1352673016' post='2508224']
If the government does not exist to secure our bodily needs, why should it exist to secure our safety and freedom?

If it's wrong to take money from someone and give it to someone else, then taxes (any taxes) are wrong. If you're going to accept taxation, then by definition you are accepting the redistribution of wealth, and the rest of the discussion is just a matter of how much wealth you want to confiscate and distribute.
[/quote]

The government should exist to secure our safety and freedom because we cannot do so on our own, while most people are able to secure their own bodily means when they are safe and free.

If the government didn't exist to take some of your wealth to secure your safety and freedom, someone else would violate your safety and freedom to take all of your wealth, and possibly end your life. You might be able to fight many of them off, but eventually someone would likely get the better of you. Even if they didn't, you would have far less safety and freedom and wealth because you would have to fight all the time to keep what you had, rather than being able to build up more.

In a world where people will gang up to oppress others, people decide to form huge gangs to oppress everyone, in efforts to do it equally. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice if everyone would respect each other, and everyone would work hard if they could, and give generously to those unable.... but that's practically heaven on earth and that's not our reality.

So yes, that is a redistribution of wealth, but that's wealth most people wouldn't have if the government wasn't stopping people from taking all of it from us by making us pay some of it to them (the government).

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352669336' post='2508208']
please enlighten us what fighting you are actively doing.
[/quote]
For some reason, I don't feel the need to justify myself to you. Address what I've said or don't. You've chosen to pick something out of my paragraph and say "you must have missed" actions you would have no means of observing. That's stupid. You might as well say "I must have missed the part where you wipe your butt after taking a dump." You've also never seen me catch a hummingbird with my bare hands, a feat of which I am quite proud. But you missed it. See, what you intended to do was insult me, but you really revealed (once again) your stunning inability to stay on target. Great job, Porkins.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1352680865' post='2508289']
I wasn't saying that taxation is immoral, just that it is a redistribution of wealth. If I did believe that redistribution of wealth were immoral, then I would have to be opposed to all taxes. My point was about the nature of taxation, not a judgment on whether it is moral or not.
[/quote]
Good point. I forgot you are a dirty marxist.