When Did Personal Responsibility Become More Important Than Helping Ot

[Era Might]

[quote name='tomasio127' timestamp='1352681136' post='2508294']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.

...

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).
[/quote]
Just want to highlight this. I won't argue the strengths or weaknesses of what your saying, just pointing out that you are saying that human beings cannot exist without the government, that we are helpless without the government. That's quite a profession of faith in government.

[tojo]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1352682391' post='2508312']
Just want to highlight this. I won't argue the strengths or weaknesses of what your saying, just pointing out that you are saying that human beings cannot exist without the government, that we are helpless without the government. That's quite a profession of faith in government.
[/quote]


No, human [i]civilization [/i]could not exist without government. Humans could exist, but it would be a very sad existence. I don't have much faith in government, but I have less faith in the thugs who will rob me and rub me out than in the mobsters who want protection money to keep the thugs off my back.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352681543' post='2508300']
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.
[/quote]

i love your inability to make a statement and when at all questioned about it, duck the question. i asked a simple question and you avoid the answer. why is it so hard for you to answer the question. you are against government taxation and think its wrong but instead of leave this country and their immoral taxes you choose to stay and fight. I didn't think a simple clarification of what exactly it is you do to fight the injustice was out of line. You made the statement, not i. I asked for clarification and i get stonewalled. not really helpful when your trying to make a point but when questioned about it refuse to answer questions.

[Anomaly]

[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]then I do agree.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352684327' post='2508340']
i love your inability to make a statement and when at all questioned about it, duck the question. i asked a simple question and you avoid the answer. why is it so hard for you to answer the question. you are against government taxation and think its wrong but instead of leave this country and their immoral taxes you choose to stay and fight. I didn't think a simple clarification of what exactly it is you do to fight the injustice was out of line. You made the statement, not i. I asked for clarification and i get stonewalled. not really helpful when your trying to make a point but when questioned about it refuse to answer questions.
[/quote]
The reason for your confusion is that you are refusing to grasp that, when discussing a topic like this, personal circumstances and what essentially amounts to ad hominem attacks and tu quoque accusations amount to precisely nothing.

[Era Might]

[quote name='tomasio127' timestamp='1352683947' post='2508336']No, human [i]civilization [/i]could not exist without government. Humans could exist, but it would be a very sad existence. I don't have much faith in government, but I have less faith in the thugs who will rob me and rub me out than in the mobsters who want protection money to keep the thugs off my back.
[/quote]
Your fear of "thugs" and "mobsters" is entirely subjective. One could just as legitimately enlist government to protect us against evil spirits (ala the Salem Witch Trials).

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about human civilization, just questioning your faith in your premises. Your conception of government is limited to "safety" and "freedom." But the things you fear are entirely subjective. Other people throughout history have had other fears: capitalists, heretics, barbarians, blacks, etc.

The major implied question in what you're saying: who are the "thugs"? Who defines who the thugs are? If I am not afraid of the people you are afraid of, or I do not have the fears you have, am I required to support your government?

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352684327' post='2508340']
i love your inability to make a statement and when at all questioned about it, duck the question. i asked a simple question and you avoid the answer. why is it so hard for you to answer the question. you are against government taxation and think its wrong but instead of leave this country and their immoral taxes you choose to stay and fight. I didn't think a simple clarification of what exactly it is you do to fight the injustice was out of line. You made the statement, not i. I asked for clarification and i get stonewalled. not really helpful when your trying to make a point but when questioned about it refuse to answer questions.
[/quote]
It isn't hard, at all. I don't owe you the answer, and your question was worded as a jibe, not an honest question. My answer is shove your question (guess where). You didn't want to deal with the subject, so you picked that, and worded it in the most absurd manner possible, as though I had a reality show and there was no evidence of my fighting the man in any episode.

Don't be disingenuous. Be like Freedom. She has guts.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352685279' post='2508357']

Don't be disingenuous. Be like Freedom. She has guts.
[/quote]
Not a heck of a lot else though.

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gJsg6qtJUsI/TnjIK-UBoZI/AAAAAAAAAP4/mW378g0Q504/s1600/empty_head.jpg[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

And naturally I am joking.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352685425' post='2508361']
Not a heck of a lot else though.

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-gJsg6qtJUsI/TnjIK-UBoZI/AAAAAAAAAP4/mW378g0Q504/s1600/empty_head.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

That's just mean.

[tojo]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1352685099' post='2508354']
Your fear of "thugs" and "mobsters" is entirely subjective. One could just as legitimately enlist government to protect us against evil spirits (ala the Salem Witch Trials).

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about human civilization, just questioning your faith in your premises. Your conception of government is limited to "safety" and "freedom." But the things you fear are entirely subjective. Other people throughout history have had other fears: capitalists, heretics, barbarians, blacks, etc.

The major implied question in what you're saying: who are the "thugs"? Who defines who the thugs are? If I am not afraid of the people you are afraid of, or I do not have the fears you have, am I required to support your government?
[/quote]

Well you spoke of safety and freedom and money so I'm going a long those lines. Obviously this is a much more complex issue than my posts are able to cover.

I also used "thugs" and "mobsters" in a somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" fashion, but I suspect you know that and also understand what I'm trying to say by using those terms.

The thugs are anyone who might take away ALL of our money, freedom, and/or safety with no regard for our welfare. Government is supposed to take just a portion of those things away so we can have the rest for ourselves. Government knows it is more profitable in the long run to get some wealth from us every year than to take all our wealth at once and have us unable to generate more wealth in the future.

In a brief super-simplified summary: People give a portion of their wealth to governments in order to secure the remainder of their wealth, as well as their lives and freedom, from theft by foreign armies and criminals. In order to create that security, governments establish authority over territories; practicality deems it necessary. You were born into a people in this territory that is governed by particular authorities, and much like with your parents, yes, you are obliged to support that government (to a point) until when and if you separate yourself from them by leaving their territory.

We must have greater strength in numbers than those of ill will in order to be safe and free. If you are not willing to contribute, then please leave because we have no way to withhold benefits from you so long as you're here, and so long as you are here, you do benefit and it is only just that you contribute.

(Only directed at "you" because you asked "am I required to support your government?")

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1352685013' post='2508353']
The reason for your confusion is that you are refusing to grasp that, when discussing a topic like this, personal circumstances and what essentially amounts to ad hominem attacks and tu quoque accusations amount to precisely nothing.
[/quote]

are you still jumping into this a/b conversation?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1352687428' post='2508380']

are you still jumping into this a/b conversation?
[/quote]
If all you have to contribute is nonsense, then I want to get in on it too.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352685279' post='2508357']
It isn't hard, at all. I don't owe you the answer, and your question was worded as a jibe, not an honest question. My answer is shove your question (guess where). You didn't want to deal with the subject, so you picked that, and worded it in the most absurd manner possible, as though I had a reality show and there was no evidence of my fighting the man in any episode.

Don't be disingenuous. Be like Freedom. She has guts.
[/quote]

so not answering my question. i guess we are done here.

[Era Might]

[quote name='tomasio127' timestamp='1352686460' post='2508375']
Well you spoke of safety and freedom and money so I'm going a long those lines. Obviously this is a much more complex issue than my posts are able to cover.

I also used "thugs" and "mobsters" in a somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" fashion, but I suspect you know that and also understand what I'm trying to say by using those terms.

The thugs are anyone who might take away ALL of our money, freedom, and/or safety with no regard for our welfare. Government is supposed to take just a portion of those things away so we can have the rest for ourselves. Government knows it is more profitable in the long run to get some wealth from us every year than to take all our wealth at once and have us unable to generate more wealth in the future.

In a brief super-simplified summary: People give a portion of their wealth to governments in order to secure the remainder of their wealth, as well as their lives and freedom, from theft by foreign armies and criminals. In order to create that security, governments establish authority over territories; practicality deems it necessary. You were born into a people in this territory that is governed by particular authorities, and much like with your parents, yes, you are obliged to support that government (to a point) until when and if you separate yourself from them by leaving their territory.

We must have greater strength in numbers than those of ill will in order to be safe and free. If you are not willing to contribute, then please leave because we have no way to withhold benefits from you so long as you're here, and so long as you are here, you do benefit and it is only just that you contribute.

(Only directed at "you" because you asked "am I required to support your government?")
[/quote]
You are asking me to share your premises about government. You are saying that I must contribute, well, because I was born into your premises and I should accept them.

But if I am obliged to support the government, then the government is obliged to support me. To what extent? That is the question...on both sides of the relationship. But limiting support to physical safety is quite arbitrary, as if hunger and disease and happiness were any less pressing human concerns than violence.

Thoreau explored these questions in his essay "Civil Disobedience" which I read again in honor of Election Day hehe:

[quote]The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to- for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well- is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.[/quote]

Edited November 12, 2012 by Era Might