Subject:
|
Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:04:24 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@newsguy.SPAMLESScom
|
Viewed:
|
1875 times
|
| |
|
|
Simon Robinson <simon@simonrobinson.com> wrote:
> > might become poor "through no fault of their own" but there aren't
> > really that many situations in which one becomes totally broke through
> > no fault of his own.
>
> What was bogus about the scenarios?
If you read the threads you'd remember. No free goods, as Larry would
say. One in particular, though, that stands out in my mind, is the
one about the man who'd worked for a plant all his life, then suddenly
the plant closes down, he finds himself penniless, and ends up with a
horrible disease or accident and no insurance or money to pay for
care. If you can't see the many ways in which that one strikes some
of us as bogus I doubt there's any point in discussing it.
> > What you probably ignored is the basic core of what a lot of us
> > believe - what's mine is MINE and what's yours is YOURS. I have no
> > right to your stuff, you have no right to my stuff.
>
> No problems with that - I believe that as well.
>
> > Taking my stuff, either by force yourself or with the aid of some
> > governmental unit, is theft, pure and simple. I can probably deal
> > with a little theft to make sure the roads are ok, the police force is
> > well-staffed, ditto the fire department. Theft from me in order to
> > inefficiently "help" those who "through no fault of their own" are
> > poor is still theft. It's wealth transfer, and you seem to approve of
> > it, while a lot of Americans who actually *think* about things don't.
>
> OK - since you 'actually *think* about things' <grin>,
> can you explain exactly who the
> person, entity or organization is who has determined that what you have
> been nominally paid is morally entirely yours, and that none of it
> belongs to the community (as represented by the Government)?
> Is it just a vague feeling you have
> or is there some entity that has the authority to decide this and has
> so decided?
If you can work this crap into making yourself believe that I owe
portion of my taxes to pay for ridiculous social programs and foreign
aid, feel free. I can tell you right now, though, you're wasting your
time.
> I don't know anything about your personal situation, but I do know that
> if you are a normal person with a normal job, then you are in that situation
> partly due to your own efforts and partly due to the efforts of many others
> - especially of the Government - in maintaining a society in which you had
> the
> appropriate opportunities. You even acknowledge that there are
> some areas in which you benefit - such as police force, fire service
> etc. yet you still describe the money used to pay for those as 'theft'. By
> doing so you are implying that the people who work doing those jobs don't
> deserve any money for doing so (because all the money is yours).
I can and probably always will be able to accept the theft of my money
to pay for essential services like roads, police, national defense,
etc.
Things that are essential, though, are few. Things that the
government blows money on every year are many, and most of them are
worthless.
> IMO, the Government is NOT 'stealing' your money. It is simply reclaiming
> the
> portion of what you have nominally been paid, which rightfully belongs to
> it rather than to you, due to the fact that your getting that salary is only
> possible thanks to the myriad things the Government does.
> And, yes, making sure that others
> have the same opportunities you did is part of that.
I disagree. Taking money that I have EARNED out of my pocket to pay
for things for other people that they have NOT earned is theft and
wealth redistrobution. Whether those people are living in subsidized
housing, receiving food stamps, or working on some bullhockey project
in some national park to catalog types of flora and fauna, it's still
stealing from me to provide something for someone else.
> The only way you would have a case against that is if you could argue
> that the US Government is doing something really stupid or inefficient
> with a large percentage of the money. Or that it is taking so much that on
> balance it is denying rather than creating opportunities. So far the only
> figure I've seen is that someone on lugnet mentioned 27% of quite a
> fair salary. That percentage sounded quite reasonable to me.
Stupid or inefficient? Do some research - watch one of the major 3
networks 6pm news each day for the segment "Your Money". You could
spend hours each day reading about the stupid pork-barrel crap that
the government spends money on, and you wouldn't even touch things
like paying people to not work, using government money to discourage
complete families among the poor, and spending tons of money every
year to jail people who do nothing more than smoke a little dope.
--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/ (still in Beta)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Libertarianism again.
|
| was: Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep) Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in (...) I can, but none of them strike me as realistic. The scenario itself seems to be more or less believable, in the sense that it (...) (25 years ago, 31-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
