bpwallace49 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 See, you don't get it either. Just because you can get 51% of the vote to do something doesn't make it right. Like in my example to detlef, if the gov't votes to take all of "beauty princess" wallace's income and make him a sex slave to Che Guevera, that doesn't make it right. There are some things a government has no right, authority or business voting on. When the gov't gets into those areas, IMO, the use of force is justified to protect those rights (we're talking theoretically/academically here) because force is the only way the state can enforce its illegitimate edict. And the only way the sovereign individual can retain their rights. Can you not see that? Sooo you have a problem with democracy . . . and should probably not live here then. You DO have that choice too . . . Like it or not freedom fighter . . we live in a democracy where mob rule is the constant. Dont like it? Move or start your own short, bitter, violent and ultimately futile revolution against the USA. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong either. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 when the founders talked about rights being inherent, or god-given, they were describing the way they felt government OUGHT to be. obviously the rights to life, liberty, property CAN be taken away by an oppressive government -- and in the course of human history, they seem to be absent far more often than not, to varying degrees. rights are something we have to be vigilant to protect, we don't just have them because someone else says we do. as far as parsing the semantic difference between "rights" and "privileges"....I dunno, I can't really think of any clear, meaningful dividing lines. I'll just say that I think BOTH terms are overused, and neither is appropriately tied to corresponding responsibilities often enough, IMO. I don't think a material benefit people are or feel somehow entitled to is really a right OR a privilege. privileges and especially rights, as I see them, have more to do with the power relationship between the individual and his government than they do to any perceived entitlement to material benefit. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 No, I support repackaging them as insurance. Is it welfare when you claim on your insurance? No, when you force everyone to pay for something on which the benefit is means tested. That is a transfer payment, or in the general vernacular, welfare. It's not welfare on MY insurance because I choose to buy it or not. Fedgov doesn't force me to "contribute" at the point of a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Sooo you have a problem with democracy . . . and should probably not live here then. You DO have that choice too . . . Like it or not freedom fighter . . we live in a democracy where mob rule is the constant. Dont like it? Move or start your own short, bitter, violent and ultimately futile revolution against the USA. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong either. . . We are not nor were we ever intended to be a democracy. Democracy is the rule of man. We are a republic, and republicanism (small "r") is distinguished by the rule of law being paramount. This is 8th grade civics dude. And I'm not getting wound up in semantics - there's a HUGH difference. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Question: are you saying everyone actually pays into the "repackaged insurance"? ...because if not, all you did was relabel welfare. No, he is saying everyone is forced (at the point of a gun) to pay into the "insurance". But he's also saying if you made good decisions and socked some wealth away then they "means test" you to see if you get to participate in the retirement pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Sooo you have a problem with democracy . . . and should probably not live here then. You DO have that choice too . . . Like it or not freedom fighter . . we live in a democracy where mob rule is the constant. Dont like it? Move or start your own short, bitter, violent and ultimately futile revolution against the USA. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong either. . . Go read the Federalist #10, momo. I'd usually say re-read but it's clear you haven't read it in the first place. For someone who's so active in the political threads - wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Go read the Federalist #10, momo. I'd usually say re-read but it's clear you haven't read it in the first place. For someone who's so active in the political threads - wow. Momo this is towards a desired conclusion after his response. Be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Question: are you saying everyone actually pays into the "repackaged insurance"? Yes. Should. No, when you force everyone to pay for something on which the benefit is means tested. That is a transfer payment, or in the general vernacular, welfare. It's not welfare on MY insurance because I choose to buy it or not. Fedgov doesn't force me to "contribute" at the point of a gun. Your mortgage company didn't care if you got insurance or not? Whatever, it is not welfare to expect all to contribute to a fund that would only need to be used in extremis. My concept of SS has been repeated several times before so I'll spare you but I see it as a resource of last resort rather than first resort. Universal benefits are the very definition of welfare since, by definition, they go to those that don't need them, exactly like farm subsidies for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) and if you don't pay the fine? just drawing your argument out to it's logical conclusion. its kind of like car insurance. you HAVE to pay or you get fined and/or lose your license. somebody w/o car insurance can cause a crazy amount of cost for others. seems like the same thing - except a person can chose not to drive - they can't however chose not to have their body break down, even with the best diet and exercize. edited to add: and for all the folk who might say - what if I agree never to go to a hospital/doctor if I can not pay every cent of it - its a silly thought. Just look at women who talk about having natural child birth - but give in when the pain hits. there aren't too many people who could actually follow through with this if they got cancer or got into a bad car accident - and we as Americans - as HUMANS would need to help them Edited March 26, 2010 by Duchess Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Momo this is towards a desired conclusion after his response. Be patient. If he's just now jumping on to you for stupid posting, I'd say he's been more than patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Sooo you have a problem with democracy . . . and should probably not live here then. You DO have that choice too . . . Like it or not freedom fighter . . we live in a democracy where mob rule is the constant. Dont like it? Move or start your own short, bitter, violent and ultimately futile revolution against the USA. Just because you dont like it doesnt make it wrong either. . . Wow, did you really just say that? I don't know schit about politics but I know that's not the America we started. You perception is skewed because you accept only information provided to you and have an obvious inability to think on your own. You're the poster child for government conditioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Wow, did you really just say that? I don't know schit about politics but I know that's not the America we started. You perception is skewed because you accept only information provided to you and have an obvious inability to think on your own. You're the poster child for government conditioning. bpwallace - I know this sounds really harsh and I wasn't trying to be a dick. But really, open your eyes a bit dude, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) you know.... these two don't live too far apart from one another........ i think there is ppv in our near future. THE RUMBLE IN THE JUNGLEgym. Edited March 26, 2010 by Bier Meister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 (edited) Yes. Should. Your mortgage company didn't care if you got insurance or not? Whatever, it is not welfare to expect all to contribute to a fund that would only need to be used in extremis. My concept of SS has been repeated several times before so I'll spare you but I see it as a resource of last resort rather than first resort. Universal benefits are the very definition of welfare since, by definition, they go to those that don't need them, exactly like farm subsidies for instance. But if not everyone is paying into it, how is this not welfare then? I mean, those not paying any taxes wouldn't be actually paying for anything, right? and this is not welfare, how? Edited March 26, 2010 by millerx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 But if not everyone is paying into it, how is this not welfare then? I mean, those not paying any taxes wouldn't be actually paying for anything, right? and this is not welfare, how? Note the word "should". SS contributions are made on any earned amount up to an annually changed cap, I believe, thus all wage earners do pay in the same percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 We are not nor were we ever intended to be a democracy. Democracy is the rule of man. We are a republic, and republicanism (small "r") is distinguished by the rule of law being paramount. This is 8th grade civics dude. And I'm not getting wound up in semantics - there's a HUGH difference. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. Momo this is towards a desired conclusion after his response. Be patient. Oh Mr. Beauty Princess wallace - I await your feeble "gotcha" attempt. C'mon, you teased pope with it, you gotta come through! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts