NewsReal Sunday: The Six Moral Arguments Against Socialized Medicine
For Friday’s episode of “Real Time,” host Bill Maher eschewed his usual format of opening monologue, short interview, and panel discussion in exchange for the “special episode” style of long interviews with figures he admires. I’ll save my commentary on the first half hour’s interview with rap superstar Jay-Z for tomorrow. Today it’s NewsReal Sunday and some of the comments from Maher’s second guest, Baptist minister, Great Society architect, and “progressive” PBS journalist Bill Moyers need to be answered.
Moyers chose to phrase the health care issue in “moral” terms. Not quite the explicitly religious argument (refuted by NewsReal here, here, here and here) but still similar:
Maher: And he never really effectively has yet anyway, made it a moral issue.
Moyers: He started just recently, a few days ago. He talked about health care as a moral issue. But it is a moral issue! It’s not an economic issue.
Maher then brought up Civil Rights in the ’60s as a moral issue before he invoked the late, great mythology scholar Joseph Campbell (whom Moyers helped publicize to millions) and shifted the discussion to talk of metaphors capable of changing the debate:
Maher: What would be a true metaphor that we could use now that would change this?
Moyers: We’re all in the same boat. That would be a metaphor. And that’s the moral. The moral message that America would stand by: adopting health care as a human need to which everyone should have access. The moral message would be that we are in this together. That we care about each other. Universal healthcare for every citizen irrespective of your resources is representative of a deeply moral society. And what do I mean by moral? A society that cares for the other.
My progressive friend Pat Ray — a frequent poster in these forums under the alias “Clergyman P-Ray” — had taken this line of argument before as well. (By the way, Pat’s not really a clergyman. It’s just his handle.) The other day he emailed me in response to an article I’d forwarded to him.
It looks as though the rightwingers are pulling out all the stops in a lie-and-distortion campaign to defeat healthcare reform this year. For America’s sake, we need to get it right this time.
This stung a bit. I was now one of these “rightwingers” with the “lie-and-distortion campaign” to which Pat was referring. But did my dear friend of more than five years really think that I was dishonest? I responded:
Am I a liar? Am I intentionally saying things that I know aren’t true? Am I a horrible person because of the ideas that I hold which are counter to yours?
The “Clergyman” replied:
Do I think you’re knowingly lying David?
Sometimes I wonder. You’ve already told me on numerous occassions you don’t believe morality should play into people’s values on economic issues. So that gives me a little glimpse of your worldview. And it is a little bit disturbing and far different than mine.
I care more about bread-and-better issues and let morality guide my principles on issues such as healthcare, trade and unions just as much as you seem to let morality guide your principles on gay rights, civil rights, freedom of religion, etc.
I do not know what your values are when it comes to economic issues like poverty, a living wage, healthcare that’s accessible to all citizens, etc. From our debates, what your economic “freedom” arguments usually come off like and especially with the kinds of articles you’re posting in your new position, it seems you support political & economic systems that value profits over people.
Basically you come off very libertarian to me (as libertarian as your average Republican lawmaker) and don’t seem to take much into consideration other than the wad of cash someone waves in front of you when it comes to what kind of economic policies to support.
(On this last point Pat seems to be echoing Joe Conason’s attack on David Horowitz highlighted in today’s quote of the day — the slur that conservative writers/activists are just trying to make money and not arguing from any moral conviction. How insulting!)
I had not yet responded to my friend but I will now. And this response isn’t just to Pat but to Moyers, Maher, and all the “progressives” who claim that conservatives’ opposition to single-payer health care is the result of a moral deficiency.
First, let’s define what we’re talking about:
mor·al // (môrl, mr-) adj.
1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese woman facing 40 lashes for wearing pants.
Thus we see how ambiguous the term “morality” is — how people can choose to make it mean whatever they want in order to further their objectives. What is moral derives from whatever religious or ideological belief system (BS) one ingests. What is immoral to one person’s BS is moral to another. In the Muslim world it’s “moral” to flog a woman for wearing pants. In the Western world this is profoundly immoral. So too in the health care debate. In the leftist world it’s “moral” for government to swallow up the health care industry to insure everyone gets “cheap” medical care. In the conservative world this is tremendously immoral.
Am I advocating “moral relativism” or some kind of ethical nihilism here? Certainly not. Not all moral systems are equal. Arguments can be made on behalf of one system of values as superior to another. And that’s what needs to be done. Either side merely invoking “morality” does nothing here to further the argument one way or another.
So for my six “moral” points here my objective is not to argue against socialized medicine. Instead, it’s to demonstrate to Pat that though my politics are not what they were when our friendship began five years ago, I’m still very much a man concerned about doing what is morally right. It’s a sentiment that those on the Right should repeat. In rejecting the Left’s morals, we still have our own values:
1. It’s immoral to rob Peter to pay for Paul’s health care. It’s not right for government to come in and take one man’s wealth and redistribute it to another who did not earn it. “Thou Shalt Not Steal” is one of the Ten Commandments.
2. It’s not moral to break working systems. Estimates place the percentage of uninsured at 3% of the population from Conservative sources to 18% from leftist sources. That means that the vast majority of people in this county are capable of doing for themselves what the Left insists the government needs to do. The moral thing to do here would be to ask this question: what’s preventing that 3-18% from getting their own health insurance?
3. It’s not moral for healthy people who have made tough, responsible decisions — exercising, eating nutritious foods, not smoking, not engaging in risky behaviors — to be forced to subsidize those who acted irresponsibly. (See Ashton Kutcher’s recent argument.)
4. It’s immoral to give a man health insurance instead of helping him better himself so he can buy it on his own. It shows a lack of respect for men and women’s ability to better themselves. It looks down at people as children who need a Nanny state to protect them.
5. It’s immoral to take away people’s freedom by denying them the right to choose how they’re going to spend their money. This comes in two fashions. First, the immorality of forcing people to pay for health insurance when they choose not to. And second, the immorality of denying people the choice to choose a healthcare plan other than what the government offers.
6. It’s immoral to plunge our government deeper into a sea of debt. We can’t even afford to pay our existing entitlement programs and “progressives” want to add more? How is that moral to promote such fiscal irresponsibility?
And so my final question for Pat, after this Sunday’s sermon: now do I get to be a “clergyman” too?
There is something fundamentally dishonest in the accusations being leveled by the left towards the
American people. To wit: “If America doesn’t initiate universal health care we are an immoral people!”
I am fortunate to be married to a successful songwriter whose career has afforded
us a comfortable and secure life style.
Because of that, we feel a responsibility to help friends and employees who are less fortunate than we.
We have also been able to support free clinics and child abuse prevention organizations.
I say this not to blow my own horn but to point out, again, that Americans are the most generous
people on the planet.
I have known many wealthy people who, being too modest to discuss the ways in which they help individuals in need, simply continue to quietly act. They put their money where their mouths are.
Generosity and caring for one’s fellow man comes from and lives on in the hearts and souls
of Americans.
It cannot be legislated. But it can be corrupted by a government which takes advantage of
the good will of the American people.
MB Snow
Associate Editor
NewsRealblog
There is no small irony in an atheist, Bill Maher, invoking God to bolster his argument for a socialist scheme that has failed everywhere it has been tried. Are not the religious, according to Maher, nothing but superstitious atavistic goofs better confined than taken seriously? Why then turn to a “ Baptist minister†for support? Or are Baptists not as superstitious as, say, Catholics or Mormons?
As for clergyman Pat and his profits-before-people canard, please spare us all the infantile clichés and sophist reasoning. Now, Pat, try to follow this: Without profits there are no jobs; without jobs there is poverty; when there is poverty people cannot afford to live, never mind pay for socialized medicine by way of taxes. The best way to empower people is to make them wealthy. Still, not everyone has the ability to grow rich. So what is to be done with those that for various reasons fall short? Setting aside market imperfections and monopolies such as unions for the moment, the classical economic argument is one where markets evaluate contributions and wages are paid accordingly. But this doesn’t quite fit with Clergyman P-Ray’s morally superior position couched in the words “a living wage.†Yet what Clergyman P-Ray fails to see is one ironic economic fact, which is that the surest way to increasing unemployment is to increase wages by fiat. No matter how you dice the numbers, Pat, your living wage for some always translates into no wages for many, many others.
Government is not a moral agent. Only it citizens can be moral agents. Government’s morality is confined to law enforcement, which is to say it is amoral, for anything can be against the law, not just the things that “should†be against the law. So any similarity between moral agency and law enforcement is always coincidental. Individuals in government, Elliot Ness comes to mind, may show moral outrage, but if the act that engendered the outrage is not against the law, they can do nothing to assuage their pique. Indeed, when it came to the contest between Al Capone and Elliot Ness, Ness won by getting Big Al on a tax rap, a relatively minor infraction compared to the man’s murderous rampages that engendered the nation’s moral outrage in the first place. So let’s cut the crap about how moral government should, or could, or must be, because if government were moral the argument might be made that Mr. Ness did not prove the case he was attempting to prove against Big Al. Who knows, in another era Big Al may have even been appointed Treasury Secretary.
Likewise, governments do not create wealth! They never have and they never will. Governments can only take wealth from those who actually create it. In fact, on closer inspection this is exactly as the world should work, as government servers to concentrate power, something to be guarded against. The good news is that wealth generated by its creators, in part and among other things, allows these wealth creators to stand apart from government’s power, thus fragmenting that power into ever smaller pieces. The wealthier the population the more power the individual has. Now, it may be argued that some that are rich do not deserve the power so gained, but there is no arguing that the locus of power shifts along money lines and away from the politicians, especially when those same politicians must seek out donors.
My far out belief is that the “Nation State†economicaly and in every other way is no longer capable of acting in a rational way so as to be a positive force in the world.
What is needed at this point in time is a “Global Entity†that is interested in furthering not the “National Interests†of what exists on the planet, ….but rather, the global interests, economically and politically without discrimination. All of the basic needs of the environment, and of the people, on this planet should become the recipients of a planned global oriented economy, driven by lndividual need and not by profit.
The world banking system and the United Nations, as it is now organized to assist national capitalist interests are incapable of a world outlook that is necessary to save the world environment and the people within that environment.
http://despicable.wordpress.com/
Bill Moyers may have been ordained a Baptist minister, but he is not a Christian. You can break Commandments Four through Ten and still be considered a Christian, but when you break the First Commandment, which he has, you are out of the club.
Some people present themselves as reverent beings thinking their message carries credence which annoys our intellect.
This may not be the proper venue, and if so, this message will not be posted, but I need to get the word out since I’ve not seen or heard it anywhere. I quote a forwarded email (unknown source): On Tuesday, the Senate Health Committee voted 12-11 in favor of a two page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats, with the exceptions of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via proxy, voted nay.
It took the writer (source of my email ?)less than a minute to sign up to require our congressmen and senators to drink at the same trough! Three cheers for Congressman John Fleming of Louisiana! Congressman Fleming (Louisiana physician) has proposed an amendmant that would require congressmen and senators to take the same healthcare plan they force on us (under proposed legislation they are curiously exempt). Congressman Fleming is encouraging people to go on his Website and sign his petition (very simple-first and last name and email).
Please urge as many people as you can to do the same. This is too important to let congress just ram this legislation thru and this is the only way they will slow down and think about this.
Go to: Congressman John Fleming Home, worked for me. (http://fleming.house.gov/index.html) would not work for me (as it appeared in my email).
Site may take a couple of tries. Website has been overloaded. Just hit “back arrow” and resubmit until it goes thru.
Janet
Yesterday, our Pastor’s letter to the congregation asked that we contact our Senators and Congressman regarding the healthcare reform legislation, specifically relative to the preservation of freedom of conscience for health care professionals and violation of the right to life issues. While I am firmly opposed to my tax dollars funding abortion, I am disappointed that the Catholic Conference of Bishops has apparently otherwise and unil now supported this administration’s plan for health reform. I am a practicing Catholic but I can’t for the life of me understand that a group of supposedly learned men do not know or acknowledge the perils of socialism. I know that religious leaders, even Christian ones, come in all sizes and shapes, but it’s most distressing to believe that their political bias supercedes their morality as well as their common sense.
Bill Moyers can speak of morality in health care when he provides health insurance for his employees.
If I may…
Firstly, I see usual terms confusion: ‘moral’ actually is a derivative from morality; moral per se is rather a message of morality, usually attached to the end of stories like fables etc.
What we are talking here about is Morality and Morals that stem from Latin moralitas – manner, good/proper behavior.
Secondly, in this and similar discussions, I never saw an obvious issue that stand behind the medical service in general.
That issue had to be revealed at the very beginning of all disputes: what is medical care basically?
I answer: medical care is an offer of somebody’s knowledge to somebody who needs that knowledge to cure his/her illness.
The offering side, a medical professional, spent a lot of time and money to get that knowledge in a hope that somebody will need his/her knowledge and therefore will pay for it. This is the way of feeding his/her, the medical professional, family. It’s called “labor”.
Labor should be paid. Anywhere: in a capitalist society and in a socialist society.
Now, what does so-called “public option” mean?
It means that the labor of medical professionals is paid by “public.” How?
There are only two known ways to do that: either public deposits its money into certain specific accounts through individual bank accounts, or special taxation by employees, or by special insurance accounts, etc. This is the most natural way to pay for somebody else’s, a medical professional, labor.
Similar examples: I need car – I buy car by my money; I need food – I buy food by my money.
In all cases, no exclusion, I pay for somebody’s labor. It is a proper behavior, aka morality. Or public morals.
Another way to implement the “public option” is when medical professionals are paid by a centralized source that operates public money in the name of the public.
What is such a centralized source? It’s a government.
Does a government produce money (of course, I am not talking about money emission)?
No, no government produces any money. Any government only takes money from the public – at public will or by force.
Therefore, when a government, despite public objection, takes money from the public in order to pay that money to a medical professional in the name of somebody of the government’s choice, that is the most evident Robin Hood ( aka rob-in-hood) attitude that in no way can be called “moral behavior.”
This is exactly the Socialist approach to the system of labor payment,
and Socialism was never and will never be a moral system.
Socialism is an implementation of rob-in-hood mentality. Immoral. Period.
Our government plays with terms only to hide its real objective. And it’s also immoral. Period.
Thanks to all who have gone to Congressman Fleming’s website. Please email all of your contacts to do likewise. I believe an amendment which would mandate the inclusion of all Federal employees, including Mr. Obama and Family, in any healthcare legislation would probably be acceptable to me, how about you?
David, I take offence to you’re insinuating I’m not a clergyman. While it’s true I do not attend church services regularly, I do not believe you have to go to church to be a believer & have strong spiritual convictions. I grew up in the United Methodist church, but now my spiritual views are prolly most closely aligned with the type of spiritual worldview Leo Tolstoy describes in “The Kingdom of God is Within You.”
I’ve always helped out the less fortunate, advocated for ordinary people in the workplace, spent a good amount of time assisting neighbors and volunteered for non-profits. I believe in a works = words spiritual philosophy and do my best to live it.
I attended several churches while living in Seattle and though they were great places to worship for my friends who congregate there, could not find one I felt at home in. Basically, I believe healthcare as a human right and opposing unjust wars should be preached from the pulpit, along with biblical history, Jesus anecdotes and other things that go into your modern-day christian service.
I would not feel comfortable attending a church where the clergy is populated by folks who believe Jesus is a conservative man who wears cartigan sweaters and passes by the homeless people without batting an eye while entering the gates to the football stadium.
It comes as another dissapointment that our nation’s “progressive” preachers have yet to mount an effective grassroots campaign to counter the distortions and outright lies of the people who believe we’d all be better off insurance company whores and have our health and well being depend on whether or not a faceless insurance yes-man decides to deny our claim or not. Despite the grassroots pressure we’ve seen from the Left in support of Single-Payer which Obama and his pirates have intentionally left out of the debate to please their corporate paymasters, I can’t understand why healthcare has yet to light a fire under a new civil rights movement in this country – a people’s movement for economic justice – in a country bought-and-paid-for, which with word of every factory closing and being sent to Mexico and every person whose died or gone bankrupt due to a fascist for-profit health bureaucracy, is being sold down the river, not by capitalists who believe in the free market, but by cutthroat, greedy corporatists who care more about overseas hedge funds and offshore tax havens in the Cayman Islands than they do family, faith or country.
I am a moral person and do not appreciate being made out to be a radical leftist with a big mouth and little else to show for.
I respect that you all are concerned about the budget and our national deficit. It’s a concern we share. But the fact remains America spends twice as much per capita on health care costs than any other country in the world. This is largely due to sky-high administrative costs and for-profit health monopolies’ demands for large profits and executive bonuses.
Single-Payer works quite well & enjoys lots of supports among citizens in Canada, Sweden, France, Cuba, Japan – just about everywhere any type of Single-Payer system has been implemented.
Yet it’s easier to go along to get along with the cutthroat for-profit health industry in a nation that appreciates clergy who fall in line with whatever their leaders’ tell them to pray on than to make their own thoughtful decisions when it comes to what kind of healthcare system would be best for the nation’s economic health & its people and get out and work to bring a piece of heaven to earth.
The President is flailing desperately when he conference calls religious leaders to support single-payor universal healthcare as moral. He has confused the political socialist Catholic Liberation Theology, and its derivative, Black Liberation Theology, with Christianity, a moral code to which they are diametrically opposed. But then, the only reason he attended ANY church was that Rev. Wright’s was one of the ones he had “community organized” and it was a huge success, turning a small church into a giant socio-political radical center for advancing Alinsky tactics for “change.” The President didn’t “find religion” after being raised in a socialist home and hanging out, according to his autobiography, with the most radical people he could find on college campuses. So unfortunately, when he dips into Christian theology, he just dribbles platitudes without realizing Scripture opposes everything he stands for and wants to achieve.
Socialism breaks several of the Ten Commandments of Judaism and Christianity: Thou Shalt Not Steal, Thou Shalt Not Covet, Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother, and Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness. Socialism steals from those who have. Socialism teaches people to covet what others have, rather than toiling for themselves. Socialism teaches people to dishonor and reject the values and principles of their parents and forefathers. Socialist tactics have always been to lie and demonize the opposition, on the grounds that ‘the ends justify the means’. For Christians and Jews, the ends NEVER justify the means.
The President skated on the edge of blasphemy when he challenged the religious to “Ask what Jesus would do about health care.” Jesus healed directly, and told the people to take care of themselves as individual children of God. He told them they could do what he does by opening their hearts to God, not by giving money to the government to pay doctors to treat other people. Jesus overturned the tables of the moneylenders in the Temple to stop them from conducting business in God’s house. He didn’t give their money to anyone else, not even the sick and the poor who were begging alms on the Temple steps. Jesus fed the multitudes from the fishes and loaves his own disciples had purchased. He didn’t demand that any person share his or her bread with anyone else. Biblical teaching says we leave a little in our fields for the poor to glean. It tells us to take care of the widow in our own hamlet. People we know. People we worship alongside. People we might be related to. It doesn’t tell us to bankrupt ourselves by giving away all the fruits of our labors so that our own households go hungry. St. Paul admonished communities of Christians to share among themselves as God’s family. He didn’t tell them to support anyone and everyone indiscriminately to their own detriment or impoverishment. He didn’t thell them to give all their money to the government to support others, nor to accomplish “good works.” No prophet or saint, much less Jesus, told us to give everything away that we worked for, even as He lamented how difficult it was for a rich man to enter Heaven. He lamented that the man was not sufficiently in tune with God, not that the man’s possessions would have helped other people more. Nor would the man giving more away, having given a great deal already, helped, for the man still wasn’t contemplating God, but looking for a material solution to the problem. Neither the Old nor New Testament contains a line that tells the people to help others by way of taxes. Both clarify that taxes are owed to the government solely due to the power and authority of the king or emperor, and only a small portion of them are used to provide public works like roads and bridges, or pay for the public defense against enemies. Jesus was criticized for entering the house of and breaking bread with a tax collector, a despised person. Jesus did not defend the person’s job, he defended the human being. Jesus told people to pay their taxes by “rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (the coin with Caesar’s face on it minted in Caesar’s furnace) and unto God that which is God’s (your soul, your actions in life).” It couldn’t be more clear that he considered the two totally separate – one material, the other spiritual, and that you cannot do spiritual good works, for yourself or anybody else, through the government or taxes, both being inherently corrupt coporeal constructs for the material rather than spiritual world. For thousands of years mankind has been proving him correct all over the world in small and big ways. That we are even still arguing over this just shows how hard it is for us to learn the lessons He has been trying to teach us. Buddha tried to teach us, too. So did America’s Founding Fathers. So did St. Augustine. Maybe one day our schools will start teaching the wisdom of the great men of human history. I’m not holding my breath on that one.
Anyone who thinks supporting “egalitarianism” or “socialism” or “statism” is “moral” or in keeping with Judao-Christian values of caring for the sick, the poor, or the hungry is unfamiliar with what those “isms” actually are, and what The Bible actually records the Prophets and Jesus and the disciples as having believed, done, and said.
Unfortunately, two generations of kids in public schools and charter schools funded by left wing groups have been learning the Bill Ayers version of “morality” instead of their ABC’s.
The political and provincial “RIGHT WING” are fearful of moving forward, away from their tribal beginnings and their established customs. What is on the other side of the mountain is met with suspician and fear that translates into angry hate! People that are not of the same clan, religion, nation etc. according to the immoral Right Wing should be killed.
It is either us or them according to the bigoted torture approving genocidal fascist loving ignorant separatists that are the political right in every nation on the planet.
Those that say that the Political Left is precisely the same as the Political Right are politically ignorant of politics and are most likely are ignorant of most everything that exists on the planet.
Most Fundamentalists of all orthadox religions appear to have tendencies that would prefer to retrogress backward into the time that existed in our ignorant past. They have always opposed scientific and techonological progress.
The “Progressive Political LEFT Wing” are the forward looking political wing that is the opposite of the reactionary fearful and hateful poliyical rightwing!
And what about the Political “Centrists?” …These fence sitting non commital opportunists will compromise the guts out of every proposal so as to keep everything at a standstill so that we do not move backward into the ways of the past, or forward into the ways that will be our future.
When the “Political Center,” becomes no longer relevant to the existing changing circumstances, situations, and conditions, the followers of the centrist position will move into the ranks of those that want to move backward into our no longer relevant past, and into the ranks of those that want to move forward into oue not yet known future.
Without a Political Center to compromise the differences of the Right Wing and the Left Wing these extreeme wings of the political spectrum will clash!
The clash between the “Future: and the “Past.” will eventually be compromised by a new “Relevant Center,” that will come into being and replace the old center that is dumped into the trash can of the no longer exisiing past.
http://despicable.wordpress.com/
Has despicable (what an apt name)ever read a History book?
I do believe that the brain of the theocratic, dogmatic right wing has been seriously impared by their stuborn holding on to the dogmas of their religious past.
Science will render the president day “believers as no longer influential or useful, in the modern world of common sense!” These religious nuts are contemptable of verifiable evidence, and are holding on for dear life, to their mid evil superstitions and narrow prejudices so that they can convince themselves that they are superior to all that exists!
These intellectual midgets are capable of only one response to all arguments!
“Duh! You are a communist!
We already pay directly and indirectly for the shortcomings of our healthcare system. Run properly, it would reap savings similar to those from preventative dental care (Check out review of Philip Longman’s “Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Health Care Is Better Than Yours”). It would help make US businesses more competitive globally by removing that burden from them.
I think the piece that mirrors my views best on this whole issue is Chris Floyd’s The God That Failed
Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life. We can’t do those kinds of things any more.
Of course, when talking amongst themselves, or with the believers in the think tanks, boardrooms — and editorial offices — the cultists would speak more plainly: we don’t do those things anymore because we shouldn’t do them, we don’t want to do them, they are wrong, they are evil, they are outside the faith. But for the hoi polloi, the line was usually something like this: Budgets are tight, we must balance them (for a “balanced budget” is a core doctrine of the cult), we just can’t afford all these luxuries.
But now, as the emptiness and falsity of the Chicago cargo cult stands nakedly revealed, even to some of its most faithful and fanatical adherents, we can see that this 30-year mantra by our governments has been a deliberate and outright lie. The money was there — billions and billions and billions of dollars of it, trillions of dollars of it. We can see it before our very eyes today — being whisked away from our public treasuries and showered upon the banks and the brokerages.
Let’s say it again: The money was there all along.
The money for all of this — and much, much more — was there, all along. When they said we couldn’t have these things, they were lying — or else allowing themselves to be profitably duped by the high priests of the market cult. When they wanted a trillion dollars — or three trillion dollars — to wage a war of aggression in Iraq, they found it. Now, when they want trillions of dollars to save the speculators, fraudsters and profiteers of greed in the global market, they suddenly have it.
Who then can believe that these governments could not have found the money for good schools, health care, and all the rest, that they could not have enhanced the well-being and livelihood of millions of ordinary citizens, and helped create a more just and equitable and stable world — if they had wanted to?
“Year after year, the ordinary citizens were told by their governments: we have no money to spend on your needs, on your communities, on your infrastructure, on your health, on your children, on your environment, on your quality of life.”
Nonsense. Year after year just the opposite happened from Social Security to Medicare to Prescription Drugs, you name it.
“The money for all of this — and much, much more — was there, all along.”
Wrong! The money hasn’t been there for over fifty years, and it isn’t there now. The money you mistakenly think is there is legalized counterfeiting which is an expropriation of everyone’s wealth through inflation.
“… create a more just and equitable and stable world”
You have a strange sense of justice if you believe that it is served by robbing some people to give to others.
Extremism has brought us choas and what most of us seek is the rights enjoyed by our founders, not unreasonable government interferrence that threatens those rights. As David explained, both parties exhibit extremism to some extent. Presently, it is the left we are concerned with for they have the baton.
“Extremism” is looked upon as extreme only because it is not popular. What is regarded as “GOOO” or “BAD” is regarded so because of the specific conditions that exist at a particular point in time, and where your particular interests is in relation to the interest that you are competing against.
Those that cannot see beyond our early beginnings and understand what progress has transpired through the continuous common struggle of opposing interests, are blind as to what is a forward movement and what is a backward movement in the history of struggle to make a more perfect union.
http://blogdespicable.blogspot.com/
I would say bankrupting our nation is not progress and an ‘extremely’ serious problem.
David, re: points 1 & 3-
1. It’s not right for government to come in and take one man’s wealth and redistribute it to another who did not earn it.
4.[The existence of] people [such as] children who need a Nanny state to protect them.
If it’s not right for government to come in and take one man’s wealth and redistribute it to another who did not earn it, it doesn’t it matter what the circumstances of the need are. The child might be orphaned or abandoned or special needs. Doesn’t matter. Could be the child of KIA vet. The kid hasn’t earned a goddamned dime yet.
What to do? Assume a safety net exists from private charities? Leave it on a hilside to fend for itself or die?
The Unquisitor has declared that “All taxation is theft.” Though stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving famly as opposed to stealing an HDTV for them is taken into account by most courts, it is still theft. As you quoted the babble, “Thou Shalt Not Stealâ€.
—
Also from said babble -
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
The response of Jesus when his enemies tried to trap him by asking whether it was right for the Jews, whose nation had been taken over by the Roman Empire, to pay tribute to the Roman emperor. He took a Roman coin that would be used to pay the tribute and asked whose picture was on it; his questioners answered, “Caesar’s.†The reply of Jesus implied that in using Roman coins, the Jews accepted the rule of the Romans, and so the Roman government had the right to tax them, as long as the Jews were not compromising their religious duties. Jesus’ more general point was, “Give to worldly authorities the things that belong to them, and to God what belongs to God.â€
You’d probably prefer this interpretation though -
When you research out the origin and lineage of the term “Pontifus Maximus”, you find the Babylonian origin. Essentially, it is saying that “Caesar is God.” This title was later adopted by the Roman Popes.
When one understands that the answer was given under Hebrew law, then they understand that the same fate awaits all who pay the tribute to Caesar that God will mete out for Caesar, then we can see that Jesus was clearly saying, “Do not pay taxes unto Caesar”, as was alleged at His trial.
Though one comment critiqued it this way -
Those hypocrites� answer to his very precisely worded question will establish specifically what is the caesar�s. The Master does not ask them, �Whose coin is this or whose silver is this?� and his intentional omission will, by the words of their own mouths, establish whose silver it is, thus separating the fiction from the substance. Caesar, a fiction itself, cannot create substance�only fictions�kind after kind�as it is written. So what was their answer to, �Whose is this image and superscription?�
They say unto him, Caesar’s.
Since �They� (two or more witnesses) answered, Caesar’s, the Master has now succinctly established that the image and superscription [fiction] belong to [the] Caesar, and this unquestionably does not include the silver [substance] from which the coin was made, for it is written, �The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, says Jehovah of Hosts. (LITV*)� The fiction is made apparent when we render unto Yahweh what is Yahweh’s; for when we render the silver [the substance] unto Yahweh [the] caesar’s (commander-in-chief’s) image and superscription do not exist!
Look’s like you better quit pretending God’s money is yours.
To understand what stealing is you have to understand what value is and who created the value in the first place and who stole that value that was created originally and condequently is rich because of this highway robbery of constant stealing from the producers of wealth.
Land is value that was originaly a land grab where theose that profited from owning land profited because of the exploitation of chattel slaves, share croppers, feudal serfs, … and after the industrial revolution owners of factorys, mines and mills got rich profiting from the exploitation of cheap labor.
People that own for a living have only land, factories, mines,mills and stores, None of these investments by owners is creating new value until a decision is made to create new value. New value is only created by the purchase of people that are willing to work for a wage. The worker creates value and that value is measured by the amount of necessary time that is spent by that worker in the creation of that thing of value. That value could be exchanged for value that has an equal amount of socially necessary time attached to it.
Because the worker that created a thing of value receives value in the form of a wage that is much less than the value that he or she created as a worker the amount of value produced by the worker and not received by the worker is the amount that was stolen by the owner from the worker.
The evidence of this grand theft is the fact that due to this exploitation of labor power all over the world has encouraged workers all over the world to organize as a class so as to receive more of that pie known as the gross national product. This thievery by the private sector overshadows everything else. ..Taxes is not thievery as some ignorant individuals would have you think!
The Government that has the responsability of maintaining social order so that the society can run without disruption, must collect taxes to pay for what is necessary to maintain order and promote the general good!
THOSE THAT EQUATE TAXES WITH STEALING ARE OUT OF THEIR MIND!
Taxation is theft, that much is clear. Some of it is necessary, but it should be limited to legitimate government forces agreed upon by the governed. Otherwise it becomes theft.
To believe that government does is capable of theft is insane. Government officials are subject to the same passions and misjudgements and greeds as the rest of us. Here is how the government steals: Printing money. Propping up one industry at the expense of another. Believing that some entities are too large to fail and rather than allowing natural economic forces to govern the marketplace, to pick winners and losers and thus skew the game.
The Federal Reserve system is based upon a the fraud of fiat money, and the value of our money is evaporating due to government intervention in the marketplace.
Every conservative I am friends with over the net…. Be it Mr.Hoven from American thinker or Robert Spencer from Jihadwatch are atheist/scientific thinkers who just happen to be christans. If you never asked them what religion they were you’d never know they were christians who very much believed in God. That is how logical and clear minded they reason.
Likewise I agree with this articles premise Morals differ where as ethics are a different story.
What makes you think that something which has always failed in isolation will miraculously work for a whole. Have you learned nothing from Jamestown and Plymouth to the Soviet Union?
“Pass the dutchy ‘pon the left hand side”. The U.N. can’t handle their own finances, let alone those of an entire world. It’s funny. Your “suggestion” gives credence to all those afraid of the NWO. Something leftists scoff at as absurd, yet, sure looks like someone is pushing the world that way….
Thank You, Janet. It points out the hypocracy of the program effectively.
Thanks for the information. I signed the petition.
I did, also.
We would also be interested in checking how they voted upon this proposal upon its introduction. Thank you for being vigilant and making us aware of this.
An amoral government, I would say. The language is conflicting to the benefit of the immoral: to be precise would not suit their deviate purposes.
Informative post.
The Difference Between the Amoral and the Immoral (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/ethics.papers.s00/paper9.html):
“Amoral is simply another way of saying “nonmoral.”
In fact, amoral simply means with no moral bearing. Amoral can describe those actions with no moral consequence or intention.
Immoral, on the other hand, describes those actions with bad or harmful intent or consequences. Obviously moral would then describe the actions stemming from good intentions.
So, then what is the difference between the AMORAL and the IMMORAL? The difference lies in the intent or lack thereof. The immoral has a nasty intent. The amoral has no intentions.”
So, dear carterthewriter, you want to say that our [immoral, as I insist] government “has no intentions”?
But anyway, we are talking here about the “public option” morality issue, not about linguistical issues…
To Clergyman:
“Single-Payer works quite well & enjoys lots of supports among citizens in Canada, Sweden, France, Cuba, Japan – just about everywhere any type of Single-Payer system has been implemented. ” – FALSE.
I lived in Japan 4 years, and I testify that it was not much better than in the so-called “free medicine” (aka “public option”) society called the USSR, where I lived 50 years and avow that the only more-or–less adequate medical cure was possible to get only illicitly, through good connections, by backstairs influence, whatever you call it (aka bribery.)
As for morality in economic and political issues, only perverted understanding of morality can lead to a conclusion that so-called “public option” is moral.
Morality is not and should NEVER be a “deed by force.”
When a government takes money from us the People despite the public’s objection and despite national interests (bankruptcy of the country should never be treated as a national interest) to operate that money at the own discretion (in this case – for purely political goal to get more voters and strengthen the government power) in order to re-distribute the wealth, covering that dirty goal by noble words – this is IMMORAL.
All and any honest clergy should open their mouth about morality only when and if a deed is committed at free will of the society.
In our case – any kind of charity and philanthropy.
A government in a free democratic society is a freely (well, more or less) elected set of officials paid by the nation.
Therefore, all government’s deeds must be committed at public discretion, not at the narrow-minded government’s discretion. Otherwise, the government becomes an organ of suppression, as in all Socialist countries, aka Dictatorship.
Any dictatorship is immoral since it excludes people’s free will.
No need to take offense at my comment that you’re not a clergyman. The term has a very distinct, specific definition: a minister, rabbi, priest, nun, monk, etc. You’re not any of these things, so you’re not a “clergyman.” That said, I still respect that you’re a man of passionate spiritual and moral convictions. I made the clarification so that people don’t think that you’re actually a priest or something.
“I would not feel comfortable attending a church where the clergy is populated by folks who believe Jesus is a conservative man who wears cartigan sweaters and passes by the homeless people without batting an eye while entering the gates to the football stadium.”
Given this slur I’d direct your attention to the first comment on this post, by Mary Belle Snow, NewsReal’s Associate Editor and one of my colleagues at the Freedom Center. Just because conservatives don’t think government should be levying high taxes to fund “social justice” programs does not mean conservatives aren’t generous in being willing to give to charities to help the less fortunate.
If a charity wants to combat any social ill (poverty, lack of health insurance, etc.) it wants then they’ll have my support and blessing. But when government decides that it’s going to force its citizens to in effect to give to charities by creating various programs then that’s an afront to my morality.
Who do you trust to do a better job at administering charity? The government or a charity?
“I am a moral person and do not appreciate being made out to be a radical leftist with a big mouth and little else to show for.”
I didn’t call you a radical leftist, I called you a “progressive” just like you prefer I do.
“I am a moral person and do not appreciate being made out to be a radical leftist with a big mouth and little else to show for.”
Yet, that is exactly how you present yourself. Further, as others pointed out, you also show a distinctly skewed viewpoint based on your statement regarding how well the single payer health systems in other countries works. I am glad you made that statement, because in it is all anyone engaged in discourse with you ever needs to know.
Reading your ideological emanation about “progressivism” of Liberasts and “medieval obscurantism” of Conservatives, I felt as if I am back to the USSR, sitting in a Marxism-Leninism Auditorium of an average Moscow Institute/University. Faugh!
No analysis of the actual proposals in that outrageous Bill, no analysis of imminent consequances, nothing intellectual, just Stalin-Goebbels propaganda course using all slurs available.
This is a real “progressive intellectual”!
Who wants to relinquish all power to an omnipotent state?
You have it backwards. It is state worshiping Leftists who wish to return to their tribal past.
Obviously, this man is a paid disruptor and should provide his dribble in a proper forum and this is certainly not one of them.
I’m going to be counter-intuitive here.
“I do believe that the brain of the theocratic, dogmatic right wing has been seriously impared by their stuborn holding on to the dogmas of their religious past.”
“Despicable” is right. There are plenty of dogmatic, theocratic right-wing types out there. (And for his sake I won’t get into the theocratic, dogmatic types on the Left.) And if he wants to dismiss True Believer Conservatism then by all means he can go ahead.
But what about Postmodern Conservatism? What about “right-wing” types who aren’t theocratic and embrace an agnostic disposition? We’re a bit more difficult to dismiss than the True Believers. And then you have to actually grapple with arguments instead of just dismissing crazy dogmatists.
http://booksindepth.blogspot.com/2009/07/david-horowitzs-conservatism-postmodern.html
Funny is that Liberasts can’t find any intellectually not impaired creature to do their dirty job for pennies. Faugh!
I think there are enough people to do it for free that they don’t need to pay anyone.
The money should have been salted away as most of us paid into to SS & Medicare since their inception, by they found a way to syphon it off.
Now, they’re using tactic to further eliminate seniors from receiving the benefits they thought they paid into by freezing cost of living raises and upping the age eligibilty to receive compensation.
It sounds to me like they copied practices from the health insurance industry they pretend they are fighting.
You have a strange sense of justice if you believe that it is served by robbing some people to give to others.
Ok then, APPRAISE THE LORD! Tax the churches!
I’m an atheist yet Billy Bob Megachurch and obscenely wealthy institutions like the RCC get to opt out of paying taxes though they utilize those services taxes support. I, on the other hand am childless, yet pay taxes in support of said schools. I am not objecting to the taxation itself mind you, as it is my interest (all of ours actually) to be surrounded by as low a percentage of uneducated citizens (and non-citizens) as is possible.
Sometimes spending for the public good (not as vague and nebulous as you make it sound when talking of roads and infrastructure and actual defense of the citizenry, via the military, and courts, and regulatory agencies meant to keep predators in check to the extent possible) is more of an investment as it produces dividends.
I remember a particular description of the Great Depression that spoke of the frustration of idle factories and an available workforce to drive our economic engine. Thans goodness some folks had enough vision to put that productive capacity to use (often mocked as “make-work” tasks) building up our nation so that when the economy got rolling again, it was aided by the projects that had been undertaken when we were supposedly dead in the water.
If you’re so dead set against helping people who have done nthing to deserve it, let’s close emergency rooms to anyone but those with the ability to pay. While were at it, babies don’t do a hell of a lot in the way of self-sufficiency so unless they got a Gerber contract, they can just make a go of it (or not) on their own. As an added benefit, it will weed out the weaklings pretty fast so that we’ll not be carrying their dead weight around in the future.
Problem solved, mission accomplished.
Who knew that such tough love and steely-eyed reasoning woud provide such a wealth of benefits so quickly?
Your bloviations aside, Mr./Ms Inquisitor Sir/Ma’am, could you clarify something please.
Is all taxation theft? Does a system of taxation require that all money paid in be returned as benefit specifically and in the same amount as what is paid? How does one calculate that one has received full benefit when some items might be considered rather intangible (at least as far as assessing a dollar amount – clean air, safe foods, working infrastructure, functional systems for judicial, political, educational, health, research, technology, and business operations).
As to the justice in the theft of my resources by the charlatans of the various organized priestcrafts (whose delusionality defaces the very banknotes I must conduct my transactions with), it is most definitely related to your point (though I understand your inability to recognize it as such).
So in regards to your list:
1. Not THE answer but certainly an untapped revenue stream. At least be consistent with your objections
2. Nonsense. Education is an investment. An investment in the future An equalizer that offers a way for children across class lines to maximize their potential in order to “contribute” to society with the fruits of their labor (now don’t go all Ayn Rand on me and say that only they deserve their fruits, because the benefit is not mutually exclusive).
3. You are the one who seems to condemn the use of money you pay in taxes for the public good because there is no public good worthy enough to justify relieving you of any of your funds. If you think societal stability is not a worthy public good, you’re gonna love chaos and anarchy.
One final thing; anti-welfare queen Star Parker (a one-time recipient herself) argues for reforms of public assistance and has even written a book or two. Should any of her newfound financial solvency be used to reimburse what safety net assistance she received prior (another similar example is Mr. T.) according to you?
I’m just trying to understand you and your positions. You see petulance from me and in you I see a pompous ass.
Let me know if this summation of what I consider your position is correct:
Capitalism provides a system which both allows for and actually generates the greatest good in that;
competition and entrepreneurship provide wealth and employment generating goods and services the public wants and needs; stimulates medical, technological, and societal advances through research and development
competition is what prevents abuses of the consumer as well as protects labor (because people can choose not to patronize those businesses abusing their workers or employing child labor)
the free market system is self-regulating and able on its own to keep things like collusion and price-fixing, fraud, destruction of environment from gross pollution and unsafe, unregulated practices in handling toxic materials and production by-products
the free market system is also sufficient to ensure food safety (or maybe doesn’t need to…not their job), and animals are just a commodity so their treatment as they wind their way through the process of becoming a food source is inconsequential, in fact as market concerns trump so many others, if ritualistic abuse of animals can generate a profit for someone, and there is a consumer for such services, the market knows enough not to get in the way of said commerce
the free market is sufficient to provide the balance between short term and long term gains so that short term benefits for a few do not endanger long term benefits for those excluded from those short term benefits
capitalism is the best protection against fraud, cooking the books, breach of contracts and other financial schemes and insurance protections with no actual intentions, funds or assets to back their assurances
the capitalist Darwinism of the survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten, kill or be killed; though not necessarily perfect is clearly superior, even in pure form, to any other system, and any attempts to regulate trade and commerce is the first step to destroying those aspects that make capitalism so great
that about got it?
—
Note that I do not disagree with every aspect of a pursuit of financial gain for either an individual or a collection of individuals through incorporation provided their liberty to do so is not unlimited, should it adversely infringe on the liberty and well-being of another (or their society, or even culture when considering global trade).
If you agree with that last part, what keeps those negative aspects of the individual pursuit of gain in check, and how does a society determine what the negative effects which merit prevention, and at what cost, and who determines in the end the success rate required in such mitigation?
Those are all legitimate questions but mostly what I see from you is a contentiousness and contrarianism based on platitudes.
Wow! I didn’t know how true the “empty platitudes” observation was. That makes you either a co-conspirator (as a part of the system) or at the very least guilty of receipt of stolen property (that some of your goods were stolen too in no way excuses you).
As far as answering questions, *you’ve* got the “wonder system” able to operate in perfection as long as its purity is maintained.
Explain how it will operate.
I suspect purity “enforcers” will either be volunteers or individuals freely pooling resources to ensure said purity.
Disputes and other ideological differences will resolve themselves by any means necessary as long as taxation is not involved. If enforcers are contracted out, those benetting from said enforcement will not be taxed, but rather pay a mandatory fee for services provided. If they decline to pay the fee, they will need to mediate said dispute by bringing in their own enforcers to their demands.
It kind of sounds like a “might makes right” way of operating, and those who are most successful in keeping the fruits of their own labor, will by their own ingenuity, whether operating individually or freely combining their efforts with others, will be able to keep anyone from imposing ther will on them, even to the extent it may require they impose their will on others (for the good of their own liberty, of course).
Sign me up!
It’s hard not to agree with you on that, David.
Remarkable is that the Liberasts have a dogmatic image of what a Conservative is.
If not to mention that I in my pretty long life didn’t meat a Liberast with an unbeatable non-dogmatic logical thinking: they always build their arguments on frozen ideological dogmas rather than on facts and a common sense that they love calling for.
The reason socialism failed and could not work in the Soviet Union was because most of the worlds resources were in the hands of a “global capitalist class” that dictated how the world’s resources would be distributed, and because of their pursuit of extreme profit so as to remain competitive the natural environment suffered with bad consequences throughout the world, and people generally were exploited and sufferd all over the planet.
If the world’s resources were in the hands of a global entity that insisted that the distribution of the world’s wealth be distributed according to the need of the people throughout the world without discrimination, the entire planet would be better off!
The advanced technology that we now have makes it possible to eliminate starvation and insecurity throughout the entire globe.
“The reason socialism failed…”
I was wondering how long (not long it turns out) I would have to wait to see the ultimate excuse of the communist. “Sure it didn’t work, because we didn’t have the WHOLE WORLD together in the struggle!”. Yeah, right. Uh huh.
Same thing we here now. “I realize socialized medicine is not working in the States that have tried it, but it would if the WHOLE COUNTRY was doing it!.
One of the definitions of insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome.
Socialism/communism fails because it is inherently evil, not because of a lack of resources/commitment/true belief/etc.
To paraphrase Hayek “Liberty is Freedom from coercion”.
You have it exactly backwards. If it hadn’t been for the relatively capitalistic nations of the world, the Soviet Union would not have lasted as long as it did. It is to the everlasting shame of America that we provided materials and credit to the Soviet totalitarian regime.
The resources of Russia, never mind the Soviet Union, are he envy of the world. In a free market economy Russia would be among the wealthiest of countries.
The fact is that socialism is incompatible with an industrial society.
Under socialism prices are meaningless — witness the spiriting away of Sears catalogues by Soviet agents in an attempt to implement a rational pricing system in the USSR.
When prices are meaningless people have no choice but to resort to barter — witness the history of factories during the final years of the USSR.
An industrialized society cannot exist on the non-monetary base of a barter system. QED
The issue I raised was that justice is not served by theft. You have not addressed that issue.
1. You proffer the tax exempt status of churches as an answer. That is a non sequitur, a device used by charlatans when they are unable to provide reasoned argument.
2. You proffer the use of tax funds as an investment as an answer. Another non sequitur. (By the way it is not an investment. Investments are made in productive enterprises which government undertakings decidedly are not.)
3. You insinuate that I am against helping people. Another non sequitur.
You offer a catalogue of non sequiturs like a petulant child, hoping that something will stick. That tactic might work when trying to shout down a speaker on a college campus, but as you see it doesn’t work so well in a written dialogue.
“Is all taxation theft?”
Now you have finally gotten to the heart of the matter. You would have been best served by simply asking that question and omitting the remaining nonsense in your post.
The simple answer to your question is yes. Now perhaps you can explain why you believe the answer is no.
There you go again. Just answer the question.
Is taxation theft? If not, then justify your answer.
That the whole world will blow up if we don’t condone theft is no answer.
KISS
Just answer the question.
Your handle notwithstanding, you’re not running a deposition.
You’ve got a concept for a society where taxation is considered theft. How does that society function?
If you can’t even offer what comes next, then you’re stuck in the loop of countering with [in robotic voice] “taxation is theft.” K.I.S.S. is fine but you can’t even support an argument to operate on that principle. What else is theft? Interest on a loan? Muslims think so. Is property theft? Certainly an argument can be made that control over patches of dirt originated with being able to take or retain by force.
Basically what you’re telling me is that you’re gutless. Taxation is theft, you shouldn’t have to pay it, but you bend over and spread your cheeks and get reamed nonetheless.
I guess you’re nick comes from your plaintive cries, “Why? Why won’t you stop?! OW! OWee-owee-owee. WAHHH!!! Why are you doing this too me?!?! Why won’t you stop?!?!”
Inquisitive little bugger, aren’t you? But not even in an interesting fashion, more like a bored child that continually parrots “why?”
You’ve envisioned a society where the argument that taxation is theft has been accepted.
What’s next, wonderboy? Your pretending to have scary rhetorical skills merely masks that you’re embarrassed to show your work, haven’t thought it out that far, and/or have no idea, but are pinning your entire worldview on that notion and you’re willing to let the smarter kids figure it out.
Here’s my TOE (Theory of Everything). Humans evolved from the most aggressive and exploitive of the various species for survival. Even if they coexisted with other species when resources were plentiful, when survivals pressures increased from the competition for shrinking resources, it was that species and those individuals who exhibited the most selfish and aggressive tendencies that crowded out other species. Competition within their own group operated in a similar fashion. Cooperate as long as it benefited you, but always be first to sacrifice other individuals for your gain. We are descended from the distillate of the selfish gene. The history of our DNA is written by the victors. Self-interest and force get you what you want. Cooperation is a means to an end and those seeing the time to stop working for mutual benefit first often wind up in sole possession of the fruits of everyone else’s labor. Even our societal frameworks, from nation states and governments, business entities and corporate powers, all the way down to office and family politics operate in a kind of social Darwinism. The Romans called it “tribute.” Organized crime syndicates called it protection, others “insurance.” Representative governments see it as an “obligation”, the cost of membership in their particular society. Don’t like it? Buy yourself an island and write your own rules. Problem solved, mission accomplished, right? What are you still doing here? OIC. All talk, eh?
OK Inquisitor. For the sake of argument, let’s say taxation IS theft.
So the mean kids at school keep stealing your lunch money.
Stop them.
Your crying hasn’t worked. Maybe if you worked out a bit or learned some self-defense techniques. Maybe a weapon. But that has its own set of consequences. You might not just be able to wave the rock, or stick, or knife, or gun at them. You might have to use it. Then what? You’ve revealed yourself as a threat; a scared one at that. Someone using more force is going to deal with you accordingly.
Maybe because you’re so timid and puny, you just aren’t able to defend yourself, weapon or not, and you’ll get your big brother or tell a teacher or a parent . That might work. Better hope they’re always close by to protect you. You can band together with other similarly bullied schoolmates, but I doubt the power of multiple jellyfish operating collectively will work either. You’ll all just be easier to find for the beat-down. Maybe you can get your mom to home-school you, or give you two lunch monies (one to hide), or you can run away and join the circus.
No, Inquisitor.
It is clear that you will just keep giving them your lunch money, all the while hoping that by sputtering out, “That’s not yours. That’s MY lunch money!” they will cease their torment of you, as your red face and puffy, crying eyes, runny nose, and mouth and chin wet with drool, will have evoked pangs of sympathy. You and I know that’s not going to happen. You are an eternal victim; prey and easy pickens for any and all predators. You might as well have a bulls-eye on your back.
What are you gonna do about it? Cry? I thought so. How’s that workin’ out for you?
You want to keep it simple? Here’s simple.
Joseph Heller defined “Catch-22″ as “People have the right to do to you anything that you cannot prevent them from doing to you.”
That’s some catch.
Since you have demonstrated by your broken record parroting that you are slow on the uptake, I’ll spell it out for you.
Your rights are only those you can defend to keep.
You keep paying your taxes. Doesn’t matter if it’s theft, rape, or assault. You’re too weak/spineless/cowardly/unimaginative to do otherwise.
But your lung power is impressive. Most crying jags that last this long involve someone in a diaper and a touch of the colic.
You might want to empty that diaper.
Oh yeah, and….TAXATION is THEFT!
My, but you words me.
Is taxation theft? If not, then justify your view.
A simple yes or no will do. A sentence or two of justification will suffice. Why the evasion?
I’ve invested a lot of time trying to teach you to think. I hope you appreciate it.
If that’s teaching, it’s barely a baby’s, “The cow goes MOO” pull-string toy.
And water is wet.
And the Unquisitor is without a model for his Utopia.
—
The Reading of the Rules by the Bruces – w/ Unquisitor as “Bruce”
Second Bruce: G’day, Bruce!
First Bruce: Oh, Hello Bruce!
Third Bruce: How are you Bruce?
First Bruce: A bit crook, Bruce.
Second Bruce: Where’s Bruce?
First Bruce: He’s not ‘ere, Bruce.
Third Bruce: Blimey, it’s hot in here, Bruce.
First Bruce: Hot enough to boil a monkey’s bum!
Second Bruce: That’s a strange expression, Bruce.
First Bruce: Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. “It’s hot enough to boil a monkey’s bum in here, your Majesty,” he said, and she smiled quietly to herself.
Third Bruce: She’s a good Sheila, Bruce, and not at all stuck up.
Second Bruce: Here! Here’s the boss-fellow now!
(Enter fourth bruce with English person, Michael)
Third Bruce: ‘Ow are you, Bruce?
First Bruce: G’day, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce: Bruce.
Second Bruce: Hello, Bruce.
Fourth Bruce: Bruce.
Third Bruce: How are you, Bruce?
Fourth Bruce: G’day, Bruce.
Fourth Bruce: Gentlemen, I’d like to introduce a man from Pommyland who is joinin’ us this year in the Philosophy Department at the University of Wooloomooloo.
EveryBruce: G’day!
Michael Baldwin: Hello.
Fourth Bruce: Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce. Michael Baldwin, Bruce.
First Bruce: Is your name not Bruce?
Michael: No, it’s Michael.
Second Bruce: That’s going to cause a little confusion.
Third Bruce: Mind if we call you “Bruce” to keep it clear?
Fourth Bruce: Gentlemen, I think we better start the faculty meeting. Before we start, though, I’d like to ask the padre for a prayer.
First Bruce: Oh Lord, we beseech Thee, Amen!!
EveryBruce: Amen!
Fourth Bruce: Crack tubes! (Sound of cans opening) Now I call upon Bruce to officially welcome Mr. Baldwin to the philosophy faculty.
Second Bruce: I’d like to welcome the pommy bastard to God’s own Earth, and remind him that we don’t like stuck-up sticky-beaks here.
EveryBruce: Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!
Fourth Bruce: Bruce here teaches classical philosophy, Bruce there teaches Hegelian philosophy, and Bruce here teaches logical positivism. And is also in charge of the sheep dip.
Third Bruce: What’s New-Bruce going to teach?
Fourth Bruce: New-Bruce will be teaching political science, Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett, and Benaud.
Second Bruce: Those are all cricketers!
Fourth Bruce: Aww, spit!
Third Bruce: Howls of derisive laughter, Bruce!
EveryBruce: Australia, Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you, amen!
Fourth Bruce: Another two! (Sound of cans opening) Any questions?
Second Bruce: New-Bruce, are you a Poofter?
Fourth Bruce: Are you a Poofter?
New-Bruce: No!
Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One!
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abos in any way at all — if there’s anybody watching. Rule Three?
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don’t want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five …
Everybruce: No Poofters!
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six. Rule Seven…
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
Fourth Bruce: Right, that concludes the readin’ of the rules, Bruce.
First Bruce: This here’s the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand.
EveryBruce: Amen!
The problem of taxation’s,
a blight upon the land.
You can call it what you want,
it will not give a damn.
Amen!
No Poofters!…um,..I mean, “Taxation is THEFT!”
To blow a few sparkles into your withering dispute…
Why not to define taxation from a different point of view?
Taxation is a process, by which a money is changing hands.
Whose hands? In this specific case – from hands of public to hands of government.
Such process can be voluntary or involuntary.
It can be a theft or it can be a free-will “donation” for common public needs (defence, elementary education, etc.)
When is it voluntary? When the public gives its money to the government for common needs as a needed source for common public services.
Who decides what services the public needs? To what extent? All this depends on the state system – whether the government is enjoying public support or is purely dictatorial.
In the former USSR, where I spent 50 years of my life, many things looked like “free” or almost free – communal housing, education, medicine, phones, electricity, gas, etc.,etc. Our Lefty anti-American Liberasts dream.
A very stinky dream, though.
Officially, were were told that our taxation is flat rate 11% for all low incomes and 13% for high incomes.
After additional obligatory/mandatory union fees, Komsomol and Communist Party membership (if any) fees, and so one, every Soviet citizen “enjoyed” the rest, in a comparable amount – from $20 to $50 a month. Only specially priviliged individuals got significantly more.
In other words, the Soviet Communist government intentionanlly kept the nation “on the galleys” with a firm condition: a step to the right or to the left – shoot.
The nation accustomed to feel happy simply for being not shot.
The nation accustomed to cheat just like government cheated on the public.
The nation accustomed to drown its endless anguish in alcohol and became one of the most if not simply the most drinking nation in the world.
What caused such a national tragedy? The actual 90%+ taxation (if to count both the official low “flat rate” taxation and the actual hidden taxation for all those public services.)
In our today’s situation, when the Obama government seemingly lost any touch with public opinion and is intending to “award” with public money a significant group of people that does not belong to the society only for the sake of getting additional votes to strenghten the power, the unsupported-by-public taxation is definitely an immoral theft, no matter what the PR-prostitutes would try to convince the public of.
Lance, you have degenerated to tedium. It is my custom at this point to award a grade.
A: All right
B: Bad
C: Couldn’t do it
D: Didn’t understand the question
F: Failed to show up for the exam (or in this case class)
A C seems a bit to generous since you really didn’t try. At first blush a D seems about right, but on second thought it too is a bit generous. After all isn’t a willful refusal to understand the question equivalent to not showing up for class? Unfortunately I will have to give you an F.
I have done all that I can do. Perhaps some cataclysmic event will start you on the road to reason. If so, I envy you taking those first faltering steps on such a glorious journey. Would that I could relive that exhilarating experience.
In parting, I wish you all the success you deserve.
Constantine, thank you for your input. Unfortunately my discourse with Lance has disintegrated beyond repair. He simply refuses to answer a simple question with or without qualifications.
Thanks also for your contributions. Your unique background is an asset to this site.
Couldn’t find the Reply link under the comment I wanted to reply to so my contribution will have to go here:
Constantine talks about the public to government flow of money as if “government” was an off-world alien transplant. Representative government are those citizens (the “public”), chosen freely (amongst the available choices; albiet winnowed to the remaining few by a number of factors before they even get to the ballot – which also presumes fair election practices are in place ) in local elections. Their power is based on how far up the food chain they are, dealing with in any given ratio, local and regional issues, and operating within the system hammered out by a group engaged in a social contract long before us. As a social contract, those who came after and who had no say in the original social contract, still had a means of modifying the contract, though within some predetermined limitations. That being said, the framers acknowledged that totally unjust rule was itself a rationale for its overthrow. Time after time, even those citizens under a representative goverment feel that their rights are being restricted by a small but powerful elite, and appeal to populism, or are being tyrannized by the majority, and argue the inalienable nature of their rights.
So my rights as an atheist are often stymied by some crusading Senator, with power beyond the numbers residing in his confederation defined long before by lines on a map, whose constituency insists the senator champions their priorities of “god(s), guns, and gays.” That’s their right, and the system has a few checks and balances to see that their priorites still be in line with Constitutional protections. Nowadays it seems that the side that was crowing about “Shut up, you lost!” prior is now seething with self-perceived righteous indignation and threatening to bring down the government if they can’t be placated. They view their potential insurrection as the highist form of patriotism, and as true believers, anyone telling them otherwise would only raise their level of certitude.
The point about the social contract and representative government is that the contract is in effect and enforced despite the fact that those under it most likely neither help draft it nor signed it it. Contact law usually deals with cases as these in the fine print; such as when the stub given when you pay to park says that YOU parking there establishes an implied understanding that they are not responsible for any loss, theft, or damage to your vehicle.
But, but, but…not compensating you for those losses while the vehicle was in THEIR possesion is theft!, no?
No. It’s in the contract that you didn’t write or sign. When you’re born a citizen or naturalized, you are under the social contract of the confederation in control of the far flung tracts of land that were crafted by those long dead, from regions which projected their power over lands now, though not part of said empire at its inception. The system of governance in place is the one arising from that social contract, making persons within those boundries who are defined as “citizens” subject to the order imposed, which the originators understood came from a timely application of force in the first place.
Those in here braying about theft have said nothing that I can see about how application of force, relentlessly over time (both passively through sheer numbers and aggressively violent and methodical as well; bolstered by those numbers, especially when the taking itself was an incentive to join those ranks of pioneers) and gradually escalating as necessary to produce the desired outcome, which we ALL partake in the fruits of. We did not personally run the original ihabitants off their land, but we certainly profitted from it.
I guess you could say that the Native-Americans were “taxed to death” because we stole someone elses land because our forebears felt taxed beyond endurance, both on the land they might have been run off of previously to come to the ” New World” (yep, nothing but empty open spaces for the taking), or later on the land they claimed for their own by a ruler who declared that the Divine Right of Kings was all the contract he needed though his god gave him no help enforcing the terms of said contract; and force was exactly what would have been required.
And they were also “taxed to death” because funds for the force used to destroy them wholesale, take what they had but could not protect, and marginalize the rest after essentially beating them into submission. The social contract of the group doing this got their power from their collective action, the wealth it provided, and the agreement that money spent in this way would result in a return on investment far beyond the original stake money, all the while ensuring a consolidation of power that would retain the ability to impose their will by force. As long as this force was directed at someone else (the “other”), most saw the value and even justice of it. When force was used on those within the social contract, it was supposed be applied in a consistant and just fashion as per rule of law (the one those of the social contract claim applied to all).
Now there are many, many bad laws, just as there are many idiotic taxes. Some people claim allegiance to a higher power and therefore are only subject to god’s law. Some people claim that they are exempt of their obligations to any social contract for any number of reasons, but the option to form their own country is certainly limited, also for any number of reasons. Bad laws create disrespect for the law and often are changed or repealed (or just unenforced like the laws on the books that once prohibited interracial marrige or sodomy) as enforcement of statutes that generate widespread open civil disobediance are seen as either unjust or impracticle to enforce. Some that fit into those catagories (like marijuana law) are enforced anyway as a method of control that can be brought to bear at opportune times against specifically targetted individuals (I’m sure Tommy Chong on the loose kept many people awake at night from sheer fright).
Now the principle of taxation is said to be theft by at least one scary brilliant mind in here, summarized and codified by the declaration, “(All) Taxation is theft” (the “all” is established by his “yes” to the question “Is ALL taxation theft?”), The imposition of any taxation, let alone the devil in the details of tax law, the purpose of certain specific taxes and how they’re supposed to be spent, the justification for the collection of taxes, and the consequences for non-compliance, don’t even figure into the equation as the declaration is supposed to be enough all by itself.
Though Inky fancies himself a dispenser of knowledge, one who professes one or more “truths” of the universe, he is much more like a carnival barker looking to hook a live one. And as such, the response to not playing his game, rigged by his rules, results in frustration on his part.
“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”
Maybe there are other ways to impress my girlfriend.
“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”
The game looks rigged.
“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”
Maybe I could just buy her one of the prizes. It might be cheaper in the long run.
“Try your luck! Hit the target! Win a prize! Impress your girlfriend!”
No sale, Inky.
Inky mutters, “Loser!” but is actually more angry at himself because he lost the sale. All the other barkers seem to be closers but Inky just seems to chase more business away than he ever entices into the Midway.
The reason to turn the question around is because to declare that “taxation is theft” without offering any alternative for the drastically new social contract that is presumed to be capable, even in the absence of details, of sustaining a functioning society, is a meaningless exercise. The devil is always in the details, so defining the attributes of a functioning society would be helpful to the discussion; without them just a fool’s errand. Just as police commandeering your car in an emergency might in one sense be considered theft, if theft is defined by what the law allows, then it is not, by definition.
Inky wants to bark his platitudes and absolutes without acknowleging that functional systems are rarely perfect systems. To seek to jettison the current system based on a supposed immutable principle apparently is enough. Inky’s arrogance is unchecked and unwarranted and chooses not to offer anything beyond his pet absolute principle. If one accepts that police commandeering is theft, but that is justified under certain emergency circumstances, then maybe you can say the taking of the vehicle was theft in priciple, though with cause.
Inky would argue that it’s never justified, even if the cop said his actions would save Inky’s life as well; Inky would be steadfast that without his assent, the cop can’t take Inky’s car. The cop has no right to the car irrespective of any “greater good” argument without out Inky’s permission.
We all know the end result of such interaction. The cop would be long gone with Inky’s car as Inky stood by the side of the road making his pitch to a fire plug (also, it happens, a “public good”, as is the raod he was driving on before his car got nicked by a copper).
Though Inky seems to define taxation exclusively as a redistribution of wealth, any “public good” argument, regardless if Inky derives direct benefit along with his fellow citizens , is insufficient in his mind to justify his taxation.
Since Inky is so worldly and wise, maybe he owns a sailboat. Upon sailing into a distant harbor, he might choose to pay a docking fee to tie-up and wait out a storm, or to negotiate a price for repairs of his vessel. But on that bill, alongside the sales tax (to which he objects) might be a docking tax or a harbor tax. Inky says tax is taking from those who’ve earned it to give to those who have not, for things he has not agreedto whether they benefit him or not. But though the owner of the dock charges a fee, the viability of his dock business might also dependent on/facilitated by the maintanence of the harbor and by enforcement of basic sailing and safety rules.
Here’s a tax that is optional in that Inky is not required to dock. It’s not a redistribution as much as a user’s fee because the facilities that make his docking possible and the regulations that protect his safety from construction standards to the operation of numerous water craft in a specified manner, is to his benefit whether he accepts that fact or not, or agrees to pay a fee (tax) to contribute to its continued funding.
He can choose not to dock there, but his “ALL taxation is theft” argument is sunk. Considering the amount of willfull ignorance Inky has displayed, it would not be surprising to find that he winds up resting on the bottom of the ocean with it.
And between his delusions of granduer coupled with his certainty his arguments are unassailable regrdless of just how piss-poor they’re crafted (if they’re even offered at all), he could certainly use a rest. I know I’m tired of combing through his nonsense to try to find some kernel of value. It’s like shoveling through a pile of horse manure because Inky says that’s where you will find the pony. If you say that the pile of horse crap does not establish the horse’s continued presence, Inky merely repeats ad infinitum that you can’t have horse crap unless there’sa horse.
Though true on its face, like many of Inky’s truisms, there’s a little more going on than he’s willing/able to let on.
But through his generous nature, he’s still willing to hand out grades for a class I never signed up for from someone so full of himself that he must bottle his own farts, thinking everything that comes out of him is priceless . Thankfully, his grade and the “education” he professes to dispense are worth every penny I paid for it.
Nothing.
Priceless, indeed.