Re: Pig story - very old and very OT


"Lon VanOstran" <lcvanostran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:691jd6F2v9g86U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nate wrote:


"Lon VanOstran" <lcvanostran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:690ro9F2tdht9U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

GBinNC wrote:

Lon VanOstran <lcvanostran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Nate wrote:

Call it socialism if it makes you feel good. In my world it is reality for a society that wants to continue improving things.



Too many people believe that the NEXT group of hired thugs can manage socialism better than the LAST group of hired thugs. They can't. The system is failing because it CAN'T WORK.



Socialism? And who exactly were those "last group of hired thugs" who
"manage(d) socialism" in the US?


George W. Bush and the United States Congress. Their management of our socialist programs has been a failure, just as the next group will fail.


You tend to view anything to your left (which is, of course, almost
everything, considering where you stand) as "socialism."


Wrong. I view programs that take money from those who earn it and ATTEMPT (they fail to get more than a tiny fraction of the money to them) to give money to those who DIDN'T earn it, as socialism. That's the definition.

But here's the
dictionary definition, and nobody I know advocates the establishment of
anything like this in the US. As a capitalist, I know *I* don't.

========================
socialism (so´she-lîz´em) noun
A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods
are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole
community.


Are you suggesting that a people who claim and exercise the right to TAKE your property, at will, and without recourse, don't actually OWN it? Or do you suggest that the American people, through their elected representatives are merely THIEVES, stealing the fruits of other peoples labor at gunpoint?



They are not thieves, stealing from us at gun point. We gave them authority to collect taxes through the constitution.

Which part of the constitution grants our government the power to take money from those who earn it, in order to give it to those who do not?

The part of the constitution that gives our elected representastive power to create laws, <almsot inserted nasty adjective)!


They collect that
which they are due based on laws we create through our republican form of government. If I purchased a TV through BestBuy and agreed to pay them for that TV in 30 days on credit and I decided not to pay under those terms, do I get to keep the TV? Does BestBuy have legal recourse against me? Of course they do. They have legal authority through the contract I sign to collect the money that is due to them or reposses the property.

Wrong analogy. Best Buy can't come to your house and force you to do business with them. Your government can.

You elected representatives can. Vote them out or deal with it.


Why you can't see our tax system under those same terms alludes me.

I knew that.

You owe taxes because the representatives that your society elected created laws that authorize tax collection in return for services we allowed them to authorize. No one stole from you under gun point.

Sure they do. If I don't pay, they'll put me in prison and take all of my stuff.

Because the governement has to enforce the laws they create under the authority of the constitution we hold so dear.


You want to get out of your obligation to pay, leave our country...stop using our resources. My bet is you like living here. Well...there is a price for that comfort.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I see. Those who want my money not only claim the right to take it, but now they claim the right to force me out of the country if I don't agree to LIKE being robbed by modern day Robin Hoods.

No one forces you out of this country if you're a citizen. But you do have a choice to leave or stay. Consequences exits for both decisions.




Redistributing the property of others under threat of imprisonment is NOT a sign that you believe in a man's right to OWN property.


You have a right to own property on any land on earth. Choose a place that doesn't tax you based on its value and own property there.

Why? I would rather fight dimwits who think it proper to take money away from those who earn it in order to GIVE it to those who do not. IMHO, that's dead wrong, and those who condone it will eventually kill the golden goose. The good news is that those fools will be among the first to starve when Atlas Shrugs, and he's well on his way to doing just that. The USSR isn't the only country which can be destroyed that way.
IMHO, the USA is next.

It seems your main gripe is our welfare system, not our taxation system. Chose your battles wisely and stay focused on them.



Clearly,

by advocating such behavior, you demonstrate that you believe the DESIRES of the collective "people" trump the rights of the individual "people",


That's how repulican forms of government work. Majority votes and democracies dictate how we function as a society.

That's why the founders of the USA set up a Constitutionally limited Republic, instead of a Democracy. Too bad public education prevents modern citizens from knowing the difference.

You obviously don't understand the difference either. A Republican Form of Government uses the democratic process to ensure each citzen retains his power. Look those words up before you start professing on the subject.


The rights of the collective are not granted superior power by the Constitution. The document doesn't protect collective rights ANYWHERE.

Individual rights are protected through the use of your voting power. If you chose not to participate in voting them you have essentially given your power away. But more importantly, once you vote in an elected representative, it is up to you to stay in contact with that representative to let him know your expectations. If he doesn't meet those expectations you vote him out next time. The majority will dictate wether he is representing the collective good. Not you individually, but you and your peers. Don't get yourself all confused thinking you have power to rule your neighbors. The collective neighborhood has power thorough the individuals right to vote. You still need a group of folks who agree with you in order to make change. That way we are not stuck withg the Lon VanOstren way of doing business.


You want to worry just about you?--

No sir. I want to DECIDE who I worry about, instead of having uneducated dimwits decide FOR ME.

Can't do that in the USA. Our constitution was set up to allow the people to chose the brightest and the bravest to represent our positions in congress. Only way to fix what you precieve to be a problem is to get as many of your fellow citizens as you can to actually research those candidates before casting a vote. Good luck with that.



buy an island and live there where you are free to make your own laws.

There you go again. Anyone who doesn't like the country YOUR WAY should leave. Well, *** YOU. I'll stay and fight your sorry ass. I've got a vote and a voice TOO.

Not MY WAY. It's OUR WAY. Get used to it, or change it. The constitution is not going away.


As long as you are the only person in that society your rules will work. Once another person moves in with you (Esposa for example), she gets equal say in establishing rules.

Ahhhhh ***. Now you are trying to force us to take in OTHER people in OUR RV???????????? LOL

Whoops...meant to say Caroline. Forgot who I was talking to for a sec. LOL (And I beg LZ's pardon too)



>If a third person
joins then you have to use a voting system or one of you will get killed (Cain and Able).

Left to short sighted thinking like yours, no woman would ever dare to be alone in any room with 2 men. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS should mean something. They DID once.

They only mean something if you have a group of people. Otherwise what's the point? Are you just argueing for argueing's sake now?



and their right to own and control property or money. You

allow them to CLAIM ownership, while demonstrating that the state owns anything that the collective "people" choose to take.


Collective people chose representatives that create laws that they deem will benefit the majority. You've got a warpped sense of reality, buddy. You can call dog *** anything you want, but at the end of the day, it still stinks.

So does yours.


I am not a fan of the welfare system. Giving my money to a slacker is not a choice I would make. That is one draw back to living in this wonderful conuntry. I will vote against any law that authorizes welfare as we have it today. But until the majority agrees with me, it is one of the prices I pay in order to live in the greatest country on our planet. That is my personal opinion. I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. But I do recognize we have faults in the system that need fixin. Let's all get to work on those problems and quit relying on our elected representatives to do it for us.

DAMN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can you write that last paragraph and then bitch at me for writing the same damn thing?

You did not write the same thing. You wrote about the governement not having authority to collect taxes. You lost focus of your original complaint and muddied the water by trying to tell us the government holds you up at gun point and steals your money. They don't do that. If you break a law, they may use a gun to control you when they arrest you if you resist that arrest. Don't break the laws and this won't happen. The laws say you must pay your fair share of taxes to support the system developed by OUR elected representatives.

Now...we are a compassionate society that wants to take care of needy folks. You don't want to give money to poor people. Nor do I. What can we do to change that? If we can agree on this point...that the welfare system is our battle...can we develop a battle plan to fight that war and leave the IRS out of it?

Nate


Lon, who wonders what drugs Nate is ON tonight.

.