Effort or Luck?

Oh yeah is that how the railroad, mining, cattle and logging industry got their land? check out the history of the west Mo' Fo'..

don't start with that crap..fuck you.

Riiiggghht...that's why we have things like rent and wages based on "what the market will bare"...

If ya don't like what government does ya get involved an' vote the fuckers out ...ya don't run off to another country with "your wealth" and then heckle the folks who made you wealthy in the first place...jeez

Ahh, I feel better now...thanks for the rant-space Indy...:mickey:

ZW

 

Well, just keep on ranting if that's what makes you happy. It sure beats working doesn't it?

 

Oh give up already...I happen to have a position in local government and am actively working against fucks like you so just keep on a-bitchin'... economic and social justice comin' from the bottom up, mutha fucka!

ZW

 

But contracts and exchange of property are defined by whole wad of controls called contract laws. In addition we have other controls like civil wrongs, defined by what society deems responsible behavior and a whole bunch of other controls. There is always 'control', if that's the way you want to put it, and the content of that control is given by the society through the government and based on certain values. If there are any change of those values over the years then the laws will change, but don't try to make it sound like when that happens, whether in the interest of equality or anything else, that there is further 'control' that wasn't there previously.

 

Anger and profanity seems to suit you well. So you have? a position in government? That's one way of avoiding work.

 

Control has a way of getting out of hand, but sometimes it requires one to recognize that they are the ones being controlled and not the ones in control.

 

Fuckin'-A!

So you moved to another country. that's one way to avoid paying your taxes.

 

I would think that someone who has a "position" in government would be more informed. Living in another country does not by itself eliminate a responsibility of paying taxes. In most cases taxes are paid in the country where ones earnings are produced. Let's just say a smart person avoids danger whenever possible, and to live among thieves only increases ones risk. Primarily, I am the first line of defense responsible for the personal bodily and financial safety of myself and family.

 

You found a country with no thieves? I'm pretty sure there are people that want to kick your ass and steal your shit in every country in the world...

 

i'd rep ya but the bastards won't let me

you too have seen how helpful federal and state money can be to small communities without a hell of a lot of resources

money that helps our people and businesses to keep their heads above water, money that keeps our towns alive

every time i struggle to push my bike through the snow on the old bridge, i wish there was just a little bit more [a little plowing would be nice]

:2thumbsup:

 

Probably not none, but fewer.

 

Indie

Which you are using as a way to evade giving any rational explanations of your views, and your reply is more evasion.
*

We have been through this a few times now and basically this statement is nonsensical in that you can’t look at each case individually, so you are basically saying you haven’t an answer.

In fact this looks a lot like more evasion.

So once again - Can you explain why you think helping the disadvantaged would not be of benefit to them?

 

Indie

I don't find obeying existing laws irrational, especially when they apply to the government.

That again is more evasion – “saying that the US-C in your opinion doesn’t allow this or that does not explain why you hold your views or if they are rational”

Obeying a law and agreeing with a law are two different thinks, I think you know that, but I think you just want to get out of explaining your views because you know they are not rational and can’t stand up to scrutiny.

*

Just because something says something doesn’t mean you have to agree – a constitution might forbid democracy but that doesn’t mean you have to hate it, a law might say people have to kick a sick child every morning but that doesn’t mean you have to kick hard or at all.

Oh please not the playing dumb act again? It hasn’t worked before and it will not now.

Again this is evasion.

And again you make statements that you don’t and seemingly can’t back up.

*

All I’m proposing is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

I see it as a political issue, which rationally and morally involves the government of the people involved.

*

Why are you opposed to that?

But you do – everything you seem to have proposed so far would make a society even more unfair, and would more likely limit opportunity by stifling the potential of those born (through no fault of their own) into disadvantage.


Also I know you are opposed to using government to help bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

But why (beyond that you think the US constitution tells you to oppose it) what are your rational arguements.

*

 

Indie

So society doesn’t need to exist but many if not most of the characteristics of a society do, so that doesn’t make sense – if something has the characteristics of a society then isn’t it by definition a society.

I mean if you have deeds and contracts you need law, some type of societal organisation that makes and decrees the laws (government), some means of making the deeds and contracts binding (executive power), some means of adjudicating over disputes that are going to arise (judiciary), and so on.

Or is taken by force or by deceit – then society can be called in under the guise of laws and regulations, that are recognised as such by that society and if needs be hearing or trials may be needed to adjudicate the dispute.

Oh not again – we’ve been through this – you were not able to back it up rationally all the other times can you now? Here are just a couple of past replies to your assertions.

So everyone who has ever fought for or will ever fight for some social justice or to make a society a fairer place is and was only ever motivated by envy?
And the argument that envy is the only thing motivating people to wish for a better, fair society seems to be solely and utterly based on your own bias and prejudice.

This is an incredibly blinkered and simplistic view of things, no wonder you can’t put up rational arguments to back up your claims if this is the shallowness of you thinking.

If you are truly this ill-informed about human life and history, you really should get out and experience life more and do some studying.

*

 

I'm not evading anything, and you have not produced a rational explanation of what you keep referring to as irrational, nor have you produced an explanation of why.

Each case could be looked at more individually when viewed by those where they exist.

It would appear that your entire argument is based on keeping people alive regardless of the cost or their value to society, if any at all.

 

I think this may be where his suggestion of getting some life experience comes in. I would not to like to be your son. But I doubt you have family (or friends) at all saying that.

 

Essentially you are just claiming the laws to be irrational without proving such or feeling a necessity to change them as allowed by the law.

This is like talking to a broken record. You offer nothing intelligent in return which would promote any form of eventual agreement. I think I have previously mentioned that there are some laws, amendments to the Constitution that I disagree with, and promote their repeal at every opportunity. However none of them are related to what we are talking about.

I am totally opposed to government having power to control what an individual can acquire legally, or creating rights or entitlements that take from one sector of society and give to another without consent.
That is Socialism, and we've ventured way to far along that path already as evidenced by the enormous debt already amassed, not to mention the unfunded mandates that will obligate all future productive members of society well beyond any capacity to live as well as the poorest members of society currently live.

While I don't claim the Constitution to promote the equality of the members of society as you would wish, it does in my opinion promote the long term survival of the majority of society by allowing individual success as well as failure, recognizing the fact that when government tries to eliminate all failure, it does so only by spreading it to the society as a whole which can only result in the eventual failure of the society as a whole.

 

While you seem to promote laws that prohibit and punish taking by force or deceit by individuals, you at the same time appear to promote allowing government to do so.

Government has a place in society, but so should charity, and they need not, nor should they be one and the same.
Go visit and live in some socialist, or communist countries as I do for a while and gain some real life experience yourself.

 

You seem to have missed or ignored the fact that I consider family first, working my way down the list of friends and neighbors as I feel necessary in accordance to my abilities. Like I said charity is a personal thing, not a government function.

 

and like i said, in another thread, private charity in itself is unfair

the biggest charity in the town in which i live gives all its money to the hospital - a place a poor man such as myself cannot afford to visit