Now that's evidence of a foundationally troubling philosophy, one that values property over human life and confuses that misapprehension with a public and defensible virtue.
Else, you assume a theft without having made anything like the case. :e4e:
why do liberals ALWAYS take the side of the vile?
- Thread starter republicanchick
- Start date
Else, you assume a theft without having made anything like the case. :e4e:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Its not that I value property over life, its that I don't agree with doing evil that good may come (Romans 3:8.)
Taking money from non-consenting parties is clearly theft.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Getting technical with language. The truth is still that the money that is being paid out is the money that is being stolen. Technically you're right that its not a "ponzi scheme" as that would imply willing, albeit defrauded, contributants. Those who can see through social security's lie, on the other hand, are still forced to pay for it.
When money, a thing, property, is more important to you than people starving then you're placing the value of that thing above the value of human life. When the disciples were hungry they ate the priest's wheat.
Another example? "Are there any Jews in your home?" inquired the SS.
Or, there are times when moral values conflict with one another. It is wrong to be deceitful, but it would be wicked to deliver an innocent up to be murdered to satisfy the lesser point.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
So just let em' starve right? Deny the most vulnerable in society any sort of finance or financial aid because in your view it's tantamount to "stealing"? Wake up and smell reality CL. It isn't "stealing" for a civilized society to make provision for those who are sick or without a job and for those able to work they usually have to meet certain guidelines in order to receive such as it is -aka looking for employment. If you're that concerned about stealing then look a bit 'higher' up the ladder.
lain:
Exactly. A libertarian's obsession with property, money, and the starry-eyed prospect of one day being able to just hoard as much as they like kind of tips you off to their priorities.
Individuals, actual people, don't seem to matter very much to libertarians. Human beings are abstractions to them--means to an end, but there's something curiously impersonal about a lot of libertarian rhetoric. To them the masses seem to be the ant people viewed from afar by Harry Lime in The Third Man. Or think of the hair-raising crowd that actually cheered for blood during the GOP presidential debates back in '08. When you're happy with the idea of someone dying due to lack of health insurance, and when you do this on national television, something's rotten somewhere.
Last edited:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
The government has stolen trillions.
Social security is not sustainable.
The "legality" of the stealing doesn't make it moral. They have no more right to our money than Madoff.
Rick Perry is a hypocrite but he's right.
I don't think you understand me at all.
I think I've spent more time on this website talking about the shedding of blood than I have about property rights.
I support Ron Paul, who openly opposed the shedding of blood.
I didn't support the other Republicans, who favor the shedding of blood.
I genuinely do believe a free market economy would enable the vast majority of people to live better lives.
But I am a moral absolutist, so I don't think taking money from people by force is OK even if it would save lives. This is consistent with "thou shall not steal."
If you think that means I want people to die, that means you don't understand me.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Oh, and I don't really want to hoard lots of money either. If I ever got rich I'd give a ton of money away because I really don't need lots of money to be happy. Now, it would be nice to be able to write for a living and not really worry about making enough money because of already having enough. It would be nice to be able to pay off all my college debt now. But I'm not looking to hoard loads of money. In fact, I honestly don't really think about money from a personal perspective all that often. And when I do its "am I going to make enough money once I get out of college to pay off my loans and be able to live a comfortable lifestyle" not "I want to hoard billions."
Now, in saying this I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with wanting to be a billionaire, but that's not what drives me.
But I don't think its OK to steal from the guy who wants to do that, provided he does it through voluntary interaction with others rather than stealing himself.
Now, in saying this I'm not saying there's anything "wrong" with wanting to be a billionaire, but that's not what drives me.
But I don't think its OK to steal from the guy who wants to do that, provided he does it through voluntary interaction with others rather than stealing himself.
When I was young, people were saying that. And now, years after I qualified for it, it's still going strong. In fact, I'm likely to die well before there's another crisis, unless Congress messes with it again.
So, for an "unusustainable" program, it's got pretty good legs. Outlived everyone who set it up, and will very likely outlive you.
I'm doing my part, because I like my job and don't intend to quit for a while. So I'm continuing to pay into the system, and not draw out of it, as is my wife. I expect that many people will do that, as medical care continues to make us healthier and longer-lived, with longer useful work lives.
With smaller age cohorts behind us, we'll have more opportunities to continue working beyond the old age of retirement. It pays me as well as it pays the system to continue working, so I do.
More jobs will be available, and many of them will be more flexible for part-time work by the elderly who prefer to work, or need to.
All good things for the system. I would think a raise in the minimum age for retirement would be reasonable, given the demographics.
Let's just stick to this thread.
But he didn't tell the cheering jackals at that debate to stop cheering the death of a hypothetical uninsured American.
Worked out gang busters during the Gilded Age. No pesky unions, unlimited child labor, no OSHA to worry about, no health inspections, seven-day work weeks. Just positively bully.
Then fundamentally you care more about money than people.
Which in this case is inconsistent with "you shall not murder." But hey, gotta protect the almighty green, am I right?
You may not want it to happen but you sure don't seem fazed by the possibility.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure I saw that discussion, and I'm pretty sure he said that voluntary charities should help those people, not that they should die.
http://mises.org/library/truth-about-robber-barons
That's retarded, sorry. I am not a utilitarian and I won't play your utilitarian games. I would give money to someone rather than watching them starve. if I had no money but someone else did, I'd try to persuade him to help the starving man. But I wouldn't point a gun at him. If that means I "value money more than life" than so be it, at least you're consistent, but with respect I think that's kind of dumb. But if not, you're basically demanding the government do that which you would not do yourself.
Again, you misunderstand me.
Not helping a starving person, while not ethically ideal, is not murder. The fact that you have not personally given to every starving child in Africa doesn't make you a murderer, nor would it make it not a big deal if you pointed a gun at someone and shot them tomorrow. I am not saying sins of omission don't exist, but they typically shouldn't be criminally punishable, and rightly not.
There are a lot of things I don't like about the world. I'm personally focused more on political activism and trying to reduce or abolish coercive governmental violence. That doesn't mean I'm OK with everything else wrong with the world, such as starving children or uneducated children or homeless people or whatever other economic evil you want to talk about.
My parents support a Gospel for Asia child. Even as a atheist I would think you would believe that to be a good thing to do, since that money goes toward the food and education of the child, which they would otherwise not have. I wanted to support one as well, and I expressed as much, but I am currently a full time student, in debt, and unemployed. When that situation changes, my intent is to support one.
But I would not go up to a neighbor, who did have the resources while I do not, put a gun to his head, and demand he give me the money to support the child "or else." I suppose that means you think I value money more than life? Or is it only your deity the State that must tell people to contribute "or else" lest we value money more than life? Again, you are falsely reading motives into me that are not there.
Oh my, the "Sky is falling!" And, all we have is you, to warn us? In
that case, we're really in trouble!
CL, "Over confidence means, very little, after you've crashed your own car!"
Ah, that clears it all up. Because they're so many of them running around right now with more money than they know what to do with.:yawn:
The "truth" about robber barons then and now is that they should be shot.
Glad you're here to elevate the conversation.
Bully for you. Times that by a few million.
Neither would I. But I'm sure you're convinced paying your taxes is the same thing as someone putting a gun to your head.
What's that, your money-grubbing obsession with keeping what's yours at the expense of the society you live in? Yes, "dumb" is one way to put it.
Whatever helps you sleep.
Well you can't beat something with nothing. "Don't tax me" isn't a solution, CL. It's an overgrown teenager whining about needing to take out the garbage and mow the lawn.
Terrific. But what you ultimately support is a society where those who choose to opt out and never lift a finger can freely do so, placing a greater burden on whatever benefactors there may be. (Did Ayn Rand ever glorify those who gave to charity? Food for thought.)
Again, great.
Neither would I, and you know better, so frankly grow up and stop wasting our respective time.
Fundamentally, yes. I think you do. When I described a hypothetical starving grandmother your first thought was attacking Social Security, not addressing the grandmother. Simply put I think your priorities are fairly scrambled.
Jose Fly
New member
No it's not. That's just a commonly repeated stupid talking point.
First, SS is invested in real assets, unlike a Ponzi scheme where the investments aren't real. Second, SS has open, publicly-available accounting, unlike a Ponzi scheme where everything is hidden. Third, SS is mandatory for all US wage earners, which means the money for benefits is guaranteed to continue, unlike a Ponzi scheme that collapses when people stop putting money in.
I could go on, but the point is made. "SS is a Ponzi scheme" is an extremely ignorant talking point.
It's not stealing if you get your money back. :duh:
Quincy
New member
So I take it you aren't a fan of a broad interpretation of general welfare, :chuckle: .
I don't agree that it's theft, it's a tax. Originally social security covered a much more limited amount of workers (not counting genders here) who I believe would still happily pay into it today given the choice. As they increased the coverage, people who were self-employed and low wage workers got included. That's were the problems start. You factor in taxation of the benefits plus the government spending the funds for other purposes, then you have theft.
As originally implemented, I don't believe the program involves theft. Since 1983, however, the government does steal from it. Making it optional and limiting the spending of it regardless of surplus would fix the program.
Jose Fly
New member
That's libertarianism....everyone for themselves. That's why most libertarians in the US are middle class and above white people. They figure they'll always be just fine and will never need anyone's help.
Both libertarians I know personally have been massively bailed out by their parents. Funny how those ideals go out the window when reality comes knocking.
Caledvwlch
New member
I think the mandatory part is what trips a lot of people up. I don't have any problem with it. It's the mandatory part that makes it work. Less than a dollar per hour of my earnings is a small price to pay not to have my grandparents starving to death or be forced to move in with my aunts and uncles (hypothetical, as I don't have any living grandparents, but their SS checks did exactly this while they were with us).
Jose Fly
New member
And when you reach 62, you can start getting regular, guaranteed checks from that account based on how much you contributed.
Libertarians tend to forget that part...and the whole history of why the program was started in the first place.