Social safety nets are ideological slavery

It boils down to a very simple fact: governments are horribly inefficient and wasteful. If helping people is your genuine goal, then allowing the government to collect tax money and use that money to assist others is simply not the best way to help them. That is not an opinion, but a fact. Not only is it not the best way to help them, but many times it actually hurts them.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" - John Adams

 

“Some prefer the savage practice of the old and sick being dishonored and prefer being Fair I Sees, and some want economic parity which is being a brother’s keeper. Some will not be happy until the urchins are living in a wooden elephant in the square of a Dickens novel or have no ability to accumulate capital for great inventions and wealth creation… They are two sides of an evil coin.” (me)

What part of the word “some” did you miss? Do you need a dictionary?

“Liberals” like you always make me whip out a dictionary, why is that?

- - - Updated - - -

If governments of the people must be horribly inefficient and wasteful I can only imagine that the people without government are even more inefficient and wasteful.

 

So there's no argument to be made for any constitutional amendments anywhere? You know when they were debating the 16th amendment? That's the same sort of thing I propose. Asking the basic questions of what should be in the power of the state and what should not.

Its legitimate functions are only legitimate so long as the individual desires it, regardless of the "good" the coercion will do. Plenty of planters thought they were looking after their slaves and doing what's best for them, but it's irrelevant what they thought - it was the right of the man to choose his freedom.

I figure something similar with tax.

 

Mexico has no safety nets, I do not see that as something we want here

 

I guess I am one of those bums who goes on about taxes

I couldn't care less what happens in your state so long as it's voluntary.

 

They almost always are. This is not an opinion, but rather a fact that is irrefutable, and not subject to opinion.

You most certainly can imagine that they would be, but you would be incorrect in your assumption. In just about every case, privately run enterprises are overwhelmingly more efficient and less wasteful than any equivalent government run enterprise. This is not an opinion, but a fact.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence" - John Adams

 

Your confusion comes with the false idea (propaganda) that you have come to believe which says that putting social safety nets in place for those in need is done to control those that recieve the aid. The fly(s) in your thoery is that is not how or why they came about and if so how does one explain the fact that many of those that recieve aid do not support those that fight to keep those programs in place.

 

If your assertion is that politicians give aid to those who need it out of pure altruism, how do you explain the fact that government aid via social programs is far from the optimum way of helping people? In fact, in many cases, government social programs are detrimental to those they promulgate to be assisting.

 

No, they do not. LOL!!

Even so, there are times where allowing some people to rely upon the government for a time... isn't necessarily a bad practice. Face it, ANYONE can meet with misfortune. And letting people hit-bottom with no help, isn't particularly good for society or the nation as a whole.

 

So you would prefer to kill off all social programs and go back to charities only. History lesson, been tried, did not work and will not work today, far too much "it's mine and you can't have it" mentality. In a wealthy society it is only right that we do what we can for those in need, you must assume people on welfare want to be there, that is not the case with the majority getting help. Besides it is also the Christian thing to do and Jesus would approve.

 

I want to expand on this in that the natural condition of humanity post civilization is a master slave sort of relationship where those who dominate claim to provide and often they take these dominant positions by force, this has been the case since the earliest days of the fertle cresant. The best way to secure power is dependancy and most people who want power realize this and these are the things that break down systems in what we would call very liberated societies throughout history.

 

For purposes of argument I will accept your argument that efficient business minded people cannot be executives or legislators and that dictatorship is the only answer. Long Live the Obamanation of Desolation! All Hail the Great Leader Obama! Down with inefficiency, up with Dictatorship!

Privately run enterprises are dictatorships. This is not an opinion, but a fact. The Obamanation thanks you for your cooperation.

 

Right, because people without money have money to fork over.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it's charity - not slavery, and it makes society better for everyone, even greedy, sociopathic people that don't know any better.

 

I'm pretty sure debt is slavery - not getting help from the government. If the government is out for itself, why are you people complaining that people are getting "free stuff?" I thought dat dare government ate it.

 

So, you agree that, if taxes were made voluntary, those who choose to not pay them should be cut off completely from all tax paid services, and be charged a bill every time they need to use public roads, police, and other necessities that can not be avoided.

I would even go as far as saying that they should be stripped of their right to protest on public land, or petition the government, since they did not help pay for them.

 

no problem you can start by giving my money back Today that I paid into S.S. for the past 31 years and dont tax me the 6.2% anymore.I can invest my money better then the U..S government with my S.S. Also stop taxing my company for what it pays them for Unemployment on my behalf, I would then get a dollar an hour raise out of the deal.

 

Absolutely, so long as you provide them complete sovereignty on their land excepting things that directly affect the state (ie: shooting citizens of your state from his property).

Just as you have no right to coerce him to give up taxes, he has no right to coerce you to give up your property.

 

Ok, so let me be clear. You believe that it is right to demand that someone give part of what they work for to someone else, whether they want to or not? Further, you believe that the government is not only the best suited to decide who gets what, how much, and when, but has the right to do so?

If you do, and that is your prerogative, than I vehemently disagree. What I just described is communism, and I do not subscribe to it's philosophy.

Oh, and as for your obviously snide remark about Christianity and Jesus, let me clear something up for you, right here, right now. Yes, without question, Jesus taught that people who have should share what they have with those who do not, and indeed, that is the Christian philosophy. But Jesus and Christianity do not put you in jail if you do not. They SUGGEST you do that, they do not FORCE you to do that. HUGE difference.

You, apparently, have such a low regard for humanity. Except of course for those like yourself, who so obviously know how much to take from those that have and how much to give to those that do not. You apparently do not believe that the "average" person (as opposed to the enlightened ones, such as yourself) will help his fellow humans. Likewise, you apparently believe that not all human beings are capable of succeeding. In my opinion, that is a very smug, arrogant, and condescending position to hold.

I believe that instead of making people dependent on the government, we need to help them achieve what they want on their own. I believe that ANY human being, with the right attitude, some hard word, and a little determination, can achieve almost anything he or she desires.

 

Really? Because companies FORCE people to buy their product or services, and FORCE people to work for them? Please explain exactly what makes privately run enterprises dictatorships?

Supposing for a moment that even if your assertion is true, that privately run enterprises are indeed dictatorship, please explain exactly why they, without an army or police force to enforce their will, are worse than a government dictatorship, which has the power to murder, torture, and imprison those who do not comply? How you can even use the word "dictatorship" as an adjective to describe private business, in my opinion, shows just how little you know about history and dictatorships.

 

Forced charity is good? You believe that people should be FORCED to give what they earn to others, whether they want to or not? Who decides how much is fair, YOU? Who decides who gets what, YOU? What right do you, or anyone else, have to take what is mine, and give it to someone else? What part, EXACTLY, of the Constitution gives YOU or ANYONE ELSE the right to take private property from ANYONE and FORCIBLY give it to someone else?

THANK GOD FOR ALL THE PROGRESSIVE THINKING PEOPLE WHO KNOW BETTER! OH GOD, THANK YOU! WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T?

 

How do you propose to help them?

 

I call it fractional slavery.

 

I will answer this very openly, and very honestly. I have no idea. I am a hard working person, who has a full time job. My free time is spent with my son, my girlfriend, and my family and friends. The focus of my life is not to assist others.

How do I help? I VOLUNTARILY donate money TO THOSE PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS WHOSE PRIMARY FOCUS IS TO ASSIST OTHERS: specifically, my church and other charities of my choosing. Charities, unlike the government, have accountability. If you do not like what a charity does, you can choose not to donate. That can not be said about government programs.

I do not believe that the majority of government funded welfare programs are the best way to help people. I believe that the government throws money at "feel good" programs which are one of the most ineffective ways of helping people, and in many cases, do more harm than good. Additionally, I do not believe that most politicians get into politics to "help people". I believe they get into politics for power and for money, thus, I do not believe for an instanct, that most politicians have the best interest of the people they are professing to help in mind.

I want to be crystal clear: I am not for a moment, suggesting that we, as a society, not help those who are in need of help. I am just vehemently opposed to the federal government being chosen to do it. I am vehemently opposed for many reasons, with the primary reasons being:

A) while I personally believe in helping others, I do not believe that ANYONE has the right to FORCE others to do the same
B) the government is generally horribly inefficient, wasteful, and inept, particularly when it comes to social programs
C) I resent that people believe that strangers have a forced obligation to help them
D) I believe it is insulting to presume that people are incapable of rising to a challenge, and overcoming hardship on their own

At the end of the day, I believe with all of my heart, that teaching people to EARN rather than to EXPECT something is the best course of action, and helps them much more in the long run than simply giving it to them. If people are ENTITLED to items such as food, shelter, and clothing, why should anyone work for them? And when, in those times when it is obvious that people need help, let those who devote their lives to helping people help them. Not career politicians who are in it for the wealth and power.

 

A privately RUN enterprise either has government or dictatorship, for the partner or subordinate could run up inefficient bills and debt without government.

When anyone is incapable of learning, and they keep repeating the same refrain regardless of how many times they are told the truth, they may be a sociopath. The authorization for use of force was NOT limited to disarming Saddam of WMD, as the Biden and Lugar Amendment did NOT PASS, and I voted for Andre V. Marrou to protest Gorby saying, “that is far enough,” when I did not think it was far enough. And I also voted to remove Saddam for his support for the attacks of 9/11, and his being an ally of our enemy. So I don’t give a crap about any repeated sociopathic claims that Bush lied and people died, I voted for my representatives for removing of the threat to the peace, not the sociopathic lukewarm “liberal” endless arts of war of Oil for Food on the backs of slaves. So if the sociopath did not get their way they can go frack themselves.

Similarly I live here because we own this land, you do not own it, I do not own it, and it is we who own it.

Consequently if you do not want to give part of what you work for to someone else you have two choices:

1) Make like a tree and leave.

2) Say what you want, vote, and if we do not appoint you to be our dictator it is probably because Romney was a stupid fracker.

Privately run enterprise without government is evil; it builds too big a house, and too many houses, then it gives an ARM to Bernita to baby sit the housing glut, then when the price of milk goes up because of bad private investment Bernita loses her house and it goes vacant, and due to the Real Estate principle of regression your private enterprise just harmed my fair market value. So I have a basic human right without government to enslave the privately run enterprise as war booty, to frack it in the holes at my leisure like a good little MoHamMad. And with government to sue it for damages or considering tort reform using the political principle of supply (good economy) or demand (Obamanation) with a vote.

You had better learn that the Obamanation was voted into office by you. Hannity voted for him. Stossel voted for him. Rush Limbaugh voted for him. Ron Paul voted for him. And let’s not forget that McCain and Romney both voted for Obama; A retarded McCain in three debates could not tell Obama why invasion without WMD, and Romney was too stupid to know that the 47% included a huge chunk of people who worked hard until retirement and it took years to get away from the Democrats; and in one fell swoop Newt pissed it all away when we were headed for a 1 trillion dollar surplus and voted for Obama.

No, private enterprise does not force people to buy, or force people to work for them; they either sell a better product than Obamanation or they lose to the Obamanation neo-commie company, they either hire more people than Obananation or the Obamanation neo-commie company hires them.

Sell your fracking product or go out of business, it is your choice.

 

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. I do not understand the point you are trying to make, nor do I see an answer to my simple question: exactly what makes privately run enterprises dictatorships?