Wealth distribution

An economy can't "give a (*)(*)(*)(*)", because an economy isn't a sentient being. However, people can give a (*)(*)(*)(*), as you apparentlly do. So I suggest that you take some of your profits and use them to care for those who, because of age, infirmity, illness, mental condition or just temporary market conditions, do not have market value that provides a basic level of subsistence.

Of course, you're going to advocate taking your neighbor's property in order to accomplish your desired end of caring for these peolpe, which you'll never convince me is an ethical or civilized act.

 

An economy can't give a (*)(*)(*)(*), but a system of economics can.

Charity is insufficient to make up the difference in substandard market wages with the policies and circumstances we now have.

 

Your opinion on that is no justification for taking the property of your fellow man.

 

I never said it was.

 

But you do advocate using force to take the property of your fellow man and provide it as charity, correct?

 

No.

.........

 

I thought you advocated taxing people in order to provide a social safety net.

 

I do. That is not what you said.

 

Then you seem to be confused. On the one hand you advocate using the threat of state violence to take people's property to provide a social safety net. On the other hand you say deny your support of the use of force to take the property of you fellow man in order to provide it to charity. Those appear to be contradictory stances.

 

Please quote my post where I've ever stated that I "advocate using force to take the property of your fellow man and provide it as charity."

Or take your straw man elsewhere.

 

Do you support the State taxing people in order to provide charity to the infirm, aged, or young?

You seem very uncomfortable boldly standing by your policies. That might be a good sign for you eventual rehabilitation.

 

Yes.

I'm not uncomfortable at all. You are the one who has to resort to blatant strawmen in a lame attempt to make an argument.

Please quote my post where I've ever stated that I "advocate using force to take the property of your fellow man and provide it as charity."

Or take your straw man elsewhere.

 

You just said that you support the State using force to take the property of your fellow man in order to provide charity to the infirm.

Many violent collectivists don't like looking at themselves in the mirror.

 

Please quote and link exactly where I stated that. Or take it back.

This kind of blatant and intentional mis-charaterization of what I've said you have to repeatedly resort to is getting old fast.

 

Are you that ashamed of your position?

You have said many times that the old, the sick, the infirm, and those without employment ought to be taken care of with tax money, that private charity would be insufficient. Are you backpedaling now?

 

Why would you think I would be ashamed of it.

Not at all.

Please quote and link exactly where I stated that I "support the State using force to take the property of your fellow man in order to provide charity to the infirm." Or take it back.

I'm not going to continue wasting my time with someone who is being blatantly intellectually dishonest.

I'm not going to allow you to continue falsely characterizing what I've stated. That is intellectually dishonest and a waste of my time. If you want to continue a discussion, quote my statement that you claim I said verbatim.

 

I did not claim to be quoting you. I am summarizing your position:

You support taxes, which is the State using force to take the property of your neighbor.

You support welfare, which is the State giving money to the needy.

Therefore, you support the State using force to take the property of your fellow man in order to provide charity to the infirm.

 

Your statement verbatim: "You just said that you support the State using force to take the property of your fellow man in order to provide charity to the infirm."

And: "you advocate using the threat of state violence to take people's property to provide a social safety net."

You claimed that is what I said, and what I advocated.

I've never said that, nor advocated that.

Please quote and link exactly where I stated that I "support the State using force to take the property of your fellow man in order to provide charity to the infirm." Or take it back.

I reject your argument for reasons I've explained many times.

 

Okay. I take it back.

So do you support taxation?

And do you support tax funded welfare?

 

Great.

Of course. Government is necessary for a well ordered society. Taxes are necessary for Government.

Not unlimited, but yes.

Do you support the enforcement of law?

 

Taxation relies upon the use of force to take the property of your neighbor. Welfare takes this appropriated money and gives it to others.

The essence of your position is that you want the government to forcibly take people's property and give it to others. That doesn't sound like a "well ordered society". It sounds like a world of might makes right.

 

Taxation like any other law must has enforcement mechanisms behind it, if and only if you do not follow the law. There is no force involved if the law is followed, and if you don't want to pay taxes, no one forces you to say here and earn a lot of money which subjects you to taxes.

So I am not "advocating" or "supporting" the use of force any more than you do in supporting enforcement of law.

No. I support taxes but I have never advocated forcing someone to live here, be an American citizen, and earn enough money to have to pay taxes. There is no force in that and I have never advocated forcing that.

Those are your decisions. But if you decide to live here, then you are voluntarily subjecting yourself to the law. And if you voluntarily choose to live here and take advantage of our economic system and society to earn a large income knowing that it will be subject to tax, then like any other law it should be enforced.

Do I support use of force to uphold law? Yes. So do you, if you answered my question honestly. We just differ on what should be laws.

 

No, I don't support the use of force to uphold the law. I support the use of force to protect person and property and to hold people accountable for their trespasses.

Unlike yourself, I don't support setting up a legalized extortion system.

 

So if there are laws protecting person and property and trespass, you don't support use of force to uphold the law, or you do?

I don't either.

 

As I said earlier, I only support the use of force to protect person and property and to hold people accountable for their trespasses against others. So anything that is consistent with that I support. Anything that is inconsistent with that I oppose.

I don't support any piece of legislation just because it happens to exist.

You support taxation, a system whereby people are told they must choose between turning over their property to another or having violence visited upon them. There's really no difference between such a system and extortion, other than that the former is legal. Thus, you support legalized extortion.