Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Kyran · Feb 23, 2004, 11:46 pm

Greetings everyone,

I would like to present the fusionist solution to social programs. Feel free to present your own ideas and challenge the effectiveness of mine.

Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest. Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years.

Disrespect of property rights is disrespect of life itself.

How will this end social programs? The same way they got started: threat of government force. People won't go to the Social Security office once the first few hundred thieves get arrested.

This concept will piss off every true liberal in moments; I expect flames and accusations. Try not to be offended, folks. I am merely attempting to come up with a working end to social programs. If you like any of these then your bias will prevent you from looking at this topic in an objective manner.

People use that Federal Govt to get our money, and I think it can work backwards too. Let's see what the popular consensus is.

Packratt · Feb 24, 2004, 12:03 am

Hmm.. It's usually said that the punishment should fit the crime, yes?

It follows then that the punishment of theft should be proportionate to the ammount stolen and how much harm had been done in the process of that crime, yes?

If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements.

When we also look at tax flows in terms of where that money is spend in resource usage, the wealthy take more in when compared with the common worker or the poor.

So I say yes, let us punish those criminals who take the most from us! Let us punish those consumers of pork! Let the punishment fit the crime, and let us imprison those theiving dogs for life!

Impenitent · Feb 24, 2004, 12:44 am

kill kill kill kill kill the poor...

mooseboy84 · Feb 24, 2004, 12:55 am

what are you going to when the poor people cant pay back? they obviously cant if theyre poor and recivever services in the first place.

are you going to arrest them? put them in jail. then you will have to be taxed even more for paying for people to watch them in jails. maybe we should ship them to australia.

there was some economist that says poor people under the poverty line should just be given $15,000 a year because much more than that ammount is spent in adminastration expenses just to give deliver "services" to them.

mooseboy84 · Feb 24, 2004, 01:02 am

btw kyran, why dont you answer to my post here?
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=786

bmaestro · Feb 24, 2004, 01:27 am

first off, if you want your tax's back, realize that $1200 of EACH american's money goes to the military anually. granted, this is mostly to the rich, but lets start there. Take back your hard earned cash from those theives, and live in a free economy with no military security. Hurray. Next, kill subsidies on oil and other important foriegn goods. granted that domestic costs of production are much higher, and everyone will be paying shitloads for their gas, their nikes and their bananas. but who gives a shit? The government won't be stealing your money. Last but certainly not least, social programs. instead of arresting the poor that come running in for their welfare checks (this is dumb, imprisoning people costs more money than just giving them the fucking check), why not just turn them away and not give anyone checks? If you start arresting people for wanting welfare checks, you'll only have to endure the costs of more law enforcement to shut down the poor people when they start rioting. (you may have to if you just turn them away, but you can use the money you got back from not having to imprison someone to buy yourself a shotgun and shoot the people you feel superior to). Now, you have all your taxes, no international trade, no national defence, a shitload of angry poor people fighting rich people with bling bling shotguns. Sounds like my kinda country.

Peace
B

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 24, 2004, 02:10 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)

Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Bad idea. Those who get "free" bennies in most cases are also taxpayers, and see themselves as merely getting their money back. This part of the solution punishes the victim.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
GOOD idea, except that I think it's too lenient, and also punishes the victims -- i.e., it makes the taxpayers fund politicians' room and board for 20 years. Maybe the "Romanian Solution" would be more of a deterrent.

--Jackney Sneeb

eburchelli · Feb 24, 2004, 02:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,)
People use that Federal Govt to get our money, and I think it can work backwards too. Let's see what the popular consensus is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Isn't that ass backwards? Shouldn't that read the Federal Government uses the People to get our money? Or was that your backwards, too?

People can only demand what they can get. It's the government who decides how to pass around the loot it takes from taxpayers. It's Congress who decides where the money will be spent and a lot of it is on pork.

http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img2.html

Also this bit from Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho (http://crapo.senate.gov/fastfacts/budget2.htm)

Quote: Q. What is the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending?

A. Discretionary spending is spending authorized by the Congress and the President in the 13 annual appropriations bills. Spending on individual discretionary programs may vary year to year based upon the level of spending authorized by Congress. Total discretionary spending represents one-third of all federal spending. Mandatory spending is authorized by permanent laws. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are mandatory spending. Spending levels for these programs are determined by the amount necessary to comply with the law and not by the annual appropriations bills. Mandatory spending accounts for two-thirds of total federal spending. Unquote

eburchelli · Feb 24, 2004, 02:23 am

I am replying to my own post here rather than commenting there. I particularly like (

) this blurb from Mike Crapo "Spending levels for these programs are determined by the amount necessary to comply with the law .....".

Who does he think he's kidding? The congress makes the law. But that might be too much for some people to understand. His statement appears to place blame for mandatory spending onto some other entity. Don't fall for that bull.

AnonT · Feb 24, 2004, 05:52 am

So, according to that article, about 1/3 of federal government spending goes to "discretionary spending", or basically pork barrel projects?
Insanity. They could give back 1/3 of my taxes today and it wouldn't stop any major government functions, even social security and medicare, let alone the military and law enforcement that's the true purpose of government.

Anniee · Feb 24, 2004, 06:08 am

Hmm...in this case it's the government that is stealing the money, not really the recipients. Indeed they need to A) stop stealing it, and B) give back what they've stolen (but don't hold your breath.) The appropriate punitive measure for theft is restitution. In full. Not jail sentences.

In response to the first response, a tax break isn't a boon or a windfall or theft - it is the government stealing less of your money than they otherwise would have. Considering the crushing tax burden and the prosperity for all that results when taxes are minimal, tax breaks are a good thing...not to mention the government didn't earn it and is not entitled to/has no claim on the money that businessman earned to begin with. Subsidies, yes, I agree with you. Again the gov't needs to reimburse the taxpayer from whom the subsidy money was taken. However there is no logical reason on earth to call *earning* money "theft." Then to add insult to injury by stealing half of what that businessman earns by taxing him, in order to redistribute it to those who didn't earn it and have no claim on it...while calling him a thief for earning it and providing jobs and prosperity to others...well I can only hope it's ignorance and not malice that would lead one to make such a proclamation.

AnonT · Feb 24, 2004, 06:20 am

As far as packratt's comment, I can see his point and agree with him in part. Businesses regularly lobby/bribe officials for everything from subsidies and tax breaks for themselves to regulations that hurt their competitors but not themselves. Admittedly, getting a tax break isn't theft - it's less theft - but if you lobby for a tax break for yourself at the cost of higher taxes for your competitors, then you're guilty of robbing your competitors. Businesses that get more of their money from subsidies, or only control their market share because they lobby for restrictions on and theft from their competition, rather than because they actually provide something worthwhile, deserve punishment for encouraging theft and destruction.

Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you, Anniee - politicians and the government are the main perpetrators, and lower taxes are usually a good thing (unless the government is doing deficit spending, in which case it can actually be bad in the long run; but that's more the spending's fault than the lower taxes). However, I do think that people who lobby for theft are partly responsible, too.

Anniee · Feb 24, 2004, 06:31 am

There is only one entity in your scenario though, who has the power of FORCE behind them - and that is the law/government. The businessman can try, he can cajole and lobby, but he can not force subsidies or tax breaks. I'm not saying he would be morally right to try to gain a truly unfair advantage over the competition (and he wouldn't have to if producers weren't being looted), but the main corruption in the scenario is still with those who have the power to make those decisions and enforce them at the end of a bayonet. Taxation is theft, no doubt, it's hard to blame people for trying to protect their earnings from plunder...but anyway we're mostly in agreement.

Jackney Sneeb · Feb 24, 2004, 08:50 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
As far as packratt's comment, I can see his point and agree with him in part. Businesses regularly lobby/bribe officials for everything from subsidies and tax breaks for themselves to regulations that hurt their competitors but not themselves. Admittedly, getting a tax break isn't theft - it's less theft - but if you lobby for a tax break for yourself at the cost of higher taxes for your competitors, then you're guilty of robbing your competitors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Whoa . . .wait a minute: 'A' robs 'B' and 'C.' 'C' asks 'A' to let him keep a little more of his money, and to not be ordered around so much. 'A' robs 'B' more to make up the difference. Therefore --

'C' is guilty of robbing 'B'??

--Jackney Sneeb

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 24, 2004, 11:04 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
what are you going to when the poor people cant pay back? <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I can live with simply ending all social programs.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Take back your hard earned cash from those theives, and live in a free economy with no military security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What the hell are you talking about?! When is the last time that our military had to actually protect our mainland from invasion? Pearl Harbor was in the 40's and it wasn't even the mainland!!

You'd have to go back to the revolutionary war. LOL!

Our military doesn't protect us from anything. They're very much busy goign around the world trying to tell other countries how to live.

I'll gladly take a free-market society without "military protection". If i feel threated i'll simply hire a protection agency to protect me.

bmaestro · Feb 24, 2004, 11:16 am

If we didn't have our super powerful militar as a basis for threat, all the people that hate our country across the world would take that opportunity to attack us. National defense is necessary, just not to the scale we have it now, but then again, if you want your money back from those theives, thats the place to start.

B

Impenitent · Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 am

"all the people that hate our country across the world would take that opportunity to attack us."

"National defense is necessary, just not to the scale we have it now"

think...

us against the world! disarm and be a target! that is wisdom.

edit: sure, that would eliminate spending programs... there'd be no citizens to help... tax the dead and spend for the dead... defense comes first

bmaestro · Feb 24, 2004, 01:12 pm

Look, I'm not a fan of the military in general. I think its bloated beyond any reasonable size. But honestly, we've screwed so much with our foriegn policy that the truth is, people hate the US. Of course there's countries that support us, but if WE disamrmed, we would be a target. We already are a target (see the past ?? years of anti-US terrorism).

My point, which is now completely buried in a petty argument about the military, is that the government spends most of the taxpayers' money on the military. If you're considering social programs to be theft, consider the military to be theft on a grand scale, because about 50-100 times the amount being spent on social programs goes to the military (see http://www.truemajority.org/oreo)) Personally, I would like to continue paying taxes and see social programs increase while military decreased. I'd like to see the buget deficit and the federal debt removed (which would be real economic stimulus, no bullshit tax cuts).

To bring it full circle back to the topic, arresting people asking for welfare checks is so stupid (read my earlier post). If you're concerned about people consentually robbing you, you have to look at the military, cause thats where about 90% of what they rob from you goes to.

Peace,
B

Edit: Are you all incapable of grasping liberal sarcasm? In the post where i recomended using the money you get from not having to arrest people to buy yourself a shotgun, i wasn't implying that I want to shoot poor people. By saying that you should start with the military, i was implying that the military is where all the stealings going on, not that I wanted the US government to disolve and give us all blingin' shotguns to defend ourselves with. Learn to recognize a sarcastic tone.

Kyran · Feb 24, 2004, 01:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,)
Hmm.. It's usually said that the punishment should fit the crime, yes?

If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman.

The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

First, yes. Second, no. Businessmen actually work of their own volition to perform some service or product in exchange for money; none of which is forced by the hand of the government, nor does their income originate from government.

Perhaps you believe it is a crime to obtain wealth; if so, then your bias may prevent you from seeking economic freedom (entrepeneurship) in an increasingly technological and capitalist world.

You must remember the case of Wal-Mart's eminent domain abuse which has topped libertarian talk-show host Neal Boortz' articles in the past month. Just to let you know, big corporate America is taking homes from the poor using Big Brother. However, if using the system to obtain the property of others is not illegal then we cannot do anything about this.

We must make it illegal both ways; being indiscriminate of the offenders' income status.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moose, our court system is already equipped to handle the scenario you described (judges do payment plans). I have no recommendations or alterations to add. I will respond to your post at my earliest opportunity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,)
first off, if you want your tax's back, realize that $1200 of EACH american's money goes to the military anually. granted, this is mostly to the rich, but lets start there. Take back your hard earned cash from those theives, and live in a free economy with no military security...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is highly off-topic, however I will still address the matter. Military is a necessity to a free society. I personally do want my taxes spent on this. If social program recipients performed such a public service then there would be no crime; and people would not see this as stealing. Be careful not to stretch the concept of public service to the point where the public cannot have a say-so in the matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackney, many crimes put people in jail on the taxpayer dollar. It is a necessary system to civilization. If no life is taken then we should take no life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,)
Hmm...in this case it's the government that is stealing the money, not really the recipients<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Possession is 9/10 of the law. Recipients get money and spend it. Wal-Mart gets land and builds a store on it. Same coin, different sides.

They are a beneficiary of our country; the same as any elite sector of historic ones. You are correct on the punitive damages for larceny; however because of the widespread criminal behavior we must use great force to prevent ensuing riots.

bmaestro · Feb 24, 2004, 01:34 pm

Your argument is actually holding a little water. I'm impressed.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This is highly off-topic, however I will still address the matter. Military is a necessity to a free society. I personally do want my taxes spent on this. If social program recipients performed such a public service then there would be no crime; and people would not see this as stealing. Be careful not to stretch the concept of public service to the point where the public cannot have a say-so in the matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You definitely have a point here, but your definition of who the public is is way too fuzzy. I agree that the public service of the military is necessary in a free society, but if your keeping that service and screwing the poor, where does that leave society? You can't have a government based on serving the people that only acts in the best interest of a few of the people. Its against the basic principles.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
however because of the widespread criminal behavior we must use great force to prevent ensuing riots. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Who pays for this great force? Doesn't it seem a whole lot more cost effective to hand out measly welfare checks than to pay for increased police and military forces to prevent possible riots? (Have you ever seen how much money people get from welfare? In the broad scheme of things, its definitely neglegible, in comparison to hiring TRAINED police and military personel).

One more question: How broad a definition of "Social Programs" do you want to use? Would you incorperate education? Would you say that perscription drugs for the elderly are social programs? Or would you just stick it to welfare checks and social security, which, in all honesty, are very cost-effective, as opposed to the chaos we'd have on our hands without.

Feb 24, 2004, 12:03 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Packratt Molten Ash Location: Crimetown USA Posts: 130	Hmm.. It's usually said that the punishment should fit the crime, yes? It follows then that the punishment of theft should be proportionate to the ammount stolen and how much harm had been done in the process of that crime, yes? If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements. When we also look at tax flows in terms of where that money is spend in resource usage, the wealthy take more in when compared with the common worker or the poor. So I say yes, let us punish those criminals who take the most from us! Let us punish those consumers of pork! Let the punishment fit the crime, and let us imprison those theiving dogs for life! "...the worker's liberty... is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. -Bakunin

Feb 24, 2004, 12:44 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	kill kill kill kill kill the poor... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 24, 2004, 12:55 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	what are you going to when the poor people cant pay back? they obviously cant if theyre poor and recivever services in the first place. are you going to arrest them? put them in jail. then you will have to be taxed even more for paying for people to watch them in jails. maybe we should ship them to australia. there was some economist that says poor people under the poverty line should just be given $15,000 a year because much more than that ammount is spent in adminastration expenses just to give deliver "services" to them. <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 24, 2004, 01:02 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	btw kyran, why dont you answer to my post here? http://www.volconvo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=786 <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 24, 2004, 02:10 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Bad idea. Those who get "free" bennies in most cases are also taxpayers, and see themselves as merely getting their money back. This part of the solution punishes the victim. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> GOOD idea, except that I think it's too lenient, and also punishes the victims -- i.e., it makes the taxpayers fund politicians' room and board for 20 years. Maybe the "Romanian Solution" would be more of a deterrent. --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 23, 2004, 11:46 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	Greetings everyone, I would like to present the fusionist solution to social programs. Feel free to present your own ideas and challenge the effectiveness of mine. Theft is a crime. Since people can use the threat of government punishment to steal from taxpayers, every single social program recipient should be arrested, prosecuted and made to reimburse the taxpayer with interest. Those who create social programs should be imprisoned for no less than 20 years. Disrespect of property rights is disrespect of life itself. How will this end social programs? The same way they got started: threat of government force. People won't go to the Social Security office once the first few hundred thieves get arrested. This concept will piss off every true liberal in moments; I expect flames and accusations. Try not to be offended, folks. I am merely attempting to come up with a working end to social programs. If you like any of these then your bias will prevent you from looking at this topic in an objective manner. People use that Federal Govt to get our money, and I think it can work backwards too. Let's see what the popular consensus is.

Feb 24, 2004, 01:27 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	first off, if you want your tax's back, realize that $1200 of EACH american's money goes to the military anually. granted, this is mostly to the rich, but lets start there. Take back your hard earned cash from those theives, and live in a free economy with no military security. Hurray. Next, kill subsidies on oil and other important foriegn goods. granted that domestic costs of production are much higher, and everyone will be paying shitloads for their gas, their nikes and their bananas. but who gives a shit? The government won't be stealing your money. Last but certainly not least, social programs. instead of arresting the poor that come running in for their welfare checks (this is dumb, imprisoning people costs more money than just giving them the fucking check), why not just turn them away and not give anyone checks? If you start arresting people for wanting welfare checks, you'll only have to endure the costs of more law enforcement to shut down the poor people when they start rioting. (you may have to if you just turn them away, but you can use the money you got back from not having to imprison someone to buy yourself a shotgun and shoot the people you feel superior to). Now, you have all your taxes, no international trade, no national defence, a shitload of angry poor people fighting rich people with bling bling shotguns. Sounds like my kinda country. Peace B

Feb 24, 2004, 02:12 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Kyran,) People use that Federal Govt to get our money, and I think it can work backwards too. Let's see what the popular consensus is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Isn't that ass backwards? Shouldn't that read the Federal Government uses the People to get our money? Or was that your backwards, too? People can only demand what they can get. It's the government who decides how to pass around the loot it takes from taxpayers. It's Congress who decides where the money will be spent and a lot of it is on pork. http://www.gao.gov/cghome/npc917/img2.html Also this bit from Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho (http://crapo.senate.gov/fastfacts/budget2.htm) Quote: Q. What is the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending? A. Discretionary spending is spending authorized by the Congress and the President in the 13 annual appropriations bills. Spending on individual discretionary programs may vary year to year based upon the level of spending authorized by Congress. Total discretionary spending represents one-third of all federal spending. Mandatory spending is authorized by permanent laws. Programs such as Social Security and Medicare are mandatory spending. Spending levels for these programs are determined by the amount necessary to comply with the law and not by the annual appropriations bills. Mandatory spending accounts for two-thirds of total federal spending. Unquote

Feb 24, 2004, 02:23 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	I am replying to my own post here rather than commenting there. I particularly like ( ) this blurb from Mike Crapo "Spending levels for these programs are determined by the amount necessary to comply with the law .....". Who does he think he's kidding? The congress makes the law. But that might be too much for some people to understand. His statement appears to place blame for mandatory spending onto some other entity. Don't fall for that bull.

Feb 24, 2004, 05:52 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	So, according to that article, about 1/3 of federal government spending goes to "discretionary spending", or basically pork barrel projects? Insanity. They could give back 1/3 of my taxes today and it wouldn't stop any major government functions, even social security and medicare, let alone the military and law enforcement that's the true purpose of government.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:08 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	Hmm...in this case it's the government that is stealing the money, not really the recipients. Indeed they need to A) stop stealing it, and B) give back what they've stolen (but don't hold your breath.) The appropriate punitive measure for theft is restitution. In full. Not jail sentences. In response to the first response, a tax break isn't a boon or a windfall or theft - it is the government stealing less of your money than they otherwise would have. Considering the crushing tax burden and the prosperity for all that results when taxes are minimal, tax breaks are a good thing...not to mention the government didn't earn it and is not entitled to/has no claim on the money that businessman earned to begin with. Subsidies, yes, I agree with you. Again the gov't needs to reimburse the taxpayer from whom the subsidy money was taken. However there is no logical reason on earth to call earning money "theft." Then to add insult to injury by stealing half of what that businessman earns by taxing him, in order to redistribute it to those who didn't earn it and have no claim on it...while calling him a thief for earning it and providing jobs and prosperity to others...well I can only hope it's ignorance and not malice that would lead one to make such a proclamation. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 24, 2004, 06:20 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
AnonT Molten Ash Location: Middle of nowhere, Nebraska Posts: 130	As far as packratt's comment, I can see his point and agree with him in part. Businesses regularly lobby/bribe officials for everything from subsidies and tax breaks for themselves to regulations that hurt their competitors but not themselves. Admittedly, getting a tax break isn't theft - it's less theft - but if you lobby for a tax break for yourself at the cost of higher taxes for your competitors, then you're guilty of robbing your competitors. Businesses that get more of their money from subsidies, or only control their market share because they lobby for restrictions on and theft from their competition, rather than because they actually provide something worthwhile, deserve punishment for encouraging theft and destruction. Otherwise, I pretty much agree with you, Anniee - politicians and the government are the main perpetrators, and lower taxes are usually a good thing (unless the government is doing deficit spending, in which case it can actually be bad in the long run; but that's more the spending's fault than the lower taxes). However, I do think that people who lobby for theft are partly responsible, too.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:31 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Anniee Mr. Queen Posts: 231	There is only one entity in your scenario though, who has the power of FORCE behind them - and that is the law/government. The businessman can try, he can cajole and lobby, but he can not force subsidies or tax breaks. I'm not saying he would be morally right to try to gain a truly unfair advantage over the competition (and he wouldn't have to if producers weren't being looted), but the main corruption in the scenario is still with those who have the power to make those decisions and enforce them at the end of a bayonet. Taxation is theft, no doubt, it's hard to blame people for trying to protect their earnings from plunder...but anyway we're mostly in agreement. Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. Mohandas Gandhi

Feb 24, 2004, 08:50 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,) As far as packratt's comment, I can see his point and agree with him in part. Businesses regularly lobby/bribe officials for everything from subsidies and tax breaks for themselves to regulations that hurt their competitors but not themselves. Admittedly, getting a tax break isn't theft - it's less theft - but if you lobby for a tax break for yourself at the cost of higher taxes for your competitors, then you're guilty of robbing your competitors.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Whoa . . .wait a minute: 'A' robs 'B' and 'C.' 'C' asks 'A' to let him keep a little more of his money, and to not be ordered around so much. 'A' robs 'B' more to make up the difference. Therefore -- 'C' is guilty of robbing 'B'?? --Jackney Sneeb

Feb 24, 2004, 11:04 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by what are you going to when the poor people cant pay back? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I can live with simply ending all social programs. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Take back your hard earned cash from those theives, and live in a free economy with no military security.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What the hell are you talking about?! When is the last time that our military had to actually protect our mainland from invasion? Pearl Harbor was in the 40's and it wasn't even the mainland!! You'd have to go back to the revolutionary war. LOL! Our military doesn't protect us from anything. They're very much busy goign around the world trying to tell other countries how to live. I'll gladly take a free-market society without "military protection". If i feel threated i'll simply hire a protection agency to protect me.

Feb 24, 2004, 11:16 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	If we didn't have our super powerful militar as a basis for threat, all the people that hate our country across the world would take that opportunity to attack us. National defense is necessary, just not to the scale we have it now, but then again, if you want your money back from those theives, thats the place to start. B

Feb 24, 2004, 11:22 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"all the people that hate our country across the world would take that opportunity to attack us." "National defense is necessary, just not to the scale we have it now" think... us against the world! disarm and be a target! that is wisdom. edit: sure, that would eliminate spending programs... there'd be no citizens to help... tax the dead and spend for the dead... defense comes first "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 24, 2004, 01:12 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	Look, I'm not a fan of the military in general. I think its bloated beyond any reasonable size. But honestly, we've screwed so much with our foriegn policy that the truth is, people hate the US. Of course there's countries that support us, but if WE disamrmed, we would be a target. We already are a target (see the past ?? years of anti-US terrorism). My point, which is now completely buried in a petty argument about the military, is that the government spends most of the taxpayers' money on the military. If you're considering social programs to be theft, consider the military to be theft on a grand scale, because about 50-100 times the amount being spent on social programs goes to the military (see http://www.truemajority.org/oreo)) Personally, I would like to continue paying taxes and see social programs increase while military decreased. I'd like to see the buget deficit and the federal debt removed (which would be real economic stimulus, no bullshit tax cuts). To bring it full circle back to the topic, arresting people asking for welfare checks is so stupid (read my earlier post). If you're concerned about people consentually robbing you, you have to look at the military, cause thats where about 90% of what they rob from you goes to. Peace, B Edit: Are you all incapable of grasping liberal sarcasm? In the post where i recomended using the money you get from not having to arrest people to buy yourself a shotgun, i wasn't implying that I want to shoot poor people. By saying that you should start with the military, i was implying that the military is where all the stealings going on, not that I wanted the US government to disolve and give us all blingin' shotguns to defend ourselves with. Learn to recognize a sarcastic tone.

Feb 24, 2004, 01:19 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Kyran Igneous Magma Location: East Coast, USA Posts: 451	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Packratt,) Hmm.. It's usually said that the punishment should fit the crime, yes? If this is true, then the person who relied on welfare can in no way compare in extent of crime to the businessman. The welfare case only takes in a few hundred dollars a month, the businessman rakes in millions in tax breaks and entitlements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> First, yes. Second, no. Businessmen actually work of their own volition to perform some service or product in exchange for money; none of which is forced by the hand of the government, nor does their income originate from government. Perhaps you believe it is a crime to obtain wealth; if so, then your bias may prevent you from seeking economic freedom (entrepeneurship) in an increasingly technological and capitalist world. You must remember the case of Wal-Mart's eminent domain abuse which has topped libertarian talk-show host Neal Boortz' articles in the past month. Just to let you know, big corporate America is taking homes from the poor using Big Brother. However, if using the system to obtain the property of others is not illegal then we cannot do anything about this. We must make it illegal both ways; being indiscriminate of the offenders' income status. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moose, our court system is already equipped to handle the scenario you described (judges do payment plans). I have no recommendations or alterations to add. I will respond to your post at my earliest opportunity. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (makeshiftpatriot,) first off, if you want your tax's back, realize that $1200 of EACH american's money goes to the military anually. granted, this is mostly to the rich, but lets start there. Take back your hard earned cash from those theives, and live in a free economy with no military security...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is highly off-topic, however I will still address the matter. Military is a necessity to a free society. I personally do want my taxes spent on this. If social program recipients performed such a public service then there would be no crime; and people would not see this as stealing. Be careful not to stretch the concept of public service to the point where the public cannot have a say-so in the matter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jackney, many crimes put people in jail on the taxpayer dollar. It is a necessary system to civilization. If no life is taken then we should take no life. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anniee,) Hmm...in this case it's the government that is stealing the money, not really the recipients<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Possession is 9/10 of the law. Recipients get money and spend it. Wal-Mart gets land and builds a store on it. Same coin, different sides. They are a beneficiary of our country; the same as any elite sector of historic ones. You are correct on the punitive damages for larceny; however because of the widespread criminal behavior we must use great force to prevent ensuing riots.

Feb 24, 2004, 01:34 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	Your argument is actually holding a little water. I'm impressed. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This is highly off-topic, however I will still address the matter. Military is a necessity to a free society. I personally do want my taxes spent on this. If social program recipients performed such a public service then there would be no crime; and people would not see this as stealing. Be careful not to stretch the concept of public service to the point where the public cannot have a say-so in the matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You definitely have a point here, but your definition of who the public is is way too fuzzy. I agree that the public service of the military is necessary in a free society, but if your keeping that service and screwing the poor, where does that leave society? You can't have a government based on serving the people that only acts in the best interest of a few of the people. Its against the basic principles. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by however because of the widespread criminal behavior we must use great force to prevent ensuing riots. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Who pays for this great force? Doesn't it seem a whole lot more cost effective to hand out measly welfare checks than to pay for increased police and military forces to prevent possible riots? (Have you ever seen how much money people get from welfare? In the broad scheme of things, its definitely neglegible, in comparison to hiring TRAINED police and military personel). One more question: How broad a definition of "Social Programs" do you want to use? Would you incorperate education? Would you say that perscription drugs for the elderly are social programs? Or would you just stick it to welfare checks and social security, which, in all honesty, are very cost-effective, as opposed to the chaos we'd have on our hands without.