|
| Thread: Monetary Moral |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted December 27, 2008 01:01 PM |
|
|
Monetary Moral
So there was this discussion between me and Zielevitz recently in this thread.
Basically, it revolved around the following:
Zielevitz claims that medical taxes (and taxes overall) are a form of fascism because they make you give a part of your earnings in order to help people living in poverty or harsh conditions, and who couldn't afford complex operations. That went on to discussing the tax system and worker payment in Poland, and touching several other subjects. The point is, as far as I understood, that a moderately well-off person should be completely free of taxes and responsibility to help anyone, and that it's not that person's fault if someone's starving since he only tends to his own life.
My opinion is that if we are to reach true freedom, we cannot have such views and that it's not the point of liberty to be free to misuse it. If mankind is to prosper, I recon, people need to learn to help each other and put away the obsolete, uncaring, feudal attitude. To me, a form of fascism is being able to help but not wanting to, and thus willingly sacrificing poor people (viewed basically as unimportant) in order to reach greater personal gain.
That aside, in my opinion, until mankind evolves to that stage of consciousness, we need to have a constant inflow of material goods toward medical care and the like, since we (all private foundations aside) have to make sure that everyone, no matter how poor they are, has a chance of survival. Of course, I'm not talking about communist collectivism, and taking away everything you have ever earned to give it to others - I'm merely talking about limited taxes which everyone should be able to pay.
I don't want this to be solely a discussion between me and Zielevitz, since we basically presented our opinions on the matter already. I'd like you all to participate and show your opinions about this.
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Zielevitz claims that medical taxes (and taxes overall) are a form of fascism because they make you give a part of your earnings in order to help people living in poverty or harsh conditions, and who couldn't afford complex operations.
Of course, because it is pressure and not my free decision. Pressure to take away something from someone is called robbery.
Quote:
That went on to discussing the tax system and worker payment in Poland, and touching several other subjects. The point is, as far as I understood, that a moderately well-off person should be completely free of taxes and responsibility to help anyone, and that it's not that person's fault if someone's starving since he only tends to his own life.
You're absolutely wrong.
There is perfect form of taxes - let's say undependable stack per month from each man to provide police and army (because this is only two institutions that REALLY everyone use). Rest is free decision o people. You want to be a part of medical found that would pay for your operation? Go on. You don't want to? Also go on. You are povert and need help? Go to foundation, don't force anyone to help you.
And - many povert people don't want to work just because they ar lazy and they will get cash from state anyway. Think about it.
Quote:
My opinion is that if we are to reach true freedom, we cannot have such views and that it's not the point of liberty to be free to misuse it. If mankind is to prosper, I recon, people need to learn to help each other and put away the obsolete, uncaring, feudal attitude.
Mankind prospered 99% of their time spent on earth without socialism 
Quote:
To me, a form of fascism is being able to help but not wanting to, and thus willingly sacrificing poor people (viewed basically as unimportant) in order to reach greater personal gain.
To be honest you don't know what fascism is and you support your oppinion with argumentum ad auditorium to depreciate liberty. Please don't use words which you don't understand 
Wrong again. This is free choice. Your argument sounds like "if soviet union is to survive these individual capitalistics parasites on our living body shall be eradicated into nothigness"
You tell me that you better know what people should do with their money. I tell you that it is not your buisiness what anyone else do with his money, until he ask you for oppinion.
Quote:
That aside, in my opinion, until mankind evolves to that stage of consciousness, we need to have a constant inflow of material goods toward medical care and the like, since we (all private foundations aside) have to make sure that everyone, no matter how poor they are, has a chance of survival.
and
Quote:
Of course, I'm not talking about communist collectivism, and taking away everything you have ever earned to give it to others - I'm merely talking about limited taxes which everyone should be able to pay.
Yes, leave this 25% to people. They are able to pay the rest.
If in your oppinion forced help to povert people is good, then tell me: why is the police chasing povert people which is stealing things from shops? They deserve it as much as shop's owner!
You don't talk about collectivism? How would you call stealing 75% of earnings to redistribute it? I would call it collectivism If someone steal my cell phone I don't care who deserves for it and if some povert guy would get it. Point from your posts is that it is ok to steal you cell phone if only someone povert would get it, because he "deserves".
If you think you would do my life better than me and you want to slave me - well, we don't have anything to talk about
Because if you decide about my ownership against me, it is not my owership anymore. And if you take away my ownership and my free will that means I am your slave.
And you say that mankind should learn to help each other. Why? Because you want to? Well, mankind should learn not to be stupid like now it is. To tell people that they HAVE to pay for they retirement (at least in Poland there is such a pressure) is to tell them "You are all idiots and you can't take care of yourself. You must listen to us because we know better than you what to do". And if government know that people are stupid and under good-looking reason they will pay for everything - there is a leftism place. Rightism government tell "You need only to pay for staying on this ground and for order. To stay here we must be able to defend. To defend we need army. To keep order we need police. Rest of your money is just yours. If you want to help povert - help them. If you don't want to pay for retirement - don't pay. Just later don't cry you don't have money - it was your decision. Better decision would to store it in bank account but this is only advice. In fact - you can do with your money what you only want.".
Ah - and if I were in your shoes I would call this topic "leftism and rightism" because now it suggest that your oppinion is moral and I am fag. In fact robbery is not moral, no matter for what reason.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 03:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is perfect form of taxes - let's say undependable stack per month from each man to provide police and army (because this is only two institutions that REALLY everyone use).
Nope. Take guys with personal bodyguards and private police -- they don't need public police and benefit less from it actually than without.
What about streets? People without cars don't use them.
and so on...
And please you don't seriously think that all beggars, unemployed people and those in poverty chose that way of living because "they are lazy"... I mean, yeah when someone's poor, then the conclusion must be that they are lazy, since working always gives you money, the world is fair right? [/sarcasm]
Who would choose to starve? Do you think those people choose that way? It's not a question of not WANTING, it's a question of not BEING ABLE TO. Big difference.
And since unfairness happens, any factor that makes you better off than someone else without being your own will (i.e stuff that 'happens' like opportunities, luck, inheritance, situational advantages, etc) you are not entitled to it any more than someone else.
If there are two people on the Earth, and one of them is hit by a disease completely random that paralyzes his legs for example, then in this case it is UNFAIR not because of what he has done -- it happened completely outside his will. Therefore, when you use all your opportunities that he doesn't have, you are NOT ENTITLED to them ANY MORE than he is, because those opportunities are NOT your doing (i.e he did not choose to be hit by the disease, you could have just as well).
Therefore nothing wrong in taking such 'extra opportunities' you have and share it with him. Point is you do not deserve them ANY MORE (read those two capitalized words carefully!) than he does. No one choose to be diseased. No one chooses to NOT have opportunities. So it's unfair.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 04:10 PM |
|
|
As a Pole, I can obviously understand Zielevitz I don't want to discuss whether it's ok or not for the poor to rely on the richer people, though (too much philosophy). I have to point out, though, that the forced nature of paying taxes for pensions and health service in Poland is retarded, and you just receive much less than you should.
Health service: you pay a lot in taxes, and you get treated like trash in the public hospitals, the equipment is old/malfunctioning, the conditions are bad and you often have to bribe your way to get your sick family member treated right. Not necessarily with money, but with small gifts, because the medical staff is so accustomed to getting coffee, alcohol and sweets from patients.
It doesn't happen in private hospitals and clinics. You pay a bit, but you are treated fair, the staff is nice to you and nobody puts you off because of bad mood.
So why in earth sould I pay for that goddamn health service in taxes? 
Not to mention pensions. You get like a tiny bit of the cash you have pumped into the bureaucratic system through 45 years of work. If you put that money in bank instead, you'd get 4 times more cash per month as pension.. so.. is it really needed? What for?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 04:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My opinion is that if we are to reach true freedom, we cannot have such views and that it's not the point of liberty to be free to misuse it.
"We will give you every right in the world, provided that you don't exercise them." Is that how it is?
Quote:
Of course, I'm not talking about communist collectivism, and taking away everything you have ever earned to give it to others - I'm merely talking about limited taxes which everyone should be able to pay.
Where does one draw the line? I know where I do, and on what basis. But how could everyone come to a consensus about this? I mean, what's the difference between giving a poor person 1% of your income or 2%? 2% or 3%? And so on.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 04:18 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:19, 27 Dec 2008.
|
That's obviously because of corruption and I agree (in romania it was similar with Ceausescu  ). So before anyone got me wrong, don't accuse me of saying that I want Ceausescu's communism back and that huge corruption stuff lol; cause I am extremely against that form (not because it was 'communism' but other factors which I won't get into right now).
Then again most times in private things, you don't always realize how good the system is based on just your experience. People often hear about guys who can afford hospital how well the conditions are there. You won't hear from starving and beggars though, doesn't mean they don't exist.
But if taxes are bad, then people should just be given money, more equally and evenly distributed, and then pay for stuff. Maybe some will realize that, while you think that you are treated well by paying some cash, others may be treated bad who lack it. Not saying this can't be corrupted either.
Quote:
Where does one draw the line? I know where I do, and on what basis.
If you can draw the line arbitrarily in "public" stuff that you think is 'needed', then anyone else can too 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 05:02 PM |
|
|
Why are you insisting on quote wars so much? They won't prove anything. Oh well...
Quote:
Of course, because it is pressure and not my free decision. Pressure to take away something from someone is called robbery.
No, it's called leading a country. You can't finance a country with charity. You finance a country with taxes.
About your suggestion of taxes, why would financing the army be obligatory, and not medical care? Because YOU think so?
What if someone doesn't want to finance a killing machine and instead wants to finance medical care? Poland doesn't need an army anyway.
Quote:
Mankind prospered 99% of their time spent on earth without socialism
Mankind never prospered without taxes.
Times change, however. A medieval king could have said that mankind prospered 99% without a constitution. And just look at us now.
Quote:
To be honest you don't know what fascism is and you support your oppinion with argumentum ad auditorium to depreciate liberty. Please don't use words which you don't understand
You said that paying taxes is fascism.
The discussion about understanding terms ends there.
Quote:
You tell me that you better know what people should do with their money. I tell you that it is not your buisiness what anyone else do with his money, until he ask you for oppinion.
Of course.
However, if it wasn't for people who paid taxes in the past decades (centuries?), you wouldn't have hospitals today. Neither for you, nor for poor people. But now that YOU got hospitals thanks to everyone paying, now you're suddenly all about how it's your money and how you don't have to pay for other hospitals when you got one.
That's not how it works. If someone paid for the hospital in your neighbourhood, you'll pay for the hospital in theirs. It's only fair. If you don't like that, tough luck.
That's like taking a loan and then refusing to pay it back because that's now your money and you can do whatever you want with it.
About your final blocks of text...
The guy that steals from your shops didn't build hospitals for you. The government, however, did. So it needs to maintain them, and it requires the help of every citizen. I fail to see the unfairness here. That's like paying off for that hospital.
If the government chooses to use a portion of the tax money in order to bring better life conditions to the poor, like it once did to bring better life conditions to your family and other citizenry, that's a noble thing to do.
The entire point is that the country helped you and your class of people some time ago, but now that it wants to help others too, you don't want to participate in that.
So you're not willing to help dying people, but you're willing to pay for the army in order to... what? Defend you?
From whom? Who is going to attack Poland in the 21st century? If you're speaking of theoretical cases, like Russia or whomever, they could nuke you before you say "peanut". So who's left? No other neighbour would attack you. And if you're willing to pay for your troops to go help the USA in Iraq or similar international bloodbaths, then I really don't know what to tell you.
In conclusion, I've explained why taxes aren't robbery, I never said that you're a fag, just that you're selfish, and I still stand behind that claim, and of course I think my opinion is moral, else I wouldn't have that opinion
Phew. Now I can go eat something and take a shower.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 05:07 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 17:16, 27 Dec 2008.
|
@Doomforge
Now that - I can understand. In fact, here we have quite a similar situation.
But I don't blame the medical tax, I blame the government for not using those taxes efficiently enough. Things would be far worse if no one paid the medical tax, I think you'll agree.
@MVass
Quote:
"We will give you every right in the world, provided that you don't exercise them." Is that how it is?
Nothing like that. You know full well that I am completely against banishing governments and giving people absolute freedom before they evolve enough to know what to do with it. You can't push an idea where it's not wanted. Communism tried to do that, fascism tried to do that, democracy tried to do that in Germany before national socialism, they all failed.
So. The idea is that we get to the highest levels of freedom gradually, like social democrats propose. To slowly explain people, bit by bit, that, while no one should make them do it, helping other people is actually in their best interests. And through that, to create a better society step by step. Not to screw everything up with impatience, cause that's why anarchy just wouldn't work at this point.
Where to draw a line... That's a good question. I'd leave that to people who are, for example, a bit over 17 and have a bit more professional experience on that matter than we do. The point I was trying to get across is that I'd never support what communism did. That's all.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You know full well that I am completely against banishing governments and giving people absolute freedom before they evolve enough to know what to do with it.
Well, isn't that a dictatorial thing to say! "You don't know what's good for you! I, Father Government, will tell you! And if you don't listen, I'll whip you with my belt!"
Quote:
So. The idea is that we get to the highest levels of freedom gradually, like social democrats propose.
Getting to the highest levels of freedom by taking away freedoms? Yeah, that makes sense.
Quote:
To slowly explain people, bit by bit, that, while no one should make them do it, helping other people is actually in their best interests.
But forcing them to do this at gunpoint wouldn't make them realize that. It would just make them resentful.
Quote:
I'd leave that to people who are, for example, a bit over 17 and have a bit more professional experience on that matter than we do.
If you were to ask 10 people - even if they were experts in some related field, like economics or sociology - you'd get 10 different answers, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, because it is pressure and not my free decision. Pressure to take away something from someone is called robbery.
No, it's called leading a country. You can't finance a country with charity. You finance a country with taxes.
Wrong.
How social medical tax is leading a country? Leading a country is something way different. Government should not get into private life of people.
Quote:
About your suggestion of taxes, why would financing the army be obligatory, and not medical care? Because YOU think so?
What if someone doesn't want to finance a killing machine and instead wants to finance medical care? Poland doesn't need an army anyway.
Wrong.
Well, as far as country is just people on territory with possibility to defend their living area, then everyone needs army. If country don't have an army and other country would attack, then there will be no more two countries but one
Quote:
Quote:
Mankind prospered 99% of their time spent on earth without socialism
Mankind never prospered without taxes.
Times change, however. A medieval king could have said that mankind prospered 99% without a constitution. And just look at us now.
I don't know how about american constitution, polish is just piece of crap
Quote:
You said that paying taxes is fascism.
The discussion about understanding terms ends there.
Wrong.
I don't said anything like that, and I don't know where you got it from. I said that like fascism is to require paying for something I will not use. And I have to pay just because someone want save the world and help poorest. If I want to be healed only in private clinic - hell, is it your business? No So why you force me to pay for public?
Quote:
However, if it wasn't for people who paid taxes in the past decades (centuries?), you wouldn't have hospitals today. Neither for you, nor for poor people. But now that YOU got hospitals thanks to everyone paying, now you're suddenly all about how it's your money and how you don't have to pay for other hospitals when you got one.
Wrong.
So is it impossible to create medical firm and build a hospital? Taxes are in big part wasted by corruption.
[quoe]
That's like taking a loan and then refusing to pay it back because that's now your money and you can do whatever you want with it.
You are wrong again. I said - if I wouldn't pay medical tax, I wouldn't request "free" healing in a public hospital. Don't you get it?
If I wouldn't pay medical tax, I would go heal in PRIVATE clinics. Just because I want to. If anyone force me to pay for something I don't use, but he only wants me to pay - yes, that's robbery.
Quote:
The guy that steals from your shops didn't build hospitals for you. The government, however, did. So it needs to maintain them, and it requires the help of every citizen.
Wrong.
Goverment is to enlarge territory of country and produce good laws.
Quote:
If the government chooses to use a portion of the tax money in order to bring better life conditions to the poor, like it once did to bring better life conditions to your family and other citizenry, that's a noble thing to do.
Wrong.
If it uses part of existing taxes - yes you are right.
But if taxes grows just because someone want to "help poorest" - THIS is unfair. What if I don't want?
Quote:
The entire point is that the country helped you and your class of people some time ago, but now that it wants to help others too, you don't want to participate in that.
Wrong.
How country helped me? By building a hospital which I don't want get into?
Quote:
So you're not willing to help dying people, but you're willing to pay for the army in order to... what? Defend you?
From whom? Who is going to attack Poland in the 21st century? If you're speaking of theoretical cases, like Russia or whomever.
Wrong.
Say this to Georgia
Quote:
In conclusion, I've explained why taxes aren't robbery, I never said that you're a fag, just that you're selfish, and I still stand behind that claim, and of course I think my opinion is moral, else I wouldn't have that opinion .
Wrong again.
You did not explained why FORCED MEDICAL TAX is not robbery
You garble most things I told, I think you did this intentionally. If you want to have debate - then answer my arguments as they are. Don't twist them as yuo do it now.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 06:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Goverment is to enlarge territory of country and produce good laws.
What does 'territory' mean if there are no taxes and no government? What is its purpose?
Quote:
But if taxes grows just because someone want to "help poorest" - THIS is unfair. What if I don't want?
What if someone else doesn't want to use "existing" taxes either? What makes them special?
Quote:
How country helped me? By building a hospital which I don't want get into?
Go in an island by yourself and see how easy it is to do everything by yourself, without any "inheritance" help you are because you were born in a given situation (today's society). You were born in this situation without doing anything -- you reap what others have done over the ages.
Unfortunately as you know, not all people are born equally (I mean, in situation, not in rights). See why such things you have over them do not belong to you? (I'm talking about opportunities, situational advantages, etc etc)
Quote:
Wrong.
Say this to Georgia
If it pushed further, it would end a lot worse. And besides, what if some citizen doesn't WANT to be FORCED to pay for a given country's military? Maybe he does not care if Georgia gets invaded, if it is his native nation. Just as you do not care if people die without medical care, he doesn't care if soldiers die without proper care or whatever.
What makes you special?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 06:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Goverment is to enlarge territory of country and produce good laws.
What does 'territory' mean if there are no taxes and no government?
There would be a government. King or hundreds of political idiots - but someone have to rule.
Quote:
What is its purpose?
This is question just like what is purpose of life.
Quote:
Go in an island by yourself and see how easy it is to do everything by yourself, without any "inheritance" help you are because you were born in a given situation (today's society). You were born in this situation without doing anything -- you reap what others have done over the ages.
In fact - if I don't want to use this inheritance I shouldn't be force to.
Quote:
If it pushed further, it would end a lot worse. And besides, what if some citizen doesn't WANT to be FORCED to pay for a given country's military?
if someone don't want his country being able to defend, then he should be banished. Simple - just like I would tell "you can live in my house if you will pay your part of rent. if you don't like it, go to other place".
Quote:
Maybe he does not care if Georgia gets invaded, if it is his native nation.
Georgia example was shown for question about inavasions in XXI century.
Quote:
Just as you do not care if people die without medical care, he doesn't care if soldiers die without proper care or whatever.
he should care about his own ass which would be kicked if other country would attack his
Quote:
What makes you special?
nothing, I did not said that something makes me.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There would be a government. King or hundreds of political idiots - but someone have to rule.
And do what? (without taxes of course)
Quote:
This is question just like what is purpose of life.
lol no
What's the purpose of a government with no taxes and no regulations... ask multi-national companies them about why they don't "belong" to a given government and 'territories' for them are invisible.
Quote:
In fact - if I don't want to use this inheritance I shouldn't be force to.
Well you certainly inherited the computer's concept for example, typing this
Quote:
if someone don't want his country being able to defend, then he should be banished.
Fascism ftw.
add next "if children don't get enrolled in the army by 10 years old so they can defend it, they should be banished".
"if people don't want to give out their property for 'the good of the nation', they should be banished" -- what makes it different?
Quote:
he should care about his own ass which would be kicked if other country would attack his
hehe they wouldn't necessarily kick his ass and furthermore what if he doesn't care about that either? What if actually he likes russians more? Or what if simply, he doesn't care or is more than capable of surviving and bribing the soldiers, or whatever?
Why should he pay for the military to "save off everyone else" (i.e the 'nation')?
That's like forcing a criminal to pay for the police he doesn't even WANT (even less, need) because it gets in his way.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:06 PM |
|
|
@MVass
The first and foremost human right is the freedom to live.
So, is it dictatorial to help poor people to live? Is it dictatorial to endorse the primal freedom - life - which some tend to put beneath their own personal material gain (and then dare call that freedom)? If you're the only thing that can help a dying man fulfill his right to live - and then refuse to do it - then you're at least indirectly attacking his freedom, aren't you? And then you expect to be regarded as free.
How much longer are you going to ease your own conscience, looking at starving children, with sentences like "they're too lazy to work" and "no one can be guilty of inaction"? Is that really the path to freedom?
Patience and rational thought is not dictatorship.
Communism was quite a freedom-endorsing idea - but it led to totalitarianism and failed utterly simply because people weren't ready for it. We can't let millions of people die because of bad timing again. Communism was a harsh lesson that taught us how mankind should prosper and strive towards freedom and reformed ideas, but gradually and not overnight.
Governments are far from perfect, yes, but are not necessarily a bad thing, at least for the time being. If you could just banish every government in the world right now, would you do it?
I know I wouldn't. Not yet, not until we figure out something better. For now, I'd focus on improving the governments, and thus the welfare of everyone (including us), instead of manically trying to grab every dollar I can get a hold on. Cause things aren't going to function any better if we just decide to stop paying taxes. Can we agree on that?
Taxes of today are significantly lower than they were, for example, in the middle ages, where you gave almost everything to the feudal masters - apparently, the level which the government needs tends to get lowered to the necessary minimum, leaving people freedom to donate more if they wish to do so.
People's conscience is a thing awakened slowly, and you always need to find a golden middle. If you just ban taxes, people will be glad for a while, and then blame others when things start going wrong and hospitals stop being funded. That wouldn't awaken their self-conscience. It would just lead to a catastrophe.
Phew. Managed to avoid a quotewar answer.
Gotta handle some RL now, will be back later to reply further. Ziel, I'm leaving The_Death to keep you busy while I'm gone
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:07 PM |
|
|
unless the country has declared neutrality, having a decent army is useful. History proved it a million times. Especially for Poland.. ;/ Would be great if we were sure it's not needed, but, you know.. did the times really change that much? We already relied on "allies" before 2nd world war, for instance.. and it ended.. well.. terrible >_>
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And do what? (without taxes of course)
Maybe rule, keep order and guard the law ;P
Quote:
Well you certainly inherited the computer's concept for example, typing this
You clearly know what I mean. I don't want the government's help in case of medical care, also I don't want to help the government with this
Quote:
add next "if children don't get enrolled in the army by 10 years old so they can defend it, they should be banished".
"if people don't want to give out their property for 'the good of the nation', they should be banished" -- what makes it different?
First sentence - you said that
Second sentence - diffrence is clear. You talk about "good of the nation" I talk about "independence of the nation". If I don't want my country to be independent, why should I expect that country would like me?
Quote:
what if he doesn't care about that either?
masochist he is ;P
Quote:
What if actually he likes russians more? Or what if simply, he doesn't care or is more than capable of surviving and bribing the soldiers, or whatever?
Well I think that most of people that like russia, go to russia, and part of people that doesn't care even about survival is less than promile
Quote:
Why should he pay for the military to "save off everyone else" (i.e the 'nation')?
Because whetever he wants or not - he is part of the nation, and army is absolutely nesecarry to provide existance and independence. Medical tax is surely not nesecarry for that purpose.
Who keeps in country people that doesn't care if the country exist, seriously? ;P
____________
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:22 PM |
|
|
There are a lot of things that need addressing from both sides.
I was going to stay out of this however seeing as Ziel is on Zeal.
But there was one part that just needed quoting.
Quote:
Goverment is to enlarge territory of country and produce good laws.
Goverment exists to wage war? 
Enlarge territory in a world where there is no free territory to enlarge to. That means invasion. That in turn means war.
And one question, if you happened to get a condition that would make you unable to work what would you do? You couldn't work to get the money to pay for the operation and without working you can't afford to live. So you would die for hunger? Would that be fair?
PS. You polish really have a snowty society, start a revolution or something.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who keeps in country people that doesn't care if the country exist, seriously? ;P
Ah, so you don't want anyone to force to anyone to give money to help someone else (health care tax), but you do 'kick out' some people if they don't pay the military tax... hmm, sorry to say but this is just a preference, nothing more, and the argument 'nobody should be forced to do something' pretty much falls apart because of this.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:25 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Quote:
The first and foremost human right is the freedom to live.
Freedom to live =/= right to take from others so one can live.
Quote:
If you're the only thing that can help a dying man fulfill his right to live - and then refuse to do it - then you're at least indirectly attacking his freedom, aren't you?
That dying man has the freedom to live. He doesn't have the right to infringe upon my freedoms. I'm not going to bother him. But he'd better not bother me.
Quote:
How much longer are you going to ease your own conscience, looking at starving children, with sentences like "they're too lazy to work" and "no one can be guilty of inaction"?
When did I say that starving African children are too lazy to work? They're not. With them, the situation is obviously quite different. When I refer to lazy poor people, I'm usually referring to the ones in rich countries. And no one can be guilty of inaction. Even TheDeath knows that. Imagine one day the police comes knocking on your door.
You: Hey, what do you guys want?
Police: You live across town from a murderer. You have done nothing to stop him. Therefore, you are an accomplice to murder.
You: But what am I guilty of?
Police: Inaction.
See how ridiculous that is?
Quote:
Communism was quite a freedom-endorsing idea
Have you actually read The Communist Manifesto? I have. And the seeds of all the totalitarianism is right in there. I'm tired of left-wingers saying that the Soviet Union wasn't really according to Marx's ideas. It's all in there - all that horrible stuff.
I wouldn't abolish every government, of course. I'm no anarchist. In fact, I think the government has a definite role to play. But it must be a proper government. A good government is not just an army and a navy. A good government isn't a nanny or a soup kitchen. "Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state..."
I think Milton Friedman put it best. "The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather 'What can I and my compatriots do through government' to help us discharge our individual responsibilities,to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?"
Quote:
If you just ban taxes, people will be glad for a while, and then blame others when things start going wrong and hospitals stop being funded.
Are you aware that the private sector could handle a lot of that stuff?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Zielevitz
Promising
Famous Hero
Resistance is futile!
|
|
posted December 27, 2008 07:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
the argument 'nobody should be forced to do something' pretty much falls apart because of this.
Well, without army there is no country - this is absolutely nesecarry minimum. If there would be one nation without wars then of course military tax wouldn't be nesecarry.
Country is a couple of people with a leader (king, government whatever) on territory which they can defend. Without army there is no such term as country, but couple of people that is awaiting to be ruled. You understannd?
Quote:
Enlarge territory in a world where there is no free territory to enlarge to. That means invasion. That in turn means war.
Well there always will be wars. If you will not invade someone, someone will invade you. There is no need to tell that world is perfect and there will be no wars.
In democracy if you want to have war firstly you have to create propaganda and tell people that your enemy is bad guys.
Napoleon could one day be allied with one country and second in state of war - even world's greatest chess player is making mistakes.
Quote:
And one question, if you happened to get a condition that would make you unable to work what would you do? You couldn't work to get the money to pay for the operation and without working you can't afford to live. So you would die for hunger? Would that be fair?
I already explained it in one of posts. You just need to find it
Quote:
PS. You polish really have a ****ty society, start a revolution or something.
Why you think so? I think that a leftism is really ***ed up thing
And btw. There is no such thing as freedom TO!
Freedom is only FROM.
I can be free from illness and unwanted taxes, but I can't be free TO something! I can have RIGHT to something. Understand it please
____________
|
| |
|
|
