Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is libertarian nonsense. Even your hero Ayn Rand went on the dole when she got sick, she had no problem with other people paying for that, did she?
I pay for the roads you drive on, I pay for the schools your kids attend, I pay for wars that I don't believe in or think we have any reason to be involved in, I pay for your police and fire services.
There is no way a society can function without people collectively paying for the goods and services that all of us depend on. If you can't understand that, or if you are truly morally opposed to it, you might consider relocation to Somalia
Ayn Rand was an objectivist, not a libertarian, although I can understand how one might find objectivism to be similar to libertarianism. Voluntaryinsm, agorism, anarchism, libertarianism, objectivism all wish to maximize human freedom over slavery to the State.
All of the things that you said you pay for me, I pay for as well. So you are not paying for me, what you are overcharged for for those services pays for those that do not pay. You are the slave for the looters of society :P (See how I used a Rand term for your entertainment?)
There is no way that a society can function without aggression, coercion, theft, and slavery? Do you really believe that? How sad. Furthermore, I would stress that a so-called "society" that functions only by aggression, coercion, extortion, theft, and slavery is not a society at all in my opinion. It is a Plantation of slaves owned by the State.
There is NOTHING that free people cannot produce absent aggression. The only thing that free people cannot produce without aggression is slavery.
That is libertarian nonsense. Even your hero Ayn Rand went on the dole when she got sick, she had no problem with other people paying for that, did she?
Did she go on the dole? Or did she collect Medicare benefits for which she had already paid?
It was the latter. She didn't get freebies.
Eliminate the freebies. Make all programs open only to those who've paid the requisite taxes, except for the genuinely incapacitated.
Did she go on the dole? Or did she collect Medicare benefits for which she had already paid?
It was the latter. She didn't get freebies.
Eliminate the freebies. Make all programs open only to those who've paid the requisite taxes, except for the genuinely incapacitated.
True enough. All "programs" should be run like businesses. No one gets a "product" which they have not paid for. Otherwise theft has occurred. If the collectivist minded people want to run charities, they are free to do so. What they are not free to do is to take slaves to fund their charities of choice.
As a side note. If "government" cannot operate a charity (program or service) and at least break even, that charity (program or service) is obviously something that free people do not want.
what you are overcharged for for those services pays for those that do not pay. You are the slave for the looters of society :P
That's a nonsense statement. They do pay. It is not intellectually honest to hold out one form of government revenue, i.e. income tax and hold that as that purity test for whether or not people are contributing to society.
The poor pay a variety of taxes, and given that there are far fewer tax breaks available to them than there are to the wealthy in many cases they pay proportionally more than some rich people.
That is libertarian nonsense. Even your hero Ayn Rand went on the dole when she got sick, she had no problem with other people paying for that, did she?
I pay for the roads you drive on, I pay for the schools your kids attend, I pay for wars that I don't believe in or think we have any reason to be involved in, I pay for your police and fire services.
There is no way a society can function without people collectively paying for the goods and services that all of us depend on. If you can't understand that, or if you are truly morally opposed to it, you might consider relocation to Somalia
I think you're also overlooking the fact that the State prohibits people from doing these things on their own.
Either from zoning, regulation, or stealing so much personal income folks can't afford it.
I want to get from point A to point B. The State already stole my money so I can't build my own road. They stole the land where I would build my road. And if I try to do it anyway they'll cage me.
So because of this I should not go from Point A to Point B?
That's absurd. It's not my responsibility to avoid the State. I want nothing to do with them. They're the ones obsessed with me.
Did she go on the dole? Or did she collect Medicare benefits for which she had already paid? It was the latter. She didn't get freebies.
Really...she received 'prepaid benefits', really? So when I run out of prepaid benefits, does my medicare coverage stop? And when I receive the equivalent of what I paid into Social Security do those benefits stop too?
I want to get from point A to point B. The State already stole my money so I can't build my own road. They stole the land where I would build my road. And if I try to do it anyway they'll cage me.
They stole my money so now I can't build a a road Are you serious?
That's a nonsense statement. They do pay. It is not intellectually honest to hold out one form of government revenue, i.e. income tax and hold that as that purity test for whether or not people are contributing to society.
It is when it comes to receiving services/benefits from the Fed Gov.
Quote:
The poor pay a variety of taxes, and given that there are far fewer tax breaks available to them than there are to the wealthy in many cases they pay proportionally more than some rich people.
Absolutely false.
Two liberal think tanks have studied that premise, in depth. The results are in this post, complete with links to the data sources:
Um, yes.
You do know people in rural areas build and maintain their own roads?
On their own land, of course. But if you decide you want to build a road on my property we are going to have a little talk.
And people do not build roads from point A to point B by themselves because this is not 1870 for God's sake, you cannot build a viable transportation system with a bunch of yahoos out there with bags of gravel designing and building their own roads
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you serious?
