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.
1. Do you think it is evil to compel others to work for your benefit?
2. Do you think it is wrong for a government to forcibly take other people’s property and give it to you, just because you’re pitiful or in need?
3. Do you think it is immoral to bribe people who vote?
If you answered “yes” to the above, you’ve just declared yourself opposed to socialist slavery, national socialism (FICA) aka “Social Security”, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc. And that you would support disenfranchisement (loss of voting privileges) of any recipient of government funds or benefits.
Everyone sees things differently, but... Most are starting to take notice that things are really going “bad”.
The recipient class, and its allies, have the political power, and will continue to support and elect the best bribers, takers, politicians and scoundrels, regardless of the consequences to the nation. (Note: the “recipients” are not limited to entitled masses, but also includes the bureaucrats, politicians, beneficiaries of tax breaks, grants, loans, contracts and other aspects of covert bribery and graft.)
The “Takers” have ascendancy over the “Makers,” and have perverted government into an instrumentality of coerced labor and expropriation (slavery and thievery) under the guise of “democracy” - the “will of the majority.” The net result is a penalty on productive people and a reward for the non-productive people. We all can see how that is playing out. The over burdened “donor class” cannot maintain themselves and still pay more in taxes, fees, overhead, and carrying charges. They are approaching their limit.
Though perceived as coercive, by law, the “Taking” is entirely by consent. This creates the paradox where the victims believe themselves impotent to deal with mounting taxes, burdensome regulations, and intrusive government, while not availing themselves of their remedy - withdraw consent.
To further compound the problem, the nefarious effects of usury (any fee, in money tokens for the loan of money or extension of credits) have the nation and its people entrapped. Usury is mathematically unsustainable in a finite money token system, and due to the exponential equation used for compound interest, requires an infinite money supply to function. Since that is impossible, the system of usury invariably causes a proportion of debtors to default simply because enough money never existed with which to pay back the creditor. The end result is loss of collateral, and thus legalized theft, by a most vile abomination that has been denounced for “only” 3500 years, proscribed by all religions (that I checked), and yet embraced by millions and billions - to their eventual dismay. Already, the bankrupted government has ruined millions by corrupting the money token system in a vain attempt to escape the inevitable collapse caused by usury. Americans have suffered for over 80 years without lawful money and under “emergency rules” that bypassed the limitations of the U.S. Constitution. The outstanding obligations dwarf the current debt-credit notes used as money tokens, as well as the face value of the counterfeit / debased coin.
Thus we come to the sad fact that no elected government will be capable of enacting any solution, since it would require opposing the will of the majority “Takers” and ceasing to enforce any contract for usury.
If ever sanity and responsibility were restored to the servants in government, then we may look for the following reforms:
1. No recipient of government funds, pensions, salaries or benefits may vote for candidates in any election for a period of no less than 2 years from the last receipt.
2. No contract for usury shall be enforced in any court in the United States of America, or of any State.
3. Since government has two main jobs : securing rights and governing those who consent, any law, statute, or regulation that is not explicitly securing rights of an injured person, must detail exactly what consent is involved, what loss of rights and powers are involved, and the limitations of the jurisdiction, in harmony with the constitution’s delegation of power.
The net result of such reforms would be to:
[] end political power for “Takers” and shift the emphasis on the “Taken” who would be able to rein in excesses;
[] void the public debt, and all outstanding debts based on usury;
[] expose the true nature of the many “benefits” offered by government leading many to refuse to participate further.
In the meantime, Americans will have to persevere, study their laws, withdraw consent, and restore their status under the republican form of government.
1) Compel would, I assume, mean without choice. Evil is an odd term, but it would be unethical
2) Do you think the very idea of governments are wrong? I don't think I would argue that governments are unethical just in nature. "people in need" could encompass soldiers to defend our borders, interstates to connect our cities, police offers and judges to enforce rules and regulations. So no - not evil
3) The act of of bribe would be a exact quid-per-quo and is unethical. Yet I'm sure you are trying to make some comparison to classes who get benefits from certain benefits. This is a problem with democracy. Military weapons are divided among many states in order to gain votes from senators. Senators always work on quid per quo projects where they vote for X and get funds for something that only helps their constituents.
I would like to limit the above. . .but I think if your saying that welfare recipients are a higher risk than the industry military complex or the telecom industry, I think your high. I'm more worried about those groups buying votes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics
A Question of Values
1. Do you think it is evil to compel others to work for your benefit?
2. Do you think it is wrong for a government to forcibly take other people’s property and give it to you, just because you’re pitiful or in need?
3. Do you think it is immoral to bribe people who vote?
If you answered “yes” to the above, you’ve just declared yourself opposed to socialist slavery, national socialism (FICA) aka “Social Security”, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, etc. And that you would support disenfranchisement (loss of voting privileges) of any recipient of government funds or benefits.
If you answered yes you also declare war on the military, schools, interstates, federal spending for local projects, education system, immigration enforcement, police force. . .etc
Obviously the takers feel no shame when they know that the money they receive is money made by a hard working man or woman who has to be away from their family to make that money.
The takers have no shame when they condone taking from people who earned that money, who may even be a working poor man or woman who has to do without because the money they worked hard for was taken away to give to someone who wouldn't roll out of bed to make a living to take care of themselves but would rather take from someone else.
Technically, none of this is done without permission since the decisions are being made by those to whom we have granted the right to represent us .
Loss of voting privileges for any reason would prohibit us from changing those representatives.
If this isn't working out as many of us like , it would require a change in our system of government.
A Question of Values
1. Do you think it is evil to compel others to work for your benefit?
2. Do you think it is wrong for a government to forcibly take other people’s property and give it to you, just because you’re pitiful or in need?
3. Do you think it is immoral to bribe people who vote?
1-Provide an example so we have something specific to discuss. A person or a group can be compelled to do something in a variety of ways.
2-Again, it depends. Property, by definition, is defined by the government for a society. It was deemed okay, by the government to take away the lands that belonged to the native Americans, for example.
3-Under a tunnel vision idea of bribery that is. After all, is it bribery to promote a welfare program for the people where a sick child has access to medicine especially if the parents lack the means? But it isn’t immoral for religious leaders and wealthy influences on elections?
Question for you:
Do you consider it immoral to be a part of the society so you can benefit from it?
1-Provide an example so we have something specific to discuss. A person or a group can be compelled to do something in a variety of ways.
Income tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
2-Again, it depends. Property, by definition, is defined by the government for a society. It was deemed okay, by the government to take away the lands that belonged to the native Americans, for example.
It wasn't deemed okay. Since when is it okay to slaughter people for land? If the Native Americans were armed to the teeth our sleazy government couldn't have committed genocide against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
3-Under a tunnel vision idea of bribery that is. After all, is it bribery to promote a welfare program for the people where a sick child has access to medicine especially if the parents lack the means? But it isn’t immoral for religious leaders and wealthy influences on elections?
As long as you agree with the reason for the bribe, bribery is okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Question for you:
Do you consider it immoral to be a part of the society so you can benefit from it?
Government isn't moral. Why would anyone want a government that uses force and coercion to be part of the society they live is beyond me.
1)Income Tax - very common and used by almost every government. There are different ways to take a tax (consumption, etc) but income tax is the most efficient. Since I assume we all like roads, police, military defense, judges, etc. . .might as well have the tax.
2) Property and information is taken in a lot of situations. Imminent domain, you are a criminal and a criminal enterprise, you live or built a house in a place you shouldn't, your house isn't safe (per regulations). Sometimes these can be good, sometimes bad. . depends.
3)Bribery isn't okay. . .but democracy isn't possible without it . . at least its a common outcome of democracy. I'm more concerned about senators and large corporations/complexes bribing. . and not concerned about a benefit bribe (such as mortgage tax deduction).
4) People want government for stability, peace, easy commerce, regulation (i.e food and housing safety and protection), defense from bad people, whatever. Most people like the idea of being part of a collective.
It is a price you pay to be a part of the society, and benefit from it. And why just income tax? Why ANY tax at all? That being said, your response is pure rhetoric and nothing to do with addressing the question:
-Do you think it is evil to compel others to work for your benefit?
Quote:
It wasn't deemed okay. Since when is it okay to slaughter people for land? If the Native Americans were armed to the teeth our sleazy government couldn't have committed genocide against them.
Was? Armies have been defeated by a stronger army. But, your response, again, is strawman. Does the idea of property exist outside a governed society?
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained."
- Thomas Paine
Quote:
As long as you agree with the reason for the bribe, bribery is okay?
Do you? Because your argument appears inept at differentiating between situations that represent bribery from one that isn't. I presented an example: a child that cannot survive without a welfare program. Is it bribery to do anything about it?
Quote:
Government isn't moral. Why would anyone want a government that uses force and coercion to be part of the society they live is beyond me.
The question was (read slowly, carefully): Do you consider it immoral to be a part of the society so you can benefit from it?
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.
