Have you been in my drawers Jim? ...JimC wrote:Rumour has it that his underpants have a hammer and sickle pattern!rEvolutionist wrote:You're clearly a Marxist, Rum.
In red!


Have you been in my drawers Jim? ...JimC wrote:Rumour has it that his underpants have a hammer and sickle pattern!rEvolutionist wrote:You're clearly a Marxist, Rum.
In red!
This is quite literally nothing more than a simplistic utilitarian "might makes right" "love it or leave it" asinine argument that, if I made it by saying that government should shoot YOU in the head for proposing theft you would bitch and scream like a three year old about. Just as every other socialist on earth you dare not even look at the morality of your behavior because you intuitively know that it's wrong and immoral to take what someone else has worked for without their permission just so you can be more comfortable.SnowLeopard wrote:
I'm not derailing anything. If you don't like the system of the country you are living in, depart the country. Sitting there complaining about it but continuing to take part in the thing you are complaining about seems rather.. I'm not sure. Childish. Like a kid moaning to mummy about having to eat his sprouts, but knows in reality he has to just shut up and eat them or he doesn't get any ice cream. Adults seem to grow out of that and just knuckle down and get on with it, you know?
No? It's not a question of morality at all. I don't have to justify anything to you. I didn't make the law.
If you want my opinion. It would be immoral not to tax those who can afford it to assist people who need help. With so few people controlling so much of the wealth, on a planet of 7 billion people it is a necessity to redistribute that wealth so they can have a bearable life. Because you know, we are a civilized and humane society. Unfortunately, for you, every country in the world has that same opinion. If that means that Seths jimmies have to be rustled, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.
Which leaves you with 2 options.
1, Suck it up.
2, Find an atoll and create Sethland.
You don't have an answer, you have an appeal to common practice fallacy, that's it. You simply cannot make a valid moral or ethical argument for taking by force what someone else has worked to obtain. The only argument you can make, that any socialist has EVER made, from Karl Marx right down to you, is that it's "unfair" for someone else to have more than you do, so it's justifiable to take it from them and redistribute it to suit your fancy.SnowLeopard wrote:Well, we can. You just don't like the answers.Seth wrote: like every single socialist I've ever encountered you know damned well you can't morally and ethically justify redistributive socialist theft.
It's almost as though people have different opinions from you, isn't it.
Weird.
No, natural law says it's possible to "ethnically" (sic) redistribute wealth because natural law is the law of the jungle, and he who has the ability to reduce a thing to his possession and keep it that way has the natural right to do so. And natural law doesn't give a flying fuck what happens to the loser.MrJonno wrote:Natural law says its ethnically justified to redistributive wealth
Of course natural law doesn't exist but if Seth can make shit up so can I. Maybe my natural law is different to his natural law. You have libertarian natural law and socialist marxist law or mixed economy natural law. In fact why not just drop the natural law bit and call it politics
That doesn't make you immune to being criticized as a common thief. The common thief always rationalizes his criminality by telling himself that he deserves what he wants more than the person who labored to earn it. But that's just a delusional rationalization, which is what all of Marxism is...a flatly insane delusional mental defect afflicting a large number of people who, for the betterment of the species, need to be culled from the gene pool.JimC wrote:Anyway, we who live in countries with some form of national health care don't give a flying continental fuck what selfish arseholes from less fortunate countries might "think" about how we run our affairs...
And paid for with OPM taken by force. Thievery.Rum wrote:Quite so Jim. The proof of the pudding and all that. My family has benefited enormously from the NHS here - and at times we could have afforded private treatment too. When I was diagnosed with penile cancer nine years ago I was so alarmed (as you might expect!) that I had an initial consultation with a BUPA Consultant (Bupa is our biggest private health care organisation). I asked the guy I saw if I should go with BUPA. He said I shouldn't waste my money and that in any case I would be seeing him if I went NHS! Which I did. The treatment all round was superb.
Indeed. If only you could follow this argument to it's logical and rational conclusion....mistermack wrote:The phrase ''natural law'' is a weird one anyway.
There is hardly any sign of property being respected in the animal world.
If you can take it, it's yours.
Correct again! Another step in the right direction. Keep going...It's only when you get to the most intelligent social animals, that there is even a hint of ''property'' and then, only the slightest hint.
Gosh, a moral and ethical decision by a chimpanzee. Too bad socialists aren't as intelligent or ethical as chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees might allow a smaller chimp to keep a desired object, but it's really only because of the social upset that taking it by force would cause.
Socialists will take everything a man owns or possesses merely because they think it's not "fair" that he possess it, which puts them several rungs below chimpanzees on the moral/ethical scale.If they can take something by subterfuge, they will.
Some monkeys will take the food out of the mouth of a lower ranking monkey, they don't even own it if it's inside them.
Which describes socialists and socialism quite nicely I'm afraid.So there is no moral or ethical right to property for any animal.
You have to be religious to think that it's different for humans.
No you don't. As a socialist you live below the level of the chimpanzee because you will take all a man has, including his life, if it suits your socialistic sense of "fairness," and you don't give a flying fuck about the personal OR the social consequences of doing so. You do it because you can, and like a mindless animal, you take what you want and care nothing for the labor or property of others, which makes you as amoral as any other lower animal and therefore unworthy of the title of "sentient being."We just take social living further than other animals, and write the rules down.
Wrong. As I've said approximately a billion times, "taxation" is a broad term that you mendaciously use to avoid the actual subject, which is ONE FORM of taxation called "direct redistributive taxation," which is the practice of taking money from one person or group of persons (the wealthy) and giving it to another person or group of persons (the poor).JimC wrote:Seth, you seem to confuse the expropriation of private property by Marxist regimes of the past (by violence, during and after revolutions, and clearly hard to defend morally) with the straightforward process of taxation that occurs in every single modern economy. The precise details of tax laws and scales are of course open to criticism, and in fact change if a new government is elected. However, the existence of taxation is not a "socialist menace", it is a straightforward fact of life in any functioning economy.
So, are you going to tell me which countries do not employ your particular version of evil taxation?Seth wrote:Wrong. As I've said approximately a billion times, "taxation" is a broad term that you mendaciously use to avoid the actual subject, which is ONE FORM of taxation called "direct redistributive taxation," which is the practice of taking money from one person or group of persons (the wealthy) and giving it to another person or group of persons (the poor).JimC wrote:Seth, you seem to confuse the expropriation of private property by Marxist regimes of the past (by violence, during and after revolutions, and clearly hard to defend morally) with the straightforward process of taxation that occurs in every single modern economy. The precise details of tax laws and scales are of course open to criticism, and in fact change if a new government is elected. However, the existence of taxation is not a "socialist menace", it is a straightforward fact of life in any functioning economy.
Direct redistributive taxation is pure, unadulterated theft by proxy using the Mace of State as the weapon of coercion and force against the legitimate owner of the value of the labor from whom the value is taken against his will.
Until you are capable of understanding this distinction I'll have better luck arguing with one of Rum's chimpanzees.
No.JimC wrote:So, are you going to tell me which countries do not employ your particular version of evil taxation?Seth wrote:Wrong. As I've said approximately a billion times, "taxation" is a broad term that you mendaciously use to avoid the actual subject, which is ONE FORM of taxation called "direct redistributive taxation," which is the practice of taking money from one person or group of persons (the wealthy) and giving it to another person or group of persons (the poor).JimC wrote:Seth, you seem to confuse the expropriation of private property by Marxist regimes of the past (by violence, during and after revolutions, and clearly hard to defend morally) with the straightforward process of taxation that occurs in every single modern economy. The precise details of tax laws and scales are of course open to criticism, and in fact change if a new government is elected. However, the existence of taxation is not a "socialist menace", it is a straightforward fact of life in any functioning economy.
Direct redistributive taxation is pure, unadulterated theft by proxy using the Mace of State as the weapon of coercion and force against the legitimate owner of the value of the labor from whom the value is taken against his will.
Until you are capable of understanding this distinction I'll have better luck arguing with one of Rum's chimpanzees.
And they are all wrong and morally corrupt in doing so. Your fallacious appeal to common practice is rejected.As far as I can see, every form of existing taxation by governments across the world does this, since they all (to a greater or lesser extent) provide various forms of social support, pensions, unemployment benefits etc.
Before I will discuss the proportioning of the exaction you must first justify the moral and ethical basis for the exaction. If there is no moral or ethical basis upon which to justify the exaction, then it's theft plain and simple and it doesn't matter if it's a million dollars or a dime that extorted and stolen from someone by proxy because theft is theft and the degree or magnitude of the theft goes only to the appropriate level of punishment of the malefactor, not to whether or not the theft is justifiable.One can of course argue that any given government is extracting too much from a particular section of the population, or being unwisely generous to another, but that is of course a rational argument in the real world, and therefore of no interest to you...
As is your appeal to subjective morals.Seth wrote:And they are all wrong and morally corrupt in doing so. Your fallacious appeal to common practice is rejected.As far as I can see, every form of existing taxation by governments across the world does this, since they all (to a greater or lesser extent) provide various forms of social support, pensions, unemployment benefits etc.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests