Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 13, 9:42 am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Charlie Self wrote:
On Dec 12, 6:35 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:
Mark & Juanita wrote:
What should be required is that people who are living from government
benefits should not be allowed to vote. This is the people voting
themselves the treasury that the founders were warned against. You
have a dependency class voting for those who promise to take money
from the people who are working and provide it those who are not.
Self-support should be a pre-requisite for the franchise.
Tis a sad country that discriminates simply because of age, health or
income.....You'd deny the vote simply because someone became ill or
disabled.....Not a world I'd choose to embrace. Rod
No - he would deny a vote because someone is living off someone else's wallet.
There is no "discrimination" involved. No one forces any of the people in
the aforementioned classes to use government as their proxy for stealing
Other People's Money.
Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to
work and then...Soylent Green.
No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day.
OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for
their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other
people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".



What horse****.
You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some
of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and
you cal *my* idea, BS?

FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so
I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution
by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and
are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you
expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?

And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for
their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical
Libertian horse****.


Guess what Sparky, we are ALL gonna die. Better get used to it.
No amount of government spending will fix that despite what all
the moochers want. The only possible way we might be able to
avoid or delay it is to have the morons in government declare
a "War On Living". Since they fail at every other "War On ...",
perhaps a "War On Living" would prolong our lives, I dunno.

Most of us Libertarians are happy to contribute to decent and
useful charities - I am about to do so this weekend. But do please
explain to me how it is morally legitimate to yank money out of
my pocket by force - so that I cannot spent it on my family -
to serve some cause *you* believe in? I don't steal from you.
I don't wish my government to do so on my behalf. But you defend
this as if it were normal and natural. So do explain: How is
theft by proxy morally just? Here is one big hint: Your deep
compassion for the elderly underclass is fraudulent if it depends
on Other People's Money. If you care so much about others, YOU
pony up the money and/or convince others to join you. That's
what charities do...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/