"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/18/2012 11:43 AM, George Plimpton wrote: You claim you have a right to live. That is a negative right that implies a duty on others not to interfere with my life. The hell it does. That is *exactly* what it does. That is *all* it does. It implies nothing about any duties of others. Yes, that is exactly what it implies. It implies a duty of others not to interfere with my life, provided I am not interfering with theirs. You are the one claiming ownership of a right. Correct. You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live. I was endowed with it at birth. It is the very essence of my relationship with other humans. Oh, you were "endowed" with it, huh? Just by being born you got it? Was that like magic? It sounds kind of supernatural to me. No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is another topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a worthless "discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing. Where you got this right is the question. I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for being born human. So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for some non human being gave you this right. Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey? You don't admit to getting any rights from society or government Correct: because they have no authority to do so. Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society, except indirectly by living in association with one another. Individual persons *do* create governments. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey. Your right defines their duties? Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does. Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them? No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your sense of positive rights would do that. They have no part in your claim to a right to life. They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means, Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin. You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They are not different; they are the same. So why can't "those people" claim a right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.? Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone else to give them those things, and there is no such duty. Yes, so you say. It is so. Other people say the opposite. They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force. You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence. Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any good or service to anyone. But the creator says you do and No. I may choose to take on such a duty voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate moral obligation to feed or clothe you. So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to be done. Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. You're claiming rights so why can't they? You don't understand rights. That's proof of how worthless your degree is. You should know the difference between positive and negative rights, and clearly you don't. Hah, that's a laugh. Not for you, it isn't. We're the ones laughing at you. I'm more than a little familiar with the terms. No, you are not. I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many don't even know it. The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact. What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information. You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information", it almost assuredly isn't. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:33 AM, John B. wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 21:11:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" wrote: "John B." wrote: Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people object to is having the Government pay for the haircut. I've only been to a barber once since I got out of the Army in the '70s. I cut my own hair. Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh? He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero explanatory power regarding human behavior. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
You are funny. Want to see why? Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act. Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their *shared* individual interests. You have no clue what teamwork is. I do know exactly what it is, having been part of many teams. It is the concerted effort of *individual* persons working toward a *shared*, not "collective", goal. They do it because they see it as in the *individual* interest of each of them, and that doing so together is more effective than doing so as individual persons. Wrong! That's what teamwork is. Wrong! An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation. Society can banish an individual member No, "society" cannot do that. Wrong! Every time you say "society" does this or that, you are *wrong*. Society is not an organic entity - it does nothing. All individuals are under the power of the society. False. Wrong! You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a triviality. False. Wrong! You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and statements about it are wrong. You mean in a layman's opinion, right? I mean in absolute terms. The reason is because your statement of what society is is 100% wrong. Wrong! So much for the argumentative power of Mr. Plimpton. You think substituting your opinion for the facts is a winning argument for whatever you claim. It's not. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:55 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote: You are funny. Want to see why? Society is not an organic entity. It has no will, it does not act. Individual people have will and undertake actions. When they act in concert, it does not mean some "collective" is acting; it means individual persons are acting collectively, in pursuit of their *shared* individual interests. You have no clue what teamwork is. I do know exactly what it is, having been part of many teams. It is the concerted effort of *individual* persons working toward a *shared*, not "collective", goal. They do it because they see it as in the *individual* interest of each of them, and that doing so together is more effective than doing so as individual persons. Wrong! No, it's right. That's what teamwork is. Wrong! No, I have accurately described teamwork. An individual person can voluntarily leave a society and go inhabit another place with a different society, or live in isolation in no society at all. Your eyeball cannot choose on its own to go live in someone else's eye socket, or to live in isolation. Society can banish an individual member No, "society" cannot do that. Wrong! No, I'm right. "Society" has no will and can do nothing. People have wills and do things. Every time you say "society" does this or that, you are *wrong*. Society is not an organic entity - it does nothing. All individuals are under the power of the society. False. Wrong! You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a triviality. False. Wrong! No, I'm right. You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and statements about it are wrong. You mean in a layman's opinion, right? I mean in absolute terms. The reason is because your statement of what society is is 100% wrong. Wrong! No, I'm right. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing "unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it. That's easy to conclude when you have no sense of morality. It's a lot different when no one matters but the individual. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. No, it doesn't. You think it doesn't say that in any dictionary? It does, so that is a valid meaning. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal. To you if one had everything and no one else had anything that would be fair to you. That's bizarre thinking. In your mind whatever exists is fair. But we don't have to accept your far out views, so we don't. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of "fairness" is worthless bull****. Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your idea of fair is equally nutty. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him. Now that's irrational thinking. Maybe the talk show host heard from JK and not the other way around. That makes sense? Only to a real kook. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real politics. I forgot more about politics than you ever knew. I'm also the least naive person you ever met. I'm a skeptic. Your judgment about me is so far from reality it's stupid. Your views on just about everything else are equally off base. You pretend to know things you have no way of knowing. You strike me as one of the most arrogant people I've every run into, and that's saying something. A super arrogant, know it all. How right on is that? You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he pretends to know. Get out the mirror bro. The difference is that I am not exaggerating what I know, which is probably what has your panties up in a bunch. I am not the kind to say anything unless I know what I'm talking about. You probably don't know many people like me who are for real, no bull****, people. If I tell you something you can take it to the bank. Say what you will. I know what I am. You saying the opposite doesn't make it so. Just like you telling everyone how great you are doesn't make it so either. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 1:34 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/18/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****: On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing "unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it. That's easy to conclude when you have no sense of morality. Not a refutation. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. No, it doesn't. You think it doesn't say that in any dictionary? It doesn't mean equal in any valid sense when describing life outcomes. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal. To you if one had everything and no one else had anything that would be fair to you. It could never happen that way, but yes, if it did happen, it would be as fair as any other outcome. *Other* than repeating your falsehood that "fair" means "equal", you can't give any meaning to it. That's bizarre thinking. Nope. In your mind whatever exists is fair. "Fair" has no usable meaning in talking about life outcomes and the allocation of goods and resources. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of "fairness" is worthless bull****. Only to you. No, objectively. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him. Now that's irrational thinking. No, it isn't. It may not be how it actually happened, but it is perfectly plausible. Among other things, Limbaugh is not an original thinker at all - he has to get his ideas from someone. JK is as plausible a source as anyone else. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real politics. I forgot more about politics than you ever knew. No. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he pretends to know. Get out the mirror bro. I'm holding it up so you can see yourself, girl. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Feb 18, 3:44*pm, Hawke wrote:
What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when they clearly have no idea if it's right or wrong? A dumb ****, doofus, fool, idiot, or many others would do. Take your pick. Hawke Again attack the opponent if you can't attack his ideas. Dan |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Feb 18, 3:52*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information. You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information", it almost assuredly isn't. Not a logical argument. Dan |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
|
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Feb 18, 4:34*pm, Hawke wrote:
It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal. It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of "fairness" is worthless bull****. Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your idea of fair is equally nutty. Hawke I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the people have an equal opportunity to be rich. In other words if the rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor. In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. Dan |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
|
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:35:49 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote: On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote: On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote: It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal. It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of "fairness" is worthless bull****. Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your idea of fair is equally nutty. Hawke I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the people have an equal opportunity to be rich. In other words if the rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor. What people who believe in rough equality of opportunity don't understand is that totalitarians like Hawke-Ptooey only believe in equality of *results*. If you take two people of roughly equal innate ability, give them roughly equal education, and then turn them loose, then if one of them due to a superior work ethic accumulates a much greater fortune than the other, Hawke-Ptooey and other "egalitarians" like him would say the result is "unfair". I've known some hard-core egalitarians, and, except for some college students who were experimenting with ideas, I've never known one who would say that a difference that resulted from "a superior work ethic" is unfair. More likely they would say that being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth, like, say, George W. Bush, leads to unfair results with lesser effort than someone who works hard but who doesn't know how to leap those hurdles of birth, crony connections, legacy admission to the schools that tend to privilege even lazy students with the right pedigrees, etc. is likely to wind up with an unfair result. In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one never worked. This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness" issue in terms of what's fair to the giver. When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to swing the other way. Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of family fortunes *do* last through generations. Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others, and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit. This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about what constitutes fairness. If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it? What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my fortune as I see fit. Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less agreement about your son's right. -- Ed Huntress |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke
wrote: On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in. Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is: " free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules" Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the layabout's beers and chips. -- Cheers, John B. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****: On 2/18/2012 11:43 AM, George Plimpton wrote: You claim you have a right to live. That is a negative right that implies a duty on others not to interfere with my life. The hell it does. That is *exactly* what it does. That is *all* it does. It implies nothing about any duties of others. Yes, that is exactly what it implies. It implies a duty of others not to interfere with my life, provided I am not interfering with theirs. You are the one claiming ownership of a right. Correct. You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live. I was endowed with it at birth. It is the very essence of my relationship with other humans. Oh, you were "endowed" with it, huh? Just by being born you got it? Was that like magic? It sounds kind of supernatural to me. No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is another topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a worthless "discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing. I'm not interested in Jefferson's views here because we're talking about you thinking you have an automatic right just because you were born. You seem to think that because people in the 18th century believed that then it must be true. Well it isn't. You aren't born with rights. Nobody gave them to you and if you claim them it's only on your on volition that you are doing it. Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid. All it says is laws came from god. Religious zealots love it. It just shows how desperate you are to show you have rights you are born with. They only way you do is if they are given to you by a supernatural being. Are you going to be that stupid as to claim that? For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so I've had all kinds of law classes. How about you, is that part of your economics training? Don't bother lying, you're again presuming to know things you haven't a clue about. But at least you have the nerve to argue with people who do. One other thing, education in a subject even at a crappy school puts one way ahead of someone with no training at all. Where you got this right is the question. I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for being born human. So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for some non human being gave you this right. Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey? He's dead and I don't care about his opinion on the subject. It's the 21st century now and we know you aren't born with anything as far as rights goes. You get rights that come along with being an American citizen. You know, by joining American society. You don't admit to getting any rights from society or government Correct: because they have no authority to do so. That authority comes from the people themselves and they are the ultimate power, not your freedom of choice. Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society, except indirectly by living in association with one another. But you are acting like you know all about society when you have not studied sociology and are ignorant in that field. So why should anyone listen to you talk about society? You know jack **** about it. Just about everything you say about it is incorrect. Individual persons *do* create governments. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey. Your right defines their duties? Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does. So that means you are automatically connected to them. Kind of like you're part of a society where your rights and other's duties are closely intertwined. Not like you say, a bunch of separate individuals doing whatever they want. Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them? No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your sense of positive rights would do that. Sounds a lot like your right is imposing duties on them. If you can impose a duty on another then you have power over them. They have no part in your claim to a right to life. They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means, Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin. First off. who is it that determines whether you are interfering in the lives of others or they are interfering in yours? Does everybody do that for them self? So if I think you're doing something that is interfering with me then I get to do on my own whatever I want to stop your behavior? You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They are not different; they are the same. Oh brother, you really are the dull one. You having the right to live is not the same thing as not having others interfere with you. You don't get it, do you? Those are separate concepts. You can't see that and you're calling me names. Give me a break. So why can't "those people" claim a right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.? Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone else to give them those things, and there is no such duty. Yes, so you say. It is so. Other people say the opposite. They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force. You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence. Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any good or service to anyone. But the creator says you do and No. I may choose to take on such a duty voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate moral obligation to feed or clothe you. So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to be done. Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. What you are saying is that nothing but your decision matters in how you treat anyone else. It's up to no one but you. So you set your self up as god. If you owe a duty to anyone you're the judge, right? Nothing is higher than you. That view shows how weird you are. You're claiming rights so why can't they? You don't understand rights. That's proof of how worthless your degree is. You should know the difference between positive and negative rights, and clearly you don't. Hah, that's a laugh. Not for you, it isn't. We're the ones laughing at you. I'm more than a little familiar with the terms. No, you are not. I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many don't even know it. The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact. What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information. You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information", it almost assuredly isn't. You're just one major weasel. When I told you what the Times published you said it publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact. You are entitled to that opinion. However, the Times article was stating a statistic that it has the references for. So it was publishing a fact. You rejected that without even knowing anything about it, which is what ignorant, partisan, fools do. Then you turn around and try to blame the messenger, me, for the Times article, and then you follow it up with personal attacks. Which really just shows that you're a spineless weasel, with a big mouth, and that your degree is worthless because you act more like a street person than someone with an education. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
|
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh? He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero explanatory power regarding human behavior. Oh, so it's just like economics. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 2:02 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him. Now that's irrational thinking. No, it isn't. It may not be how it actually happened, but it is perfectly plausible. Among other things, Limbaugh is not an original thinker at all - he has to get his ideas from someone. JK is as plausible a source as anyone else. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real politics. I forgot more about politics than you ever knew. No. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he pretends to know. Get out the mirror bro. I'm holding it up so you can see yourself, girl. What you are seeing is your own vagina. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
|
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 4:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one never worked. This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness" issue in terms of what's fair to the giver. When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to swing the other way. Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of family fortunes *do* last through generations. Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others, and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit. This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about what constitutes fairness. If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it? What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my fortune as I see fit. Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less agreement about your son's right. His problem is that all he knows about, sees, or cares about in any way are his rights. Nothing else matters to him. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 6:48 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/18/2012 12:52 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/18/2012 12:44 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****: On 2/18/2012 11:43 AM, George Plimpton wrote: You claim you have a right to live. That is a negative right that implies a duty on others not to interfere with my life. The hell it does. That is *exactly* what it does. That is *all* it does. It implies nothing about any duties of others. Yes, that is exactly what it implies. It implies a duty of others not to interfere with my life, provided I am not interfering with theirs. You are the one claiming ownership of a right. Correct. You claim that somehow you obtained a right to live. I was endowed with it at birth. It is the very essence of my relationship with other humans. Oh, you were "endowed" with it, huh? Just by being born you got it? Was that like magic? It sounds kind of supernatural to me. No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is another topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a worthless "discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing. I'm not interested in Jefferson's views here because Because you're a totalitarian, and Jefferson was a democratic republican. Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid. It is valid. For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so Good for you. That's a clerical job, you know. Where you got this right is the question. I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for being born human. So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for some non human being gave you this right. Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey? He's dead and I don't care about his opinion on the subject. You don't care about the opinion of any great philosophers and notable political figures except for far-left crazies like Marx and Lenin and Mao. You don't admit to getting any rights from society or government Correct: because they have no authority to do so. That authority comes from the people themselves and No. "The people" do not have any power to grant or withhold rights. They may not *recognize* rights, as the majority of southerners in the US didn't recognize the basic human rights of Negroes for a long time, but the people do not have any valid authority to grant or refuse to grant any rights. Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society, except indirectly by living in association with one another. But you are acting like you know all about society when you have not studied sociology and Sociology is worthless for understanding any legitimate aspect of society. As I've said several times already, "society" is not an entity - it is a description of people living in some kind of association with one another. Society has no will, no organic existence of any kind; it does not act. *People* who have their hands on the levers of power act, ostensibly in the name of society, but it is always a matter of individual persons. "Society" is not an entity. That is a fact. Get used to it. Individual persons *do* create governments. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey. Your right defines their duties? Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does. So that means you are automatically connected to them. No. It means that *IF* I am connected to them, they have certain duties based on my rights. I may not be connected to others at all, but *if* I am, there are certain duties imposed on all of us. The only legitimate duties are all negative - duties not to interfere. There are no positive rights - there *cannot* be, without violating the most basic right of all: the right to one's life. Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them? No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your sense of positive rights would do that. Sounds a lot like your right is imposing duties on them. That's exactly what rights do, Hawke-Ptooey. If you can impose a duty on another *I* imposed nothing on them, Hawke-Ptooey. then you have power over them. See above, Hawke-Ptooey. They have no part in your claim to a right to life. They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means, Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin. First off. who is it that determines whether you are interfering in the lives of others or they are interfering in yours? If you are attempting to seize some value I create, Hawke-Ptooey, or if you are trying to suppress or tax a voluntary transaction into which I and someone else wish to engage, then you are interfering in my life. You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They are not different; they are the same. Oh brother, you really are the dull one. That's not an argument, Hawke-Ptooey. You having the right to live is not the same thing as not having others interfere with you. That is *EXACTLY* what it is, Hawke-Ptooey. So why can't "those people" claim a right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.? Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone else to give them those things, and there is no such duty. Yes, so you say. It is so. Other people say the opposite. They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force. Heh heh heh...cat got your tongue, eh, bitch? You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence. Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any good or service to anyone. But the creator says you do and No. Heh heh heh... You don't know a ****ing thing about any "creator", do you, Hawke-Ptooey? I may choose to take on such a duty voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate moral obligation to feed or clothe you. So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to be done. Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. What you are saying is that nothing but your decision matters in how you treat anyone else. No, I'm *not* saying that, you liar. I'm saying only my decision matters in deciding what my positive duties to others are. I have no say in what my negative duties to others are. My negative duties are imposed by their rights. I must not interfere in their lives, as long as they aren't immorally interfering in mine. A dirty homeless person may beg from me, because that isn't an interference. If he assaults me and tries to force me to give him something, that's an interference, and I am entitled to kill him. Get it, Hawke-Ptooey? I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many don't even know it. The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact. What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information. You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information", it almost assuredly isn't. You're just one major weasel. You're just one minor and inconsequential lying totalitarian, Hawke-Ptooey. You're a ****bag, but you're basically just a minor annoyance. I toy with you. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote: Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh? He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero explanatory power regarding human behavior. Oh, so it's just like economics. No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 7:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:02 PM, George Plimpton wrote: If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. No, that's a completely invalid assumption. Maybe Rush got it from him. Now that's irrational thinking. No, it isn't. It may not be how it actually happened, but it is perfectly plausible. Among other things, Limbaugh is not an original thinker at all - he has to get his ideas from someone. JK is as plausible a source as anyone else. Your silence here speaks volumes. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. You are a politically naïve fool. You have a little bit of exposure to undergraduate Marxist political theory; in no way do you understand real politics. I forgot more about politics than you ever knew. No. Here, too. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Exactly. Hawke-Ptooey doesn't know even a minute fraction of what he pretends to know. Get out the mirror bro. I'm holding it up so you can see yourself, girl. What you are seeing is ....the back of the mirror. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 7:12 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 2:59 PM, wrote: On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, wrote: It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. The answer, of course is "yes", it is fair. Fair does not mean equal. It has been shown beyond all rational dispute that your definition of "fairness" is worthless bull****. Only to you. How I define it is how normal people do it. You can try to justify having crazy views any way you want but they're still crazy. You can say smoking tobacco is good for you all you want, but it's not. Your idea of fair is equally nutty. Hawke I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the people have an equal opportunity to be rich. See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an equal opportunity to be rich. Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich. In other words if the rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor. That would be a much better argument, yes. That *is* the argument. But again, we know that it's not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't. That's almost entirely the argument. In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. So what does that mean? It means that you need to keep your grubby totalitarian mitts off people's money. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 7:21 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 4:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one never worked. This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness" issue in terms of what's fair to the giver. When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to swing the other way. Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of family fortunes *do* last through generations. Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others, and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit. This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about what constitutes fairness. If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it? What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my fortune as I see fit. Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less agreement about your son's right. His problem is that all he knows about, sees, or cares about in any way are his rights. That's false, which is why it isn't a problem. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 5:14 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 12:09:52 -0800, Hawke wrote: On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. A specific process is used to determine exactly what constitutes "poverty" so it's not arbitrary. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in. Sorry but you are wrong (again?) the common meaning of "fair" is: " free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules" Although I will admit that if half the people work hard and enjoys the fruits of their labor and half are lazy layabouts living on the government tit then most people will say that it is hardly fair to the worker bees who are being taxed by the government to pay for the layabout's beers and chips. It needn't even be that drastic. Assume everyone works reasonably hard and to the best of his ability; assume there are no layabouts. Assume different people all have different innate abilities. Then it is reasonable to assume there will be a distribution of unequal wages, with some earning more than others. By statistical definition, there will be a median wage: half will earn below the median, and half will earn above it. That would be fair. There is no reason to think that two people both working the same amount of time with roughly the same degree of effort "ought" to earn the same amount of money. This is what was always, and is still, wrong with the feminists' "equal pay for equal work" mantra: they are looking only at the amount of input - effort - without regard to the *value* of the output. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Feb 18, 10:12*pm, Hawke wrote:
See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an equal opportunity to be rich. But we all know that isn't the way it is, right? So opportunity is not fairly distributed. That means my idea of fairness is not so bad is it? Actually it means your idea of fairness in flawed. That would be a much better argument, yes. But again, we know that it's not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't. Many people work like dogs and remain poor. How people get rich isn't equally doled out so lots of people who don't earn wealth get it anyway. But lots do, so your definition is flawed. So what does that mean? Sometimes it is fair that someone is rich and sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fair to be poor and sometimes it's not. But nothing here leads to any kind of conclusion. My main point is that America's wealth is unfairly distributed with a few having way more than they should. Many people agree with me. Hawke And many people disagree with you. Dan |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke wrote:
However, the Times article was stating a statistic that it has the references for. No YOU assume they have the references for it, but you don't know they have them. So it was publishing a fact. OR their opinion of how they interpret the statistics they have. Their idea of "benefit" might not agree with mine, or yours, or Georges. That doesn't make their statement a "fact" jk |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:46:34 -0800, jk wrote:
Hawke wrote: However, the Times article was stating a statistic that it has the references for. No YOU assume they have the references for it, but you don't know they have them. They have references for it. If you care, I'll post them for you. If you're just arguing for argument's sake, don't bother. As for who receives benefits, it's not the poor so much as the old. So it was publishing a fact. OR their opinion of how they interpret the statistics they have. This isn't opinion. They have the stats, from different sources. Their idea of "benefit" might not agree with mine, or yours, or Georges. That doesn't make their statement a "fact" jk If you count money coming from the government and going directly to individuals, it's a fact. It's also easy to measure and to confirm. -- Ed Huntress |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. But you claim to be the big champion of fairness, so why haven't you given ALL your money to those with less than you. Its the moral thing to do, according to you. You haven't, so by your own definition, you are being immoral. But the ONLY way for that NOT to be the case would be if everyone had the EXACT same things. Same living space, same TV, Same car, same food, same clothes, every thing, heck we all even have to have the same name. Oh heck we all have to have the same genes, and same influences growing up. We all have to be educated the exact same way, and get the exact same grades. Can't have sports, because having winners and losers is immoral too. So unless this is your idea of a "moral" world, I reject your concept of "some people having more than others as being immoral" as absurd. Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with anything? It has to do with everything., but you will never see it. Because I see that taking from one person against their will, and giving it to another, in the misguided effort to make them exactly equal is wrong, and you seem to think it is a laudable goal. If you are implying that the lower classes in America are guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves. I don't agree that we have a "lower" class, apparently you do. How superior of you. I do see that we have a ruling class however. So according to you we do have a ruling class but we don't have a lower class. How about a middle class? Do we have one of those? How about the working class? do we have one of those? I'm sorry to break you the news but America is a class society and always has been. Even you admit to some classes so there you go, the only difference is you see less classes than others do. Others who know more about it than you. Due to your reading comprehension issues I will reiterate. I reject your use and intent, in the use of the word "lower". Not that I agree that we are a "class society" in the same sense that England has been, and continues to be, or that India has been and continues to be The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. Show me some proof I am wrong. Your opinions are proof of nothing. Bull ****, and your own words about even you knowing some one who violated a rule you set up [ALL people with belief X having Religion C] is in itself sufficient. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. And you would be wrong, on those few occasions I have listened to the junkie, I didn't find him particularly entertaining. As I said else where When I originally heard him, I thought he was a comedian who never reached the punch line. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. But It would appear from your statements, that you do so with a closed mind. I'm a political junky. So when you say the same things what am I supposed to think? Unlike you, I am not going to tell you what you should think. I would rather that you ACTUALLY think, rather than parroting a line of blather from the winged nutcase you follow. You saying the same exact things are just coincidental? Come off it. You think what you are saying is original? I've heard it before. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Your mind seems to be one that makes judgments without evidence. You seem to be quite good at that. Since you know what I know on so many subjects. Please tell me where I stand on these issues. Abortion The environment Global Warming Patriot Act Nuclear Power Decriminalization of Pot. The peace corps Complete Legalization of Pot. NASA The first gulf war Space Travel in General Nanotechnology PBS/NPR The War in Afghanistan The second gulf war Foreign Aid I've seen nothing. That is hard to do with your eyes closed. jk |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. How about you start using the word the way most of the world does, and use a dictionary. fair1 /f??r/ Show Spelled [fair] Show IPA adjective, fair·er, fair·est, adverb, fair·er, fair·est, noun, verb adjective 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge. 2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight. 3. moderately large; ample: a fair income. 4. neither excellent nor poor; moderately or tolerably good: fair health. 5. marked by favoring conditions; likely; promising: in a fair way to succeed. EXPAND 6. Meteorology . a. (of the sky) bright; sunny; cloudless to half-cloudy. b. (of the weather) fine; with no prospect of rain, snow, or hail; not stormy. 7. Nautical . (of a wind or tide) tending to aid the progress of a vessel. 8. unobstructed; not blocked up: The way was fair for our advance. 9. without irregularity or unevenness: a fair surface. 10. free from blemish, imperfection, or anything that impairs the appearance, quality, or character: Her fair reputation was ruined by gossip. 11. easy to read; clear: fair handwriting. 12. of a light hue; not dark: fair skin. 13. pleasing in appearance; attractive: a fair young maiden. 14. seemingly good or sincere but not really so: The suitor beguiled his mistress with fair speeches. 15. courteous; civil: fair words. 16. Medicine/Medical . (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs and other favorable indicators, as appetite and mobility, but being in some discomfort and having the possibility of a worsening state. If you mean that half of the people have less than the other half then by definition that is not fair. If you are using fair in a moral or legal way then it can mean something completely different. So it all depends on how you are using the word fair. There is a lot of leeway in the word fair. So it all depends on which context you use it in. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. And you would also understand (as pointed out before) that 1/2 = 1/2 no matter how much you call it unfair. It depends on how I am using the word fair. In a moral sense is it fair that 1/2 are rich and 1/2 are poor? That would be no. Those who want to take your valuables and in return give you nothing are thieves. Okay, we've both made pretty much true statements about those who take without giving back. So what does that have to do with anything? It has to do with everything., but you will never see it. Since you aren't able to even state why it has anything to do with anything else then I must conclude that it's something you can't see either. Or is it you just can speak it? If you are implying that the lower classes in America are guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves. I don't agree that we have a "lower" class, apparently you do. How superior of you. I do see that we have a ruling class however. So according to you we do have a ruling class but we don't have a lower class. How about a middle class? Do we have one of those? How about the working class? do we have one of those? I'm sorry to break you the news but America is a class society and always has been. Even you admit to some classes so there you go, the only difference is you see less classes than others do. Others who know more about it than you. The problem with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to support your assumption. The problem is not only that you assume, but you maintain the assumption even in the face of contrary evidence. Your problem is that you are not presenting any evidence that anything I've said is demonstrably wrong or is incorrect. Show me some proof I am wrong. Your opinions are proof of nothing. If you knew more about the reality of our economy, our government, and how they work you would not simply recite the words you hear from other people who are also misinformed. You know nothing about what I know about any of the above, and yet assume I know little or nothing. You claim to know much, and understand more. It's simple. When I hear you say things that I've just heard Rush Limbaugh say on his show that morning it's pretty easy to conclude where you got it from. I listen to what people on the right say all the time. I'm a political junky. So when you say the same things what am I supposed to think? You saying the same exact things are just coincidental? Come off it. You think what you are saying is original? I've heard it before. You seem to have the classic "mind like a steel trap". Slams shut at the slightest touch, hard to get open, destroys what it does grasp in it's teeth, and everything falls out the sides. Your mind seems to be one that makes judgments without evidence. Show me some time where you showed some proof that supported your statements. I've seen nothing. Hawke jk |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 12:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/18/2012 12:09 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/17/2012 2:16 PM, jk wrote: That's one possibility. Here's another. You are not able to understand the reasoning and the principles upon which the decisions are made as to how money is taxed and distributed throughout society. Instead of really knowing the why behind what is done you take the easy way out and blindly follow people who mistakenly feel they have been taken advantage of. If you were actually well informed and knowledgeable then you would see why things are done the way they are, and that they are indeed fair. OK, take that SAME logic and apply it to your earlier argument that the fact that some people live below (an arbitrarily defined) poverty line, and some live above it, is unfair. Number one, the way the government defines poverty is not arbitrarily defined. Irrelevant. However and by whom the line is drawn, there is nothing "unfair" about some people living above it and some living below it. That's easy to conclude when you have no sense of morality. It's a lot different when no one matters but the individual. Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means equal. No, it doesn't. You think it doesn't say that in any dictionary? It does, so that is a valid meaning. Exactly what dictionary. Perhaps "Hawke's NonStandard Abuse of the English Language"? jk |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
Hawke wrote:
So what does that mean? Sometimes it is fair that someone is rich and sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fair to be poor and sometimes it's not. Which contradicts what you said earlier. jk |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 8:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is another topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a worthless "discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing. I'm not interested in Jefferson's views here because Because you're a totalitarian, and Jefferson was a democratic republican. I'm not interested in Jefferson's views for two reasons. One, I know them, and two, they are not applicable here. Third, where does a Fascist, control freak like you get off calling someone else a totalitarian? Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid. It is valid. Not valid because you can't interpret it without clergy. For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so Good for you. That's a clerical job, you know. You call it whatever kind of job you like. What it means though is that once again you are in over your head arguing law with a paralegal when you don't know anything about the subject. You presume to know when you are ignorant. That's how fools operate. Where you got this right is the question. I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for being born human. So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for some non human being gave you this right. Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey? He's dead and I don't care about his opinion on the subject. You don't care about the opinion of any great philosophers and notable political figures except for far-left crazies like Marx and Lenin and Mao. Not when you're talking about natural law. Neither Marx, Lenin, or Mao, care about it either because they were atheists. So neither do I. You pretend that you got some rights handed to you by a spiritual being if you want. All that does is make you look like an even worse crackpot than before. You have to go to spirits to justify yourself. What a buffoon. You don't admit to getting any rights from society or government Correct: because they have no authority to do so. That authority comes from the people themselves and No. "The people" do not have any power to grant or withhold rights. They may not *recognize* rights, as the majority of southerners in the US didn't recognize the basic human rights of Negroes for a long time, but the people do not have any valid authority to grant or refuse to grant any rights. You are so ignorant about politics it should shame you. People are the ultimate source from which all your rights come. They are what legitimizes the power of the state to grant or deprive you of your rights. Your ignorance of how things work is amazing. Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society, except indirectly by living in association with one another. But you are acting like you know all about society when you have not studied sociology and Sociology is worthless for understanding any legitimate aspect of society. So says a man who has not taken the time or made the effort to learn what sociology does teach. As I've said several times already, "society" is not an entity - it is a description of people living in some kind of association with one another. Society has no will, no organic existence of any kind; it does not act. *People* who have their hands on the levers of power act, ostensibly in the name of society, but it is always a matter of individual persons. "Society" is not an entity. That is a fact. Get used to it. Maybe the problem is you don't know what the word entity means. Or maybe you just don't understand how an organization works. You probably believe that a corporation is a person, right? Well, that's how a group of individuals is a society and acts as a society and not as simply a group of individuals. So your fact is not a fact. It's your opinion. Individual persons *do* create governments. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey. Your right defines their duties? Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does. So that means you are automatically connected to them. No. It means that *IF* I am connected to them, they have certain duties based on my rights. I may not be connected to others at all, but *if* I am, there are certain duties imposed on all of us. The only legitimate duties are all negative - duties not to interfere. There are no positive rights - there *cannot* be, without violating the most basic right of all: the right to one's life. You are connected to them. You are connected to everyone by being part of society. You mistakenly think you are only connected to someone if you interact with them directly but that's not how it is. Is a society you are connected to everyone else, in one way or another. You are a cog in the machine no matter how much you say you aren't. Everybody is depending on everybody else. The soldiers fighting in Afghanistan are connected to you, for example. The duties and rights you talk about are in effect between you and them and between every one else too. You can't be a part of society and outside of society at the same time. You are either in it or you are not. YOU ARE IN THIS SOCIETY! Too bad for you. So you have to go along with it or pay the price. Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them? No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your sense of positive rights would do that. Sounds a lot like your right is imposing duties on them. That's exactly what rights do, Hawke-Ptooey. If you can impose a duty on another *I* imposed nothing on them, Hawke-Ptooey. You are. By demanding your right to life you are imposing duties on them. So your right to life is putting you in a position where you have the power to impose your view of what duties they owe to you. Maybe they don't want to owe you any duties. Will you give up your right to live so they won't? Hell no, so you are forcing your will on others. But then you're a Fascist so that's normal for you. then you have power over them. See above, Hawke-Ptooey. They have no part in your claim to a right to life. They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means, Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin. First off. who is it that determines whether you are interfering in the lives of others or they are interfering in yours? If you are attempting to seize some value I create, Hawke-Ptooey, or if you are trying to suppress or tax a voluntary transaction into which I and someone else wish to engage, then you are interfering in my life. Sounds like it's you that gets to decide exactly what constitutes interfering in your life or not, doesn't it? Like always you are the one who gets to make the decision. Mr. Pimpton, the little dictator. You're everybody's boss. Notice that? At every turn it's you who decides everything. And you accuse me of being a totalitarian? What a joke. You're a baby dictator. Good thing you have no power in "society". You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They are not different; they are the same. Oh brother, you really are the dull one. That's not an argument, Hawke-Ptooey. No it isn't. It's an observation. You having the right to live is not the same thing as not having others interfere with you. That is *EXACTLY* what it is, Hawke-Ptooey. No it is not and you would have to be pretty dumb not to be able to see the difference. I won't bother explaining it again, you won't get it. So why can't "those people" claim a right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.? Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone else to give them those things, and there is no such duty. Yes, so you say. It is so. Other people say the opposite. They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force. Heh heh heh...cat got your tongue, eh, bitch? What can one say to such utter nonsense? It doesn't deserve a reply. I mean you using the word moral just doesn't fit. Your philosophy is amoral. You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence. Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any good or service to anyone. But the creator says you do and No. Heh heh heh... You don't know a ****ing thing about any "creator", do you, Hawke-Ptooey? Huh, uh, I don't. But I bet you think you do though, right? Tell me about him or her or whatever? Oh, and where did you learn about it from? Church? I may choose to take on such a duty voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate moral obligation to feed or clothe you. So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to be done. Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. What you are saying is that nothing but your decision matters in how you treat anyone else. No, I'm *not* saying that, you liar. I'm saying only my decision matters in deciding what my positive duties to others are. I have no say in what my negative duties to others are. My negative duties are imposed by their rights. I must not interfere in their lives, as long as they aren't immorally interfering in mine. A dirty homeless person may beg from me, because that isn't an interference. If he assaults me and tries to force me to give him something, that's an interference, and I am entitled to kill him. Get it, Hawke-Ptooey? What I get is that you are not rational. Your conclusions do not logically follow from your premise. You jump radically from one thing to another with no connection between them. Then you say it makes sense. The reality is you are setting yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner, over everything and everybody. You concoct one excuse or irrational argument after another so that in the end all that matters is that whatever you decide that is what is right. The truth is that's getting into the realm of real mental disease. At least it demonstrates some kind of thought disorder. You wind up sounding like some kind of little child demanding he get everything done his way or else. I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many don't even know it. The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact. What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information. You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information", it almost assuredly isn't. You're just one major weasel. You're just one minor and inconsequential lying totalitarian, Hawke-Ptooey. You're a ****bag, but you're basically just a minor annoyance. I toy with you. So you end with childish personal insults as you usually do because you have nothing of value to say. Thanks for showing everyone how ignorant someone can be when all they have is an old outdated degree in economics. As many have pointed out, a college degree doesn't mean very much as far as brains or knowledge are concerned. You're worthless and unsupported arguments have more than proven you got nothing from going to college. You should have saved your money. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote: Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh? He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero explanatory power regarding human behavior. Oh, so it's just like economics. No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none. Yeah, so you say. I get it. What you don't get is that is just one man's opinion, yours. And that's worthless. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On Feb 19, 6:17*pm, Hawke wrote:
No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none. Yeah, so you say. I get it. What you don't get is that is just one man's opinion, yours. And that's worthless. Hawke At least two men's opinion and actually an opinion that is worth paying attention to. Dan |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 9:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/18/2012 7:21 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/18/2012 4:26 PM, Ed Huntress wrote: In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. I don't see anything unfair about inheriting a fortune for which one never worked. This brings up interesting social question, which Rawls addressed better than anyone else. Most people think that parents have the right to pass on their wealth to their children. They see the "fairness" issue in terms of what's fair to the giver. When you start probing the fairness to the one who receives the wealth, you get a big split in opinion. The wealth itself still does not offend most peoples' sense of justice. But when you introduce the idea of entrenched power that accompanies wealth, and its self-perpetuating property across generations, the answers tend to swing the other way. Defenders of inheritance point out that a lot of family fortunes don't last through many generations. Opponents point out that a lot of family fortunes *do* last through generations. Again, the wealth itself is not much of an issue. Power over others, and privileging generations to follow in terms of the opportunities they're afforded which are not afforded to others, offends most peoples' sense of justice. In those cases, inherited wealth upends our basic approval of fortunes acquired through merit. This is not a question of logic. It's a question of social views about what constitutes fairness. If I bust my ass and acquire a huge fortune legally and ethically, and want to leave it to my son, why shouldn't he have it? What would be unfair would be to interfere with my right to bequeath my fortune as I see fit. Again, you have wide agreement avout *your* right. You have less agreement about your son's right. His problem is that all he knows about, sees, or cares about in any way are his rights. That's false, which is why it isn't a problem. All you have to do is read what you have written and it is as plain as the nose on your face. You put yourself and your rights at the center of the universe. The selfishness that your views show is so blatant that everyone reading what you write can see how highly you think of yourself. They can also see how much you like to put down others too. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/19/2012 3:16 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote: No, it is exactly the opposite of that. It is what Jefferson and the other founders saw as the essence of natural law. Natural law is another topic of which you, as the holder of a worthless degree in a worthless "discipline" scoff from a ****ty university, know nothing. I'm not interested in Jefferson's views here because Because you're a totalitarian, and Jefferson was a democratic republican. I'm not interested in Jefferson's views for two reasons. You're not interested in them because they are the antithesis of your totalitarianism. Don't even start with natural law. It's not valid. It is valid. Not valid It is valid. It has nothing to do with religion. For the record I also am trained as a paralegal so Good for you. That's a clerical job, you know. You call it whatever kind of job you like. You don't know the law. Where you got this right is the question. I am endowed with it (by the "Creator", if you wish) at birth. End Of Story, Hawke-Ptooey - no one "gives" me the right, no "society" gives it to me, I do not have to purchase it. I am endowed with it simply for being born human. So you're claiming god or creator or whatever name you want to use for some non human being gave you this right. Check to see what Jefferson said about it, okay, Hawke-Ptooey? He's dead and I don't care about his opinion on the subject. You don't care about the opinion of any great philosophers and notable political figures except for far-left crazies like Marx and Lenin and Mao. Not when you're talking about natural law. Neither Marx, Lenin, or Mao, care about it either because they were atheists. You worship Marx, Lenin and Mao. Natural law has nothing to do with religion - zero. You don't admit to getting any rights from society or government Correct: because they have no authority to do so. That authority comes from the people themselves and No. "The people" do not have any power to grant or withhold rights. They may not *recognize* rights, as the majority of southerners in the US didn't recognize the basic human rights of Negroes for a long time, but the people do not have any valid authority to grant or refuse to grant any rights. You are so ignorant about politics it should shame you. You are the one who is ignorant of politics, law and philosophy. Oh, and economics, too. People are the ultimate source from which all your rights come. No. Once again, since you're stupid and forgetful: "society" is not an organic entity. It is merely a description of individual persons living in loose association with one another. "Society" has no will, no independent or autonomous existence. Humans don't even create society, except indirectly by living in association with one another. But you are acting like you know all about society when you have not studied sociology and Sociology is worthless for understanding any legitimate aspect of society. So says a man who has not taken the time or made the effort to learn what sociology does teach. I had a couple of sociology classes. They were utter bull**** - nothing but opinion; no theory. As I've said several times already, "society" is not an entity - it is a description of people living in some kind of association with one another. Society has no will, no organic existence of any kind; it does not act. *People* who have their hands on the levers of power act, ostensibly in the name of society, but it is always a matter of individual persons. "Society" is not an entity. That is a fact. Get used to it. Maybe the problem is you don't know what the word entity means. I know what it means, and I know society isn't one. It's a description; nothing more. Individual persons *do* create governments. It has nothing to do with the duty of others. It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey. Your right defines their duties? Absolutely, Hawke-Ptooey. That's exactly what a right does. So that means you are automatically connected to them. No. It means that *IF* I am connected to them, they have certain duties based on my rights. I may not be connected to others at all, but *if* I am, there are certain duties imposed on all of us. The only legitimate duties are all negative - duties not to interfere. There are no positive rights - there *cannot* be, without violating the most basic right of all: the right to one's life. You are connected to them. Prove it. Doesn't that kind of make you boss of them? No, negative rights don't do that at all, Hawke-Ptooey. However, your sense of positive rights would do that. Sounds a lot like your right is imposing duties on them. That's exactly what rights do, Hawke-Ptooey. If you can impose a duty on another *I* imposed nothing on them, Hawke-Ptooey. You are. Nope. By demanding your right to life you are imposing duties on them. No, it isn't my "demand" that does that - it is the *fact* of my right to my life. So your right to life is putting you in a position where you have the power to impose your view Nope - no imposition of any view. This is the meaning of a person having a right to his own life: others must not interfere in it. then you have power over them. See above, Hawke-Ptooey. They have no part in your claim to a right to life. They are obliged not to interfere in my life, subject to the proviso that I am not interfering in theirs. That is what it means, Hawke-Ptooey, you stupid cretin. First off. who is it that determines whether you are interfering in the lives of others or they are interfering in yours? If you are attempting to seize some value I create, Hawke-Ptooey, or if you are trying to suppress or tax a voluntary transaction into which I and someone else wish to engage, then you are interfering in my life. Sounds like it's you that gets to decide exactly what constitutes interfering in your life or not, doesn't it? Who else would it be, Hawke-Ptooey, you ****wit? You're to thick to see that others not interfering with you is one thing, and you having a right to live at all is another? They are not different; they are the same. Oh brother, you really are the dull one. That's not an argument, Hawke-Ptooey. No it isn't. It's just bull****. You having the right to live is not the same thing as not having others interfere with you. That is *EXACTLY* what it is, Hawke-Ptooey. No it is not It is, of course. So why can't "those people" claim a right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.? Those are positive rights that would imply a duty imposed on someone else to give them those things, and there is no such duty. Yes, so you say. It is so. Other people say the opposite. They have no moral basis for it. All they're doing is advocating force. Heh heh heh...cat got your tongue, eh, bitch? What can one say to such utter nonsense? Your silence indicates you're stuck. You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence. Nope; I didn't forget anything. I have no innate moral duty to give any good or service to anyone. But the creator says you do and No. Heh heh heh... You don't know a ****ing thing about any "creator", do you, Hawke-Ptooey? Huh, uh, I don't. You don't know anything about any of this, Hawke-Ptooey, you flatulent bitch. I may choose to take on such a duty voluntarily, but absent that, no one has any moral right to compel me to furnish any good or service to him - none whatever. If you're naked and starving in the street and I find you there, I am not under any innate moral obligation to feed or clothe you. So you set yourself up as the highest and best judge of whatever is to be done. Nope - just as the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. It is so: I *am* the only valid judge of my positive duties to others. What you are saying is that nothing but your decision matters in how you treat anyone else. No, I'm *not* saying that, you liar. I'm saying only my decision matters in deciding what my positive duties to others are. I have no say in what my negative duties to others are. My negative duties are imposed by their rights. I must not interfere in their lives, as long as they aren't immorally interfering in mine. A dirty homeless person may beg from me, because that isn't an interference. If he assaults me and tries to force me to give him something, that's an interference, and I am entitled to kill him. Get it, Hawke-Ptooey? What I get is that you are not rational. /non sequitur/, Hawke-Ptooey - that was just a stupid comment. The reality is you are setting yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner, No. I saw from an article in the NY Times yesterday that at least 48% of Americans are receiving some kind of government benefits although many don't even know it. The NY Times publishes a lot of bull**** opinion masquerading as fact. What kind of a person rejects information and calls it bull**** when I reject completely *your* classification of anything as information. You are stupid and a known liar, so if you call something "information", it almost assuredly isn't. You're just one major weasel. You're just one minor and inconsequential lying totalitarian, Hawke-Ptooey. You're a ****bag, but you're basically just a minor annoyance. I toy with you. So you end with childish personal insults as you usually do because Because you're not worthy of anything more. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/19/2012 3:17 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 8:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 2/18/2012 6:56 PM, Hawke wrote: On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, George Plimpton wrote: Probably got a job somewhere too. Hardly Hawke's idea of society. So you too are completely ignorant of sociology too, huh? He is aware that sociology is nothing but poetry - it has zero explanatory power regarding human behavior. Oh, so it's just like economics. No. Economics has magnificent predictive power. Sociology has none. Yeah, so you say. So a comparison of the two proves. |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the people have an equal opportunity to be rich. See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an equal opportunity to be rich. Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich. Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA. We all do don't we? We all have an equal shot at it? Yeah, sure we do. In other words if the rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor. That would be a much better argument, yes. That *is* the argument. I said "if" because anyone with any brains knows that isn't the way it is in the real world. But again, we know that it's not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't. That's almost entirely the argument. That's not the argument at all. Because if it was then that would mean Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you have. She's worked far harder than you and has earned more because of her superior effort. But something tells me you think you put in more work than she has in making a living. So the fact she makes a lot more than you do has nothing to do with the effort put into it does it? In our society not all people have an equal opportunity so some people are unfairly poor and some are fairly poor. The same for riches. Some inherit a lot and are unfairly rich and some are rich through their own efforts and are fairly rich. So what does that mean? It means that you need to keep your grubby totalitarian mitts off people's money. Or it means quit working so that way you won't have any duty to pay into the American system you are a part of. But as long as you are going to work then you are going to be obligated to pay taxes. Hawke |
"Why do you have a right to your money?"
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter