Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Fairness is when those people who create value understand that they came
into a society that aided them, provided a place for them to be free to
do as they pleased, and protected them and their money. And that the
price for those things is for those who created value in such a place
are obligated to pay a proportional share for those things that allowed
them to create value in the first place.

Unfairness is when someone comes to such a place, creates value, and
then tries to stiff everyone when it comes time to pay the piper. That
would be you. You would take advantage of all the benefits society gave
you and then you would not want to give anything back in return. We call
that stealing. You're the thief.


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk



You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
jk jk is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

Hawke wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk



You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke


OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.
jk
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 620
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"


"jk" wrote in message
...

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.
jk


You misspelled "democrat".
Art


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/16/2012 3:51 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

Fairness is when those people who create value understand that they came
into a society that aided them, provided a place for them to be free to
do as they pleased, and protected them and their money. And that the
price for those things is for those who created value in such a place
are obligated to pay a proportional share for those things that allowed
them to create value in the first place.

Unfairness is when someone comes to such a place, creates value, and
then tries to stiff everyone when it comes time to pay the piper. That
would be you. You would take advantage of all the benefits society gave
you and then you would not want to give anything back in return. We call
that stealing. You're the thief.


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk



You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.


Despite some missing punctuation and being a bit of a run-on sentence,
what he wrote is perfectly intelligible to normal people. What he
clearly is saying - and he is right, of course - is that unfairness is
when leeches are enabled to suck value out of those who produce the
value, giving nothing in return.

You blabber all the time about successful people being dependent on
"society" for their success. What does some criminal black crack whore
welfare chiseler with five children from five different men contribute
to "society", such that I owe her anything? What does she give to
"society" in return for the largesse that you send federal agents to
take out of my pocket to give to her?

Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk



You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke


OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.


They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter,
medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.


Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with
health insurance when you reach old age?

Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton.

i
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/16/2012 8:04 PM, Ignoramus23626 wrote:
On 2012-02-17, George wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.


Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with
health insurance when you reach old age?


Why do you think I expect anyone to provide me with that?

Why do any of them expect me to provide them with food and rent money
and medical care *today*, when they should be getting up off their lazy
drugged-out asses and providing those things for themselves? Please
clarify that, Mr. Touchhole.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626
wrote:

On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.


Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with
health insurance when you reach old age?

Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton.

i


I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so
high priced these days", or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here
then in Canada".

--
Cheers,

John B.
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
jk jk is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

"Artemus" wrote:


"jk" wrote in message
.. .

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.
jk


You misspelled "democrat".
Art

No, I don't think so.

There are as Many Rwing leeches as Lwing leeches out there, and while
there may be more D leeches than R leeches, there are still plenty.
jk
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:

You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke


OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.


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.


-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.
jk


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? If you are implying that the lower classes in America are
guilty of what you said then you see the poor as thieves. The problem
with that is you assume that is a fact but you have no evidence to
support your assumption. 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. I say
that because it could well be you are listening to liars.

Hawke


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke


OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.


They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.



You claim you have a right to live. So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?
You're claiming rights so why can't they? You certainly aren't any
better than anyone else. Except in your own mind.

Hawke
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/16/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.


Despite some missing punctuation and being a bit of a run-on sentence,
what he wrote is perfectly intelligible to normal people. What he
clearly is saying - and he is right, of course - is that unfairness is
when leeches are enabled to suck value out of those who produce the
value, giving nothing in return.


Your problem is that you see things so simply when they are not. To
begin, with what makes you think that I think it is fair for what you
call leeches to take things from people who work for them and do nothing
in return? I've never though that, ever. I don't think it's fair to just
take things from people who have earned them fair and square. There
really is such a thing as stealing. But you take it to extremes in what
you call stealing. I keep it in perspective.


You blabber all the time about successful people being dependent on
"society" for their success. What does some criminal black crack whore
welfare chiseler with five children from five different men contribute
to "society", such that I owe her anything? What does she give to
"society" in return for the largesse that you send federal agents to
take out of my pocket to give to her?


Same here, you mistakenly believe that I think some criminal taking
advantage of everything and everybody just for her own selfish needs is
acceptable. It's not. You don't think I know what a scum bag is, whether
it's a man or woman? I'm here to tell you I sure do. Probably know
better than you. I have a lot of experience in dealing with people on
the bottom end of society. Many of them are worthless. But they are
American citizens, which is something you have totally forgotten, so
they do have some rights, which you would likely take away from them.


Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong.


My notions are in the mainstream of thinking as far as what American
society is. Yours are way out on the fringe. That being the case, of
course you would see the middle of the road as being wrong. After all,
you think the fringe view is right. You and a handful of others.

I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity.


See, that's the oddball thinking that nobody else believes except for a
handful of strange thinking people. Almost nobody thinks that way. Most
normal people accept they are members of a society that is beneficial to
them and they accept that they are obliged to contribute to because they
see that they actually get quite a lot by being a part of society.
Libertarians don't see things that way but they are a very small segment
of society, which they belong to even though they would rather not, or
so they say. The thing is the minute you lost all the things you get
from society you would want them back. First off, with out society
somebody would kill you and take everything you have.


What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.


Except that if you are an American you don't get to make the rules like
that. If you are going to be an American you have to take it or leave
it. You don't get to just pick and choose. You want to live here? Then
you go along with what society says. If not you will be assessed a
penalty, and you won't like the price either. So join us and play by our
rules or get out. You don't make the rules here. That's society that
says that's how it's going to be.

Hawke
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.


They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.



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.


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.


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.
  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.


Despite some missing punctuation and being a bit of a run-on sentence,
what he wrote is perfectly intelligible to normal people. What he
clearly is saying - and he is right, of course - is that unfairness is
when leeches are enabled to suck value out of those who produce the
value, giving nothing in return.


Your problem is that you see things so simply when they are not.


Nope - that would be you. You have an infantile black-and-white view of
the world.



To begin, with what makes you think that I think it is fair for what you
call leeches to take things from people who work for them and do nothing
in return?


Because you support and hold a view of government that does that very thing.


You blabber all the time about successful people being dependent on
"society" for their success. What does some criminal black crack whore
welfare chiseler with five children from five different men contribute
to "society", such that I owe her anything? What does she give to
"society" in return for the largesse that you send federal agents to
take out of my pocket to give to her?


Same here, you mistakenly believe that I think some criminal taking
advantage of everything and everybody just for her own selfish needs is
acceptable. It's not.


You say that successful people owe a debt - a monetary debt - to
"society", when what you mean is the money is to be taken from them and
used to provide goodies to deadbeats who contribute nothing to society.
Your bull**** about "society" is nothing but a smokescreen for
redistribution from some *individuals* to other *individuals*. There is
no such thing as "society" as you corruptly use the term. It is nothing
but a description; it is not an entity.


Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong.


My notions are in the mainstream


More /argumentum ad populum/ - a fallacy.



I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity.


See, that's the oddball thinking that nobody else believes


It is correct thinking.


What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.


Except that if you are an American you don't get to make the rules like
that.


I do get to state the correct ethical values. The mob of deadbeats may
violate those values and implied ethical rules, but it doesn't change
the ethics of it.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
jk jk is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

Hawke wrote:

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

jk


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:

[empty left-wing simpleton blabber about "society"]


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.

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.

You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and
statements about it are wrong.

  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:49:59 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.


They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.



You claim you have a right to live. So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?
You're claiming rights so why can't they? You certainly aren't any
better than anyone else. Except in your own mind.

Hawke


Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people
object to is having the Government pay for the haircut.

--
Cheers,

John B.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"


"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.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 6:11 PM, 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.


Did you do your own lobotomy?
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 4:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:49:59 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value, comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.

They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.



You claim you have a right to live. So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?
You're claiming rights so why can't they? You certainly aren't any
better than anyone else. Except in your own mind.

Hawke


Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people
object to is having the Government pay for the haircut.


Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular,
he doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and
negative rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right poses on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a
right to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he
doesn't understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts
and other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 02/17/2012 06:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
...
Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular, he
doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and negative
rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right poses on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a right
to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he doesn't
understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts and
other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.


I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your
life. For example, we're on the sidewalk talking, I glance up, and I see
a big concrete pot falling off a balcony over us. Should I just step
back? Is that what you demand I do, so that I don't force positive
rights on you?
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote:
On 02/17/2012 06:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
...
Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular, he
doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and negative
rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right poses on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a right
to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own
life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he doesn't
understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts and
other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.


I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your
life.


You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no
obligation to do so.


For example, we're on the sidewalk talking, I glance up, and I see
a big concrete pot falling off a balcony over us. Should I just step
back? Is that what you demand I do, so that I don't force positive
rights on you?


You wouldn't be "forcing positive rights" on me in that circumstance;
you simply would be doing me a good deed.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 02/17/2012 07:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote:


I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your
life.


You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no
obligation to do so.


Hey, it appears you're right. At least here in the good ol' USofA.
Much of the civilized world says I have a 'duty to rescue', but the US
says eh, fuhgeddaboudit.


U.S. example (includes possible metalworking content!)

In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that
after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the
defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the
defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for
damages to the defendant's machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626
wrote:

On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.


Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with
health insurance when you reach old age?

Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton.

i


I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so
high priced these days"


The biggest reason is that they can do so much more, so now they must,
or patients will sue their socks off.

, or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here
then in Canada".


That one is easy. The United States is the only significant country in
the world that does not have price controls on pharmaceuticals. We're
free-marketers, you see....

--
Ed Huntress
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

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.

--
Cheers,

John B.


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 897
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:45:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626
wrote:

On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.

Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with
health insurance when you reach old age?

Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton.

i


I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so
high priced these days"


The biggest reason is that they can do so much more, so now they must,
or patients will sue their socks off.

I'm not sure that there isn't a bit of profit motivation involved
there also. In Singapore and Thailand hospitals have become chains
with branches all over the region. Apparently very profitable
endeavors.

, or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here
then in Canada".


That one is easy. The United States is the only significant country in
the world that does not have price controls on pharmaceuticals. We're
free-marketers, you see....


Yes but. I'm fairly sure that Thailand does not have price control for
drugs, of if they do then most shops are violating it :-) But I can
still buy name brand medicines, with active patents, cheaper then in
the U.S., or at least cheaper then I see posted at the on line
pharmacy sites.

If I go for genetics then of course it becomes a ridiculous
comparison, but that is a whole different kettle of fish.
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"


"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.



I got a call the day after I got home offering me a job, but I had to
put them off for a week to get settled back into the house.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:52:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:45:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:51:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 22:04:10 -0600, Ignoramus23626
wrote:

On 2012-02-17, George Plimpton wrote:
Your notions about "society" are wrong - 100% wrong. I owe no money or
anything else of economic value to "society" - in fact, I owe nothing to
"society" at all, because "society" is not an entity. What I owe my
fellow citizens - individual persons - is my agreement and
follow-through not to interfere with them in their peaceful conduct of
their lives. That is all I or anyone else owes.

Which one of your individual fellow citizens will provide you with
health insurance when you reach old age?

Please clarify, Mr. Plimpton.

i

I suspect that a better question would be, "why is medical care so
high priced these days"


The biggest reason is that they can do so much more, so now they must,
or patients will sue their socks off.

I'm not sure that there isn't a bit of profit motivation involved
there also. In Singapore and Thailand hospitals have become chains
with branches all over the region. Apparently very profitable
endeavors.

, or perhaps "why do my pills cost me more here
then in Canada".


That one is easy. The United States is the only significant country in
the world that does not have price controls on pharmaceuticals. We're
free-marketers, you see....


Yes but. I'm fairly sure that Thailand does not have price control for
drugs, of if they do then most shops are violating it :-) But I can
still buy name brand medicines, with active patents, cheaper then in
the U.S., or at least cheaper then I see posted at the on line
pharmacy sites.


In most countries, the prices being controlled are the manufacturers'
wholesale prices. Some countries control retail prices, as well.


If I go for genetics then of course it becomes a ridiculous
comparison, but that is a whole different kettle of fish.


The big pharma companies recover most of their development costs in
the US, where there is no limit to what they can charge.

Interestingly, the Europeans consume more pharmaceuticals per person
than we do.

--
Ed Huntress
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 9:02 PM, Dogulene wrote:
On 02/17/2012 07:09 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 7:04 PM, Dogulene wrote:


I think that I'm obligated to make a reasonable effort to save your
life.


You aren't. I would be very grateful if you did, but you're under no
obligation to do so.


Hey, it appears you're right. At least here in the good ol' USofA.
Much of the civilized world says I have a 'duty to rescue', but the US
says eh, fuhgeddaboudit.


And that is as it should be. The essence of liberty is that you are
generally free to do as you wish. A society that establishes the
precedent of telling you what you *must* do, as opposed to establishing
a short list of things you *may not* do, is less free and is more likely
to slide into totalitarianism.


U.S. example (includes possible metalworking content!)

In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that
after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the
defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the
defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for
damages to the defendant's machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 2:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value,
comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.

They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter, medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.



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. It implies nothing about any duties of others. You are
the one claiming ownership of a right. You claim that somehow you
obtained a right to live. Where you got this right is the question. It
has nothing to do with the duty of others. They have no part in your
claim to a right to life. So maybe you ought to learn what negative
rights are before using the word. You sure misused it here.


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.


You forgot to add, in my opinion to the end of your sentence. Because
that's all it is. Although you did succeed in making it sound
authoritative. But it's still just your opinion and I must reiterate
your opinions are nowhere near mainstream.



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. You're so full of your self you don't think anyone
else has heard the term positive and negative rights but you. Well, bad
news, I'm more than a little familiar with the terms. But you just want
to play a game. You are just looking for excuses to justify your
behavior while you deny it to others. The bottom line is always the same
with you. Whatever it is that you do is okay and you have a right to do
it, or so you claim. Whatever anyone else does, especially the people
receiving any government benefits, you don't find they have any rights.
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. So just keep in mind you are calling about half of
the American people thieves and leeches. Which is just another "out
there" opinion of yours. Positive and negative rights, what a joke.


Hawke


  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 6:11 PM, 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.



I bet it looks like it too.

Hawke

  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/18/2012 11:25 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value,
comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than
because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.

They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter,
medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.


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.


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.




It has nothing to do with the duty of others.


It *defines* duties of others, 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.


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.


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. 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.



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.
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:49:59 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value,
comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than
because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.

They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter,
medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.


You claim you have a right to live. So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?
You're claiming rights so why can't they? You certainly aren't any
better than anyone else. Except in your own mind.

Hawke


Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people
object to is having the Government pay for the haircut.


Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular, he
doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and negative
rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right poses on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a right
to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he doesn't
understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts and
other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.



What Mr. Pimpton doesn't understand is that rights are not absolute and
that all of them have limits and qualifications. It's also rather
presumptuous for him to lecture someone with legal training when he's
supposedly only an economist. He is particularly confused about rights
when it comes to being a member of a society. Part of being an American
citizen means one is obligated as in a contract to do certain things and
to not do other things. By becoming a part of this large organization we
call society one must give up some things. People do this because it's a
trade off between what one must give up and what one gets for what he
gave up. Most of us think it's a very good deal. Not people like Pimpton
though.

People like Pimpton are really just selfish pigs who don't like the
terms of the contract. They want to stand outside of the social contract
and take everything they can that society gives them but they don't want
to put in what society asks from them in return.

Guys like Pimpton are people who would go to a restaurant, see the
price, order a meal, and when done tell the proprietor that the price
was too high and he's going to give him much less for the meal than what
was charged.

As someone who is inherently unfair in his dealings with society and
others he's always looking for a way to take advantage so he can receive
a greater benefit for himself. A crooked businessman would be a prime
example of this. He tries to hide his greed and selfishness with
arguments about rights, and big government, freedom, and the like but
it's all just to cover up what he is really up to, which is basically
operating in bad faith. He can try to dress it up or cover it over but
in the end it's the same thing. He wants all that society has to offer
but he's too cheap to pay the stated price for all that he's getting.
We all know the type, don't we? The word for them is cheapskate.

Hawke
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

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.



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

  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/17/2012 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:

[empty left-wing simpleton blabber about "society"]


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.


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 or they can imprison them or
they can kill them. The individual doesn't possess the power to do
anything if society forbids it. You're fantasy about the individual is
laughable. All individuals are under the power of the society. You can't
do anything without the approval of society unless it's a triviality.


You really should shut up about "society" - all your beliefs and
statements about it are wrong.


You mean in a layman's opinion, right?

You know what they say don't you? You're entitled to your own opinions
but you are not entitled to your own facts. Apparently you believe that
your opinions are facts. Especially when they concern society or
individual and collective behavior. Clearly you have no education or
training in sociology. You don't even know what the word means and you
don't even believe it exists so that is surely a case where you have
provided your own facts. I'm sure any Ph.D in sociology would tell you
that your views are not right. But you would tell him he knows nothing
about sociology. So there the rub. You know more than anyone, at least
you think you do. As long as you do that you'll never learn anything.
But hey, since you already know everything that shouldn't be a problem.

Hawke


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/18/2012 11:50 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/17/2012 6:28 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 4:29 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:49:59 -0800, Hawke
wrote:

On 2/16/2012 7:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/16/2012 4:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 2/15/2012 3:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


No unfairness is also when some one who adds little or no value,
comes
along, and then sends someone in to take away value, and distribute
their "fair" share to those who did not add value, or added very
little, even when the value was added in spite of rather than
because
of the obstacles put in place by the "fair Share"ers
jk


You need to reread your post and see if you can say it in a way that
people can actually understand what you're talking about.

Hawke

OK perhaps obtuse,

Here you go,

Those ("society") who send tax collectors around to collect "taxes"
(your "fair share")
and distribute the cash to those who just sit around rather than
working (adding no value), are unfair.

-or-

If that isn't simple enough for you.

Those who want an ever increasing slice of the pie for doing nothing,
are thieves.

They're parasitic leeches who are not entitled to any material good or
service. One does not have a "right" to food, clothing, shelter,
medical
care, haircuts, shoeshines, tickets to NBA basketball games, or
*ANYTHING* else, simply due to existing.


You claim you have a right to live. So why can't "those people" claim a
right to clothing, shelter, medical care, haircuts, shoeshines, etc.?
You're claiming rights so why can't they? You certainly aren't any
better than anyone else. Except in your own mind.

Hawke

Certainly they can go out and get a haircut. What most logical people
object to is having the Government pay for the haircut.


Hawke-Ptooey doesn't understand anything about rights. In particular, he
doesn't understand the crucial distinction between positive and negative
rights.

The meaning of negative and positive in rights theory has to do with the
obligations one's rights impose on others. My right to my own life is a
negative right because obligations that right imposes on others are all
negative, i.e., statements of what they must *NOT* do. If I have a right
to my own life, then others are forbidden to kill me, enslave me,
prevent me from going about my business (so long as my business doesn't
violate their own negative rights.)

If a person has positive rights, those impose "must-perform" obligations
on others. If someone has a right to a haircut, that means someone is
obliged to cut his hair, or is obliged to pay for the haircut, even
involuntarily. That clearly is intolerable and is in complete
contradiction with the obliged person's own negative right to his own
life.

There are no positive rights; there cannot be any, without violating
someone's negative rights, which are the most fundamental of all. If a
person does not have a negative right to his own life, he cannot
possibly have any other rights. Hawke-Ptooey can't see that - he doesn't
understand that trying to recognize positive rights to haircuts and
other goodies necessarily makes slaves out of others.



What Mr. Pimpton doesn't understand is that rights are not absolute and
that all of them have limits and qualifications.


First of all, that is false. Second, even if it were true, it does not
change the distinction - a distinction of which you are ignorant -
between positive and negative rights.


presumptuous for him to lecture someone with legal training


You have no legal training.


confused about rights when it comes to being a member of a society.


Not in the least. Rights only have meaning withing the context of a
society. If there were just one human in the world, he would have no
rights. Rights are only held with respect to other humans.


Part of being an American
citizen means one is obligated as in a contract to do certain things and
to not do other things.


No, that has nothing whatever to do with being an American.



By becoming a part of this large organization we
call society one must give up some things.


"Society" has nothing to do with it. It's the other individual persons
with whom you live.


People like Pimpton are really just selfish pigs who don't like the
terms of the contract.


There is no "contract" - that's a fiction that is used as an analogy,
not as a description of any actual legal relationship.


They want to stand outside of the social contract
and take everything they can that society gives them


"Society" gives nothing. As we have long ago established, everything
you say about "society" is wrong, starting with your false belief that
society is an organic entity. It is not.


Guys like Pimpton are people who would go to a restaurant, see the
price, order a meal, and when done tell the proprietor that the price
was too high and he's going to give him much less for the meal than what
was charged.


Nope - the exact opposite, actually.

Anyway, that restaurant is not an analogue of "society" - not in any
way. The restaurant owner is an individual moral actor, as am I.


As someone who is inherently unfair in his dealings with society


There are no dealings with "society" - not ever. My dealings are
entirely with other persons, as individuals.
  #37   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

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.


Number two is the context in how you use the word unfair. Fair means
equal.


No, it doesn't.


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.


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****.


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.


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.


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.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 973
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

On 2/18/2012 12:23 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of bull****:
On 2/17/2012 2:25 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/17/2012 2:08 PM, Hawke-Ptooey, totalitarian, wrote a lot of
bull****:

[empty left-wing simpleton blabber about "society"]


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.

That's what teamwork is.


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.

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.


You can't do anything without the approval of society unless it's a triviality.


False.



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.
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

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.




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. Is that it? An invisible being
"gave" you the right to life? You don't admit to getting any rights from
society or government but you do get them from the "spiritual being".
Man, is that convenient or what? Excuse me if I can't help laughing at
you. You Mr. rational and logical and all telling me where your right to
live came from. Ha, Ha, why don't you just say you made it up and be
done with it because that's just as believable.




It has nothing to do with the duty of others.


It *defines* duties of others, Hawke-Ptooey.


Your right defines their duties? Doesn't that kind of make you boss of 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.


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're
different. How did you miss something so obvious?



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. Other people say the opposite. Those people say that
duty came from the same place where you say you got the right to live.
That is funny isn't it?



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 didn't he give you the right to live?



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. Only you making a choice is what makes anything right or wrong.
And you wonder why you find your thinking not acceptable to most people.
Don't bother with the logical fallacy argument either because in this
case it can be one or the many who say you're wrong because we're
talking democracy here and you are the minority. That makes you wrong.






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
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

  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,024
Default "Why do you have a right to your money?"

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?

Hawke

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT Obama's "Pass this Bill" == "Spend this money" was Nothing funnier or dumber than a conservative saying "I don't have a job because of Obama" F. George McDuffee Metalworking 0 September 11th 11 08:30 PM
I am looking for a local source for "Rockwool" / "Mineral Wool" /"Safe & Sound" / "AFB" jtpr Home Repair 3 June 10th 10 07:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"