herrjr

There is more value in this world besides that of money.

If that makes me a socialist, I guess I'm a socialist.
[/quote]

No, that makes you an idealist.

I stated this before, but I'll repeat it again:
What you FAIL to recognize is that by giving a government power to take from a citizen a portion of what they have produced, under the belief that that money will be used for a social good such as "helping the poor," that you have also given that government funds with which to pursue ITS own agenda (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.).

I agree that there is more value in this world than money. In fact, I would argue that nothing of value in this world involves money. However, to a government, there is NOTHING but money. And ANYTHING that strengthens a government WITH money, by using the ideals of idealists to FUND itself with money, is WRONG. You claim that the purpose of the government is to serve the people, and yet do not see how that belief has allowed for a situation wherein the people serve the government, and the government serves itself.
[/quote]
I'm just in disagreement about what we should prioritize and what we should stop scapegoating.
[/quote]

And I would say that it's not scapegoating to declare that illegals and entitlement programs cost money. It ALL does. And as far as prioritizing, why not say that several main walls of a house need repair, if in fact the collapse of one wall leads to the collapse of the whole structure?

In any case, I see that your focus is the defense of the weak in society, which I admire. My argument is that their defense should come from individuals and private entities, not the federal/state/local government.

herrjr

Yes, over time, and through countless generations, immigrants have found a way to succeed. That is without question. I already stated that, so you are agreeing with me. It takes time, man.

Also, I realize that paying taxes funds wars. There's nothing I can do about that. There's nothing you can do about that either. The abolition of taxation is not going to happen. What we're discussing here is the redistribution of those tax funds. Focusing on the poor just doesn't make any sense to me.
[/quote]

I do not agree with the way that you have perceived my point. The immigrants here that arrived (pre-New Deal) came legally and succeeded in THEIR own generation. I highly recommend the biography of Andrew Carnegie; he is the epitome of what was possible here.

The fact of the matter is that illegal immigration costs money, alot of money, money that is taken away from citizens that have their families' needs to account for. In addition to other costs, which I also argue against (wars, bailouts, etc.); the point is that I'm not singling out "the poor" or "illegals."
[/quote]

Ah, the classic "rags to riches" story.

Where do I begin?
[/quote]

Go for it LOL, we have tons here, more than any other land in this world. Like Arnie said, "#1 rule for success is come to America."

mrjulius

There is more value in this world besides that of money.

If that makes me a socialist, I guess I'm a socialist.
[/quote]

No, that makes you an idealist.

I stated this before, but I'll repeat it again:
What you FAIL to recognize is that by giving a government power to take from a citizen a portion of what they have produced, under the belief that that money will be used for a social good such as "helping the poor," that you have also given that government funds with which to pursue ITS own agenda (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.).

I agree that there is more value in this world than money. In fact, I would argue that nothing of value in this world involves money. However, to a government, there is NOTHING but money. And ANYTHING that strengthens a government WITH money, by using the ideals of idealists to FUND itself with money, is WRONG. You claim that the purpose of the government is to serve the people, and yet do not see how that belief has allowed for a situation wherein the people serve the government, and the government serves itself.
[/quote]
I'm just in disagreement about what we should prioritize and what we should stop scapegoating.
[/quote]

And I would say that it's not scapegoating to declare that illegals and entitlement programs cost money. It ALL does. And as far as prioritizing, why not say that several main walls of a house need repair, if in fact the collapse of one wall leads to the collapse of the whole structure?

In any case, I see that your focus is the defense of the weak in society, which I admire. My argument is that their defense should come from individuals and private entities, not the federal/state/local government.
[/quote]

You place trust in the individual, I place trust in the government. I think we're both naive and it lies somewhere in the middle.

mrjulius

Yes, over time, and through countless generations, immigrants have found a way to succeed. That is without question. I already stated that, so you are agreeing with me. It takes time, man.

Also, I realize that paying taxes funds wars. There's nothing I can do about that. There's nothing you can do about that either. The abolition of taxation is not going to happen. What we're discussing here is the redistribution of those tax funds. Focusing on the poor just doesn't make any sense to me.
[/quote]

I do not agree with the way that you have perceived my point. The immigrants here that arrived (pre-New Deal) came legally and succeeded in THEIR own generation. I highly recommend the biography of Andrew Carnegie; he is the epitome of what was possible here.

The fact of the matter is that illegal immigration costs money, alot of money, money that is taken away from citizens that have their families' needs to account for. In addition to other costs, which I also argue against (wars, bailouts, etc.); the point is that I'm not singling out "the poor" or "illegals."
[/quote]

Ah, the classic "rags to riches" story.

Where do I begin?
[/quote]

Go for it LOL, we have tons here, more than any other land in this world. Like Arnie said, "#1 rule for success is come to America."
[/quote]

Rags to riches has been criticized by "social reformers and revolutionaries, who argue that only a handful of exceptionally capable and lucky persons are actually able to travel the "rags to riches" road, and that the great publicity given to such cases is an illusion designed to help keep the masses of the working class and the poor in line, and prevent them from agitating for an overall collective change in the direction of social equality."

That's a pretty depressing thing to think about, but maybe not altogether untrue.

herrjr

Hmmm, then I would say that individuals can do far less damage to society than governments, and that I happen to believe in the inherent goodness of individuals. I don't think that governments are inherently good at all. It's like the saying, "absolute power leads to absolute corruption." Any individual that has done tremendous havoc to a society has done so because government gave him/her that power. But, certain individuals that have done tremendous good have done so without need of government, such as Gandhi, Mother Teresa, to name a few.

mrjulius

Mother Teresa was not saint, that's for sure. Her hard-line stance against contraception and abortion, a belief in the spiritual goodness of poverty, and alleged baptisms of the dying are just naive, or worse, evil.

Ghandi was a baller, though.

As for individuals being inherently good and doing less damage than governments, I wonder how you feel about corporations? These are headed by one or a few people and there are examples of massive corruption and evil that has been well documented.

herrjr

That is one way of putting it, but I would argue that like any bell curve, there will always be a handful of extremely successful and extremely unsuccessful. What matters in society (at least one operating under Utilitarianism) is what happens to most of the ones under the middle of the curve. What we are seeing now is a tremendous attack on the "middle class," particularly in Western society. Essentially, the failures on both ends of the curve have become the problems of those in the middle. All I'm saying, in fairness, is that just as I should not have to bailout a big bank about to default whose actions resulted in their present circumstances, I should not have to bail out someone on the other end whose actions resulted in their present circumstances.

mrjulius

My point would be that some people on the lower end of the spectrum did not have any actions that ultimately led them to food stamps and general welfare. You can't really compare the two.

herrjr

Your judgement of Mother Teresa is yours, and I vehemently disagree. Buddha also spoke about the spiritual goodness of poverty.

Corporations can be like governments too, so I would argue that they can be greatly damaging to society as well. It's even scarier when governments support corporations and prevent them from failing, and vice versa.

herrjr

My point would be that some people on the lower end of the spectrum did not have any actions that ultimately led them to food stamps and general welfare. You can't really compare the two.
[/quote]

But just like you shouldn't use the minute examples of extremely wealthy to discuss the entire group of successful people, so too can you not use the minute examples of those that were cursed by nature and misfortune. You cannot legislate the helping of the poor; once you have chosen to help "the poor," all that fit under that criteria are assisted, regardless of the reason, since the only "fair" way that a government can decide who is poor or not is to measure their amount of money, and by so doing, have created a measurement of value USING money.