Socialism

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, old sport, the questions are going around in circles…(circular questioning ? )

I really thought that post summed up that discussion.

Try answering the points in post 112.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Try answering the points in post 112.

A

nd what if there is a disagreement over whether something is serving the general public equally? You may think that the war in Iraq was a necessary defensive action, and therefore serving the general public. But what if someone believes that such an adventure only served the interests of big oil comparies? I’m not asking you to agree with that position. I am only asking if, for such a person, he could view his taxes that go to support that military effort as another form of theft? You have been so consistent so far. Don’t let me down now.

Answered very clearly in #106

And while we are talking about schools, why is it fair to tax the parents for a service that only their children benefit from? Suppose a parent is a very bad parent and does not want his child to have any education - public or private? Is it not theft to take taxes from that parent and give it to the kids?

What you have not considered is that education is in fact a common good. Your life would not be nearly so good as it is if it were not for the numerous people in your life who are educated. This includes everyone from your doctor, your auto mechanic, the managers at Walmart, the firemen, the public librarian, the police, and yes, even the politicians! It is too late to pay for their education because they were already educated before you came along. But they were, in turn, educated by the efforts (and taxes) of people who came before you and who did not necessarily receive the benefits of educating those people. Do you feel like it was theft from the previous generation that caused you to be surrounded by so many talented people? If so then when are you going to make restitution?.

Answered clearly in #111

If you want to begin a discussion on the failure of government education and the need to privatize all education on another thread I will be happy to share my thoughts.

But please stop beating a dead horse.

Taxation by force is theft.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In reference to my question:

And what if there is a disagreement over whether something is serving the general public equally? You may think that the war in Iraq was a necessary defensive action, and therefore serving the general public. But what if someone believes that such an adventure only served the interests of big oil comparies? I’m not asking you to agree with that position. I am only asking if, for such a person, he could view his taxes that go to support that military effort as another form of theft?

You wrote:

Answered very clearly in #106

Which is not true. Your post #106 said:

The Constitution REQUIRES the congress to maintain a military for the common defense.

which says nothing about when that force that is supposed to be for defense gets misappropriated and goes after protecting financial interests of big oil companies. This is not common defense. This is special interest defense that does not benefit everyone equally. You can’t rely on what the Constitution REQUIRES in this case because it does not require that we invade Iraq.

In answer my question:

What you have not considered is that education is in fact a common good. Your life would not be nearly so good as it is if it were not for the numerous people in your life who are educated. This includes everyone from your doctor, your auto mechanic, the managers at Walmart, the firemen, the public librarian, the police, and yes, even the politicians! It is too late to pay for their education because they were already educated before you came along. But they were, in turn, educated by the efforts (and taxes) of people who came before you and who did not necessarily receive the benefits of educating those people. Do you feel like it was theft from the previous generation that caused you to be surrounded by so many talented people? If so then when are you going to make restitution?.

You wrote:

Answered clearly in #111

which is not true. In your post #111, regarding taxes for education, you wrote:

Yes, Leaf that would obviously be theft.

A childless millionaire living in a $5 million mansion could provide 5 kids with a solid Catholic education on what he could deduct from the portion of his taxes that goes to government schools. I hope I don’t have go into the educational benefits of private vs. government education…

But that does not in the slightest address the issue I raised, which was the degree to which you benefit from the education of others. If, as you said in post #111, taxing childless people for education is theft, then you are surrounded by people who make your life better through their education, some of which was paid for by childless people. So if that was theft, and you benefitted from it, then I asked when are you going to make restitution for benefitting from that theft?

If you want to begin a discussion on the failure of government education and the need to privatize all education on another thread I will be happy to share my thoughts.

But please stop beating a dead horse.

Taxation by force is theft.

No, if you want to start a thread about the relative merits or demerits of public education on another thread, you can go ahead and do so. I will not join in that thread. I am looking only at your preposterous suggestion that taxation for everything except the stuff you like is theft - a proposition that you seem to be unwilling to defend.

 

[GLam8833]

Okay, people, what role does the Church play in society?
JUST to teach people about God and make them feel
good about worship? I will suggest that the Church should be
more intimately INVOLVED in the plight of the poor, their edu-
cation and NOT only the Government. In Canada, the Govern-
ment has thrown out a life-line to the poor, WELFARE. We
have found that in doing so, the Church has become INDIFF-
ERENT to the poor, at least OF THE FLOCK, and the fear
of God and the thanks that should go to the Church and God
are all but missing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What government does or does not do for the poor should have no effect on the obligation of charity. It is true that there is a temptation to say “the government is taking care of it so I don’t have to”. But that mindset is wrong. The opportunities (and obligation) for true charity still remain.

 

[JB_Dugan]

In reference to my question:

Which is not true. Your post #106 said:

The Constitution REQUIRES the congress to maintain a military for the common defense.

Actually my answer covers a lot. Let my simplify it:

The Constitution REQUIRES the congress to maintain a military for the common defense. The Constitution does not require the congress to meddle in the affairs of Oil Companies.
When congress DOES meddle in the affairs of Oil Companies (as opposed to what it is authorized to do) then congress is misappropriating funds and stealing my money to do so.

That answer covers point one:

When a government taxes people for ANYTHING it is not authorized to do…that is theft.

In answer my question:

which is not true. In your post #111, regarding taxes for education, you wrote:

Yes, Leaf that would obviously be theft.

As I see it only teachers and their unions benefit from public educational funds…but it really does not matter WHO benefits.

When a government takes from one and gives to another. (childless couple paying for the dumbing-down of a neighbor’s child) That is theft.

That is point two:

**Collecting taxes from some by force and giving to others is theft. **

No, if you want to start a thread about the relative merits or demerits of public education on another thread, you can go ahead and do so. I will not join in that thread. I am looking only at your preposterous suggestion that taxation for everything except the stuff you like is theft - a proposition that you seem to be unwilling to defend.

Again I see a comprehension problem. I never indicated that taxation for everything except the stuff I like is theft.

I will include point three:

Since people cannot morally and legally take what is belongs to others, they cannot establish a government that has the authority and power to take what belongs to others by force.

If I take your property by force…I am a thief.

THEREFORE:

When a government takes private property (earnings) by force…it is theft.

I think my three points establish my position on taxation being theft pretty well.

If you want to keep going around in circles with questions, just apply one or all of my listed points for an answer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Constitution REQUIRES the congress to maintain a military for the common defense. The Constitution does not require the congress to meddle in the affairs of Oil Companies.
When congress DOES meddle in the affairs of Oil Companies (as opposed to what it is authorized to do) then congress is misappropriating funds and stealing my money to do so.

Good. So you do agree with me that the government stole my money to fund the war in Iraq, which was for meddling in the affairs of Oil Companies.

 

[JB_Dugan]

Good. So you do agree with me that the government stole my money to fund the war in Iraq, which was for meddling in the affairs of Oil Companies.

If that’s what really happened…PRECISELY…you were ripped off.

 

[livingwordunity]

The government will take care of you! Why, look at the Native Americans…

And look at socialists like Jim Jones. This is how we got the expression, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid”.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
One-third of the victims were children. Many were killed by Jones’ aides, who squirted cyanide down their throats.

Jonestown Transcript prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Jim Jones: “Lay down your life with dignity. Don’t lay down with tears and agony. It’s nothing to death, just like Max said. It’s just stepping over into another plane. Don’t, don’t be this way. Stop this hysterics… This is not the way for people who are socialistic Communists to die … no way for us to die. We must die with some dignity …”

Inside the Jonestown massacre

(CNN) – Thirty years ago, 909 Americans were led to their death by the Rev. Jim Jones in a mass murder-suicide pact in a South American jungle, shortly after Jones’ gunmen killed a visiting U.S. congressman and four others at a nearby airstrip.

What happened? More than 900 Americans died in a South American jungle upon the orders of Rev. Jim Jones, who had tried to create a socialist paradise that survivors called a slave camp.

 

[Melvin]

All I can say is, as I was reading the USCCB’s “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” I had two primary reactions: First, at what point does the obligation to provide everything for everyone, even those who voluntarily leave their nation to cross illegally into ours, become an unjust imposition on the American people? When taxation becomes so oppressive they can’t take care of their own families? When Americans can’t get decent health care because the costs have been driven so high by providing free services to everyone? When the society splinters and breaks apart because of cultural and racial clashes? Do these concerns ever cross the Church’s consciousness?

Second, it seemed to me that, despite the Church’s statements decrying “socialism” because of its’ atheistic bent, that is exactly the kind of society the Church, or at least the USCCB, deems best, because by the time we do provide for everyone, we will all be equally poor, and so strapped with demands for any income we can earn that we will have nothing left with which to buy private property or exercise any kind of personal freedom…

Oh well, can’t take it with you…

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **