"Fair Share"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Socialism:

1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

3 a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

Riot, I can accept those definitions for the end-state of imposed socialism.

But it follows that policies that move us in that direction can be called "socialistic". Think "slippery slope"...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Riot, I can accept those definitions for the end-state of imposed socialism.

But it follows that policies that move us in that direction can be called "socialistic". Think "slippery slope"...

You mean like government control of women's uteruses?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

You mean like government control of women's uteruses?

Yeah, I know Roe v. Wade sucks, but one Supreme Court crisis at a time, OK?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Yeah, I know Roe v. Wade sucks, but one Supreme Court crisis at a time, OK?

Not talking about Roe vs. Wade. Talking about government forced vaginal ultrasounds against a woman and her doctor's will, with the woman responsible for payment.

Seriously: what truly "socialistic" (oh, I used quotes! ) systems do we have in this democratic republic form of government?

The military. Wait, no, we also contract out alot of that to private people.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not talking about Roe vs. Wade. Talking about government forced vaginal ultrasounds against a woman and her doctor's will, with the woman responsible for payment.

Seriously: what truly "socialistic" (oh, I used quotes! ) systems do we have in this democratic republic form of government?

The military. Wait, no, we also contract out alot of that to private people.

You left out if the baby would have any objection... that cannot be known.

The confiscation of wealth from someone who earned it for the purpose of giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is socialistic, and un-American.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The confiscation of wealth from someone who earned it for the purpose of giving it to someone else who didn't earn it is socialistic, and un-American.

Actually, no, it's not. It's called "taxation", it's enshrined in our government as the 16th Amendment of our Constitution, and we as a country do that for our mutual benefit as a society.

And we use that benefit, as a society, to purchase things for our better good. Like "civilization".

So, you have to decide, Joey:

First, are you for or against taxation? Because in this country, we pay taxes. So if you want to live here, you follow our tax code. If you don't want to pay any taxes, try Darfur. Or Somalia.

Secondly, if you don't like the tax code, or the amounts some people pay, you petition your government (another enshrined right) to change it.

Third: none of that is "socialism". It's "constitutional democracy with a representative government elected by the citizens".

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Actually, no, it's not. It's called "taxation", it's enshrined in our government as the 16th Amendment of our Constitution, and we as a country do that for our mutual benefit as a society.

And we use that benefit, as a society, to purchase things for our better good. Like "civilization".

So, you have to decide, Joey:

First, are you for or against taxation? Because in this country, we pay taxes. So if you want to live here, you follow our tax code. If you don't want to pay any taxes, try Darfur. Or Somalia.

Secondly, if you don't like the tax code, or the amounts some people pay, you petition your government (another enshrined right) to change it.

Third: none of that is "socialism". It's "constitutional democracy with a representative government elected by the citizens".

Taxation is a legitimate mechanism for getting funds for essential service that are an expense for everyone. Not just an expense for some of the people - the ones who don't get the money.

Like most rational people, I am for the minimization of taxation - which of course corresponds to the maximization of my own discretion over my own money. This also results in the maximization of my personal freedom.

Petitioning your government when 49.5% of the people don't pay any income tax is pointless. This is not a democracy - never was. It is a constitutionally federated republic. "Mob rule" doesn't work out too well. Why should the recipient have as much say as the provider in an election? Of course he or she will vote to keep the checks coming, the math, budget, and impending implosion of the dollar be damned. So votes by the soon to be minority of income earners are meaningless.

It is socialism - clearly. And, since we didn't start out in a socialist country, it is part of a divide and conquer strategy to get us as far socialist as possible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.