Farm Price Supports have been around a L-O-N-G time. So has protectionism in all it's forms. Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that statement of yours about 'new Americans'?
Nope. The doctrine that one can get a little something for nothing has been around a very long time. In times past American society realized its foolishness because many members at one point literally died of it. That is why Smith at Jamestown said, 'if one does not work, one does not eat.' And it is why St. Paul had earlier said the same thing. Today, remarkably fewer Americans believe this because it is quite accepted that if some do not work, society has an obligation to feed them. This principle is the driving force behind much of our society and it is absolutely false.
Yeah, well... I'd start with the commodity crop subsidies, and the sugar price supports and Mohair subsidy, and Helium reserve... and other such market-distorting pork... You can start with the tremendous amounts of taxpayer money being wasted on Christ images in urine if you'd like....
Fine. I'll start with the desecration and you start with crops and together we'll destroy it all. Nevertheless, subsidizing a farmer is altogether different than subsidizing an artist. You can at least eat what the farmer produces and he desecrates nothing.
You can't. It's a fantasy.
It is no fantasy. You merely need do work that I will not do for you.
There are various forms of 'power'.
Irrelevant here. The sort of power at the crux of this conversation has to do with that which is consolidated in the hands of 1% of the population. It is that power which leftists eagerly attempt to steal and give to those who have not earned it.
I simply pointed out that they suffer no apparent economic disadvantage --- which was ALL I tried to do.
And I pointed out that this is unimpressive since they all do this in the face of extraordinary human oppression.
Whereas, you, have failed utterly to produce either logic or examples of societies that 'can exist where all the wealth is in 1% of the hands'. You argument must fail for lack of support.
False, because that never was my argument. My argument was this: even were it the case that 100% of the wealth legitimately existed in the hands of only 1% of the population, there would be absolutely nothing wrong about it.http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19468650 . You've simply forgotten the argument because you have gotten carried away with numbskullian irrelevancies - a typical thing with leftists.
No. It is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT to anyone who must live in that society. Total societal failure and collapse is not a fun thing to endure.
And neither is it fun to be murdered in bits. Ultimately, your point dies because it is most irrelevant to my argument.
Small note: you are making an argument about ethics and morality. And, NOWHERE did I EVER say ANYTHING like 'the natural rights of one group must be denied to provide stability to other groups.' You are forming your own debating society of one here....
You initially responded to my argument sir, whether it is moral or otherwise. I am now defending my argument and winning handily because you are lost in your own irrelevant foolishness.
Gee, guy... most people think that when someone DROPS an entire line of argument, because they provide no evidence to support it, nor attempts at logic, that they must be conceding that argument. (Maybe you just forgot it though....)
Nope. It is not I who has forgotten a single sentence. I am still on argument, as I have been from the very beginning. You have forgotten and have become consistently frozen in stupidity.
Yeah, I can't read minds... nor see through mud. My applogies.
No need to read anyone's mind, nor look through any mud. One merely needs average intelligence to address an opponent's position.
No... just the plain truth. ALL TAXES are discriminatory... and frequently redistributive in effect.
Discrimination is irrelevant here. It is not the same thing as infringment of natural rights. I may possess a certain set of rights, but willingly give a portion of them to the state so that with the state I might build a society. That is legitimate and no infringement takes place. It is not legitimate for anyone simply to take rights from others without their consent. That is infringement. Discriminatory taxation is irrelevant.
Small point: 'money', per se, can't vote... it is inantimate. People vote.
Irrelevant.
Maybe... but now you are talking about ALL Democries, and ALL other forms of government as well. What's going to be left to rebuild from if you destroy them all?
Completely irrelevant. The issue of relevance here concerns the persistent theft of human life without consent. In modern life, that theft occurs both directly, in the form of the literal murder of millions upon millions of children, and it occurs indirectly in the form of immoral wealth distribution.
Good. Nice answer. Since 'math is the music of the spheres', and the natural language of nature: the next time you profess to "know" what 'natural law' is (presumably because 'Nature' spoke it to you) I would like you to express your arguments in their appropriate and proper language --- so that we may determine their correctness, or their falseness. Speak in Mathematics.
Inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, the math required to describe all of existence is certainly present as even you by implication have here admitted. But no one yet knows it in its completion.
Secondly, since we use words to convey ideas here, we must employ the sister of mathematics, LOGIC, to get near the symmetry in nature betrayed by both disciplines. That tool, albeit in a very rudimentary form, I have used here - and rather consistently.
Thirdly, even were anyone capable of discussing total natural existence in pure mathematical form, the discussion could not possibly take place in a post such as those found here, because it would be too large and take too long. Indeed, every single class in mathematics that takes place in the entire world, every single class in logic, every single physics, chemistry, biology, english, spanish, engineering class, every single human act in any and all places in the world and in history - is part of this discussion. It is just foolish to even suggest we quick jot down here on SI a discussion of this sort in pure mathematics.
Fourthly, even were anyone capable of such a mathematical feat, it would be inapproopriate to perform it here, shutting out so many people, when simple words will do just fine - as I have demonstrated.
No, I certainly don't [believe in murdering kids] nor have I ever said any such thing.
Well. Redefining humanity as you do is a lie that I suspect even you do not yet fully accept. For your own sake, pray you never do.
Which is it: Math, or Biology?
There is no such thing as "which" here. Biology is ultimately rooted in mathematics/logic.
You are absolutely certain about an awful lot of things that you can't describe in any detail....
No detail is needed. We know without any doubt when human logic is complete and first manifested in matter. We know this. So I need not at this juncture clutter up the discussion with a description of every single known sequence of events involved with human reproduction to make this point.
Well, duh! Surely you can do much more than say 'we exist'.
I already have. Based upon what we know of ourselves, we know when the human organism first comes into being as an entity. That is ultimately a mathematical quantity and it is highly significant in a moral system with human existence as its basis. And hopefully you see the problem with any morality that does not have existence as its basis (grin).
I don't care WHAT base system you employ... all mathematical expressions are testable & verifiable.
Indeed. The expression for all existence is very large and wondrously complex. But we can begin with certain relatively small portions of it and test those. One of these concerns the point at which the human organism first comes into space-time as an entity. Even this quantity is far too complex to describe here, but we certainly know it exists and can now point to it. The name for it is - conception.
So, if you truly have these grand answers: bring them forth to be tested.
I already have. Many times. The truth is right in front of you - even in your own flesh. This 64.106.143.169 has a definite point of existance in space and time - with us. From the point of its first existence, all else is arbitrary until the process that begins here ceases.
Go ahead and test it if it pleases you (grin). |
