Actually... with subsidies, it isn't 'Americans getting something for nothing', it is ONE GROUP of Americans getting a subsidy paid by others.
"Indeed, and I think it is wrong and always have. But this entitlement is made possible by the new American, who thinks it is possible to get a little something for nothing."
>>> 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'?
"That sentiment is what drives public funding of a host of things that ought not be publicly funded, like healthcare, abortions, rights for sodomites, "art" depicting Christ in vats of urine and Mary covered in dung. If Americans wish for such things, they may form cooperatives and fund them themselves. They have no right to force anyone's public support of such things - especially since they categorically do not serve the interests of all."
>>> 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....
Prove your fantasy or withdraw it.
"It ought to be self-evident to you now. And it is so clear I ought not have to do the research to show you your exact statements and spell out the thing. So I won't."
>>> You can't. It's a fantasy.
Again: I am not responsible for your self-delusions.
"And I am not responsible for your willful ignorance."
>>> Agreed.
Whatever. Money is just a measure.
"Of power, which is why leftists so frequently attempt to steal it from those who've earned it."
>>> There are various forms of 'power'.
So you agree with me on one of my statements (easy to find plenty of EXISTING societies that function economically while permitting abortion rights)... while totally failing to provide any evidence for your wild and illogical claim that societies can exist --- and function --- stably with 100% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the citizen's hands.
"You must really try harder to put it together. It is really not that difficult. The point here was that the societies to which you've referred, all, every single one of them, have acquired their 'economical function' significantly by destroying the natural human rights of others. They continue to do it today via abortion and other such diabolical sins against human nature. So when you point to all of these societies, you do no impressive thing."
>>> I simply pointed out that they suffer no apparent economic disadvantage --- which was ALL I tried to do. 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.
"Concerning the possibility of "stability" in the case of wealth concentrated in 1% of the population, such a thing is irrelevant."
>>> 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.
"What is most relevant is whether in order to acquire your ridiculous "stability" we must deny the natural rights of that 1%"
>>> 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....
"It is most apparent you think such a thing is acceptable and perhaps even required,"
>>> (See the above.)
"and yet you are so blind you cannot see that doing such a thing can itself be validly seen as unstable."
>>> (See the previous.)
So, you must be conceding that point as well.
"As you see, I concede nothing. You've just been blind thus far."
>>> 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....)
Two points: 1) next time, define your terms: we are not mindreaders.
"The context was very clear. I obviously assumed too much in expecting you would be able to see it."
>>> Yeah, I can't read minds... nor see through mud. My applogies.
2) You are wrong: of course Democracy (as ALL forms of government do) 'infringes' some individual's freedoms to do or say certain things!
"You employ confusion here. "
>>> No... just the plain truth. ALL TAXES are discriminatory... and frequently redistributive in effect.
"We are not talking about a "Democracy" wherein one is not free to yell "fire!" in a crowded room (Besides, doing such a thing can itself be deemed an infringement of the rights of others), we are talking of a "Democracy" that allows a redistribution of wealth by stealing wealth from people who've earned it and giving it to people who have not."
>>> Small point: 'money', per se, can't vote... it is inantimate. People vote.
"That latter "Democracy" is patently evil and needs to be destroyed."
>>> 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?
So, tell me what 'language' 'Nature' uses... so we may hear from her ourselves whether she is ever 'arbitrary'.
"The natural symmetry we descry via Mathematics and logic. Math is the language of all nature."
>>> 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.
Re: "I do nothing against their natural rights. I take nothing from them" --- I remain unconvinced of that assertion.
"Well convincing you in particular is certainly not my hope. After all, you think it perfectly acceptable to murder children."
>>> No, I certainly don't... nor have I ever said any such thing.
You seem to be saying that 'morality derived from nature' is absolute, and not ever 'relative' (while agreeing with me that all other sources for morality are relative).
"Nope. I am saying that if we are unable to discern a world outside of Nature, to benefit of its higher morality, then we are bound by the human morality that is inherent to human nature. That human morality exists and it is indeed absolute, as it is based upon upon human existence which rooted in human biological identity (which itself is rooted in the non-bio logic that describes essential humanity)."
>>> Which is it: Math, or Biology? You are absolutely certain about an awful lot of things that you can't describe in any detail....
So, OK, if morality derived from natural laws is not ever relative... I repeat my previous answer: tell me the language used by nature whereby we may ascertain these 'natural rules for morality'... and see them ourselves... agree what they are... and then decide if they are ever 'relative'.
"Math/logic is ultimately that language. Human existence is as mathematically evident as 0 and 1."
>>> Well, duh! Surely you can do much more than say 'we exist'. I don't care WHAT base system you employ... all mathematical expressions are testable & verifiable. So, if you truly have these grand answers: bring them forth to be tested. |
