SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[ForgedinHell]

What is the relevance of this point to your main argument? I understand from your stance on freedom that holocaust survivors are no more deserving of state handouts than neo-nazi scum. So you should be just as angry that your taxes are keeping old holocaust survivors alive as you are that they are subsidising the lifestyle of deniers.

Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending? Where did I ever state that Holocaust survivors deserve handouts? Where? You always make up crap. I would apreciate it if you would either not comment at all, or do so without making up crap. My point was that a Holocaust survivor should never be forced to finance a nazi, which is exactly what socialists make the survivor do. Nor should a homosexual have to finance a gay basher, etc., etc. When the government establishes social welfare programs, it uses force to take money from a person, and gives the money to another. This is bad under the best of circumstances, but when one stops to think for a moment, one should realize that these socialist programs end up requiring Holocaust survivors to pay for neo-nazis. Unlike you, I respect people enough to give the Holocaust denier the right to tell the neo-nazi that he is not entitled to his money.

[MGL]

What is the relevance of this point to your main argument? I understand from your stance on freedom that holocaust survivors are no more deserving of state handouts than neo-nazi scum. So you should be just as angry that your taxes are keeping old holocaust survivors alive as you are that they are subsidising the lifestyle of deniers.

Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending? Where did I ever state that Holocaust survivors deserve handouts? Where? You always make up crap. I would apreciate it if you would either not comment at all, or do so without making up crap. My point was that a Holocaust survivor should never be forced to finance a nazi, which is exactly what socialists make the survivor do. Nor should a homosexual have to finance a gay basher, etc., etc. When the government establishes social welfare programs, it uses force to take money from a person, and gives the money to another. This is bad under the best of circumstances, but when one stops to think for a moment, one should realize that these socialist programs end up requiring Holocaust survivors to pay for neo-nazis. Unlike you, I respect people enough to give the Holocaust denier the right to tell the neo-nazi that he is not entitled to his money.

Whatever qualifies as fabricated verbal faeces your last comment must surely do so more than mine. I never said you claimed holocaust survivors deserved handouts. I was actually inferring from your main argument the complete opposite.

Forgive me if I have completely misunderstood your argument against socialism, but I thought you were saying that no-one should be forced to keep anyone else alive becasue it was an infringment of their freedom. Socialism may indeed, as you point out, result in the transfer of resources from holocaust survivors to neo-nazi scum, but why is this relevant to your main argument unless you are suggesting a principle of fairness that should be considered as well as your principle of freedom which is equally against the provision of a state pension to ederly holocasut survivors as it is againt unemployment benefits to neo-nazi scum? It is also your principle of untrumpable freedom that justifies a neo-nazi scumbag from refusing to provide time and resources to save the life of a holocaust survivor in peril. Indeed you yourself would feel justified in depriving a holocaust survivor of their state pension, even if they had no other source of income. If this is this not a consequence of your argument, please explain why.

[Arising_uk]

Are you really that stupid, or are you just pretending? Where did I ever state that Holocaust survivors deserve handouts? Where? You always make up crap. I would apreciate it if you would either not comment at all, or do so without making up crap. My point was that a Holocaust survivor should never be forced to finance a nazi, which is exactly what socialists make the survivor do. Nor should a homosexual have to finance a gay basher, etc., etc. When the government establishes social welfare programs, it uses force to take money from a person, and gives the money to another. This is bad under the best of circumstances, but when one stops to think for a moment, one should realize that these socialist programs end up requiring Holocaust survivors to pay for neo-nazis. Unlike you, I respect people enough to give the Holocaust denier the right to tell the neo-nazi that he is not entitled to his money.

You do understand that a point of social welfare programs is exactly to undermine the ground that such things as national socialism grow in?

[Lynn]

When the government establishes social welfare programs, it uses force to take money from a person, and gives the money to another.

In the U.K., taxation is collected in and redistributed in a number of areas, including but not limited to
- private industry e.g. Tax reliefs and allowances http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdo ... 1086692188
- social welfare e.g. Money, Tax and Benefits http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... /index.htm

The redistribution is usually done on a means tested / financial income basis or in the form of grants or loans. I am not aware that it is done on the basis of individual political or social basis however I would expect that registered charities, for example, would get tax breaks which have ultimately been financed unknowingly by the tax payer. However, in my experience, my late neighbour, a concentration camp survivor, never raised objections as to who was benefiting from the taxes he paid nor what type of person may have contributed to his state funded pension.

[ForgedinHell]

When the government establishes social welfare programs, it uses force to take money from a person, and gives the money to another.

In the U.K., taxation is collected in and redistributed in a number of areas, including but not limited to
- private industry e.g. Tax reliefs and allowances http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdo ... 1086692188
- social welfare e.g. Money, Tax and Benefits http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... /index.htm

The redistribution is usually done on a means tested / financial income basis or in the form of grants or loans. I am not aware that it is done on the basis of individual political or social basis however I would expect that registered charities, for example, would get tax breaks which have ultimately been financed unknowingly by the tax payer. However, in my experience, my late neighbour, a concentration camp survivor, never raised objections as to who was benefiting from the taxes he paid nor what type of person may have contributed to his state funded pension.

So?

[Lynn]

When the government establishes social welfare programs, it uses force to take money from a person, and gives the money to another.

In the U.K., taxation is collected in and redistributed in a number of areas, including but not limited to
- private industry e.g. Tax reliefs and allowances http://www.business.scotland.gov.uk/bdo ... 1086692188
- social welfare e.g. Money, Tax and Benefits http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... /index.htm

The redistribution is usually done on a means tested / financial income basis or in the form of grants or loans. I am not aware that it is done on the basis of individual political or social basis however I would expect that registered charities, for example, would get tax breaks which have ultimately been financed unknowingly by the tax payer. However, in my experience, my late neighbour, a concentration camp survivor, never raised objections as to who was benefiting from the taxes he paid nor what type of person may have contributed to his state funded pension.

So?

I'll take that as your agreement that government uses money from people to bankroll businesses. Nor does it provide or restrict welfare on the basis of individual political or social views. You pay your taxes and government divvies it up and dishes it out as required.

[ForgedinHell]

[quote="Lynn
The redistribution is usually done on a means tested / financial income basis or in the form of grants or loans. I am not aware that it is done on the basis of individual political or social basis however I would expect that registered charities, for example, would get tax breaks which have ultimately been financed unknowingly by the tax payer. However, in my experience, my late neighbour, a concentration camp survivor, never raised objections as to who was benefiting from the taxes he paid nor what type of person may have contributed to his state funded pension.[/quote]

So?[/quote]I'll take that as your agreement that government uses money from people to bankroll businesses. Nor does it provide or restrict welfare on the basis of individual political or social views. You pay your taxes and government divvies it up and dishes it out as required.[/quote]




I wrote "So?" because your comment was irrelevant. Did you actually sit down with the Holocaust-survivor and ask him or her how he or she feels about his or her money going to neo-nazis who deny the Holocaust happened? Silence does not mean anything. Furthermore, let's assume this person was okay with it. How would that justify taking money from Holocaust survivors and giving the money to Holocaust deniers, for those Holocaust survivors who do object? It wouldn't. If your friend wants to finance Holocaust-deniers, then it is your friend's right to do so. However, that does not justify forcing those who don't want to finance such scum to do so.

When have I ever stated that forcefully taking money to finance businesses is a good thing? I didn't.

[Lynn]

When have I ever stated that forcefully taking money to finance businesses is a good thing? I didn't.

No, you have now stated that. It is the same principle as you argue about welfare - the money comes into the centre then goes back out - you and I don't know exactly where our money goes.

[ForgedinHell]

When have I ever stated that forcefully taking money to finance businesses is a good thing? I didn't.

No, you have now stated that. It is the same principle as you argue about welfare - the money comes into the centre then goes back out - you and I don't know exactly where our money goes.

What I stated was that socialism requires the use of force to take something from someone. I further stated that such takings are immoral. On what moral basis does one take money from person A to give to person B? If I have no chidren, by what moral right does someone have to take my money to educate another's child, and to teach that child things I do not believe in? As an example, that is.

[Notvacka]

If I have no chidren, by what moral right does someone have to take my money to educate another's child, and to teach that child things I do not believe in? As an example, that is.

The notions of "moral" and "right" should be defined first, for this question to be answered properly. But since you seem incapable of discussing definitions, I'll answer with a series of statements, which should be helpful, because you can agree or disagree with each statement separately, in order to pinpoint where we see things differently:

1. Children need education. (Do you agree?)

2. Education is costly. (Do you agree?)

3. Children of poor people need education as much as children of rich people. (Do you agree?)

4. An educated person can contribute more to society than an uneducated one. (Do you agree?)

5. Countries wher the general level of education is low tend to be poor countries. (Do you agree?)

6. A generally high level of education benefits both the individual who gets the education and society as a whole. (Do you agree?)

7. Somebody must pay for the education. (Do you agree?)

8. Children are dependent on others to provide for their needs. (Do you agree?)

9. Children don't choose their own parents. (Do you agree?)

10. Those who have more money are in a better position to pay for things. (Do you agree?)

11. If you don't have any children of your own to support, you are in a better position to pay for the education of other people's children. (Do you agree?)

12. If every child is to get the education it needs, those who can afford it must pay for it, because those who can't afford it can't. (Do you agree?)

13. As for the latter part of your question: Parents don't own their children. (Do you agree?)

14. Parents can be stupid or believe in stupid ideas. (Do you agree?)

15. Parents having a say in what education their children should get is not always good for the child. (Do you agree?)

16. You are not even a parent in this example, since you pay for the education of other people's children. (Do you agree?)

17. If everybody contributes to the education of all children (trough taxes) it's reasonable that everybody should also have a say in their education. (Do you agree?)

[John]

If I have no chidren, by what moral right does someone have to take my money to educate another's child

Who paid for your education as a child? I bet it wasn't you so why shouldn't you contribute when you are able to?

Rather than thinking of it as paying for other people's children to be educated you could think of it as repaying the cost of your own education.

[ForgedinHell]

If I have no chidren, by what moral right does someone have to take my money to educate another's child

Who paid for your education as a child? I bet it wasn't you so why shouldn't you contribute when you are able to?

Rather than thinking of it as paying for other people's children to be educated you could think of it as repaying the cost of your own education.

I can guarantee you that the people who want to take my money never paid for my education, so by what moral right do they get to use the acts of another to steal from me? If my parents gave me gifts by supporting me growing up, how does a stranger down the street use that as a justification to take money from me? I see no logical connection, and you failed to provide one.

What repayment is owed? A gift is a gift, and my education beyond high-school I paid myself.

[ForgedinHell]

If I have no chidren, by what moral right does someone have to take my money to educate another's child, and to teach that child things I do not believe in? As an example, that is.

The notions of "moral" and "right" should be defined first, for this question to be answered properly. But since you seem incapable of discussing definitions, I'll answer with a series of statements, which should be helpful, because you can agree or disagree with each statement separately, in order to pinpoint where we see things differently:

1. Children need education. (Do you agree?)

Yes

2. Education is costly. (Do you agree?)

Yes

3. Children of poor people need education as much as children of rich people. (Do you agree?)

Yes

4. An educated person can contribute more to society than an uneducated one. (Do you agree?)

It depends on what education the person received.

5. Countries wher the general level of education is low tend to be poor countries. (Do you agree?)

Yes

6. A generally high level of education benefits both the individual who gets the education and society as a whole. (Do you agree?)

Again, a qualified yes, because it depends on what type of education we are talking about.

7. Somebody must pay for the education. (Do you agree?)

Yes

8. Children are dependent on others to provide for their needs. (Do you agree?)

How young? I've seen some fairly independent kids, think of Oliver Twist.

9. Children don't choose their own parents. (Do you agree?)

Bioloical parents, no.

10. Those who have more money are in a better position to pay for things. (Do you agree?)

Yes

11. If you don't have any children of your own to support, you are in a better position to pay for the education of other people's children. (Do you agree?)

No, that's an assumption. There are many, many different variables involved in whether one has the ability to pay for something.

12. If every child is to get the education it needs, those who can afford it must pay for it, because those who can't afford it can't. (Do you agree?)

No, this is a complete assumption on your part, with absolutely no basis in reality. At this point you have simply begged the question and assumed the existence of the very thing at issue.

13. As for the latter part of your question: Parents don't own their children. (Do you agree?)

Yes

14. Parents can be stupid or believe in stupid ideas. (Do you agree?)

Yes

15. Parents having a say in what education their children should get is not always good for the child. (Do you agree?)

Yes

16. You are not even a parent in this example, since you pay for the education of other people's children. (Do you agree?)

Yes

17. If everybody contributes to the education of all children (trough taxes) it's reasonable that everybody should also have a say in their education. (Do you agree?)

Absolutely not. In fact, your position is contradictory. You can't claim a parent should not have a say, because the parent may be an idiot, but everyone else, regardless of how stupid they are, should have a say. That is why I made a post about democracy being irrational, because it allows a stupid idiot the same voting power as a smart person who studied the issue being voted on.

[Notvacka]

Allright, then. Let's see about where we disagree...

4. An educated person can contribute more to society than an uneducated one.

It depends on what education the person received.

Allright. I can imagine some useless education. But generally speaking this should not be an issue. (Do you agree?)

6. A generally high level of education benefits both the individual who gets the education and society as a whole.

Again, a qualified yes, because it depends on what type of education we are talking about.

Again, I can imagine some useless education. And again, generally speaking this should not be an issue. (Do you agree?)

8. Children are dependent on others to provide for their needs.

How young? I've seen some fairly independent kids, think of Oliver Twist.

Okay. Again, generally speaking. Compared to other species, human children are dependent for an exceptionally long time. Not really an issue? (Do you agree?)

9. Children don't choose their own parents.

Bioloical parents, no.

Yes, I was talking about biological parents.

11. If you don't have any children of your own to support, you are in a better position to pay for the education of other people's children.

No, that's an assumption. There are many, many different variables involved in whether one has the ability to pay for something.

Yes, of course there are many variables involved. But all else being equal, not having any children of your own to support would mean more money to spend on something else, such as, in this case, the education of other people's children. (Do you agree?)

12. If every child is to get the education it needs, those who can afford it must pay for it, because those who can't afford it can't.

No, this is a complete assumption on your part, with absolutely no basis in reality. At this point you have simply begged the question and assumed the existence of the very thing at issue.

I thought this was an almost overly obvious logical truth, bordering on the tautological. Did you notice the initial "if"? If those who can afford it don't pay for the education, there will be no education, becasue somebody has to pay, and those who can't afford it can't. (Do you agree?)

17. If everybody contributes to the education of all children (trough taxes) it's reasonable that everybody should also have a say in their education.

Absolutely not. In fact, your position is contradictory. You can't claim a parent should not have a say, because the parent may be an idiot, but everyone else, regardless of how stupid they are, should have a say. That is why I made a post about democracy being irrational, because it allows a stupid idiot the same voting power as a smart person who studied the issue being voted on.

The beauty of democracy, is that everybody get a say, including parents, however stupid they are. Hopefully stupidity is cancelled out by intelligence on the whole.

[ForgedinHell]

Allright, then. Let's see about where we disagree...

4. An educated person can contribute more to society than an uneducated one.

It depends on what education the person received.

Allright. I can imagine some useless education. But generally speaking this should not be an issue. (Do you agree?)

6. A generally high level of education benefits both the individual who gets the education and society as a whole.

Again, a qualified yes, because it depends on what type of education we are talking about.

Again, I can imagine some useless education. And again, generally speaking this should not be an issue. (Do you agree?)

8. Children are dependent on others to provide for their needs.

How young? I've seen some fairly independent kids, think of Oliver Twist.

Okay. Again, generally speaking. Compared to other species, human children are dependent for an exceptionally long time. Not really an issue? (Do you agree?)

9. Children don't choose their own parents.

Bioloical parents, no.

Yes, I was talking about biological parents.

11. If you don't have any children of your own to support, you are in a better position to pay for the education of other people's children.

No, that's an assumption. There are many, many different variables involved in whether one has the ability to pay for something.

Yes, of course there are many variables involved. But all else being equal, not having any children of your own to support would mean more money to spend on something else, such as, in this case, the education of other people's children. (Do you agree?)

12. If every child is to get the education it needs, those who can afford it must pay for it, because those who can't afford it can't.

No, this is a complete assumption on your part, with absolutely no basis in reality. At this point you have simply begged the question and assumed the existence of the very thing at issue.

I thought this was an almost overly obvious logical truth, bordering on the tautological. Did you notice the initial "if"? If those who can afford it don't pay for the education, there will be no education, becasue somebody has to pay, and those who can't afford it can't. (Do you agree?)

It's nothing of the kind. The reality is not every child will get the education that they need. Some will do without. That's life. But, despite this optimum level of education not being reached, the fact remains, many, many children will receive great educations without any need to force anyone to pay to educate them.
17. If everybody contributes to the education of all children (trough taxes) it's reasonable that everybody should also have a say in their education.

Absolutely not. In fact, your position is contradictory. You can't claim a parent should not have a say, because the parent may be an idiot, but everyone else, regardless of how stupid they are, should have a say. That is why I made a post about democracy being irrational, because it allows a stupid idiot the same voting power as a smart person who studied the issue being voted on.

The beauty of democracy, is that everybody get a say, including parents, however stupid they are. Hopefully stupidity is cancelled out by intelligence on the whole.

There is nothing pretty about democracy, it is mob rule, and is based on the principle of might makes right, as the assumption is the majority could phycially slaughter the minority. Any system that equates the opinion of a stupid person with that of a smart one is not rational or moral. Majority rule is no more likely to be right than minority rule, or the rule of one, etc.