Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:23 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:16 pm
accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:58 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:49 pm

That's a pretty low opinion of ordinary people. Do you think it applies to everyone, that we all just want government to "hand over money" and not give anything to others ourselves, as you seem to put it.
I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. He's saying that IC is fine with it as long as it's being handed to HIM.
Well, he's replying to my post and he uses the term "you people" a lot. I find myself getting annoyed with it.

you also get annoyed and frustrated when I use the word, 'you', only, when I am actually not meaning 'you', personally, and are meaning 'you', people.

So, and again, how 'I' am to write in 'a way', which communicates better with all of 'you' human beings, is just a process of learning, and just a process' which 'I' am in, here, now.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:16 pm I don't think he communicates very well and he doesn't want to say what I suggest he say.

When did 'I' ever say that 'I' do not want to say what 'you' suggested 'I' say?

'I' have never even thought 'this' "gary childress", let alone said it absolutely anywhere. So, what make you think or believe such a thing?

In fact when you suggest 'that' my very first words after were, 'Fair enough'. Which can be clearly seen, and proved absolutely True, in this forum.

you really do presume and assume a lot of things about what 'I say and mean', when I never even actually 'think it', let alone say and write it.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:16 pm But if that's what he's saying, then I stand corrected.

Again, it does not do absolutely any thing to 'seek out' and 'obtain' 'actual clarity'. it much prefers to just keep on assuming, and guessing.

Now, I could say and claim, "gary childress" does not want to do what I suggest all people do. That is, seek out and obtain 'actual clarity' before you assume or believe absolutely any thing.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:27 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:21 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.
So is it your belief...
No, no...you answer first. Explain how the government is going to help these people.

If a friend of mine found himself homeless I would recommend hooking up with section 8 government housing programs, and getting on food stamps. What would be your solution? If he could get SSI, then that would also help him with other modest needs.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:57 am**

IC and his fellow 'trickle-downers' are just eugenicists but they don't have the guts to come out and say it. That's why nothing they say makes any sense (always a massive red flag).They genuinely believe that only the rich deserve to live. What better way to 'weed out humanity's losers' than let them starve to death and withold their medical care?

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:24 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am
Where does the money come from?

All "free" money comes from people who work. Keep that in mind.

REREAD ---- I wrote exactly where from, taxes. I wrote that this was a redistribution. But do you understand WHY the traditional leftists would object.

Look IC, it would STILL be a redistribution even if a flat tax rate. Because a flat distribution amount. Please try to explain to us why you think this sort of scheme would necessarily be PERCEIVED as unfair (even by those payiing in more taxes than the received back.Notice with something like this, if distribution amount enough, maybe less government intrusion, like maybe no minimum wage.

But back to the title of this topic --- Why do you call it stealing if the people, through their representatives, choose to tax themselves? Again remember where I live. Tuesday night, town (township) residents will gather in a special (added to schedule) town meeting to vote up or down adding more solar panels at the water treatment plant << that's OUR tax dollars >> Now if I am on the "no" side but the majority vote "yes" are they STEALING my tax dollars?

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:29 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:57 am IC and his fellow 'trickle-downers' are just eugenicists but they don't have the guts to come out and say it. That's why nothing they say makes any sense (always a massive red flag).They genuinely believe that only the rich deserve to live. What better way to 'weed out humanity's losers' than let them starve to death, and withold their medical care?

Yeah. I don't know what IC's position is on this. It will be interesting to find out, I'm sure. Please tell me he's not talking about denying people help based on whether it can be determined it's their "fault" for being homeless.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:37 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:41 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 6:13 pm So our stubborn Christian friend IC thinks that all taxation is "theft", ALL OF IT. And governments should not commit theft.

My question is, if that is the case, then how will societies raise funds for projects that need to be collectively created and administrated?
Here's my answer, Gary.

Our difference is not over whether there should be such projects. We both agree that limited government and limited taxation are necessary evils, and that they have a role in such things as building roads, maintaining civil defense, and so on. We're fine on all that.

Where we disagree is on whether or not government can be a saviour. That is, can we commission government to feed our poor, raise our children, handle all our health concerns, give us a guaranteed income, create a sustainable welfare system, and not to collect taxes from those who cannot afford it, and not use those funds collected in irresponsible and corrupt ways.

You think you can trust the State. I think we cannot. I think that most social needs are best met by community effort and voluntary societies, not by government force. You think that if we allow the government to extort enough through taxation, it will miraculously become staffed by saints, and will use the additional revenues in ways more responsible than private citizens, community groups and voluntary associations could.

So our disagreement is not over whether or not the needs of the poor should be met; on that, we 100% agree. It's over HOW they are going to be met. It's over the means that will achieve the goal we both desire.

This distinction is nicely worked out in a book buy a guy you'd like: a Democrat sociologist named Jonathan Haidt, who in his book "The Righteous Mind," give fair treatment to both sides. I suggest we replicate his analysis of the situation, and recognize the problem as one of means, not of ends. We both want to see people get what they need; we're only disagreeing over how that is best achieved. You say "by Big Government and forcible taxation." I say, "By expanding the economy for all, and by the people in the country taking responsibility for themselves and others, and by limiting the role of government to the necessary."

That's where we need to begin, because that's the real difference. Impugning each others motives will not answer the question and get us very far. I accept that your desire to help the underprivilged is genuine, even if I find your methods unworkable and perilous; and I trust you can accord me the same respect of believing I also recognize the problem of the genuinely needy and have sympathy for them, even if you doubt the methods I advocate.

Fair enough?
I don't think government can be a "savior" as you put it.

I agree.

And, I see "immanuel can" just added 'that word' in, to distract, and to deceive.

But, "Immanuel can" might say and claim, and might explain, otherwise.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm So that's an inaccurate appraisal of my position.

So, "immanuel can's" attempt to deflect, here, this time, did not work.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm Maybe to start off with you should also be respectful to my ideas? And if you're going to continue to label socialists as "evil", then I see no reason not to take you to task on Christianity's apparent ideal of waiting for people to donate to the poor on their own initiative instead of institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more).

But, the so-called "christian" religion 'needs' to build churches, and homes, for 'some', so that 'they' can so-call, 'spread the word'. (In order to obtain 'more money', to build more churches, and more homes, for 'some', to 'spread the word', even further. In order to obtain even 'more money', to build more churches, et cetera, et cetera.)

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm I don't think it's fair to expect a God (which we are entirely uncertain of) to help the poor when they die by sending them to "heaven" and avenging them by sending the greedy and stingy to hell.

Is there an adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, who is not 'greedy'?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm Helping people must happen here and now, not pushed off into the hands of a "God" that we don't even know exists.

But, just like 'we' are 'certain', 'we' also do know whether God, Itself, actually exists, or not.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm Also you're slanderous remarks of secularists that they cannot possibly know right from wrong are a problem for me.

Overall I see your vision as clouded by fantasies related to Christian mythology. Maybe if we can both work out those differences, then we can have a more respectful discussion.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:41 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:53 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:26 pm ...institutionalizing assistance programs to handle things more quickly (even if they cost a bit more).
Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.
Helping people must happen here and now...
Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.

But, 'one' appears to favour 'help' in regards to health, food, and/or housing human beings. Whereas, 'one' appears to favour 'help' in regards to building roads and/or in the creation and manufacturing of more destructive weapons and bigger armies.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:43 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:54 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:42 pm
accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 10:56 pm

What the fuck does that even mean? Why do you bother with your disingenous word salads, old man? Go back to counting your pension money and writing letters to the editor whinging about the dollar a week increase in your local property rates or whatever you call it over there. I bet you spy on your neighbours too
Maybe he's referring to "trickle down economics".
No. To personal responsibility.

It could be said and argued, here, that those with the 'most money' 'lack the most personal responsibility'.

But then, 'some' would not be open to 'this', at all.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:56 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:58 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Nov 16, 2025 11:53 pm
Is that what you think happens? You think government is more efficient and fair at delivering people's needs? You won't find that's the case anywhere.

Well, it depends what we're "helping" them to do. In general, we're both in favour of that. We're just debating the means.
So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what?
Who is this mythical family?

Have you never been savvy of 'families' who fall on what some call and refer to as, 'hard times'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am How were they "suddenly struck"?

Work accident.
Motor vehicle accident.
Plane accident.
Train accident.
Sickness.
Disease.
Volcanic eruption.
Earthquake.
Tidal wave.
Tornado.
Hurricane.
Retrenched.
Replaced.
Cancer.
Brain tumor.

Would you like me to go on?

Maybe,
Floods.
Fires.
Droughts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem?

If yes, then how and why, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am Is the mother an insane shopaholic?

if yes, then how and why, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit?

If yes, then how and why, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am Or were they squatters?

If yes, then how and why, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am Or was there a house fire...

If yes, then how and why, exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am Different situations argue for different solutions.

So, if some one is a 'chronic' alcoholic, gambler, spender, or homeless, which would be because of past abusive experiences, then what is 'the solution', for them, exactly. compared to one who has survived a house fire, for example?

Why is 'the survivor' of a 'house fire' treated differently from 'the survivor' of abuse, and/or an 'abusive environment'?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.

Who said absolutely any thing about handing 'more power' to 'any government'?

Once again, the 'devilish and deceptive way' 'this one' portrays, here, is the primest example of deceit, deception, and thus of 'the devil', itself.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 4:58 am**

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:27 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:21 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:20 am

So is it your belief...
No, no...you answer first. Explain how the government is going to help these people.
If a friend of mine found himself homeless I would recommend hooking up with section 8 government housing programs, and getting on food stamps.

Who pays?

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 5:04 am**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 2:24 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am
Where does the money come from?

All "free" money comes from people who work. Keep that in mind.
I wrote exactly where from, taxes.

That's other people's money. That's the funny thing about Socialists...they think there's magic money that nobody has earned, and nobody needs to make, and it just appears in greater quantities whenever the government calls for it.

But it's the worker who pays. It's the one who's adding value who you end up robbing in order to pay for those who won't or can't add value...and you don't even give those who have earned the means the chance to do the right thing freely, because you don't believe they will. And you think the State will be more moral than the people in it.

Of course, in history, that's always proved to be a false premise. It's failed 100% of the time.

I wrote that this was a redistribution.

Well, when a robber breaks into your house and holds you at gunpoint, he's also "redistributing" your property. But somehow, Socialists never have a conscience about it, so long as it's the State doing the theft.

But it's the same act, and has the same effect. So I say, call it what it is: theft.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 6:14 am**

One more thought: Socialists aren't automatically nationalists (Nazis are National Socialists, but Communists aspire to global Communism). In fact, most advocates of Socialism today are NOT nationalistic about it. And they're not regionalists either -- they don't, for example, say that Socialism's only good for Europe, but that the US and UK can skip it. In aspiration, they're globalists. They think Socialism is just good and fair for everybody.

But what would actualizing global Socialism do to the average income? Assuming we're talking about "free" money on a global scale, each person gets just less than $10,000 US/year -- below poverty, and nearly below subsistence.

That's not including taxation, government inefficiency, bureaucratic bloat, or fiscal incompetency of any kind, all of which would surely lower that figure considerably if they persisted. This is what the number would be if all that disappeared, and Socialist utopia broke out.

Right now, do you live on more than that? Congratulations: you're one of the global rich elite. But if you're not a nationalist, and thing ALL people have a claim against anyone with more income, then the Developing World has a huge claim against you. So you'd be accusing yourself of being a global oppressor, or bourgeois tyrant, or a selfish, rich hoarder...if you get more than $10,000 per year.

Now, there's a puzzle for our Socialism advocates to work out.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 6:54 am**

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:08 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.
We aren't going to make much progress if you believe the majority of the poor are poor by their own fault. I take it then that you don't KNOW poor people, or are looking at propaganda, not real statistics.

There is also, 'confirmation bias', where people only 'see' and only 'hear' what they 'want to see, and hear'.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:08 am PLEASE NOTICE -- I am NOT saying that your examples of "undeserving poor" don't exist. They do, and part of what is shitty about our existing social service programs is how much wasted, the terrible hoops all poor must navigate, to prove they aren't among the undeserving. Never mind that this costs more than just letting the undeserving gate away with it.

OK --modest proposal (not original with me) that will have both you and the traditional leftists up in arms. Guaranteed Annual Income. There of course would be taxation to support this, it is a redistribution, BUT TO ALL. That's right, the poor get this, whether deserving or not, but also the not poor, even the very rich. All get the same. No government bureaucracy trying to weed out the unworthy. No prying into people's lives.

Why not just make more 'robots' to do everyone's work, and then just pay absolutely every human being say, some thing like, $1,000,000 per year? And, then let you human beings just 'sit back', and actually 'enjoying life', while watching the 'robots', now, doing all of 'the work'.

After all the 'whole world' is 'in debt', now, anyway, so what would matter if 'more' was just added on to 'the, 'current', debt'. Long gone are 'the days' when countries would strive to keep 'the books' in 'credit', have 'surplus', and to stay 'out of doubt' as much as possible.

Once all the countries ended up being 'in debt' what would it, really, matter how many more zeros were added on?

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:08 am BTW -- some of the classical period city states had this. A common butt of comedy the miser who bothered queuing to receive his citizen's dole.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 7:15 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am
MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:08 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.
We aren't going to make much progress if you believe the majority of the poor are poor by their own fault. I take it then that you don't KNOW poor people, or are looking at propaganda, not real statistics.
Au contraire: if you're the average, I've encountered many, many more poor people than you have.

How would 'this one' know this?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am What's more, I know the difference between no-fault poverty and poverty that is the responsibility of the person who has impoverished himself.

So, what is the actual difference between so-called, 'no-fault poverty', and, so-called, 'poverty that is the responsibility of the person who has impoverished "them" 'self', exactly?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am Do you?

Le 'us' see if "immanuel can" really does know.

After all you were questioned about,
'So it is your belief that if a family is suddenly struck losing their home that they can do what?'

To which, once more, you did not ever answer, but replied with two questions,
'Who is this mythical family?'

Implying that there is no actual family who gets struck with let 'us' say 'bad luck'.

And with the question,
'How were they "suddenly struck"?'

Which you appear as to not yet be aware that family's can be 'struck' with or by 'unfortunate circumstances'.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am
Never mind that this costs more than just letting the undeserving gate away with it.
Let's have the statistic you have for that, please.

Let 'us' have 'you' show that 'you' can become aware, here, pretty please.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am
Guaranteed Annual Income.

Where does the money come from?

Did you not read what "mikenovack" wrote? It was, very clearly, stated, 'There, of course, would be taxation to support this'

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:15 am All "free" money comes from people who work. Keep that in mind.

Every one, here, knows 'this' already "immanuel can".

Some people just do not like seeing that so-called 'free money' being spent on building roads, designing, creating, and manufacturing more and bigger, deadlier weapons, nor on armies and soldiers. See, some people actually thinking spending more of that so-called 'free money' on helping and supporting others would be much more beneficial to human beings, and to human kind.

'I' know 'you' can not see nor can not follow 'this logic'. But, to some, 'wasting' 'this free money' in 'this way' makes much more 'logical and common sense', then 'spending' money to create more wars, on warring, and on the fighting and killing of 'fellow' human beings.

Some also see the 'excuse' of 'we' 'need' 'the money' 'for defence', as who is 'it', exactly, that you human beings are claiming you 'need' to 'defend' "yourselves" from, exactly, besides, of course, "your" own 'selves'?

Now, if 'you' think or believe that 'that' is logical and/or for the best, then so be it. Many, many others do not, and 'they' are actually getting 'sick and tired' how 'those with power' are 'controlling' 'the masses'.

Posted: **Mon Nov 17, 2025 7:18 am**

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:21 am
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Nov 17, 2025 12:31 am
Who is this mythical family? How were they "suddenly struck"? Does the father have an alcohol and gambling problem? Is the mother an insane shopaholic? Did they plan badly, and overextend their credit? Or were they squatters? Or was there a house fire...

Different situations argue for different solutions. But maybe you can explain to me how handing more power to the government would convince them to help these people. Let's hear your plan.
So is it your belief...
No, no...you answer first. Explain how the government is going to help these people.

Once again, 'this one' 'tries' its hardest to 'weasel out' of being just honest and open, when replying, to when it gets questioned, and/or challenged.

The 'devil, in disguise', as some might have noticed, and say, here.

Philosophy Now Forum

Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?

Re: Is it "stealing" for the government to tax people for social services?