Juliar betrays australia, destroys our economic future (2 Viewers)

[Lentern]

insert an irrelevant phrase here that contributes nothing* that the author thinks is insightful and cool

I thought we were being playful, very well. You may be a pure anti-statist but for bulk of people the "right way" isn't absolute and pure it is somewhere in the middle of a spectrum. While we agree there should be a certain number of government funded programmes to ensure people aren't unfairly disadvantaged (it isn't the child's fault he is born to neglectful parents) we still think that this needs to be balanced against a market based incentive for being a productive member of society which is how we come to the conclusion that some but not all income should be taxed. Furthermore we only believe that such income should be taxed by means of a democratic consensus to do so and that governments who instate such taxes need to be accountable for them at regular elections. This is completely at odds with communist teachings which calls for the violent, revolutionary overthrow of the government and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Most left of centre advocates are peaceful and democratic and would not call for this. Likewise no communist would ever sympathise and advocate some sort of market based incentive for being a more productive member of society eg, private property yet most left of centre advocates would. Ergo your assertion that its perfectly sensible to equate social democracy with communism is flawed.

 

[Lentern]

you're upset that people call anything economically left of centre communism

that we're calling you a communist

Wait you were refering to me as Thatcher? You surely know the origin of the avatar.Surely.

 

[peikoff]

that's the point, what is desired? to what end? people think the government should look after certain things with no real reason for it, so if people think the government does a good job of X better than private individuals why don't you think they should do everything?. its the belief that you think a third party stealing a certain amount of your income every year and not obeying the laws of supply and demand is superior to the alternative.

Also your examples don't make any sense panadol doesn't cure pain. and a person attacking somebody is no longer self defense

Nothing of substance here

First, you are redirecting debate to whether government is efficient at all. Which is an implicit concession to my point that supporting some government involvement does not logically entail supporting its involvement in all areas.

But that's not totally true, you continue to blab that If I support government in some arenas then I support them in all. Again, I say simply that this does not follow. My examples also stand as even if panadol doesn't cure pain, I assume you were not so dense as to be confused by what this example was intended to be illustrative of. And secondly, of course you can attack someone in self defence. That how most self defence takes place. Unless you are a complete pacifist I would be aghast at you inability to understand this.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I thought we were being playful, very well. You may be a pure anti-statist but for bulk of people the "right way" isn't absolute and pure it is somewhere in the middle of a spectrum. While we agree there should be a certain number of government funded programmes to ensure people aren't unfairly disadvantaged (it isn't the child's fault he is born to neglectful parents) we still think that this needs to be balanced against a market based incentive for being a productive member of society which is how we come to the conclusion that some but not all income should be taxed. Furthermore we only believe that such income should be taxed by means of a democratic consensus to do so and that governments who instate such taxes need to be accountable for them at regular elections. This is completely at odds with communist teachings which calls for the violent, revolutionary overthrow of the government and a dictatorship of the proletariat. Most left of centre advocates are peaceful and democratic and would not call for this. Likewise no communist would ever sympathise and advocate some sort of market based incentive for being a more productive member of society eg, private property yet most left of centre advocates would. Ergo your assertion that its perfectly sensible to equate social democracy with communism is flawed.

but by taxing individuals you hurt the market. If you have the belief that there should be programs to combat disadvantage then you start down a very dangerous path. soon you have too many programs, too much welfare and super high taxes, all in the name of equality and income redistribution. on the surface that may not be socialism or communism but it leads to the same outcomes of an equal distribution of poverty in society

that's why I personally am against such programs. I would love so much if poverty didn't exist and we could all live well, but it can't be done. and once you start down the path of welfare programs it never stops and you end up in a mess

 

[Azure]

Your grasp on logic then is obviously pathetically feeble. I would like to say two things

First, in theory, what you say is false. You must understand why and for what purpose we want taxes raised or government intervention. The reason is because it is effective at achieving certain, commonly desired ends. So of course, when high taxation and government involvement reach a point when they become ineffective means to ends, they will not be supported. Everything is subordinate to context. If you like taking a panadol to cure pain, why not take 200? If you think its OK to use physical violence in self defence, why don't you assault people all the time? When you realise why these statements are ludicrous, you'll see why yours are too. Saying something is good or effective or desired does not logically imply that it is so in all contexts.

Second, I'm tired of the way people use the word 'logic' nowadays, as some kind of inert synonym for 'good thinking'. Logic is the process of valid inference. Please tell me what principle of logic will take one from supporting higher taxes on the rich, to a 100% taxation rate.

Your conclusion also doesn't follow the premise here.

 

[Subhas Bose]

alright you LITTLE FREAKS

things are going to be MUCH DIFFERENT AROUND HERE

 

[Subhas Bose]

Your conclusion also doesn't follow the premise here.

"When you realise why these statements are ludicrous, you'll see why yours are too. "

 

[iwantfreeessays]

that's the point, what is desired? to what end? people think the government should look after certain things with no real reason for it, so if people think the government does a good job of X better than private individuals why don't you think they should do everything?. its the belief that you think a third party stealing a certain amount of your income every year and not obeying the laws of supply and demand is superior to the alternative.

Also your examples don't make any sense panadol doesn't cure pain. and a person attacking somebody is no longer self defense

It does not matter whether the examples make sense because the principle is still the same. Just because doing something can be argued to be effective does not mean it would be effective Ad infinitum . Anyway, it's obvious that there is a point on a graph of tax rate that will have a peak revenue and diminish the higher the rate.

Anyway, you are right though that government intervention can be though of taking it to its extremes because government intervention will inevitably lead to more intervention down the road; eventually you will reach the point of a failed state or totalitarian socialist government which will eventually starve to death.

 

[peikoff]

Your conclusion also doesn't follow the premise here.

That was precisely the point of that sentence. To highlight the absurdity of that form of reasoning.

 

[peikoff]

alright you LITTLE FREAKS

things are going to be MUCH DIFFERENT AROUND HERE

Leopold FTW! Him and Superintendent Chalmers = best characters LOL

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Nothing of substance here

First, you are redirecting debate to whether government is efficient at all. Which is an implicit concession to my point that supporting some government involvement does not logically entail supporting its involvement in all areas.

But that's not totally true, you continue to blab that If I support government in some arenas then I support them in all. Again, I say simply that this does not follow. My examples also stand as even if panadol doesn't cure pain, I assume you were not so dense as to be confused by what this example was intended to be illustrative of. And secondly, of course you can attack someone in self defence. That how most self defence takes place. Unless you are a complete pacifist I would be aghast at you inability to understand this.

but if you support government in some areas than government will grow into other areas as it sees fit, "well if people believe we can do X than we can do Y also", and nobody says a fucking thing

this is a trend that has existed since government came to being

I mean for gods sakes if you want government to run certain services at least have people pay for what they use instead of an arbitrary % of their income being taken every year

 

[Blastus]

~guys~

 

[Lentern]

but by taxing individuals you hurt the market. If you have the belief that there should be programs to combat disadvantage then you start down a very dangerous path. soon you have too many programs, too much welfare and super high taxes, all in the name of equality and income redistribution. on the surface that may not be socialism or communism but it leads to the same outcomes of an equal distribution of poverty in society

that's why I personally am against such programs. I would love so much if poverty didn't exist and we could all live well, but it can't be done. and once you start down the path of welfare programs it never stops and you end up in a mess

I don't care what you think about such programs, the point is that it's not communist.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I don't care what you think about such programs, the point is that it's not communist.

but it starts us down a dangerous path

 

[Lentern]

but it starts us down a dangerous path

A path to argument fallacies like the slippery slope?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

A path to argument fallacies like the slippery slope?

you gonna deny the un sustainable growth on governments around the world?

 

[Lentern]

you gonna deny the un sustainable growth on governments around the world?

All I have denied is that it's respectable arguing to equate social democracy to communism.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

All I have denied is that it's respectable arguing to equate social democracy to communism.

A in the long run leads to B

that's why we attack those that believe A is a good idea

 

[scuba_steve2121]

you may have the best intentions but those intentions costs money and freedom

 

[Lentern]

A in the long run leads to B

that's why we attack those that believe A is a good idea

You are a fucking idiot.