july 28 right to be born rally (3 Viewers)

[Karl Marx]

mayhaps i will drive to the bank to pick up some imaginary private currency on the roads built by the FREE MARKET

 

[withoutaface]

mayhaps i will drive to the bank to pick up some imaginary private currency on the roads built by the FREE MARKET

90% of the length of road I utilise every day is privately run.

 

[Ennaybur]

They should do it, if those afflicted are in absolute poverty not of their own making, but it should be done by private charity rather than through threats of violence. The fact is that the woman has an out clause, and in the interests of equality before the law (the most important kind) a man should be able to sign a piece of paper while it's still possible to have an abortion saying that he doesn't want anything to do with the child and won't be forced to pay child support if she chooses to continue with the pregnancy.

I don't know, I mean I can see what you're saying there but if he's adament enough not to protect himself then he should arguably take responsibility if she's morally opposed to abortion.

Also, I don't know why it should be from a private charity, when many of the wealthy are so by virtue of their fortunate birth. Why can't they help a little to a person who wasn't given the same oppotunities as them.

We live a very, very easy life (compared to many). It doesn't hurt to give a little to people who need it.

 

[Karl Marx]

Good going spacktard, they say that Federal Income Tax levied on individuals and not businesses is a sham because a) the amendment wasn't ratified and b) it's a non-apportioned tax.

Which means, legally, yes it doesn't hold up.

YEAH because the tax protester argument always works

 

[withoutaface]

I don't know, I mean I can see what you're saying there but if he's adament enough not to protect himself then he should arguably take responsibility if she's morally opposed to abortion.

If she's morally opposed to it, that's her problem. It's like me saying I should be able to force everyone else to fund my lifestyle because I'm morally opposed to work.

Also, I don't know why it should be from a private charity, when many of the wealthy are so by virtue of their fortunate birth. Why can't they help a little to a person who wasn't given the same oppotunities as them.

The vast majority of millionaires are self made, and anyone who's not disabled can pretty much guaranteed support themselves through work.

 

[Ennaybur]

If she's morally opposed to it, that's her problem. It's like me saying I should be able to force everyone else to fund my lifestyle because I'm morally opposed to work.

The vast majority of millionaires are self made, and anyone who's not disabled can pretty much guaranteed support themselves through work.

I'm not talking abuot millionaires. I'm talking about everyone doing their bit for society, and allowing people to earn more than just enough to live on - to have an education, health care and so forth.

 

[Enteebee]

The vast majority of millionaires are self made

Really? Perhaps millionaires are (given that a net worth of a million dollars isn't really that big of a thing), but I'd call that into question rather strongly when we start dealing with people with a networth of say $10m+

 

[withoutaface]

I'm not talking abuot millionaires. I'm talking about everyone doing their bit for society, and allowing people to earn more than just enough to live on - to have an education, health care and so forth.

You're talking about a society where there's a general feeling of caring for the wellbeing of your fellow man, etc, which cannot be achieved through coercion. In fact the best way to do it is through voluntary trade because people form relationships with others seeing that an overall cooperative approach through having each man take on the profession he is relatively best at allows everyone to have more than they would alone.

 

[Ennaybur]

I don't know about that. I think that everyone benefits from having to give up a negligable (I say this because no one goes poor from having to pay tax) amount of their pay. The fact that we can afford to pay tax I think means that our society is offering us a fairly good lifestyle.

Obviously everyone has different values, but personally I don't mind paying tax in order to live in a society where there is as little poverty and need, free medical care, and education. That's my sacrifice and I don't really understand (well I do, but don't really agree) how people would deny others (who were born into less fortunate circumstances) the basics or the oppurtunity to better themselves, and improve their lot in life.

 

[withoutaface]

1. Opportunities are primarily prevented by government/Union intervention in the labour market.
2. Taxing the very rich very heavily doesn't help anyone because the balance between a profit and a loss on any investment is upset by taxation, discouraging investment and stagnating innovation. When this happens newer, cheaper production methods aren't found anywhere near as quickly and the price of goods for everyone is bumped up.
3. Living on welfare is a less glamorous existence than what 95+% of the population can provide for themselves through hard work and application.

 

[withoutaface]

True. But what is the benefit in exploiting these opportunities if the governent/workers cannot benefit by intervening/demanding higher wages? Greater overall benefit is small constellation if the majority do not benefit. see marginal utility of money.

Their real wages increase over time naturally under a free market, as opposed to a heavily regulated system where Unions unwittingly lock the unskilled out of the market.

Exactly. It sucks to be welfare dependant anyway. Why begruge them the pittance they are paid?

Because welfare dependence wouldn't exist if we didn't have welfare in the first place?

 

[Karl Marx]

Yes but what happens when there is unemployment which at some point in the business cycle is enivitable? Some people will be left jobless. Do we leave them to starve, or more likely turn to crime to feed themselves which would cost more than the small payments afforded to them.

i take it u havent read AYN RAND. she says when u have no one to eat eat your children. this is ok under libertarian philosophy as you can do whatever you like on your own land (YES)

and if u kill them on someone elses private property you'll have heaps of time to get away as market forces determine the reaction time of the private police

 

[withoutaface]

Yes but what happens when there is unemployment which at some point in the business cycle is enivitable? Some people will be left jobless. Do we leave them to starve, or more likely turn to crime to feed themselves which would cost more than the small payments afforded to them.

Prove that it's inevitable, and not caused by minimum wages and taxes (i.e. having minimum conditions set at a more prosperous period, which lock tonnes of people out when a downturn occurs).

i take it u havent read AYN RAND. she says when u have no one to eat eat your children. this is ok under libertarian philosophy as you can do whatever you like on your own land (YES)

and if u kill them on public property (lol) you'll have heaps of time to get away as market forces determine the reaction time of the private police

I was under the impression that Communist China was the place where children were dumped in ditches while the authorities turned a blind eye.

 

[Karl Marx]

brb just going to scoot down the footpath the private company built to the shops... costs me $2 everytime

 

[withoutaface]

brb just going to scoot down the footpath the private company built to the shops... costs me $2 everytime

Why would private businesses not allow people to walk on the paths in front of their stores for free? I mean every pedestrian is a potential customer...

 

[Karl Marx]

Why would private businesses not allow people to walk on the paths in front of their stores for free? I mean every pedestrian is a potential customer...

yeah i have to get to the footpath in front of the shop first

 

[bshoc]

I'm not talking abuot millionaires. I'm talking about everyone doing their bit for society, and allowing people to earn more than just enough to live on - to have an education, health care and so forth.

Society works best if everyone does most of their "bits" for themselves. Part of the reason people even in the lower classes can't afford those things privately is because they're being taxed the equal amount to fund the public variant.

 

[withoutaface]

Yeh because anyone that advocates any kind of welfare is a communist.

When their name is Karl Marx I'd say it's a fair conclusion.

 

[bshoc]

a) if a guy didn't bother to wear a condom, then he loses right to have a moral stance on the female's body

Ultimately it is the woman who is responsible, its her body and her pregnancy, if she is willingly get sticked by a guy its her ultimate responsibility to ensure the consequences of her own consential activity on her own body.

b) 90% ? unlikely. But the fact remains that the world is an unequal place and those in the position to help should do so (imo) to help make it more equal.

No, everyone should rise and fall on their own merits. White males are the supreme gender/race hybrid of the world for many reasons.

 

[bshoc]

A neo-con.

Basically a warmed over paleo-fascist or Authoritarian.

You're the lefty of the 20's.

Incorrect, I dislike neo-conservatism for all it stands for.

Neo-cons are generally more socially liberal than classical conservatives, as well as having a foreign policy closer to the liberal left and a big government economic approach in some respects.

I don't mind being called a conservative, but neo-conservatism is almost the exact opposite on the political scale to what I am.