Your political compass

Chula Vista · 04-16-2015, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

you really do think that rewording things can make them better, don't you?

You are such a cynical f*ck.

Xurtio · 04-16-2015, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Well, A.) I'm just ****ing around playing the Devil's Advocate in general. If someone had taken a conservative position about my first post, I would have gone the other way.

And B.) if the government can take your money, then did you ever really own it? There has to be a minimal level of government coercion concerning your income, to provide for infrastructure, education, etc, but no matter how you dress it up, it's still coercion with the power of armed force behind it. Which kind of implies that all money is communal to start with.

Not all money; a fraction of some types of earned income. And only if you make enough income.

But yes, and in return your born with libraries and roads and you have a safety net available to you should you fail (welfare). You also have the freedom to leave if you don't like it, but I don't think you'll find a better deal (except where they tax more and college and medical are completely free.)

I believe Denmark follows this model and also ranks as one of the happiest places to live.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 04-16-2015, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

You are such a cynical f*ck.

but i'm right.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 04-16-2015, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Well, A.) I'm just ****ing around playing the Devil's Advocate in general. If someone had taken a conservative position about my first post, I would have gone the other way.

And B.) if the government can take your money, then did you ever really own it? There has to be a minimal level of government coercion concerning your income, to provide for infrastructure, education, etc, but no matter how you dress it up, it's still coercion with the power of armed force behind it. Which kind of implies that all money is communal to start with.

lol, welcome to the real world. the non-aggression principle only applies in candyland.

Wpnfire · 04-16-2015, 10:48 PM

I'm pretty sure that welfare is only barely enough to get by. They are not getting millions.

Isbjørn · 04-17-2015, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xurtio

Not all money; a fraction of some types of earned income. And only if you make enough income.

But yes, and in return your born with libraries and roads and you have a safety net available to you should you fail (welfare). You also have the freedom to leave if you don't like it, but I don't think you'll find a better deal (except where they tax more and college and medical are completely free.)

I believe Denmark follows this model and also ranks as one of the happiest places to live.

Norway as well. And guess what? We're also considered one of the best places to live.

Nameless · 04-17-2015, 02:16 AM

People always forget the more practical reason for welfare spending. Without it when someone is out of work they cease to be a consumer, spending no money on goods and services, leading companies to generate less profit, leading to those companies laying people off to save cash and keep shareholders and whatnot happy, leading to more people out of work, leading to the vicious cycle that led to people in Germany burning cash to keep warm because it was totally worthless after WWI. It's not something the government just does for the sake of doing something nice. A good bit of welfare spending is not optional for a strong economy.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 04-17-2015, 03:50 AM

lack of welfare spending caused germany's hyperinflation? you sure about that?

Nameless · 04-17-2015, 03:56 AM

No, proper welfare spending could have alleviated or even prevented it. It wasn't the cause. Being economically illiterate and overreaching was the cause.

Guybrush · 04-17-2015, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

Well, A.) I'm just ****ing around playing the Devil's Advocate in general. If someone had taken a conservative position about my first post, I would have gone the other way.

And B.) if the government can take your money, then did you ever really own it? There has to be a minimal level of government coercion concerning your income, to provide for infrastructure, education, etc, but no matter how you dress it up, it's still coercion with the power of armed force behind it. Which kind of implies that all money is communal to start with.

It's just the price you have to pay to enjoy the things society gives you, like roads and public school for your kids. Providing all this is not free and so you should pay, otherwise we couldn't have these things. This is a social contract; a deal your parents parents parents already made and one that we're born into. I guess that's part of what could make it seem unfair - the deal was made for us long ago. But we don't have to go along with it, we can go and live elsewhere outside of society. If you just refuse to go along with it (not pay taxes) while still enjoying all these benefits, you will be removed from society by force (ie. eventually put in jail).

It's a bit like putting money in the pot in order to make a bachelors party for your mate with your friends. Everyone puts in some amount of money to make a great party. You refuse to put money in, why should you be allowed to come? If you pay less than everyone else, you're a dick. If you pay so little that you take more from the pot than you give, you're a parasite. A better alternative might be to try and convince everyone else that you all should pay less to the pot. Of course the party would be less awesome for everyone, but you'd get to keep more money yourself.

edit :

Just an anecdote of how things work here (we have great welfare systems in Norway), the last time I was on welfare was in january and february 2013. I had left my old job in december 2012 and wasn't starting in my new one until march 2013. So, since I had no income for january and february, I got welfare those two months.

It's not leeching off society because now I'm a taxpayer again and chances are I'm gonna pay more taxes back than I cost society, thus helping society grow and improve. I think of it as a small loan and I like that society will invest in me and my future, whether its medical care, education or welfare until I'm back on my feet. On average, the investment pays off.

04-16-2015, 10:48 PM	#535 (permalink)
Wpnfire Dragon Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Kansas, United States Posts: 2,744	I'm pretty sure that welfare is only barely enough to get by. They are not getting millions. __________________ Last.FM My RYM Ratings *My Glitchwave Beta Profile*

04-17-2015, 02:16 AM	#537 (permalink)
Nameless Fat girls in yoga pants Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 152	People always forget the more practical reason for welfare spending. Without it when someone is out of work they cease to be a consumer, spending no money on goods and services, leading companies to generate less profit, leading to those companies laying people off to save cash and keep shareholders and whatnot happy, leading to more people out of work, leading to the vicious cycle that led to people in Germany burning cash to keep warm because it was totally worthless after WWI. It's not something the government just does for the sake of doing something nice. A good bit of welfare spending is not optional for a strong economy.

04-17-2015, 03:50 AM	#538 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	lack of welfare spending caused germany's hyperinflation? you sure about that?

04-17-2015, 03:56 AM	#539 (permalink)
Nameless Fat girls in yoga pants Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 152	No, proper welfare spending could have alleviated or even prevented it. It wasn't the cause. Being economically illiterate and overreaching was the cause.