Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[RKMBrown]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.

If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.

I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal. In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.

However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government. More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted." More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.

 

[Bombur]

The point about ends justifying the means is not based on some scientific view of results of events. The point is directed to actions being justified based on the desired results. While every result is based on actions, there are various types of actions. Forcing someone to perform an action to achieve a desired result, is not the same as the person choosing to perform an action to achieve the same result. The result may be the same, however, the result in the former is a tainted result. The result is tainted because it involved some level of force on the person. For example, when a woman has a baby an ends has been achieved (baby born, new person.) However, raping a woman to achieve the ends is not justified.

When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.

If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.

I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal. In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.

However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government. More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted." More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.

You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.

I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.

 

[gnarlylove]

This "public theft" is not causing you to go without or become dependent on the state because of progressive taxation (or supposedly). Half of taxes are spent on military and much on the health care system. welfare programs are a small margin of taxation. I know you cannot stand having to care for those less fortunate than you because you keep repeating your mantra that they don't work hard but this is ideology talking, not reality. The fact is capitalism has made your ego so large it blocks out empathy, the part that considers other humans. So you refuse to understand that those in poverty are there for any reason except their own fault. Major ideology and its a major lie but there's no convincing you because your ideology is a part of WHO YOU ARE. You identify yourself on the basis of having no concern for the well being of fellow humans--only within your tribe do you care.

 

[dblack]

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.

What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.

 

[gnarlylove]

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.

What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.

The sphere of influence is either public or private. That is why there is an assumption. Public influence is synonymous with the state. Private influence has the most power in corporations and is thus associated with corporations wielding influence.

So either we can create a new sphere of influence (say of power based in the people which lies outside the state and corporation--a democratic notion) or we can remain in the dynamic of today. Suggesting a overhaul of the government without overhaul of the whole system simply creates a power vacuum that will easily be filled by those with 20 billion dollars.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I prefer a political system based on one person; one vote, instead of one $; one vote, and a health system that doesn't reward the denial of necessary medical procedures.

Capitalism holds the exact opposite view.

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Totally wrong. But it's georgieporgie, so the errors he makes come as no surprise.

"Promoting the general welfare" is not (and never was intended to be) a trump card used to evade the strictures of the enumerated component of enumerated powers.

And, of course, "national health" is quite obviously not related to "national defense."

Health should NOT be under government control. And the majority ought to have NO say at all in how we obtain our health care. For to give them the power to decide what measure of care we get is the same as allowing them to decide what we may be denied.

 

[georgephillip]

The question is does the 'health system' belong in the political system?

Yes.
National health rightly qualifies under promoting the general welfare and national defense.
Health should be under democratic control and not corporate control.
Those who choose to opt out of Medicare for All should certainly have that option.

Totally wrong. But it's georgieporgie, so the errors he makes come as no surprise.

"Promoting the general welfare" is not (and never was intended to be) a trump card used to evade the strictures of the enumerated component of enumerated powers.

And, of course, "national health" is quite obviously not related to "national defense."

Health should NOT be under government control. And the majority ought to have NO say at all in how we obtain our health care. For to give them the power to decide what measure of care we get is the same as allowing them to decide what we may be denied.

Health and Education are key components of National Defense.
The warfare/welfare state is not; in fact, it functions in opposition to any meaningful version of democracy, which, of course, is exactly what fascist trolls regularly fantasize about.

 

[georgephillip]

Food? Housing? Reproduction?

What else should be under democratic control?

The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.

What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.

Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?
If not, are you in favor of public or private control?

 

[dblack]

The surest way to fuck something up is to put it under democratic control.

What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.

Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?

No.

If not, are you in favor of public or private control?

Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?

 

[RKMBrown]

When I was talking about outcomes I was talking about looking at all the steps which would include things like how the plan is funded. Or in your analogy the rape.

If you want to compare taxation for UHC to rape then that is your belief. I would love to live in a world without taxation but that is not a realistic approach to real problems a nation and a society of people face.

I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal. In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.

However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government. More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted." More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.

You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.

I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.

No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind. You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.

You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?

While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.

Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?

 

[RKMBrown]

This "public theft" is not causing you to go without or become dependent on the state because of progressive taxation (or supposedly). Half of taxes are spent on military and much on the health care system. welfare programs are a small margin of taxation. I know you cannot stand having to care for those less fortunate than you because you keep repeating your mantra that they don't work hard but this is ideology talking, not reality. The fact is capitalism has made your ego so large it blocks out empathy, the part that considers other humans. So you refuse to understand that those in poverty are there for any reason except their own fault. Major ideology and its a major lie but there's no convincing you because your ideology is a part of WHO YOU ARE. You identify yourself on the basis of having no concern for the well being of fellow humans--only within your tribe do you care.

Screw you. You think paying taxes is "caring for people?" You may serve this government as your god. Not me. I give charity to charities. This government makes slaves of people that's not charity. Quite the opposite.

 

[Bombur]

I don't mind taxation for the classic traditional constitutional purposes of our federal government pre-civil war, and more particularly pre-new deal. In particular, I volunteer to pay for said acts.

However, taxation to redistribute income from Peter to hand-out to Paul, is not a classic traditional constitutional purpose of our federal government. More particularly, taking money from Peter to hand out to Paul is quite frankly nothing more than PUBLIC THEFT. And since the amounts we are talking about exceed $500, the theft is FELONIOUS. Therefore, my taxes are "tainted." More specifically the classical definition of rape is to seize and take away by force, thus my use of the term is the federal government "seizing and taking away by force" (aka. rape) my income, to redistribute in the form of hand-outs.

You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.

I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.

No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind. You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.

You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?

While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.

Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?

What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.

We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.

The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.

 

[georgephillip]

What I don't understand is the assumption that it boils down to a choice between submitting to corporations or submitting to government.

Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?

No.

If not, are you in favor of public or private control?

Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

 

[dblack]

Are you denying the need for some agency to control the monopoly of violence today?

No.

If not, are you in favor of public or private control?

Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

 

[LeftofLeft]

It is Capitalism that ultimately funds redistribution.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are not being raped. This is the type of hyperbolic nonsense that makes it easy to discount your world view as irrelevant and meaningless ideology that is not based on reality.

I would suggest you find a nation that agrees with you but every single industrialized nation disagrees with your assessment. When you live in civilization people actually care about the well being of one another.

No, it's only hyperbole in YOUR mind. You lack the education to use the term by it's defined meaning. The definition of rape is seizing and taking away by force, your accusation that it only pertains to sex acts, points out what a little mind you have.

You want videos of the rape being performed by our IRS agents?

While I can see why some folks like to be the benefactors of theft, talking nice about it is nothing more than pandering to the violent act you are benefiting from.

Then you point to other nations, like Rwanda where they hack peoples heads off as a basis for using criminal acts on citizens and that makes it ok in your mind?

What you just said is literally crazy. UHC that exists in every single industrialized nation is the topic. Not people getting their head cut off in Rwanda.

We live in a society together. Other members of our society have fought and died for one another. We help each other, depend on one another, and what separates the US from Rwanda is not any individual but the civilization that we have cultivated together.

The fact that we provide health care for the poor isn't even really up for debate in reality.

Bull shit. Cultivate your own damn income and GTFO me and mine. We have absolutely no interest in your panhandling, blood sucking, or burning down of our country.

Lazy, good for nothing, ... then I have no interest in helping you at all. None. You want a hand up.. maybe we can talk about how to get you off your ass and becoming self reliant.

You want to reduce the voters to only people who have actually served in the military? I'm good with that. We'll see just how long it takes for there to be zero democrats in DC.

 

[RKMBrown]

No.



Public. And it should be strictly limited. What's this got to do with democratic control of everything else?

Things like food, housing, heath care, and education in the US would all benefit from more democratic, as opposed to oligarchic, control in my opinion. Economic democracy, which postulates a shift in decision making power from corporate shareholders to a larger, more diverse group of public stakeholders, including workers, customers, and suppliers, for example, would seem a better public choice to me than our current private model.

Economic democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

Ding... the difference is under the government monopoly the lazy don't have to lift a finger, everyone becomes entitled to be lazy good for nothings.

 

[gnarlylove]

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

So to you the public, which is me, you, the people, our neighbors, the working class, those who constitute general society that we cross paths with are to be considered a monopolizing force?

Yet our best friend private corporations compete and therefore do not have a monopoly?? What ideologue are you working from because it ain't reality! Corporations prefer to monopolize!!!!!! And so they do! Do corporations compete in regard to economic policy? No. It's a race to the bottom! Those who run, own, and operate corporations all have similar economic values and policies in mind. They impose them on the government in a monopolistic fashion through lobbying and funding of campaigns. There is no challenge to this monopoly on government policy. If you think voting is a challenge to bad economic policy, wake up! When there's an election, only 10% of voters voted based on issues (2004 poll). We are voting based on profiles, not policies (there policies are the same). You protect the corporation like its your own child but can't stand if the monopoly of the working class.

 

[RKMBrown]

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

So to you the public, which is me, you, the people, our neighbors, the working class, those who constitute general society that we cross paths with are to be considered a monopolizing force?

Yet our best friend private corporations compete and therefore do not have a monopoly?? What ideologue are you working from because it ain't reality! Corporations prefer to monopolize!!!!!! And so they do! Do corporations compete in regard to economic policy? No. It's a race to the bottom! Those who run, own, and operate corporations all have similar economic values and policies in mind. They impose them on the government in a monopolistic fashion through lobbying and funding of campaigns. There is no challenge to this monopoly on government policy. If you think voting is a challenge to bad economic policy, wake up! When there's an election, only 10% of voters voted based on issues (2004 poll). We are voting based on profiles, not policies (there policies are the same). You protect the corporation like its your own child but can't stand if the monopoly of the working class.

What makes you think the majority of voters are at all representative of the working class? News flash, being paid welfare does not make you a part of the working class.

 

[dblack]

So, basically replacing competing corporations with a monopoly?

So to you the public, which is me, you, the people, our neighbors, the working class, those who constitute general society that we cross paths with are to be considered a monopolizing force?

Yet our best friend private corporations compete and therefore do not have a monopoly??

Well, I wouldn't call them my best friends, but no, they don't have a monopoly. In any case, I'm not required to do business with them. And I am required to 'do business' with the monopoly of government. That's the difference. And I realize it's a difference that doesn't seem to register with you, but it's not a fantasy. It's very real.

You protect the corporation like its your own child but can't stand if the monopoly of the working class.

That's pretty laughable to anyone who know's me. I despise most large corporations - which is why I tend to avoid doing business with them. But, again, the difference is, I don't have to. I can tell them to fuck off and they won't arrest me and put me in jail. I don't have that option with government.

Now, here's where you'll no doubt, once again, accuse me of being an anarchist opposed to all government, yada yada yada.... But I'm not, at all. Government is the right and proper solution for resolving disputes and serious problems that can't be solved through non-violent means. For everything else, it's much better, much more civilized to rely on voluntary means to get by - live and let live. It's not as radical an idea as you seem to think.