Social Welfare is immoral and evil.

[MsAnthrope]

theft -is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. (wikipediea).

It's not just rhetoric. That's what taxes are.

So in the story that i used above, you would say that the roomates taking your belongings was a moral action since the community (society) said it was ok?

It's not theft because you have given the government permission to tax you. You may not like it, but you have made an agreement to society and the government that you will give a portion of your income to the government and society in the form of taxes. You have the option of earning such a low amount of income that you don't have to pay an income tax.
In regards to the roomate taking your belongings, you have the option of fixing that problem with the use of courts, or changing your your living situation. Your neighbors have little to say about how you and your roomates handle domestic disagreements.

I never gave them permission. Permission require that one must be asked. Permission means voluntary. If i refuse to pay taxes i am thrown in jail. This is etortion.

The community is society. They deemed that the roomates had the "need/right" to my belongings. Then is it moral for them to take my belongings? Why is it so hard to get actual answer from a collectivist?

If you have plenty and the roommates were starving or in dire need of a portion of your "belongings" to survive, then yes, it would be moral to take some from you and give it to them. Would it be legal? No. But moral absolutely.

Social welfare is not only moral but ethical.

 

[MsAnthrope]

Where does that help come from, that help for the least fortunate citizens?

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral. I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

I dont beleive that giving away my valuable possessions, wealth, and property, to those who have done nothing with their lives but make bad choice after bad chocie is being kind. That's called being an enabler.


Thou shall not steal (one of you 10 commandments). The government taking my money every paycheck is theft. Just because the "cause" is supposedly "for the good, " that does not allow for the use of force.
If you are a Christian, how can you advocate theft?

If you're using the commandment "thou shalt not steal" to make your point, then I'd presume you also hold the teachings of Jesus. How can you value your "belongings" more than the welfare of your fellow man? Is that love? It wouldn't be stealing, forced, or taking from you against your will if you willingly helped, as is morally correct. (Per the bible)

 

[Indeependent]

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral. I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

I dont beleive that giving away my valuable possessions, wealth, and property, to those who have done nothing with their lives but make bad choice after bad chocie is being kind. That's called being an enabler.


Thou shall not steal (one of you 10 commandments). The government taking my money every paycheck is theft. Just because the "cause" is supposedly "for the good, " that does not allow for the use of force.
If you are a Christian, how can you advocate theft?

If you're using the commandment "thou shalt not steal" to make your point, then I'd presume you also hold the teachings of Jesus. How can you value your "belongings" more than the welfare of your fellow man? Is that love? It wouldn't be stealing, forced, or taking from you against your will if you willingly helped, as is morally correct. (Per the bible)

Except it's not "Thou shalt not steal", it's "Thou shalt not kidnap".
And it was in the Torah way before TNT came along.
Oh well!

 

[originalthought]

It's not theft because you have given the government permission to tax you. You may not like it, but you have made an agreement to society and the government that you will give a portion of your income to the government and society in the form of taxes. You have the option of earning such a low amount of income that you don't have to pay an income tax.
In regards to the roomate taking your belongings, you have the option of fixing that problem with the use of courts, or changing your your living situation. Your neighbors have little to say about how you and your roomates handle domestic disagreements.

I never gave them permission. Permission require that one must be asked. Permission means voluntary. If i refuse to pay taxes i am thrown in jail. This is etortion.

The community is society. They deemed that the roomates had the "need/right" to my belongings. Then is it moral for them to take my belongings? Why is it so hard to get actual answer from a collectivist?

If you have plenty and the roommates were starving or in dire need of a portion of your "belongings" to survive, then yes, it would be moral to take some from you and give it to them. Would it be legal? No. But moral absolutely.

Social welfare is not only moral but ethical.

The mindest of the collectivist. Its ok to steal and loot, as long as it's for the greater good. There is nothing moral about theft, using force to take from someone against their will.

How is violating my individual property moral?

 

[originalthought]

From their fellow citizens. I'm sorry that you feel as if a small portion of your tax obligation is being mis-spent in the care of the poorest among you. You speak of morality, but I doubt you can scratch the attitude that is illegal to care for your fellow citizens who cannot do for themselves, and care provided by the government is immoral. I know that welfare means something different today, but the framers of the constitution, in the preamble specifically noted providing for the general welfare of the citizens is one of the reasons they established that constitution. The general welfare, the general well being of our citizens. Having them live in squalor does not meet the threshold of providing for the general welfare one bit. The founders saw it as a matter of morality. What circumstance, what influence, what motivation occurred in your life to question the morality of kindness?

I dont beleive that giving away my valuable possessions, wealth, and property, to those who have done nothing with their lives but make bad choice after bad chocie is being kind. That's called being an enabler.


Thou shall not steal (one of you 10 commandments). The government taking my money every paycheck is theft. Just because the "cause" is supposedly "for the good, " that does not allow for the use of force.
If you are a Christian, how can you advocate theft?

If you're using the commandment "thou shalt not steal" to make your point, then I'd presume you also hold the teachings of Jesus. How can you value your "belongings" more than the welfare of your fellow man? Is that love? It wouldn't be stealing, forced, or taking from you against your will if you willingly helped, as is morally correct. (Per the bible)

I didn't use Jesus as a crutch first, YOU DID (or someone else if that's not you . Then YOU must abide by those teachings. YOU are in volation of YOUR principles.

Who said I am agaist willingly giving to charity, chruch or to the poor. Please go back and read the first page of posts, I never said giving to the poor on your own free will was immoral. Violating an individual's property rights is immoral. Thus, government social welfare is immoral.

I said government social welfare is immoral, not you giving to charity and to your chruch. Why can you not seperate the Chruch from the State?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who said that taking care of the poor is moral? It most certainly is not the moral thing to do.

You can say whatever you want, and so can I. But if it cannot be backed up with logic and reason, then it cannot be proven to be true.

Please exhibit your moniker's attribute. I wrote, "If taking care of the poor, the sick, the lame, the insane is moral," then the state taking care of them is moral.

I just backed it up with logic and reason, Gleason. You did not refute it with such.

Who says any of that is the morAl obligation of man?

Our elected legislature and SCOTUS of We the People.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If I am being forced against my will to do it though, do you think I am fulfuilling the true meaning of that?

And please stop using hyperbole. What if i dont believe in Jesus?

Since we are a constitutional Republic that governs by the will of our representatives elected by We the People, the Congress decides what is 'moral.'

I have already explained that law does not equal morality. This is absurd. To you then, slavery was moral.

You have a right to your opinion, the which We the People in congress assembled can ignore.

 

[originalthought]

Since we are a constitutional Republic that governs by the will of our representatives elected by We the People, the Congress decides what is 'moral.'

I have already explained that law does not equal morality. This is absurd. To you then, slavery was moral.

You have a right to your opinion, the which We the People in congress assembled can ignore.

So you beleive that it is moral to violate one's personal individual liberty and property for the greater good?

 

[Sallow]

I do not wish to debate anything other than social (government) welfare in this conversation. I do not wish to discuss the evils of corporations (I am not advocating corporatism/fascism). I simply wish to discuss the morality of social welfare.

I am against all government social welfare programs. I believe that it is not my duty to provide for anyone other than myself and those I choose to support. No one has the right to take away from me my property and give it to someone else.

Can anyone morally defend social welfare? Do you think you have the right to someone else’s property? And who was it that gave you this right and where did they receive that authority? And does that make it moral?

Part and parcel with the formation of government is the idea that it is mutually beneficial to the participants in that society..otherwise there is no reason for government.

People who dislike government should try anarchy for a bit. Or go it alone in the wilderness.

 

[Sallow]

I have already explained that law does not equal morality. This is absurd. To you then, slavery was moral.

You have a right to your opinion, the which We the People in congress assembled can ignore.

So you beleive that it is moral to violate one's personal individual liberty and property for the greater good?

To a large extent, your individual liberty is "violated" once you become a member of society.

It's just a matter of degrees.

 

[Camp]

For centuries various religions deemed it appropriate and moral for men to have sexual relations with females under a certain age. Some still do. In this country, we the people decided that the practice was immoral. We the people passed legislation in all 50 states, all our territories and all our jurisdictions that proclaimed that practice to be immoral and a crime. The beliefs of we the people superceded, trumped and overruled religious belief. Some morals may be based in and on religion, but in the end, it is the elected government, we the people who make the decision as to what is moral and what is immoral.

 

[originalthought]

For centuries various religions deemed it appropriate and moral for men to have sexual relations with females under a certain age. Some still do. In this country, we the people decided that the practice was immoral. We the people passed legislation in all 50 states, all our territories and all our jurisdictions that proclaimed that practice to be immoral and a crime. The beliefs of we the people superceded, trumped and overruled religious belief. Some morals may be based in and on religion, but in the end, it is the elected government, we the people who make the decision as to what is moral and what is immoral.

So if the government deems slavery as acceptable, is slavery moral?

 

[lakeview]

For centuries various religions deemed it appropriate and moral for men to have sexual relations with females under a certain age. Some still do. In this country, we the people decided that the practice was immoral. We the people passed legislation in all 50 states, all our territories and all our jurisdictions that proclaimed that practice to be immoral and a crime. The beliefs of we the people superceded, trumped and overruled religious belief. Some morals may be based in and on religion, but in the end, it is the elected government, we the people who make the decision as to what is moral and what is immoral.

So if the government deems slavery as acceptable, is slavery moral?

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

 

[originalthought]

For centuries various religions deemed it appropriate and moral for men to have sexual relations with females under a certain age. Some still do. In this country, we the people decided that the practice was immoral. We the people passed legislation in all 50 states, all our territories and all our jurisdictions that proclaimed that practice to be immoral and a crime. The beliefs of we the people superceded, trumped and overruled religious belief. Some morals may be based in and on religion, but in the end, it is the elected government, we the people who make the decision as to what is moral and what is immoral.

So if the government deems slavery as acceptable, is slavery moral?

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

Then if the people in your society say that killing all Jewish people is moral, does that make it true?

 

[lakeview]

So if the government deems slavery as acceptable, is slavery moral?

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

Then if the people in your society say that killing all Jewish people is moral, does that make it true?

You've missed the point, you didn't even get close to it.

 

[originalthought]

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

Then if the people in your society say that killing all Jewish people is moral, does that make it true?

You've missed the point, you didn't even get close to it.

You didn't answer the question... Are you afraid of the question and the answer?

 

[Camp]

So if the government deems slavery as acceptable, is slavery moral?

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

Then if the people in your society say that killing all Jewish people is moral, does that make it true?

The question of slavery is yes and no. At a time in our history slavery was considered moral. The question was debated and the country determined that slavery was immoral. The debate got violent. This means we can change our minds about what is moral and what is immoral. It also means that our system is not perfect and can be wrong about judgements on the issue of morality. Thankfully we have a system that allows us to make change.
In regards to killing all jewish people such as was done in Europe by Germany, you once again pick a loaded example. The German people didn't make this decision, it was made in secret by a dictator. In addition, that deciscion has always been viewed as immoral.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have already explained that law does not equal morality. This is absurd. To you then, slavery was moral.

You have a right to your opinion, the which We the People in congress assembled can ignore.

So you beleive that it is moral to violate one's personal individual liberty and property for the greater good?

That may be your opinion, which is still subject to We the People in Congress.

 

[Sallow]

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

Then if the people in your society say that killing all Jewish people is moral, does that make it true?

The question of slavery is yes and no. At a time in our history slavery was considered moral. The question was debated and the country determined that slavery was immoral. The debate got violent. This means we can change our minds about what is moral and what is immoral. It also means that our system is not perfect and can be wrong about judgements on the issue of morality. Thankfully we have a system that allows us to make change.
In regards to killing all jewish people such as was done in Europe by Germany, you once again pick a loaded example. The German people didn't make this decision, it was made in secret by a dictator. In addition, that deciscion has always been viewed as immoral.

No it wasn't.

While the majority of the Germans didn't choose Hitler to be their leader, they weren't that unhappy to see the Jews go.

Rent out Triumph of the Will sometime.

And to answer the original question?

Yeah..if a particular society says something is "moral", to that society..it is moral.

Morals are pretty subjective.

 

[originalthought]

If people don't decide who is moral then who does? Be very careful playing this game.

Then if the people in your society say that killing all Jewish people is moral, does that make it true?

The question of slavery is yes and no. At a time in our history slavery was considered moral. The question was debated and the country determined that slavery was immoral. The debate got violent. This means we can change our minds about what is moral and what is immoral. It also means that our system is not perfect and can be wrong about judgements on the issue of morality. Thankfully we have a system that allows us to make change.
In regards to killing all jewish people such as was done in Europe by Germany, you once again pick a loaded example. The German people didn't make this decision, it was made in secret by a dictator. In addition, that deciscion has always been viewed as immoral.

You just said slavery was moral. I hope you are black too.