339 pts ยท October 25, 2015
no
I can't operate on a level devoid of logic, reason and common sense.
Alright, no capability of understanding and self-reflection. As I said, no reason to discuss with you anything. This conversation is over.
10) just tell? US Democrat? Social democrat? Liberal?
9) is your intellectual limit. Besides, what philosophical stance do you think you have? You claim to be no socialist, so why don't you
8) all with you. But that also means that you are not capable to debate at all, and that small talk and circlejerking among like-minded
7) you do not seem to know how to apply logic in debates. If you do not understand THIS point right now, there is no reason to debate at
6) of subtraction. Do you understand? What you call "reality" is NOT reality even by the terminology. That's the irony. I mean seriously,
5) "8 - 4 = ?" and your reply is this: Addition is the sum of two quantities. But that's neither the result, nor addresses the delicacy
4) consisting of definitions (or theory). Mathematically speaking (which you should understand), it's like having this question
3) reasonable arguments. You just brought up some definitions, ignored the case, the norms and believe the subsumption to be only
2) of looking at the case (reality), looking at the legislation (norms), looking at certain definitions and subsuming all of that to have
1) I did not reject them, I told you why merely citing neutral texts doesn't explain anything. For example: In law you have the process
Sociology is no ideology. You mean socialism.
9. always enough people who felt disadvantaged in a system devoid of a state power which they could use to forcibly take from others.
8. large portions of taxes at all? There are plenty of examples of functional systems with low taxes which hugely prospered. But there were
7. luck renders you amoral... but taking your property away is considered moral. Also why do you think a society needs a state which raises
6. in the obligation to pay their "fair share." It would be a pity if many years of education, hard work, persistence, and maybe some luck
5. that justified? Aha - because those who possess wealth are inherently guilty for "having taken" too much from society and therefore being
4. charity instead of forcing everybody to pay taxes for that? Why do they have to point guns at people and rob them of their money? How is
3. here yet and I struggle to make enough money because I get taxed into oblivion. Why can't people who want to "help" others just use
2. and social programs are FORCED redistribution of resources (money). I dislike my socialist country, but I can't afford to get away from
1. The issue is with your argument, if you don't pay taxes, the state uses violence and coercion. You have no real choice. Therefore welfare
8. discourage inventiveness and technological pioneering. The only real "progress" is technological progress!
7. AT ALL, if anything it would have been a huge obstacle to progress, as it would have made living harder for everybody and discourage
6. were encouraged to look into how the world actually works and succeeded to amass scientific knowledge. Increasing taxes wouldn't help
5. also improved the need for trained work force, which increased education. Without claiming everything is the will of some deity, people
4. replacement of mysticism with scientific objectivism. Without slaves, businesses were forced to improve automation and technology, which
3. at all. A major factor which drove progress was technological progress. That occurred in history by abolishing forms of slavery AND the
2. Otherwise, even if we assume tax payer money was indeed wasted, which I'd totally agree with, there was no possible way to spend it well
I just heard somewhere that social programs of some sort existed... upon googling it: https://fee.org/articles/poor-relief-in-ancient-rome/
I can't operate on a level devoid of logic, reason and common sense.
Alright, no capability of understanding and self-reflection. As I said, no reason to discuss with you anything. This conversation is over.
10) just tell? US Democrat? Social democrat? Liberal?
9) is your intellectual limit. Besides, what philosophical stance do you think you have? You claim to be no socialist, so why don't you
8) all with you. But that also means that you are not capable to debate at all, and that small talk and circlejerking among like-minded
7) you do not seem to know how to apply logic in debates. If you do not understand THIS point right now, there is no reason to debate at
6) of subtraction. Do you understand? What you call "reality" is NOT reality even by the terminology. That's the irony. I mean seriously,
5) "8 - 4 = ?" and your reply is this: Addition is the sum of two quantities. But that's neither the result, nor addresses the delicacy
4) consisting of definitions (or theory). Mathematically speaking (which you should understand), it's like having this question
3) reasonable arguments. You just brought up some definitions, ignored the case, the norms and believe the subsumption to be only
2) of looking at the case (reality), looking at the legislation (norms), looking at certain definitions and subsuming all of that to have
1) I did not reject them, I told you why merely citing neutral texts doesn't explain anything. For example: In law you have the process
Sociology is no ideology. You mean socialism.
9. always enough people who felt disadvantaged in a system devoid of a state power which they could use to forcibly take from others.
8. large portions of taxes at all? There are plenty of examples of functional systems with low taxes which hugely prospered. But there were
7. luck renders you amoral... but taking your property away is considered moral. Also why do you think a society needs a state which raises
6. in the obligation to pay their "fair share." It would be a pity if many years of education, hard work, persistence, and maybe some luck
5. that justified? Aha - because those who possess wealth are inherently guilty for "having taken" too much from society and therefore being
4. charity instead of forcing everybody to pay taxes for that? Why do they have to point guns at people and rob them of their money? How is
3. here yet and I struggle to make enough money because I get taxed into oblivion. Why can't people who want to "help" others just use
2. and social programs are FORCED redistribution of resources (money). I dislike my socialist country, but I can't afford to get away from
1. The issue is with your argument, if you don't pay taxes, the state uses violence and coercion. You have no real choice. Therefore welfare
8. discourage inventiveness and technological pioneering. The only real "progress" is technological progress!
7. AT ALL, if anything it would have been a huge obstacle to progress, as it would have made living harder for everybody and discourage
6. were encouraged to look into how the world actually works and succeeded to amass scientific knowledge. Increasing taxes wouldn't help
5. also improved the need for trained work force, which increased education. Without claiming everything is the will of some deity, people
4. replacement of mysticism with scientific objectivism. Without slaves, businesses were forced to improve automation and technology, which
3. at all. A major factor which drove progress was technological progress. That occurred in history by abolishing forms of slavery AND the
2. Otherwise, even if we assume tax payer money was indeed wasted, which I'd totally agree with, there was no possible way to spend it well
I just heard somewhere that social programs of some sort existed... upon googling it: https://fee.org/articles/poor-relief-in-ancient-rome/