How is Robbing Someone With a Government Morally Superior to Robbing Them With a Gun?

That's only true if you believe business owners should required by the Government to pay enough to their employees to prevent any possible welfare usage. Not a "libertarian" position by any stretch. The mask is slipping.

 

I'm not complaining about paying some level of taxation. What I don't want is for the entire country of Mexico to move in and demand we pay more for their benefit, which is rapidly occurring.

 

I imagine that day no different than any other. Except that right wing racists and white nationalist scum will be vibrating with anger and fear on a resonant frequency able to shatter steel.

 

Your comment is not even reasonable.

 

Yes, no mass starvation in the 1920s before the creation of welfare. That's very helpful context in response to your baseless fearmongering about what would happen if we turned the welfare spigot off.

 

I think the country will be in really bad shape when it no longer has a strong white majority, evidenced by the lack of desirable and successful countries that are run by the people who would comprise the "new majority" of Americans. But the self-deluded and emotional "social redeemers" mentioned in my signature will probably be happy, for a while. Just as long as they get to rule over the trash heap, they don't seem to care that it's a trash heap.

 

I generally agree!! It's not wrong to consider the profound effects of forcing people into things.

[video=youtube;2ATIVa7WbHs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ATIVa7WbHs[/video]

 

I think the country would be in bad shape if it was run by ignorant morons who think melanin pigmentation was an indicator of successful governance. Luckily America has soundly rejected the ideals of racists and Nazi sympathizers.

 

No, it's also true if you take a look at the way that those at the top are abusing anti-free market policies to take most of the economic growth for themselves while letting the rest of us subsidize their workforce so they don't have to be competitive. There's no "to prevent any possible welfare usage" necessary to recognize this fact.

Well, seeing as it is a straw man, and not my position, that could be your problem right there. Personally, I agree with libertarian economists that would like to do away with income tax entirely, relying instead on taxing land, natural resources, rent and other unearned income (often dispensed through government favors in the first place) that draw their value from exclusion instead of economic growth. I.e. geolibertarianism.

 

No, they don't. The wealthy receive far more government largesse. Even programs supposedly for the poor benefit the wealthy. JPMorgan nets billions issuing and managing EBT cards for SNAP.

 

This doesn't work. 500 years ago people could have tried to say the same thing about slavery and how it was "necessary" in a civilized society. "If you don't like slavery, move to a place that doesn't have slavery". If you want to justify theft when the government does it, you have to explain why something that is evil at the individual level suddenly becomes virtuous when done at the federal level. This is tough to do because world history is full of state violence that we can all now agree was highly immoral even though citizens at the time agreed with the government.

 

America became the strong country it is with a white majority, and safeguards in place to make sure that majority would not be eroded away quickly. It's only within the last 50 years that that has started to change. I believe America will experience a decline similar to South Africa's decline during the last 20 years, only a much larger scale, descending into a country full of poverty, crime, and dysfunction.

 

Well said. That's the core of what I was trying to examine in my opening post. Nobody would (or should) support an individual buying a gun and robbing people who have more than he does, yet somehow, when you build a collective of these people and use the Government instead of a gun, somehow that makes the process more moral and legitimate. I don't see it as any different.

 

Welfare is to STOP them from robbing. Stop whinging and Get back to the grindstone would ya. I need some botox.

 

That's an interesting theory. I expect this is the fear white nationalists and Nazi sympathizers cry themselves to sleep to every night.

 

I was curious is this was a topic about race and class hatred, or about an actual moral argument about the difference between taxation and theft. I see that it's the former.

 

In the end, this is an asinine argument.

Every dime the government gives to the poor is immediately returned to the wealthy when said poor buy food and consumer goods. Every dime the government takes in goes right back out into the economy - and who prospers from that? The wealthy and any one downstream of government contracts and selling consumer goods to those receiving government subsidies.

The government is merely facilitating cash flow to the larger corporations and suppliers - who in turn are probably paying your wages or supporting your business.

If we stopped all forms of government payments - all our wages and incomes would decrease as that money is part of the flow of cash. There is no free lunch and thinking that
decreasing payments by the government is going to give you more cash in the long run is to deny how money flows in this country.

 

Slavery was highly immoral. Taxation is not because it supports the common good, to which residents are forced to contribute since they otherwise wouldn't. Personally, I am happy that people are not starving on the street and that I don't have to hire my own security guard to feel safe. That's worth my tax contribution.

 

I thought white supremacists were going to build their own little island paradise somewhere ... now that would be worth some government funding. It would also make
for a hilarious reality show ...

 

Clearly you're of the opinion that the country will be better when there are less whites and more non-whites. I guess we will agree to disagree.

 

This is what the conservatives seem truly not to understand. We cannot run the society as a huge and grindingly poor peasantry being ruled by an amazingly rich wealthy class. The wealth we have now is largely dependent on a middle class with enough disposable income to buy the things the rich make in the millions. If the great majority at the bottom has literally NO money then the minority at the top very soon won't have any either. Even the Ancient Romans were not able to do that for long.

The problem that is destroying us is not welfare but wealth disparity

 

It is a relative term. You can compare two values and argue one value is poor-er than the other, but if you want to assign sweeping classification of people you and I would have to agree as to which rung on that ladder we were going to use as our reference point.

We haven't. We probably could. It would still not be a definition that Brew skier would be required to accept.

His opinion (on that) is not demonstrably wrong. Whether it causes laughter is a separate question.




​

 

So in your opinion, the ends justify the means for this particular act of violence. That's the answer I was expecting.

 

Are you saying Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and all the folks who established the government were fundamentally immoral when they did so? Lord almighty.