This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Global warming
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
A lawful country is a better place to live in, so it is helpful in that end. Wierd way of looking at it though. I still don't see how that gives government the right to redistribute wealth.
Post by
DiseasedArmChair
yes, but can you prove what amount we are unable to pay off with interest?
i.e. you have no proof backing your opinion.
also, hindering people from murdering is helping people, and if a law is not supposed to (supposed to, the intention, not whether it does help people or not) be helpful (stopping people from hurting themselves or others is helpful) it is corruption, and if you can prove that congress is not trying to help people by attempting (attempting, we do not know whether it will work or not, or whether it is necessary or not) to decrease the effect of global warming, and by prove I don't mean 'these people say it won't work and people in government are arguing against them, so it must be that they know it won't work and just want money/reelection'
Murder(killing of another human being) is(verb) good(opposite of evil),(a punctuation mark, principally for separating things.) and(grammatical conjunction) should(modal auxiliary verb) be(verb) allowed(having permission).(full stop, a punctuation mark indicating the end of a sentence or phrase) It's(a contraction of it is or it has) cool(an aesthetic of attitude, behavior, and style.
slang
).(see first usage)
Don't hate me :(
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Zaputo-
I will repeat this since you missed it: A lawful country is a better place to live in, so it is helpful in that end.
And in response to the last part of your post:
Taxation is used to redistribute wealth. No doubt about that. My arguement is that it shouldn't be.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@Zaputo-
Here is the entire post I wrote earlier:A lawful country is a better place to live in, so it is helpful in that end. Wierd way of looking at it though. I still don't see how that gives government the right to redistribute wealth.Here is your reply:I found this funny. MyTie taking a totally different view on it. Yes, laws against murder are there to hinder those from doing it, but it also helps those people by not allowing it to happen in the first place.It is crazy how you restated almost exactly what I said in my post...
This is what I've been trying to point out.
2nd thing - I think taxation for the purpose of supporting the government makes sense. I don't think taxation for the purpose of supporting the people makes sense.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
2nd thing - I think taxation for the purpose of supporting the government makes sense. I don't think taxation for the purpose of supporting the people makes sense.
So taxation to improve roads, build schools, etc, is bad? You make it sound as if they tax the rich people and put that money directly in the pockets of people that are poorer. Taxes raise revenue to help make improvements in things that eventually helps people.
You're right, that's a bad thing.
Suppose I'm not being literal enough.
I feel that when the government spends money on anything other than the administration of law or the constitution, they are overstepping thier bounds. I don't believe that law should play a part in roads, schools, etc. Law is there to hinder people from doing something that is unacceptable in society (murder, theft, arson...). We need to fund a legislature which is designed to write laws. We need to fund an executive which is there to execute the law (police, fire, military). We need to fund a judicial that is there to give the people autority to judge the law and the people being tried (jury).
We now have a legislative that budgets spending, an executive that has enless beurocracy of law enforcement agencies, and a judicial branch that makes its opinions into the new law.
What a perversion of leadership.
Edit: I'm not responding to that Thronnar... they already locked an abortion debate without explaination, don't get them to lock this one too.
Post by
172996
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@Zaputo - If the executive branch needs an organization in order to execute the law, which is written to hinder people from doing damage to society, then I see no problem with it. The police and military are part of that.
Other things, like schools, roads, etc... Infastructure... while nice to have... doesn't have to come from government. Imagine if the arguement were made for food. Why doesn't the government run all the grocery stores, because everyone needs food? You can imagine the terrible consequences if we had government run grocery stores.
Law execution is an executive function by design. Infastructure is not. Few, if any, exceptions should be made.
@thronarr - At one point you state that it is the Supreme Court's job to make thier opinion into law. Then, you state that it is thier job to use the constitution. What exactly, in your opinion, is the job of the Supreme Court?
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Apply the food argument, montezuma.
Pretend you are in a society where government controls all the food, and the people are very poor. Now imagine someone comes along and says we don't need to rely on government! Let the economy supply our food. Someone would then argue that parents wouldn't feed thier kids on the extra money....
The food industry costs ENORMOUSLY more than the school industry, but parents have very little problem feeding thier kids, and it is of better quality that what the government could provide. You give the economy a chance to complete on education, and parents would be able to afford it, I garuntee you.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.