Reply to Re: blah
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Which advise is so good? The advice to appease the wish of others and ignore my own wishes?
Yes>
Firstly, I was sarcastic. secondly, I would like to say that I appreciate you clarifying that you saction slavery, because that's what you inadvertently doing, weither you realise it or not.
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
You said they were there to "protect us from crime". That is the same as what I said about them "arresting criminals". When I said their job wasn't protection, i meant from sources other than criminal ones. i thought that was self-evident, since by arresting criminals they are protecting us from them.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
You misunderstand. I don't mean taxes. I mean charges for services that if you don't choose to pay for you don't get (what I stated above about replacing tax) or money gained from businesses they own. That would be legitemately gained money. You're right that taxes is not their legitametly gained money, that it is our money. I'd of thought my comments about them using our money and that taxes are theft would of made that clear.
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter)
Yes, I mean the government. And I disagree that you'd have a unreliable government.You might get one, but for other reasons not that one. In fact I'm puzzled as to why you'd say that you'd get that.
If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
If they got the money legitemately the money would be rightfully theirs. We have the right to choose what to do with our rightfully gained money, as do corporations, so why would a government be different?
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
With the way things currently are I the only way to get more of my money is to vote for a party who lowers the theft rate (better term than tax rate, I think), not one that will remove it.
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
I agree with that in part. It is right, but I'd like to add that it's also our repsonsibility. We get ourselves jobs that give us income or better income than we currently have. We get ourselves education that may improve our income. We do/don't do actions that contribute to more/less polution. It s our job to do things about our lives. It is the government's job to make sure we do because not doing some of the things, such as treads on the rights of others. we do not have the right to do things we want to if that action treads on the rights of others.
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
I never advocated that situation. In fact I disaprove of that. The system I advocate includes governements protecting our rights. This would mean them making that situation illegal through things like minimium wages.
Yes>
Firstly, I was sarcastic. secondly, I would like to say that I appreciate you clarifying that you saction slavery, because that's what you inadvertently doing, weither you realise it or not.
A: I think I misinterpreted your post, this was very much a reply to your statment that "Police aren't there for portection. That's the joint forces job. The police are there to arrest criminals.". I was trying to point out that it is the police's job to protect us too.
You said they were there to "protect us from crime". That is the same as what I said about them "arresting criminals". When I said their job wasn't protection, i meant from sources other than criminal ones. i thought that was self-evident, since by arresting criminals they are protecting us from them.
D: I strongly disagree with this sentence: "If the government wanted to use their legitemately gained money on charity (such as benefits or funding), that's their choice." It's not their legitemately gained money, it's still our money. We pay taxes because we expect something in return, saying it's their money is like buying a TV and saying to the shopowner: "It's your money deliver the TV if you feel like doing so"
You misunderstand. I don't mean taxes. I mean charges for services that if you don't choose to pay for you don't get (what I stated above about replacing tax) or money gained from businesses they own. That would be legitemately gained money. You're right that taxes is not their legitametly gained money, that it is our money. I'd of thought my comments about them using our money and that taxes are theft would of made that clear.
"Only if they want to should they do it" Only if who wants it? The goverment or the person to get the money? If you say the goverment I disagree, that would mean that you have a unreliable goverment, something nobody wants. (The taxpayer nor the benefitter)
Yes, I mean the government. And I disagree that you'd have a unreliable government.You might get one, but for other reasons not that one. In fact I'm puzzled as to why you'd say that you'd get that.
If you say the person to benefit of the money I agree, I even think the goverment can demand something in return, like doing charity work.
If they got the money legitemately the money would be rightfully theirs. We have the right to choose what to do with our rightfully gained money, as do corporations, so why would a government be different?
Eh, isn't that where elections are for?
With the way things currently are I the only way to get more of my money is to vote for a party who lowers the theft rate (better term than tax rate, I think), not one that will remove it.
E: You're trying to break this point into pieces (perhaps my fault), What I meant to say is that protection is as worthless without freedom as freedom is without comfort. I mean who likes to be free but having to live in a poluted city to earn a decent living. I mean you could go out of the city but if that means poverty I doubt many people would do this. I rather have both a good city to live in as well as a good income, it's the goverment's responsibility to take care of that.
I agree with that in part. It is right, but I'd like to add that it's also our repsonsibility. We get ourselves jobs that give us income or better income than we currently have. We get ourselves education that may improve our income. We do/don't do actions that contribute to more/less polution. It s our job to do things about our lives. It is the government's job to make sure we do because not doing some of the things, such as treads on the rights of others. we do not have the right to do things we want to if that action treads on the rights of others.
In french they say "l'histoire se repetoire"(if my french doesn't fail me, which it probably will) which means history will repeat itself. Now if I learned my historylessons well we had quite a liberal goverment (and a law with little jobprotection) back in the 1800's. This lead to lots of exploitation of the workers, people didn't really have a choice, they had to work long days just to earn a decent living, for if they demanded let's say shorter working days their boss would fire them. What I was trying to say is that we need certain laws to protect our comfort, for freedom without laws to protect our own style of living really isn't freedom.
I never advocated that situation. In fact I disaprove of that. The system I advocate includes governements protecting our rights. This would mean them making that situation illegal through things like minimium wages.
