Conscription

[Velociryx]

Handouts? Hmm....you must know more about me than I do. Yep, I got a student loan from the government (long since repaid). I used the FHA financing option to buy my house....(which essentially means less % down, not $$$ from the government in Vel's pocket).

But in the vast majority of cases, when I want to do something, when I set a goal for myself (getting published, makin' a computer game, buying new furniture, whatever) *I* do it. Me. Alone. No begging to Uncle Sam to help me cos "I'm a nice guy and deserve it." No whining about how unfair the system is....I just, roll up the sleeves and get it done.

Shocking as you might find it, that's....fairly standard.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
But in the vast majority of cases, when I want to do something, when I set a goal for myself (getting published, makin' a computer game, buying new furniture, whatever) *I* do it. Me. Alone. No begging to Uncle Sam to help me cos "I'm a nice guy and deserve it." No whining about how unfair the system is....I just, roll up the sleeves and get it done.

Shocking as you might find it, that's....fairly standard.

-=Vel=-

So you take the handouts you can get, and not the ones that you can't. You're political views don't allow you to complain about not getting more handouts. The fact is you want them, and you will take all the handouts you can get.

[Velociryx]

Ummm...Kid....how, exactly is a LOAN from the government, a handout? I'd really, REALLY like to get your enlightened take on that.

And if you compare the amount I have paid in taxes thus far to the system with the 7% downpayment break on the house, I think you'll find that I am by far a net contributer to the system, rather than a taker.

But since you know so much about me, yes...enlighten me, please. Inform me of all the handouts I've taken from the government.

And when you get back from whatever dreamland you're in, maybe we can get back to the debate....but of course, you don't want to do that....you'd rather grasp at straws out here on the tangent, right?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ummm...Kid....how, exactly is a LOAN from the government, a handout? I'd really, REALLY like to get your enlightened take on that.

Home loans are subsidized.

Originally posted by Velociryx
And if you compare the amount I have paid in taxes thus far to the system with the 7% downpayment break on the house, I think you'll find that I am by far a net contributer to the system, rather than a taker.

But since you know so much about me, yes...enlighten me, please. Inform me of all the handouts I've taken from the government.

And when you get back from whatever dreamland you're in, maybe we can get back to the debate....but of course, you don't want to do that....you'd rather grasp at straws out here on the tangent, right?

-=Vel=-

Point is you want to get the most benefits that you can and pay the least taxes. That's the way everyone is. It's how we're rigged up.

[Velociryx]

Home loans through HUD are subsidized. Home loans gained independently thru a mortgage company are not. The borrower still has to pay the full cost, and still has to buy insurance (the government does not pitch in in any way). The ONLY "benefit" is that on the first home you buy, you can use FHA financing rules, meaning you have to come up with less money down. No subsidization there, but nice try.

And no. I will repeat. If I want something, my initial gut-reaction response is not to go begging to the government to give me "what I deserve." I go out and work for it. THAT is the reality, no matter how much you wish it weren't so, and no matter how much you try to deny it.

I don't want or expect anything from the government. I'm not going to refuse readily available options (low-interest loans, less downpayment on my house), but I'd have accomplished both goals without them....would have taken slightly longer, but they were in no way pivotal to my decisions to go to school or to buy a house.

Wanna play some more?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Home loans through HUD are subsidized. Home loans gained independently thru a mortgage company are not. The borrower still has to pay the full cost, and still has to buy insurance (the government does not pitch in in any way). The ONLY "benefit" is that on the first home you buy, you can use FHA financing rules, meaning you have to come up with less money down. No subsidization there, but nice try.

Yes, all home loans are subsidized. The govt has decided that it is in their interest to create as many petty property owners as possible. A thirty year loan should be horribly expensive on the free market. Banks don't want to lend for long periods. They prefer shorter periods because there is less risk with shorter duration. That's why the govt has to subsidize the loans.

[Velociryx]

Cite? If what you're saying is true, then there would be no need for underwriters, mortgage insurance companies (which are private companies, btw, and not government agencies), nor would there have to be a separate government branch to handle the "special case" for subsidization (ie - that's one of the main things HUD/AHP exists for).

-=Vel=-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Was gonna reply to Templar's argument, but this phrase, by Berzerker: So if you work for much of your adult life to raise money to buy a home and put your children thru college, the state can come in and take it because you don't own the fruits of your labor? Then you don't really own yourself either...you exist to labor for the state... sums it up rather nicely.

Next time I suggest you reply yourself. As usual Berz relies on the labor theory of property. Which I've shot down so many times in the past few weeks it is just getting plain boring to continue to pee in Berz's cheerios. Put simply (1) Berz confuses pre-proprietary interests with a property schema. The former is a moral consideration, the latter is a social construct. (2) The labor theory is inadequate to account for property. Berz smuggles in a sort of first-come-first-serve principle to boplster the labor theory (although this is an ad hoc principle he fails to justify), but Urban Ranger and I shot that down as well in a previous thread. UR noted that there has to be a preexisting right to admix your labor with material, and I gave the classic statue and gold example. Until Berz (or someone else) has some new stuff to say about the labor theory, I see no reason to keep beating that dead horse.

Anyway, the main argument you SHOULD be responding to is that conscription should give way to paying market value for troops in a free market republic. Since there will likely always be people willing to fight for a price, its just a question of meeting that price. Sure this drives up military expenses, but (1) it spreads the cost to all members of society - so that by internalizing the costs, all can do their duty by paying the full market value. (2) paying market over conscription prevents the externalization of the cost on to the predominantly young, poor, minority, and powerless. It is easy for a state to conduct wars with conscripts from these groups and easy for the citizenry to go along. But wars will be more honest when the costs are internalized. But I guess you've got nothing to say on this subject. I don't blame you, because I am correct.

Sure, there is a certain machismo to drafting young people to fight wars over paying more in taxes to offset the costs, but machismo is a bad thing.

Sometimes, states get into trouble. When they do, they call on their citizens, who have been reaping the benefits of the opportunities created by the existence of the state, to help preserve it. This condition has never been (historically) permanent. It has always been transitional, and tied to the meeting of a specific short term objective.

OK, so if I take your house and computer for a week for the sake of the common good, I guess you can't ***** about it, right? After all, it's only temporary. Duration has nothing to do with my argument - which is about markets.

Slavery (to which conscription has been compared), on the other hand, is a rather permanent condition.

Indentured servitude was a form of temporary slavery (and, trivially, emancipated slaves were only temporary slaves). So conscription is an indentured servitude variety of slavery. Big deal.

Even Berzerker with his insistence on labor=property is going to have to side with my argument. A taking is a taking. Again, for you free market types, see my above argument about internalizing the costs (and duties) of defending the nation via market value. This eliminates the need for conscription and prevents the taking of labor.

Not that I would attack the moral basis for conscription on property grounds. But then again, you're the one whose heavily into the libertarian ideology and yet wants to argue in favor of conscription Vel (I have no idea whether Berz is in favor of conscription or not). So you have to sort that little inconsistency out - especially given my market driven alternative. What's that sound? Could it be the cognitive dissonance in you head?

As to the "attacking the symbol" quip...

You're arguing with a quip?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Cite? If what you're saying is true, then there would be no need for underwriters, mortgage insurance companies (which are private companies, btw, and not government agencies), nor would there have to be a separate government branch to handle the "special case" for subsidization (ie - that's one of the main things HUD/AHP exists for).

-=Vel=-

The loans are insured by the govt. Go find the infor yourself.

[Velociryx]

Kid....that's right, don't mind me, I just went thru the process and all (and got my mortgage insurance thru, I repeat, a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government agency, but then....you've got all the answers, don'tcha? To borrow a line from you, stop exploiting me and gather your own facts for the debate....

And Templar: I'm not saying I'd be against your market-based proposal....looks sound enough to me....what I am saying is that I agreed to the total package when I accepted my US citizenship. Part of that total package was in filling out and sending in my draft card. That's the way it works. The choices are as I have been saying they are all along: 1) deal with it, 2) don't deal with it, and accept the consequences, 3) change it, or 4) leave. Not rocket science.

Are there better ways? Undoubtedly, and one of the reasons that the draft (ie - conscription) has not reared its head in this country for a good while. But it has been done in the past, and may be done in the future BY the government elected by the people, and thus, voluntarily. Since one cannot, by definition, be a voluntary slave, the entire argument is....rather silly.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid....that's right, don't mind me, I just went thru the process and all (and got my mortgage insurance thru, I repeat, a PRIVATE COMPANY, not a government agency, but then....you've got all the answers, don'tcha? To borrow a line from you, stop exploiting me and gather your own facts for the debate....

Your the one exploiting me. I don't have to find cites for things that are obvious. Before home loans were insured by the govt you couldn't get a 30 year loan. It wasn't until the govt started insuring the loans after WWII that the middle class was able to buy homes that they could afford to make payments on. If you don't want to believe me or find out for yourself then it's your loss. Actually I could really care less.

[Velociryx]

See...this is the fun part 'bout arguing with a Red....the endless debate about who's exploiting whom, and by how much!

Hey! Stop exploiting me!

No, no, no! You're exploiting me!"

I mean it man....stop exploiting me, or else!

I AM NOT EXPLOITING YOU, U R ESPLOITING ME!



Time for a new mantra, perhaps?

Yes, insofar as the government federally insures the banking system, then I suppose if you REALLY stretch it, you could make the argument that everything it touches is "subsidized" on a certain level by the government.

But I note that you still didn't explain how that's inconsistent with the notion of why HUD/AHP exist (they wouldn't need to exist, if what you're saying is true....would they?), nor the fact that I JUST WENT thru the process, and nowhere in any of the mountain of paperwork I signed was there any documentation on government subsidy of my purchase.

But hey, don't believe me....get off yer duff and look...that's the philosophy I've been preaching from the get-go.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

PS: Post WWII, GI's were given special financing to buy homes and yes, that WAS a government subsidy. However, only GI's were eligible, and that certainly does not apply in my case.

More?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
PS: Post WWII, GI's were given special financing to buy homes and yes, that WAS a government subsidy. However, only GI's were eligible, and that certainly does not apply in my case.

More?

-=Vel=-

That's an additional subsidy. There are many subsidies for home ownership. I only gave you one.

Look I'm too lazy. And I don't care. Sorry.

[Velociryx]

Ohhhh, I see. So now there are multi-layered subsidies....ones that you cannot seem to find any source material on. Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

Give it up or back it up, Kid. I can fax you a copy of the mountain of paperwork I have on my home purchase. You can pour over it all you want to, and you won't find any mention of governmental subsidization of that transaction. Shocking, I know....

-=Vel=-