US drops from the top 10 free economies list

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm willing to pay for the prisons, not the social safety net. It's wrong for someone to steal from me, no matter what, and anyone who does steal should go to prison. On the other hand, I have no moral obligation to give money to other people who ask for it - their "need" doesn't create an obligation on my part.

Needs don't create obligations, govts do. We use the govt to create a better world. In order to do that govt has to make people obligated to contribute, otherwise freeloaders will just contribute to themselves, and no one else.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned
Kid even you must admit that China has now opted for growth.

You can grow an economy with communism, but you have to plan it and yes, you have to sacriftice stability, and the current generation must pay for it.

[Berzerker]

Needs don't create obligations, govts do.

Weren't you chastising me earlier for saying the government/politicians stuck us with SS - an obligation? I think so, Kid, back then you felt it important enough to announce that the voters wanted SS and it was just horrible (or sad) that I would blame the politicians for SS.

We use the govt to create a better world.

No, you use it to express your envy thru legislation.

In order to do that govt has to make people obligated to contribute, otherwise freeloaders will just contribute to themselves, and no one else.

Might makes right, might obligates the weak. Btw, you have to pay into SS to get it.

You can grow an economy with communism

Breadlines too

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
No, you use it to express your envy thru legislation.

That's what corruption does. You see the whole govt as corrupt. You don't see anything good about it. You don't see it as a tool to make our lives better. That's what makes you guys so nutty. You don't have to be a communist to understand that.

[Berzerker]

All of which has nothing to do with the fact your ideology is based on envy.

[General Ludd]

Since you ignored me the first time....

Originally posted by Berzerker
All of which has nothing to do with the fact your ideology is based on envy.

And don't forget the generosity.



Those selfless, generous, envious, selfish, communist bastards!!

[Berzerker]

"Generosity" with someone else's money ain't a virtue and it ain't generous... And I see no proof liberals are more generous than any other group.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Generosity" with someone else's money ain't a virtue and it ain't generous... And I see no proof liberals are more generous than any other group.

Liberals pay taxes too, you know. Even commies do.

And what with all that rich hollywood liberal commie scum, they must be the most generous bunch of all.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And the reason true democracy is a horrible idea is exactly that - poor people voting away all the rich and middle class's money.

You think the rich would make all that money without the poor doing all the work?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
Yes, and would modern feudalism be so bad? Feudalism with modern technology would be a haven for the wealthy, so if you're able enough to becoem welathy, it's a great thing.

No, modern feudalism is awesome. It will be overthrown in no time for communism.

[Berzerker]

You think the rich would make all that money without the poor doing all the work?

No, the rich would make that money with formerly poorer people working for them, people who become better off - even middle class. And a bunch of them start businesses and become "rich" and hire poor people.

Liberals pay taxes too, you know. Even commies do.

How can commies pay taxes? The state owns the means of production. Anyway, so what? It ain't generosity to give away someone else's money.

And what with all that rich hollywood liberal commie scum, they must be the most generous bunch of all.

They don't hold a candle to corporations and rich business people.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

Needs don't create obligations, govts do. We use the govt to create a better world. In order to do that govt has to make people obligated to contribute, otherwise freeloaders will just contribute to themselves, and no one else.

Actually, you are agreeing with the statement that need creates obligation, because government creates obligation based upon need. In other words, you are supporting a philosophy that says poor people have "extra rights", so to speak - that is, I'm only allowed to have what I can earn, but poor people are allowed to have what they earn PLUS what I earn.

You are basically saying that need automatically creates extra rights/obligations.

I call bull****. Your physical possessions have no bearing on your rights. It's the basis of equality - all men are created equal, and all men have certain rights (women too, don't be a smartass). If you start getting into a philosophy that says that some people have more rights than others, or that some people have an automatic lien on someone else's property, then you throw the whole system of equal rights out the window and end up with totalitarianism and slavery.

UR,

You think the rich would make all that money without the poor doing all the work?

You think that rich people don't work?

Ask your doctor how hard he works. Ask your average successful business owner how many hours per week he puts in making his business successful. Maybe those people are shoveling ****, but they are working - and they are doing much more valuable work, in many cases, than poor people.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Saras


We could also concede that the petty thieves and crooks that populate Australia have been rehabilitated and may return home to UK, thus making room for another round.

*horse gets magnifying glass to find Lithuania on the map*

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Kid,



Actually, you are agreeing with the statement that need creates obligation, because government creates obligation based upon need. In other words, you are supporting a philosophy that says poor people have "extra rights", so to speak - that is, I'm only allowed to have what I can earn, but poor people are allowed to have what they earn PLUS what I earn.

You are basically saying that need automatically creates extra rights/obligations.

I call bull****. Your physical possessions have no bearing on your rights. It's the basis of equality - all men are created equal, and all men have certain rights (women too, don't be a smartass). If you start getting into a philosophy that says that some people have more rights than others, or that some people have an automatic lien on someone else's property, then you throw the whole system of equal rights out the window and end up with totalitarianism and slavery.

The govt creates obligations to meet societys needs and individual needs. That's the measure of a good govt, how much it meets out needs. The rights we have are picked so that they maximize they social benefit and help us live better. The goal is better society, not the rights. The rights are the means, not the ends.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You think that rich people don't work?

Did I say that?

Originally posted by David Floyd
Ask your doctor how hard he works. Ask your average successful business owner how many hours per week he puts in making his business successful. Maybe those people are shoveling ****, but they are working - and they are doing much more valuable work, in many cases, than poor people.

Tell me, what good is a manufacturing plant without all the workers making things? Who here are producing items for sell?

Case closed.