Single Issue Voter?

[David Floyd]

Laz, here's the problem Libertarians have.

The government is still resorting to force and theft in order to get the money they want for social programs.

I also don't think it's fair for people to bring personal experiences such as yours into a debate. It has the effect of using an emotional appeal to make people who oppose whatever program the other side is supporting look like jackasses.

Without getting into a pissing match over other matters, the issue at hand is the use of force and coercion - forcing people into giving away their hard earned money. You say that this force is nothing more than "individual irritation". That's your opinion - to YOU, force is nothing more than individual irritation.

Of course, that's not what you really think, and I don't mean to suggest it. You would surely oppose use of government force in stamping out, say, peaceful dissent.

So what you are, in effect, saying is that you support one sort of coercion, but oppose other sorts of coercion. You seem to be drawing a distinction as to degree of coercion, and also making unconscious judgements as to which types of coercion are worse than others (in this example, stamping out dissent is worse than taking your money). But I don't think this is really intellectually honest. Coercion IS coercion. I don't see how it is reasonable to support one form of coercion on the one hand, while categorically rejecting another form on the other hand.

Another side of the debate will simply say that stamping out dissent is a good form of coercion, for whatever reasons, while taking your money is a bad form of coercion, for whatever reasons. But their reasoning is no more consistent or logical than the other side's. Neither side can really say the other is wrong, without compromising their own position.

And that, as I see it, is a big problem with the argument that taxing people for social programs is OK because it "benefits society" (whatever benefitting society means).

[tandeetaylor]

What the hell exactly is my kind? Do tell. I'm a 20 year old mother with a husband who has as little education as I do. I'm about to go back to school while my husband and I switch off taking care of our child so we don't have to pay for a babysitter, which we can't afford and don't want. I'm not blaming this on anyone because I made my choices and I'm going to live with them. I was valedictorian of my high school class, and that's why I get to go to school. My parents divorced before I was born, my dad and his wife are pawnbrokers, my mom and her husband don't speak to me and are on and off of welfare and help from my rich grandparents. I grew up in about 7 different apartments and rented homes. Don't tell me your sob story. It's bull****.

[tandeetaylor]

Oh and btw, we need $150 for bills that we don't have. Can I come to your house with a gun today and steal your wallet?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
What the hell exactly is my kind? Do tell. I'm a 20 year old mother with a husband who has as little education as I do. I'm about to go back to school while my husband and I switch off taking care of our child so we don't have to pay for a babysitter, which we can't afford and don't want. I'm not blaming this on anyone because I made my choices and I'm going to live with them. I was valedictorian of my high school class, and that's why I get to go to school. My parents divorced before I was born, my dad and his wife are pawnbrokers, my mom and her husband don't speak to me and are on and off of welfare and help from my rich grandparents. I grew up in about 7 different apartments and rented homes. Don't tell me your sob story. It's bull****.

Calm down before we continue this. "You and your kind" refers to people calling for the abolition of social security.

Now take a deep breath, count to ten, and read my post again.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I also don't think it's fair for people to bring personal experiences such as yours into a debate. It has the effect of using an emotional appeal to make people who oppose whatever program the other side is supporting look like jackasses.

I have to disagree, because I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. I have a wealth of life experience that I draw on when talking about my opinions, and to suggest it's wrong to do so is a suggestion I think'll pass on. We don't live under belljars and espouse opinions of pure theoretical concepts.

I'm a pragmatist, David. I view everything in practical terms, drawing on my own experience to do so. I express myself in the same way. I don't feel that's a fault.

[tandeetaylor]

Oh, I read it. And it's bull****. I'm sorry that you couldn't wean yourself from the nanny state. Perhaps the reason you had trouble getting a job is because your economy has been ****ed over by socialism-- just a guess. You have too much pride to beg, but stealing is A OK in your book. Skip asking, and just steal. Yes, it's stealing when you take something from someone else who didn't give it to you voluntarily. You are a thief. Thief. Thief. There's no other word for it.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
Oh and btw, we need $150 for bills that we don't have. Can I come to your house with a gun today and steal your wallet?

Certainly not. Feel free to drop by at the Social Security Centres or Citizen's Advice Bureau that my taxes paid for, however. You'd have my blessing and best wishes.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Certainly not. Feel free to drop by at the Social Security Centres or Citizen's Advice Bureau that my taxes paid for, however. You'd have my blessing and best wishes.

Potatoes, patahtahs.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor
I don't know that much about SS, that's why I said my plan was childish, simplistic, and ignorant. I agree with DF, and that's probably because we think so very much alike.

And since David also knows nothing about SS, I can see how the both of you are in agreement.

What I REALLY don't understand is why you are in apparent agreement with the suggestion that SS should be abolished, when you dismiss all legitimate arguments as to the morality of doing so. Upon what morality do you base your opinion? That it just isn't working? And if only we could find a program that works, then it's OK? You flip-flop within the same post! Maintain some sort of purity, or I'm just going to get confused about who you are.

Given that you didn't see fit to reply to the original thread in the *a-hem* original thread, I haven't the slightest idea where my flip-flop is. I do recall telling both you in this thread and David in the original that my intention was to remain on-topic - why do the both of you have a problem with that?

You obviously (purposely?) missed the substance of my disagreement with David, namely, that his arguments were designed not to persuade but merely to antagonize. There was no factual base to them, instead, they showed that the "thinker" had no inkling of:

1. The way the world (the one we live in, not the ideal world in your minds) works.
2. The way people think or feel, and how to use that understanding to further your own ends.
3. How to present his case to make it appealing to people whom (however erroneously) believe that they would have a lot to lose with the abolition of SS.
4. Any knowledge of the issue at hand. But then, you both admitted that, didn't you?
5. No concern about the consequences of the rash and hasty implementation of your "ideas."

You see, neither of you have any idea how your nostrums of "morality" clash with the vast general public out there. When you mention abolishing SS, most decent people would fear for the fact that you are removing a sizable percentage of income from a segment of the population that has little means to get it back and their initial response of shock and horror to your "arguments of morality" is quite correct: y'all do sound like selfish children whose only concern is yourself, all others be damned!

I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too.

My daughter is crying. Though she is being selfish in demanding my time, I do subscribe to the "false morality" that she can make claims upon my time so I must leave.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by JohnT
And since David also knows nothing about SS, I can see how the both of you are in agreement.

I don't need to know how the Mafia works to know that it's wrong.

Given that you didn't see fit to reply to the original thread in the *a-hem* original thread,

It's an old thread, I don't see the need to drag it up again. People just have such a problem about quibbling over my right to my own life.

I haven't the slightest idea where my flip-flop is.

I didn't think you would. DF mentioned it at the time, and you didn't take notice then either. One minute abolish, one minute reform.

I do recall telling both you in this thread and David in the original that my intention was to remain on-topic - why do the both of you have a problem with that?

This is what I have a problem with -- You believe one thing. You either believe in reforming or you believe in abolishing. If you think you believe in both, you're misunderstanding what a belief is. And I personally don't think you should argue something you don't believe in simply to remain "on topic."

1. The way the world (the one we live in, not the ideal world in your minds) works.

I'm sorry I can't give up as easily as you can on making things as they ought to be. I'm not interested in cowtowing to wrong ideas simply because you and your half-ass majority believe in them.

2. The way people think or feel, and how to use that understanding to further your own ends.

3. How to present his case to make it appealing to people whom (however erroneously) believe that they would have a lot to lose with the abolition of SS.

I can't work within a system of thought that is wrong. It is impossible for me to "go inside your head." And here's the thing. I don't want to.

5. No concern about the consequences of the rash and hasty implementation of your "ideas."

Since you don't what my plan is (understandably because I haven't explained it), you don't know what the implementation of my ideas entails. All you know is that I support the philosophy of abolishing social security because it is wrong. And it is.

You see, neither of you have any idea how your nostrums of "morality" clash with the vast general public out there.

So you're saying that if most people thought like I did, you would too? You wouldn't, and I wouldn't ask you to.

y'all do sound like selfish children whose only concern is yourself, all others be damned!

I do have a concern for other human beings, and my concern is mostly that we all have the rights to which we are entitled. You have no idea what I am I like IRL, and you probably never will. If you can't get past "what I seem like" to the truth of my arguments, that is, most decidedly, your problem.

I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too.

**** you, you arrogant *****. Just because you chose the wrong things, you have no special knowledge that I will too.

My daughter is crying. Though she is being selfish in demanding my time, I do subscribe to the "false morality" that she can make claims upon my time so I must leave.

I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but it's irrelevant to our discussion. The entire population is not my baby. I didn't choose to conceive and give birth to the entire world. I did not choose to take on that responsibility. The world and your child are two very different things.

[David Floyd]

I have to disagree, because I think that's a ridiculous suggestion. I have a wealth of life experience that I draw on when talking about my opinions, and to suggest it's wrong to do so is a suggestion I think'll pass on. We don't live under belljars and espouse opinions of pure theoretical concepts.

I'm a pragmatist, David. I view everything in practical terms, drawing on my own experience to do so. I express myself in the same way. I don't feel that's a fault.

My point was really this. If you personalize a debate by saying "I was once on welfare and I had to have it to live", etc., that is a method that can be used to make the opposition look like a bunch of jackasses. It puts the other side in a lose-lose situation (if they care at all about the feeling of others, anyway), and that's really why it's not fair.

Certainly not. Feel free to drop by at the Social Security Centres or Citizen's Advice Bureau that my taxes paid for, however. You'd have my blessing and best wishes.

And if you didn't voluntarily give your money to those bureaus, it would be the same as coming to your house and stealing it.

JohnT,

And since David also knows nothing about SS, I can see how the both of you are in agreement.

There are, I'm sure, quite a few subjects about which you have no inkling of the inner workings, yet still have an opinion on. Knowing how a system works is irrelevant to having an opinion about the system, if your opinion is primarily about the base the system is built on.

There was no factual base to them, instead, they showed that the "thinker" had no inkling of:

1. The way the world (the one we live in, not the ideal world in your minds) works.

Not relevant to me. I can (and will) easily say that the world is run immorally.

2. The way people think or feel, and how to use that understanding to further your own ends.

I'm not gonna persuade anyone here anyway, especially with the frequent demonizations people like you give me, so why the **** should I care?

3. How to present his case to make it appealing to people whom (however erroneously) believe that they would have a lot to lose with the abolition of SS.

Actually I did present my case in such a way, with my "voluntary savings" concept.

4. Any knowledge of the issue at hand. But then, you both admitted that, didn't you?

I certainly did. I have no clue about the inner workings of Social Security. But that doesn't mean jack****, because I *DO* know that Social Security is based upon forced transfer of wealth, which I know to be wrong.

5. No concern about the consequences of the rash and hasty implementation of your "ideas."

You're right about that. I don't really give a **** about what problems you think a free society would cause.

You see, neither of you have any idea how your nostrums of "morality" clash with the vast general public out there.

Again, don't give a ****.

When you mention abolishing SS, most decent people would fear for the fact that you are removing a sizable percentage of income from a segment of the population that has little means to get it back and their initial response of shock and horror to your "arguments of morality" is quite correct: y'all do sound like selfish children whose only concern is yourself, all others be damned!

Yes, but the ****ing morons who say that don't seem to see that it is themselves who are the selfish bastards. Those old people are their parents, and family should be the primary source for help. Oh, they can't afford it? Well who the **** are they to say I can?

I, too, used to be a Randian when I was 20 and I got over it. You will too.

Wow. What an arrogant, patronizing thing to say.

Or maybe you have special powers. Thank you very much, Nostra-****ing-damus. I'll just call you instead of Miss Cleo next time I want to know my future.

My daughter is crying. Though she is being selfish in demanding my time, I do subscribe to the "false morality" that she can make claims upon my time so I must leave.

Damn good thing, too, seeing as how having sex in the first place was a voluntary act.

[David Floyd]

And yes, my above post was fairly hostile. My apologies. I tend to get that way when people make patronizing posts directed towards me that also imply that said people are ever so much smarter than me.

Don't make posts like that, and we won't have problems.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by David Floyd


My point was really this. If you personalize a debate by saying "I was once on welfare and I had to have it to live", etc., that is a method that can be used to make the opposition look like a bunch of jackasses. It puts the other side in a lose-lose situation (if they care at all about the feeling of others, anyway), and that's really why it's not fair.

You mean it gives them a dose of reality? That it requires "the opposition" (your words) to stop thinking of those who have claimed welfare as "them" (ie- the ignorant, undeserving, unwashed others), and instead realise that they are real people, who post on this very forum?

My heart bleeds for them/you.

[loinburger]

How did this turn into another bull**** "It is moral to protect my rights while shirking my responsibilities" thread?

Gepap: Your martian invasion proposal is not feasible. We won't be ready to invade until at least 2025, because flaxops take two decades to prepare or else their full flavor is lost.

[- Groucho -]

Ok - I only glanced at the stuff above, but am I right in thinking DF and Tandee are both against all "forced transfers of wealth"? Or just those used for social security?