Personal responsibility and freedom are neo-con gags and smoke screens

[zillafurby]

for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

Apparently for you none right? Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and the rest clearly had it right, that the citizenry should just be herded around like cattle.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

Apparently for you none right? Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and the rest clearly had it right, that the citizenry should just be herded around like cattle.

Dave you really should start taking your meds again.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

Apparently for you none right? Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and the rest clearly had it right, that the citizenry should just be herded around like cattle.

Dave you really should start taking your meds again.

Naw, just have to freshen up the Ol Aluminum Hat and add some more layers of Tin to it, thank you very much

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

why should a low skilled worker get paid as much as a high skilled one? how many "rocket scientists" have an IQ of 30?

in regards to your last sentence, do you have an example? and how come your not there?

if a person does not want to be taught, what can you teach him?

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

look no matter what level of education people have somebody will end up working two mcjobs and trying to support a family in a terrible standard of living. i dont care about the lasy people, but in america hard working poor people dont get many breaks.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

look no matter what level of education people have somebody will end up working two mcjobs and trying to support a family in a terrible standard of living. i dont care about the lasy people, but in america hard working poor people dont get many breaks.

Not going to answer the question?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

This is a democracy? Is it not?

Zephyr

it's a representative republic.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

But what if the will of the people conflicts with the rights of some of those people?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

This is a democracy? Is it not?

Zephyr

it's a representative republic.

My caveats in my previous post are indicative of this fact. Do you agree that the governmental provided level of entitlements is determined by politicians, who are elected by American citizens? Or would you prefer an oligarchy to determine what is best for the plebians?

Zephyr

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

But what if the will of the people conflicts with the rights of some of those people?

I'm waiting for an answer.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

But what if the will of the people conflicts with the rights of some of those people?

I'm waiting for an answer.

Sufficient safeguards should be built into a representative government so that minorities are protected, however these safeguards should not be so great as to create a tyranny of the minority.

So what are you really trying to say here? What's the point of your question?

Zephyr

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

Let them vote for whatever they want. What people actually pay will equal the total tax bill minus their ability to evade. Watch that tax gap grow and grow and grow.

Legislation does not guarantee compliance.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

Let them vote for whatever they want. What people actually pay will equal the total tax bill minus their ability to evade. Watch that tax gap grow and grow and grow.

Legislation does not guarantee compliance.

So what are you trying to insinuate here? You're a oppressed white minority paying too many taxes for other's entitlements? Guess what cvnt, I'm no fan of entitlements either, so you can stop your condescending.

Zephyr

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Sufficient safeguards should be built into a representative government so that minorities are protected, however these safeguards should not be so great as to create a tyranny of the minority.

So what are you really trying to say here? What's the point of your question?

Zephyr

What is meant by sufficient safeguards? And what would you define as a minority?

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Sufficient safeguards should be built into a representative government so that minorities are protected, however these safeguards should not be so great as to create a tyranny of the minority.

So what are you really trying to say here? What's the point of your question?

Zephyr

What is meant by sufficient safeguards? And what would you define as a minority?

Safeguards sufficent to allow an elitest oligarchy decide how the US will be run and what the plebians will do to make it run. Do you like that answer?

Zephyr

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Sufficient safeguards should be built into a representative government so that minorities are protected, however these safeguards should not be so great as to create a tyranny of the minority.

So what are you really trying to say here? What's the point of your question?

Zephyr

What is meant by sufficient safeguards? And what would you define as a minority?

Safeguards sufficent to allow an elitest oligarchy decide how the US will be run and what the plebians will do to make it run. Do you like that answer?

Zephyr

No. Define minority.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Sufficient safeguards should be built into a representative government so that minorities are protected, however these safeguards should not be so great as to create a tyranny of the minority.

So what are you really trying to say here? What's the point of your question?

Zephyr

What is meant by sufficient safeguards? And what would you define as a minority?

Safeguards sufficent to allow an elitest oligarchy decide how the US will be run and what the plebians will do to make it run. Do you like that answer?

Zephyr

No. Define minority.

Minority will be any economic, religious, racial, ethnic, gender, geographical group comprising less than, hmmmm, 10% of the national legal population.

Zephyr

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Zephyr106

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: zillafurby
for economic slavery, by putting too much responsibilty on the individual, because in any society you have some higher skilled and some lower skilled people and in america the low skilled effectively end up with lower disposable incomes whilst being fooled into being freedom and personal responsibility cheerleaders. whereas in societies with less fear and more even distribution you have a more human society, and less rejects going around with nothing to lose.

So how much responsibility should the individual have? And how much should be carried by the goverment?

they should be entitled to a basic standard of living and access to reasonable healthcare, if they are capable of working and are working.

so what defines a basic standard of living and reasonable healthcare?

The definition is whatever the majority of Americans want it to be.

Zephyr

That's idiocy, that's effectively saying to people, "You deserve whatever you want". Tell us, for the purpsoe of your political aims what is a basic standard of living?

This is a democracy? Is it not? Hence government should reflect the will of the people via their elected leaders, within the confines of the Constitution, which can be amended by the will of the people via their elected leaders.

Zephyr

Let them vote for whatever they want. What people actually pay will equal the total tax bill minus their ability to evade. Watch that tax gap grow and grow and grow.

Legislation does not guarantee compliance.

So what are you trying to insinuate here? You're a oppressed white minority paying too many taxes for other's entitlements? Guess what cvnt, I'm no fan of entitlements either, so you can stop your condescending.

Zephyr

No, I am insinuating that tax evasion is justified under certain conditions. In fact I am writing an essay right now that makes the case that under the current system of government tax evasion is in fact justified. The area of taxation is prone to much logical fallacies relating to emotion, however, my case is made point by point on sound logic within economical, philosophical and political contexts. It is also made on the foundations of a discipline known as praxeology, which is the study of human action.

I myself do not evade taxes, however, if someone chooses to do so their actions are certainly justified under the current conditions.