posted by queencitybuckeyeLibertarians don't want to "limit authority". It's already limited by the constitution, which is being ignored in large measure. We want them to follow the rules.
Ok. I understand that. Like I said, I don’t know many libertarians personally. The ones I do just don’t like paying taxes and don’t think they should have to. Their whole mantra is “taxation is theft”. I just wondered how you function as a society that way.
posted by kizer permanenteOk. I understand that. Like I said, I don’t know many libertarians personally. The ones I do just don’t like paying taxes and don’t think they should have to. Their whole mantra is “taxation is theft”. I just wondered how you function as a society that way.
I start by getting past "Argumentum ad Governmentum", the flawed idea that because the government provides a service, it's the only way the service can be provided. Also known as the "MUH ROADS!" argument. A large public sector is not required to have a society.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI start by getting past "Argumentum ad Governmentum", the flawed idea that because the government provides a service, it's the only way the service can be provided. Also known as the "MUH ROADS!" argument. A large public sector is not required to have a society.
The liberals love to cherry-pick certain things that work well in certain countries in Europe. But what they miss, probably intentionally, is Europe has many different approaches and philosophies about governing and social insurance. The US is at least as geographically, racially and ethnic diverse as Europe. A leviathon of federal bureaucracy would never work across Europe, so why do liberals keep thinking that's the solution in the US?
If you want to live like Californians, then move to CA. Keep CA in CA and don't force it on everyone else because it's not what everyone wants.
I'd even go as far as to suggest some [many?] of our states are still too large and diverse to deliver effective "one-size fits all" solutions.
posted by queencitybuckeyeI start by getting past "Argumentum ad Governmentum", the flawed idea that because the government provides a service, it's the only way the service can be provided. Also known as the "MUH ROADS!" argument. A large public sector is not required to have a society.
Do you believe all “services” a government supplies would be provided by private sector ?
posted by gutThe liberals love to cherry-pick certain things that work well in certain countries in Europe. But what they miss, probably intentionally, is Europe has many different approaches and philosophies about governing and social insurance. The US is at least as geographically, racially and ethnic diverse as Europe. A leviathon of federal bureaucracy would never work across Europe, so why do liberals keep thinking that's the solution in the US?
If you want to live like Californians, then move to CA. Keep CA in CA and don't force it on everyone else because it's not what everyone wants.
I'd even go as far as to suggest some [many?] of our states are still too large and diverse to deliver effective "one-size fits all" solutions.
this. Basically the country is being held hostage by a Califirnia Liberal and a NY liberal. Doesnt seem like the system should work that way.
posted by kizer permanenteDo you believe all “services” a government supplies would be provided by private sector ?
All the services the federal government is not specifically authorized to provide, yes.
posted by queencitybuckeyeAll the services the federal government is not specifically authorized to provide, yes.
Ok. I’d say bold prediction since humans aren’t especially known for their altruism.
posted by kizer permanenteOk. I’d say bold prediction since humans aren’t especially known for their altruism.
In 2018, $410 billion was donated to charity in the U.S. Several billion dollars worth of work is donated annually as well. I would have to disagree with your statement. Note that even if true, it doesn't justify forcible taking.
Yeah I wonder how much of that $410 billion went to Peoples churches and never filtered further than that?
posted by kizer permanenteYeah I wonder how much of that $410 billion went to Peoples churches and never filtered further than that?
Are you anti religion too? The right has been proven to donate way more money than the left. We don’t need the nanny government to take care of poor people.
Do you have a link to that figure so I can try to see what they consider charity? I’d imagine tithing is wrapped in that right?
posted by iclfan2Are you anti religion too? The right has been proven to donate way more money than the left. We don’t need the nanny government to take care of poor people.
Not in general. Well maybe in general.
There’s a reason televangelists have private 747’s and multiple mansions and the Catholic Church is one of the biggest property owners in NYC. But yeah helping poor people seems to be worked in after all that.
posted by kizer permanenteDo you have a link to that figure so I can try to see what they consider charity? I’d imagine tithing is wrapped in that right?
Google it. Are you going to cherry pick where charity giving goes? You do know audits exist and churches just can’t say they donate money but instead keep it? But I’m sure Planned Parenthood would much better use donations. Or the bail out fund letting out shitty cunts from jail for being assholes
posted by kizer permanenteNot in general. Well maybe in general.
There’s a reason televangelists have private 747’s and multiple mansions and the Catholic Church is one of the biggest property owners in NYC. But yeah helping poor people seems to be worked in after all that.
No real religious person agrees with mega churches and dumb shit like that. We can agree on that. Do you only care about poor people?
Apropos Eastwood clip.
posted by iclfan2Google it. Are you going to cherry pick where charity giving goes? You do know audits exist and churches just can’t say they donate money but instead keep it? But I’m sure Planned Parenthood would much better use donations. Or the bail out fund letting out shitty cunts from jail for being assholes
Did. It’s pretty vague. Doesn’t break down other than how much by people and corporations and such.. not to who.
No I don’t think they lie about how much donations they give of your donations to poor people, I just don’t think it’s a real big percentage. If it were, we wouldn’t need the federal government to step in. I do however think you’re delusional if you think people and private organizations will make sure poor people are getting enough to at least maintain poverty levels.
posted by iclfan2No real religious person agrees with mega churches and dumb shit like that. We can agree on that. Do you only care about poor people?
Of course not. They would just be the most neglected if we left it up to private industry and churches to make sure they’re supported.
posted by kizer permanenteDid. It’s pretty vague. Doesn’t break down other than how much by people and corporations and such.. not to who.
No I don’t think they lie about how much donations they give your donations to. I just don’t think it’s a real big percentage. If it were, we wouldn’t need the federal government to step in. I do however think you’re delusional if you think people and private organizations will make sure poor people are getting enough to at least maintain poverty levels.
I don’t actually care if they do or not. That’s the difference. I don’t think the government is responsible to make every dipshit be able to live comfortably. Maybe people should donate to real causes vs the dumbshit you see on the Internet instead.
posted by iclfan2I don’t actually care if they do or not. That’s the difference. I don’t think the government is responsible to make every dipshit be able to live comfortably. Maybe people should donate to real causes vs the dumbshit you see on the Internet instead.
You’re not alone. But kinda proves my point why libertarianism wouldn’t work and the poor class would grow and standard of living would decline exponentially under their watch right ?
posted by kizer permanente
You’re not alone. But kinda proves my point why libertarianism wouldn’t work and the poor class and standard of living would decline exponentially under their watch right ?
Had it declined under Trump? Or just stayed the same? The cities full of poor people are the left ones... so it isn’t a conservative thing.
