Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Taxation is an infringement on people's right to property. If it's a sacrifice to protect people's rights as a whole I'm fine with it, but taxation for the sake of wealth redistribution isn't something i support.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
I was thinking 18 or 19-year-old college freshman or sophomore, whose favorite book in high school was Catcher in the Rye, and just discovered the campus Libertarians.
Just how do you suggest we cut government spending? Because conservatives always talk about cutting those entitlements, but almost never give specifics. How do you suggest that the US goes about cutting those programs?
Also, government spending contributes to economic growth as it is part of the GDP equation. Considering the already meager economic benefits of Trump's tax plan, any government spending cuts would likely depress the few positive effects and make the whole thing a pointless endeavor.
Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't cut government spending when it is genuinely wasteful and can be diverted to real quality tax cuts. But when you've got a tax plan like Trump's, which would result in negligible-negative economic growth from the outset, cutting government spending would only slow the economy.
Taxation can't be an infringement on peoples' rights to property because property rights don't exist without government enforcement you jackass.
"Wealth distribution" is a meaningless buzz word for "government things I don't like".
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Last edited by Tzeentch on Dec 19th, 2017 at 04:47 AM
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Why don't you read John Locke's treatises of government or look at the founding document of the US you jackass.
The political ideology that founded the United States was predicated on a notion of negative rights not positive rights. The concept of negative rights holds that rights are inalienable, inherent to each individual is an ethical right they have to life liberty and property. The concept of positive rights is that rights are only what government determines them to be. The former is a framework around which an idea of what government is meant to do can be constructed, and the latter is an ethically relativist answer that can ethically justify anything as long as the state power deems it so... as such it's pretty clear why I ascribe to the former rather than the latter because I am not an ethical relativist.
In the classical liberal view, rights exist independently of government, the government just exists to enforce those rights. This idea proposed in Locke's Treatises of Government is the social contract, the sacrifice of some rights in order to create an entity to protect the rest of your rights on the whole.
If you'd notice in my post that you quoted I don't have a problem with the government taxing me in order to protect my rights.
Not really tbh. It's a word that means the government taking someone's money to give to someone else, which I don't see an ethical justification for. I don't see an ethical justification for forcibly taking someone's property and them getting nothing in return.
Don't hand wave arguments from principle just because those principles aren't in alignment with your political goals.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last edited by Emperordmb on Dec 19th, 2017 at 05:28 AM
So rights are derived from the state. Does the right to life no longer exist without the state? It is also a false assumption to assume that government is the only mechanism in which our rights can be defended?
If I fashion something with my energy, time, and ideas do I have the right to that product? If the answer to that question is yes, then, therefore, taking my money is immoral.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
19 year old sophomore whose favorite book in highschool was Brave New World and I'm not a part of a political group on campus though I am part of a Christian group.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Your definition of a chode is someone who has different political views?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
I think rich people absolutely should use their wealth to help poor people. I do believe inaction when you have the power to help people is immoral. Take someone like Bill Gates for example who does philanthropy work, I think that's what rich people should do. I just don't believe it's moral to use force to compel wealth redistribution, nor under the purview of what government should be from a Lockean perspective.
There's a difference between thinking that rich people shouldn't help poor people, and thinking the government shouldn't force rich people to help poor people. In that religious group on campus I mentioned I've actually volunteered to help drive around town and give homeless people food and clothes.
I think hateful speech is immoral too, but I find the notion that the government should use force to enforce that moral standard to be disgusting and an overreach of government power. Just because I believe someone should have the freedom to make a choice doesn't mean I think whatever they do with that choice is a good thing. I also morally disapprove of casual sex, but I absolutely am revolted at the government legislating that standard. I also think people have a moral obligation to be honest human beings, but that doesn't mean the government should criminalize lying.
The government doesn't exist to compel all forms of moral behavior, it exists to protect people's rights.
Also BTW it's by this exact line of reasoning that some people I know who morally disapprove of "gayism" (to use the LeGenD terminology) term still think gay sex and gay marriage should be legal. I'm not one of those people since I don't have a problem with gayism.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last edited by Emperordmb on Dec 19th, 2017 at 05:13 PM
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
It's like, people wanna acknowledge the government as some wish granting fairy instead of an instrument of force and ignore the fact that it doesn't just magically generate whatever outcome they want with no cost to people's liberty or property.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Oh cry me a ****ing river. Your problem is that you have a serious misplaced sense of priorities. You're worried about people having to pay slightly more taxes more than you are about the people actually suffering and dying. Rich people and corporations having to pay taxes isn't some grand injustice. They'll live and thrive and they'll do so a lot better than any of us will. People dying from preventable illness or injury or suffering from extreme debt or poverty are real problems, not your whingefest about "the use of force."
Which I'm sure makes you feel like you're a super great guy. Meanwhile you won't lift a finger to solve the actual issues that lead those people to those streets in the first place and instead actively argue for less of a safety net for them and more weight to the boot holding them down.
I wasn't making a point about the government enforcing morals, I was merely commenting on your own despicable sense of morality.
No, government exists to create and support a society for the benefit of the people living in it. A state that fails to support its citizenry indicates a flawed system. A system of rights only exists for the benefit and protection of the people in the first place. If a few of the most privileged of those people and powerful corporations have to be minorly inconvenienced to relieve the great suffering of a great many people then so be it. Thats how a government is supposed to function. A government that protects the comfort of a few at the expense of the pain of the many scarcely deserves to exist.
Also Locke was a ponse.
Everyone pays taxes you twit. You do it too. Or you will when your balls are finished dropping. The problem is when people have too much while other have too little. Theres nothing immoral about people who have more having to contribute more for the good of society.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 19th, 2017 at 07:58 PM
KMC Community Forums
Dec 18th, 2017 08:22 PM
