Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a heartbreaking story cryHow much money will you personally dedicate to charity so poor people like person b can afford protection hmm
Well since I have freedom to pay or not I choose to give none, it's my money. I don't plan to save other people with it when I could be using it to make more.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosOh, so you don't give a **** about poor slightly retarded Person B. You make a good argument, I suddenly feel the urge to have half my money stolen for him 😐
Well since I have freedom to pay or not I choose to give none, it's my money. I don't plan to save other people with it when I could be using it to make more.
Originally posted by inimalist
or he could treat the poor as Jesus instructed
Or he could act like wealthy people do and exploit person B until he collapses.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Kinda like social security...oh wait, the government is just and infallible, I forgot.
The government has a much harder time profiting from exploitation and doesn't have to power to place completely insane rules for being able to get social security.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosWhat about Person C, she was born into a working class family, got an adequate secondary education then entered the workforce. She struggles to make ends meet working two jobs and taking care of her two kids. Her deadbeat husband, with a similar background to Person B left her. She's trying to save for her children's education, put food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs.
Person B was born into a poor family and has a mild learning disability that forced him to struggle through school and take a low paying job at a young age in order to survive. Despite hard work that far outstrips that of Person A (a trustfund baby) he was never promoted due to lack of education. Now the benevolence of anarchy allows him to watch everything he worked for burn.
Should she have to pay for Person B's life? Huh? Huh? Or a pension for Person A when he turns 72 and marries a beer baroness?
I'm not entirely sure the point of my story, but it was fun writing it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you don't give a **** about poor slightly retarded Person B. You make a good argument, I suddenly feel the urge to have half my money stolen for him 😐
Of course you don't. Few people do, they help them because of what they pay in taxes. In an anarchist society he dies and society collapses from the bottom up.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The government has a much harder time profiting from exploitation and doesn't have to power to place completely insane rules for being able to get social security.
Where do you live? (don't answer)
The cost for bureaucracy as well as the hoops that people on social security have to jump through are ridiculous, to argue that such a system is in any way reasonable or just boarders madness.
No, it's really just armed robbery. Sure your justification may be moral highground or something (whatever makes you sleep at night). But you support innocent people being forced WITH GUNS to give up their hard earned money. That's what you support. No arguing about it.
Call it the lesser of two evils then or a necessary evil.
Originally posted by inimalist
I didn't realize you meant poor people when you said didn't have money. I took it a little to literally.
As I addressed earlier in the thread, poverty is something that would have to be addressed by government policy long before people were capable of taking personal responsibility. This will be done best by providing financial incentive for corporations to invest in small and impoverished areas and allowing poor people to work for a living wage.
Whos paying for those government incentives though?
because politicians are honest and forthcoming 🙂
That's why I think governmental budgets should be voted on in referendum by the people. Because then the government has to defend their ideas for spending tax dollars before they get to spend them.
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Call it the lesser of two evils then or a necessary evil.I have money, I have a decent amount of money actually, but I meant not everyone does and there are people out there that have 0 dollars.
Whos paying for those government incentives though?
That's why I think governmental budgets should be voted on in referendum by the people. Because then the government has to defend their ideas for spending tax dollars before they get to spend them.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What about Person C, she was born into a working class family, got an adequate secondary education then entered the workforce. She struggles to make ends meet working two jobs and taking care of her two kids. Her deadbeat husband, with a similar background to Person B left her. She's trying to save for her children's education, put food on the table, a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs.Should she have to pay for Person B's life? Huh? Huh?
As long as she still makes enough to live, yes.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Or a pension for Person A when he turns 72 and marries a beer baroness?
Considering Person A was extremely wealthy and lived off a trust fund he wouldn't be drawing a pension. If he was neither Person B or C should pay for it.
Originally posted by inimalistWell, he could have a monopoly on something. He may be the only person providing utilities to the community. He may be the only one with medicine.
and the community will be in total support and continue to finance his business
I think the community may side with him over the village idiot.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I just call it what it is. Filthy, stinking theft. (oh, also sometimes the greater of two evils)
Would you still feel that way if you got to vote on their tax spending before they got to spend your money? Would it at least make you feel better about the idea of taxes?
Originally posted by Aster Phoenix
Would you still feel that way if you got to vote on their tax spending before they got to spend your money? Would it at least make you feel better about the idea of taxes?
Yeah. Thiefery decided by a majority is still just that. And no. Taxes would still feel like being raped...just worse, cause you know that you'll be raped again next year.
Originally posted by inimalist
and the community will be in total support and continue to finance his businessworkers rights groups and unions sit back and applaud loudly
Society today is more than happy to continue buying products from businesses that have immoral practices. Some move to catch them on illegal ones but since Persons A and B are in an anarchist society no laws have been broken.
Person A doesn't hire union workers and has already used Bardock's protection agency to get rid of workers rights groups.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosBut then she could live a more comfortable life, she could spend more time with her kids and quit one of her two jobs perhaps. Instead of having to pay for person B.
As long as she still makes enough to live, yes.Considering Person A was extremely wealthy and lived off a trust fund he wouldn't be drawing a pension. If he was neither Person B or C should pay for it.
I thought Social Security was a universal thing in the US. Pensions are here.