ClumsyMonkey.net

priceless........I dunno, I'm taking heat from several people in the general public about choosing to work on Dubya's reelection campaign.

I'm giving a speech to several hundred senior citizens this week, fun times, I'm nervous as hell.

starving eyes wrote:and when the liberal government increases social security benefits, are they not forcing their abritrary "morals" on me?

Only if they start putting "under God" on their letterhead.

No, I work for Social Security, and you can say what you want about it, but a large portion of my cynicism towards the government has been relieved since I started working there. These people are good people, and they work their asses off to make sure the system is as good and as fair as it can possibly be, and they are constantly looking for ways to save taxpayers money. Constantly. I don't know about the other branches of government, but I'm fine with entrusting my welfare to SS once I get old.

although i'm sure it's nice for you to have your cynicism towards government relieved by your employment at the social security office, <i>my cynicism</i> is still roaring strong.

the liberal government believes that it is my <i>moral duty</i> to contribute to social security. <i>i do not</i>, yet i am forcibly compelled to. therefore, the liberal government is forcing their arbitrary morals on me.

<i>all</i> government is force, regardless of whether it's conservative, liberal, fascist, communist, socialist etc. the only difference is a matter of degree.

You know, I hope they abolish social security, so you can see what America would be like with all but the luckiest disabled and elderly individuals destitute and homeless. What a great world that would be. Wouldn't that be great; then you wouldn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of your salary to help your fellow humans.

There is a difference between religious morality and societal morality. Societal morality answers to no higher being, it merely helps society run smoothly. If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society, you must pay taxes to help it run. If this is immoral to you, fine, LEAVE. No one's keeping you here against your will.

You know, I hope they abolish social security, so you can see what America would be like with all but the luckiest disabled and elderly individuals destitute and homeless.

a. it is not my responsibility to look after the elderly, disabled, poor etc. it is theirs.
b. actually, social security, welfare, living wages etc. are all policies which harm the economy and create unemployment. have you ever heard of the term "welfare wall"?

Wouldn't that be great; then you wouldn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of your salary to help your fellow humans.

[emphasis mine]

yes, it would be great if i didn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of my salary to help my fellow humans. note the emphasis here. my objection is that i am being told that i have to do something with my salary. if i choose to pay said percentage, it is a different story.

There is a difference between religious morality and societal morality. Societal morality answers to no higher being, it merely helps society run smoothly.

in your, albeit uneducated, opinion it helps society run smoothly. it does not. and whether or not the morals being forced upon me answer to a "higher being" is irrelevant. i am still having the morals of other people forced upon me.

If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society, you must pay taxes to help it run.

once again, in <i>your opinion</i> civilized society cannot run without taxation. i disagree, and i have support for my assertions. greater and deeper support for them then you do for yours, as you will find should you continue this discussion.

If this is immoral to you, fine, LEAVE. No one's keeping you here against your will.

ah, so if the mafia moves into my neighbourhood and begins demanding protection money, i am to assume that it is <i>my responsibility</i> to leave, not theirs? no. i will <i>not leave</i>. i own, or rather my parents <i>own</i>, the land on which i live. i <i>own</i> my money. it is <i>my decision on how these things will be used</i>, not the states. <i>they</i> are wrong, not me. it is them who must leave.

There is a difference between religious morality and societal morality. Societal morality answers to no higher being, it merely helps society run smoothly. If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society, you must pay taxes to help it run. If this is immoral to you, fine, LEAVE. No one's keeping you here against your will.

what is "societal morality"? how is it determined? is "societal morality" an objective set of clearly defined rules by which i and all other men must live?

If a sex shop opens up in your backyard, do you move or petition the city to have your neighborhood rezoned? if the mob moves in down your street and starts strongarming the citizens of your block, do you move or do you request police assistance?

i'm not leaving. it's them who should leave me alone.

starving eyes wrote:

You know, I hope they abolish social security, so you can see what America would be like with all but the luckiest disabled and elderly individuals destitute and homeless.

a. it is not my responsibility to look after the elderly, disabled, poor etc. it is theirs.
b. actually, social security, welfare, living wages etc. are all policies which harm the economy and create unemployment. have you ever heard of the term "welfare wall"?

Wouldn't that be great; then you wouldn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of your salary to help your fellow humans.

[emphasis mine]

yes, it would be great if i didn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of my salary to help my fellow humans. note the emphasis here. my objection is that i am being told that i have to do something with my salary. if i choose to pay said percentage, it is a different story.

There is a difference between religious morality and societal morality. Societal morality answers to no higher being, it merely helps society run smoothly.

in your, albeit uneducated, opinion it helps society run smoothly. it does not. and whether or not the morals being forced upon me answer to a "higher being" is irrelevant. i am still having the morals of other people forced upon me.

If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society, you must pay taxes to help it run.

once again, in <i>your opinion</i> civilized society cannot run without taxation. i disagree, and i have support for my assertions. greater and deeper support for them then you do for yours, as you will find should you continue this discussion.

If this is immoral to you, fine, LEAVE. No one's keeping you here against your will.

ah, so if the mafia moves into my neighbourhood and begins demanding protection money, i am to assume that it is <i>my responsibility</i> to leave, not theirs? no. i will <i>not leave</i>. i own, or rather my parents <i>own</i>, the land on which i live. i <i>own</i> my money. it is <i>my decision on how these things will be used</i>, not the states. <i>they</i> are wrong, not me. it is them who must leave.

Talking with people like you is talking to a brick wall. You're not going to get anywhere.

Just one little thing before I end this pointless conversation: I live in reality. I don't know where you're living. But in reality, our actions have effects on others whether we like it or not, as do theirs upon us. It's easy to call yourself an anarchist because it will help you in your selfish life, but in reality, anarchy would be a total and complete disaster. You mentioned the mafia. Luckily, we have a government that can put mobsters in jail and protect your freedoms. If we didn't, what's to stop them from doing just what you said? I can picture it now, in your perfect anarchic world. No government, so small factions like the mafia take over by force. You standing there, in your neighborhood, which has been taken over by this mafia, shouting about how "you shouldn't have to do what they say, you shouldn't have to do this, you shouldn't have to do that, you own your land and your money", and them shooting you because you got on their nerves and didn't pay them what they asked.

That's reality, my friend. Be an idealist if you want, but I'd rather focus on making our imperfect system as good as it can possibly be. Enjoy your fantasy.

crystal baller wrote:

There is a difference between religious morality and societal morality. Societal morality answers to no higher being, it merely helps society run smoothly. If you want the benefits of living in a civilized society, you must pay taxes to help it run. If this is immoral to you, fine, LEAVE. No one's keeping you here against your will.

what is "societal morality"? how is it determined? is "societal morality" an objective set of clearly defined rules by which i and all other men must live?

If a sex shop opens up in your backyard, do you move or petition the city to have your neighborhood rezoned? if the mob moves in down your street and starts strongarming the citizens of your block, do you move or do you request police assistance?

i'm not leaving. it's them who should leave me alone.

Societal morality is just that: morals agreed upon by society. You are part of society; you have just as many votes as anyone else, you can help choose what our society will value. If the majority disagrees with you, work harder to change their opinions. Run for office. It is not "them" who are against you, it is that "they" have worked their asses off to get the majority to vote their way. You have the ability to do your damndest to to the same. Then you would be "them", and you could help make the rules. This idea that "they" are somehow an oppressive force that you have no say in is a myth.

I don't know what point you're making about "them" leaving you alone, perhaps you should clarify it for me. What it seems like you're saying is, if something like a sex shop or a mafia movies in, you should call upon the government to have it taken care of, without your having to move. I agree; that is why the government is there. But then you turn around and say you don't want a government? This makes no sense; please clarify.

starving eyes wrote:

You know, I hope they abolish social security, so you can see what America would be like with all but the luckiest disabled and elderly individuals destitute and homeless.

a. it is not my responsibility to look after the elderly, disabled, poor etc. it is theirs.
b. actually, social security, welfare, living wages etc. are all policies which harm the economy and create unemployment. have you ever heard of the term "welfare wall"?

Wouldn't that be great; then you wouldn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of your salary to help your fellow humans.

[emphasis mine]

yes, it would be great if i didn't have to pay a miniscule percentage of my salary to help my fellow humans. note the emphasis here. my objection is that i am being told that i have to do something with my salary. if i choose to pay said percentage, it is a different story.

well to be honest if it wasn't for SS, YOU really wouldn't have YOUR paycheck. YOU wouldn't have a job because old men and women would horde jobs in order to take care of themselves. this program is suppose to help the elderly while it's suppose to open jobs up for the youngens.

wow aerins back, and with a vengence

This is why I used to try and stay out of these debates. They give me a headache.

ha.

as i recall, we recently had a <i>very</i> short debate about the constituionality of child support. when you were faced with an argument you could not defeat, you did not do what an open minded, reasoning person would do: admit that you were wrong and adopt the correct position. no, instead, you became frustrated and <i>walked away</i>, still clinging to your now invalidated beliefs.

this leads me to my next point: you believe alot of things, and seem to be relatively passionate about them. unfortunately for you, you do <i> not know why</i> you believe them. for example, you state that "anarchy would be a total and complete disaster." you believe that this is true, but you do <i>not know why</i>. you have <i>zero</i> support for this claim, you just assume that because it is popular wisdom that anarchy is an impossibility, that it must be true.

well, 600 years ago it was popular wisdom that the earth was flat. it is not. this instance of popular wisdom was in fact, wrong. <i>study anarchist theory</i>, especially anarcho capitalist theory and you will discover that in fact, it is entirely viable. stop and <i>think</i> for a second: what about government makes it so special? why do you believe that politicians have some sort of special power or skill at managing certain functions of society that profit driven businessmen could not? indeed, empirical history has shown us that in fact, when bureaucrats and businessmen both attempt to do the same thing, the businessman consistenly offers a better result at a more reasonable price.

i do not call myself an anarchist because it will "help me in my selfish life", but because <i>i have studied it</i> and i believe it to be right. infact, i have studied a great many political philsophies over time and have eventually, after some debate, discovered most of them were wrong. i was first a communist, then a conservative, then a libertarian and finally an anarchist. my beliefs have changed over time because i was asked questions i could not answer, much like yourself and the child support discussion. however, unlike you, my beliefs then changed accordingly, and may very well change again, should some person be able to challenge anarchy in a fashion that i cannot defend against.

you seem intelligent and very articulate. i therefore encourage you to <i>think</i> about your beliefs. at the very least, having a solid philisophical foundation for your convictions will make debate more entertaining. and don't afraid to be wrong.

it's all good, i was starting to get pretty low on miberal thinking support. besides the odd time Un Puño De Tierra helps out my side, or the anarchists when it comes to anti-war. you know your in trouble when your supporters are Anarchists that hate everything and a moderate conservitive or democrat.

no offence intended Un Puño De Tierra your the logical one out of everyone here, and your wicked ass cool

reno, while your counterargument is very cute, it is in no way supported by fact. i disregard it as unsubstantiated malarky which you likely just invented on the spot.

<i>try harder</i>. if you want to make a challenge to existing economic theory, you're going to have to do better then that. it is a widely accepted economic fact that social security creates unemployment and contributes to the "discouraged worker" syndrome. if you wish to contest this, please, do some research.

clumsyboy, do you mean to imply that i am illogical?

no, as i said you are at times on the same side as i , i just meant Reno can look at things from alot of diffrent ways, and is hard to pigeon hole him into one belief, he's obvioulsy at least moderatly conservitive but he listens to other peoples arguments and tries to understand there views. Hell he was semi-pro-war but he still enjoyed matt goods journals, maybe i meant open minded instead of logical, or un biased

Societal morality is just that: morals agreed upon by society. You are part of society; you have just as many votes as anyone else, you can help choose what our society will value. If the majority disagrees with you, work harder to change their opinions. Run for office. It is not "them" who are against you, it is that "they" have worked their asses off to get the majority to vote their way. You have the ability to do your damndest to to the same. Then you would be "them", and you could help make the rules. This idea that "they" are somehow an oppressive force that you have no say in is a myth.

you throw that word, myth, around an awful lot.

why should i have to change the majorities opinion on anything? why does the majority get to have any say at all in how i live my life? i don't want to make the rules, rules are what i am opposed to.

I don't know what point you're making about "them" leaving you alone, perhaps you should clarify it for me. What it seems like you're saying is, if something like a sex shop or a mafia movies in, you should call upon the government to have it taken care of, without your having to move. I agree; that is why the government is there. But then you turn around and say you don't want a government? This makes no sense; please clarify.

actually, if you recall, i said YOU would turn to the government. If the mob moved in on my block i'd just get a bunch of friends together and go blow the mob away. i'd start my own, meaner anarchist mob.

wouldn't that infringe on their rights to be there?

Amen.

o corey, you're so clever. lol