Illegal to Feed Homeless in Parks

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Just me, today. I have incredibly intelligent sperm. And I like killing them.

Well...let's see....given a normal sperm count and semen volume, six Einsteins per day may actually be below the normal rate per capita. Especially if we're losing some because they're not getting enough welfare money.

[DanaC]

You disagree with how it taxes are spent. Do you think that taxes should be paid on a voluntary basis?

[DanaC]

There's more than one "we" in question...that was my point.

If you actually don't know the difference between collectivism and democracy, that's too bad. One is a system of government, the other a political philosophy. But if you really do think they're the same thing, that would explain a lot.

My point, was that individuals pay tax according to the collective will of the people as expressed through the democratic system. In your country, taxes are also something that you pay as an individual but decide upon collectively as expressed through the democratic system. Does that mean that evey individual in the country gets to make their own individual decision? No. It does however mean that everyone in the country has an opportunity to express their view through the ballot box. Don't want it? Don't vote for it.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

No. It does however mean that everyone in the country has an opportunity to express their view through the ballot box.

I do...and through other means, such as advocacy in public fora. As I am doing.

But one difference between your advocacy and mine is: yours is supported by taxes. My original point was:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Funny how the people who sell the abovementioned meme most vigorously are those who are are getting a slice of the proceeds themselves.

I think that's been firmly established in your case.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You wouldn't voluntarily give tax money for developing the Osprey? For roads? Police protection? Fire Protection? For trying to educated the homeless idiots? To try to motivate the lazy homeless idiots? To medicate the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots? To keep the crazy, lazy, homeless idiots from eating free food in the park down your street? To keep out illegal immigrants?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe (although educating an adult idiot is a pretty futile endeavor; no matter how many social services functionaries it might employ as a side "benefit"; it's like trying to fill a leaky bucket. Not all uneducated adults are idiots, but those who aren't tend to self-identify)

Where were we? Ah...: No, No, Already answered under police protection, same answer.

"...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" is in the constitution. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean a dole (now cleverly renamed to "welfare" in an attempt to make it look more like a proper function of government), nor is the right roll into somebody's town to convert the park to a soup kitchen one of "the blessings of liberty".

[DanaC]

That's as may be Maggie. But the view I am expressing here has been consistent throughout my adult life. I have not always been in the field I am in. I was just as vehement about this viewpoint when I was selling satellite systems and when I was part of a small design house. I have espousing these same views here on the Cellar for over two years, long before I even thought about standing for office. I have only been an elected member of the council for three months.

The fact that I am now a part of the system is not the cause of my desire to uphold said system. I support/seek to uphold the system because I believe it is right to do so. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a desire for a 'slice of the proceeds'. By choosing to pursue this career instead of nipping down and applying at the local college for another teaching post (where they are crying out for experienced Skills for Life trained teaching staff), I have taken a paycut of approximately 50% whilst significantly increasing the hours I work.

I do what I do because I love it and I believe I can genuinely help people. Not everyone is guided by financial vested interests.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Yes, Yes, Yes, Maybe (although educating an adult idiot is a pretty futile endeavor; no matter how many social services functionaries it might employ as a side "benefit"; it's like trying to fill a leaky bucket. Not all uneducated adults are idiots, but those who aren't tend to self-identify)

Where were we? Ah...: No, No, Already answered under police protection, same answer.

So this isn't a "don't tax me" rant, it's another typically conservative "I want to determine who gets taxed how much, and what the tax money should be used for" rant. Run for office, and stop bitching.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

"...insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" is in the constitution. "Promote the general welfare" doesn't mean a dole (now cleverly renamed to "welfare" in an attempt to make it look more like a proper function of government), nor is the right roll into somebody's town to convert the park to a soup kitchen one of "the blessings of liberty".

Hopefully that was "ensure".

If promoting the general welfare isn't providing for those who can't provide for themselves, what is it? Notice I siad "can't", not "don't want to" or "choose not to".

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Well...let's see....given a normal sperm count and semen volume, six Einsteins per day may actually be below the normal rate per capita. Especially if we're losing some because they're not getting enough welfare money.

We were taliking Einsteins. I didn't mention all the Hawkings, Hubbels, Clintons, Fishers, Gates, Jeffersons, Newtons, etc., that bit the dust.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

...If you actually don't know the difference between collectivism and democracy, that's too bad. One is a system of government, the other a political philosophy. But if you really do think they're the same thing, that would explain a lot.

Speaking of straw men...

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Speaking of straw men...

She said they looked "an awful lot alike". My response is that failure to distinguish between the two is problematic in the extreme; in fact doing so begs the question that democracy is supposed to answer. I don't see a straw man here...which proposition would that be?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

We were taliking Einsteins. I didn't mention all the Hawkings, Hubbels, Clintons, Fishers, Gates, Jeffersons, Newtons, etc., that bit the dust.

No great loss in the case of Gates, Fisher and Clintons. Carry on.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

If promoting the general welfare isn't providing for those who can't provide for themselves, what is it?

That's not the general welfare. It's the benefit of a particular class of people.

The language derives from Franklin's first draft of the Articles of Confederation:

Originally Posted by B. Franklin

The said United Colonies hereby severally enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, binding on themselves and their Posterity, for their common Defense [and Offense], against their Enemies for the Security of their Liberties and Propertys, the Safety of their Persons and Familes, and their (struck out: common and) mutual and general Welfare.

You're asserting that a dole improves the general welfare. I remain unconvinced by the evidence I've seen; in fact, as an entitlement, I belive a dole even acts to the detriment of the particular class of people it purports to help, much less improving the general welfare.

[DanaC]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
The 'voluntary' aspect of taxation comes in when we as a country vote not to remove them and to continue providing support where needed...

MaggieL:
Yes, there's that collectivist first person plural again. Of course there's more than one "we" in this equation...there's at least the "we" that pays taxes, the "we" that doesn't, and the "we" that makes money from the whole transaction.

And the "we" that votes.

All non-identical, but fun to blur together in rhetoric.
__________________

In this snipped of our conversation you refer to the use of the word 'we' as collectivist. Did you really mean the political ideology of 'collectivism'? Which you later claim I am unable to distinguish from democracy, or did you mean collective decision making which (as I have already stated) bears a striking resemblance to Democracy. If you insist on categorising this as collectivism then I am afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the difference between collectivism and democracy.

I was comparing your apparent definition of collectivism with the definition of democracy.

The definition of collectivism where it pertains a specific political ideology is:

collectivism

noun {U} SPECIALIZED


a theory or political system based on the principle that all of the farms, factories and other places of work in a country should be owned by or for all the people in that country
........................................................................................................

That is not what we were discussing. We were discussing the idea of collective decision making as expressed through an electoral system. ie: Democracy.

I am a socialist, not a collectivist. There is a difference.



Definition of socialism:

socialism

noun {U}

the set of beliefs which states that all people are equal and should share equally in the wealth of the country, or the political systems based on these beliefs


I am a believer in democracy and I am a socialist. I am not a communist or a collectivist. The definitions of these words have changed over time. Where once socialism was seen purely as a stage between capitalism and communism, it is now usually seen as a system in its own right and not a precursor to another. I suppose the most accurate description of my beliefs would be 'democratic socialism'. I do not believe that all production should be nationalised. I do however believe that my country's basic infrastructure and amenities should be. The corner shop should belong to the shopkeeper.....gas supplies, healthcare, electricity, water and public transport should belong to the country. The factory which makes toys should belong to the entrepeneur who started it.....the Universities and schools should belong to the nation.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I am a believer in democracy and I am a socialist. I am not a communist or a collectivist.

That's a pretty slick definition...the "wealth of the country", eh? We start off with "everything belongs to the country" and proceed to divide the spoils from there. What's the source of your definition?

This one strikes me as a bit more standard:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

[DanaC]

Maggie, you posted that whilst I was editing my last post. Read the addition, it covers what you just posted.

The definiton I stated was from a British English dictionary. There are differences in how these words have come to be defined in our two countries. This is because the original definitions have altered over time, but because of the distinctly different political landscapes in our countries, the changes have led to a divergence between what you would term 'socialism' and what we would term 'socialism'. Your definition is closer to the original, it's set in its historical context. Ours has changed a good deal more because it is more relevant to our contempory political landscape.