The Rich Are Taxed Enough (Debate) - Intelligence Squared U.S.

[Rob Roy]

Child molester

Since you obviously are going to be a douche without cause, I'm going to have to hold you in contempt. Can't say I didn't try to be reasonable...

...I hope none of that sheep wool stuck to you gets all over me when I hold you sweety.

 

[schuylaar]

I am trying to understand the hypothetical you are giving me. If I see a baby and you say "this is hitler" it would be foolish of me to do anything without verifying that it is IN FACT hitler. Also it would be quite impossible to see actual hitler because I was not alive when he was gestating.

Also the doctor would not of known what the baby would grow up to do. The environment the child grows up in plays a huge role in what they are able to do.

Again, look up how Germany was after the first world war.

I do not support it. I know it may come as a shock to you but people can agree in some areas and disagree in other areas.

Forget baby hitler..what I'd like to know is, would you be willing to vote democratic in order to maintain your benefits? Why or why not?

 

[schuylaar]

You can't be "left alone" in a society that provides basic needs for the most unfortunate - disabled, sick, old, homeless, etc. because it takes money to pay for those things. If those needs are left up to charitable donations, like you would like, it ensures at least some of those needs go unmet. I'm unwilling to accept, as an individual in the wealthiest society the Earth has ever produced, that any of those needs go unmet. This is why libertarianism will never work in a society where individuals do not feel direct kinship to fellow citizens. Some people do, but most people don't, and there are even those among us who actively despise anyone different.

If taxes are "theft", then failing to provide those needs when you have the ability to, but choose not to is "murder"

Bravo!

Rob Roy would be my guess.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Forget baby hitler..what I'd like to know is, would you be willing to vote democratic in order to maintain your benefits? Why or why not?

If I saw a plan to destroy medicaid or the food stamp program I would be in opposition of that.

Options and Refining the existing programs I would not be opposed to.

I will read links. I have said this before. I will read news articles too. Then I will search to find direct quotes or messages direct from Ben Carson or his staff.

It is called investigation and not believing the first thing you read. Find two or three supporting articles and at least one direct quote of the person in question. You learn how to do this in jr. high and high school.

If you have information you think I need to see that fills the requirements above then I will definitely be looking for another candidate.

 

[Padawanbater2]

If I saw a plan to destroy medicaid or the food stamp program I would be in opposition of that.

Options and Refining the existing programs I would not be opposed to.

I will read links. I have said this before. I will read news articles too. Then I will search to find direct quotes or messages direct from Ben Carson or his staff.

It is called investigation and not believing the first thing you read. Find two or three supporting articles and at least one direct quote of the person in question. You learn how to do this in jr. high and high school.

If you have information you think I need to see that fills the requirements above then I will definitely be looking for another candidate.

Then why do you support presidential candidates that would do away with those things as soon as they entered office?

 

[Flaming Pie]

Then why do you support presidential candidates that would do away with those things as soon as they entered office?

You didn't read my post.

 

[ttystikk]

You didn't read my post.

Yes I did and frankly you should be smarter than to be taken in by republican promises by now. They're all about destroying the social safety net because they think rich people shouldn't have to contribute to the welfare of society.

I fundamentally disagree with this position, therefore I don't vote republican at all.

The question you were just asked is in the face of this obvious historical contradiction, why would you?

 

[Flaming Pie]

Yes I did and frankly you should be smarter than to be taken in by republican promises by now. They're all about destroying the social safety net because they think rich people shouldn't have to contribute to the welfare of society.

I fundamentally disagree with this position, therefore I don't vote republican at all.

The question you were just asked is in the face of this obvious historical contradiction, why would you?

I think we need options and refinement.

 

[ttystikk]

I think we need options and refinement.

Me toooooo!

That's why I'm a Bernie Sanders voter!

 

[Flaming Pie]

Me toooooo!

That's why I'm a Bernie Sanders voter!

The economy is my number one concern.
When the congressional budget office says changes need to happen now, I believe them.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes I did and frankly you should be smarter than to be taken in by republican promises by now. They're all about destroying the social safety net because they think rich people shouldn't have to contribute to the welfare of society.

I fundamentally disagree with this position, therefore I don't vote republican at all.

The question you were just asked is in the face of this obvious historical contradiction, why would you?

The welfare of people is never increased when forcible redistribution is renamed "contribution" It is an insult to logic and is also not a very nice thing to do.




The question you should be asking is, "do you fundamentally think people that leave others alone should be able to live their life as they wish or not" ?

If you answer yes, logic insists you would be against forcible redistribution, which you attempted to euphemize into "contribution" . If you answer no, you are advancing the idea that the initiation of aggression is justifiable and you hold the idea that might makes right, just like countless other thugs and politicians of all stripes.

 

[ttystikk]

The economy is my number one concern.
When the congressional budget office says changes need to happen now, I believe them.

Quite right. This is the number one reason to vote for Mr Sanders, as he's the only one prescribing a fix for the economy that's any different than the one that got us INTO this mess!

 

[Not GOP]

Quite right. This is the number one reason to vote for Mr Sanders, as he's the only one prescribing a fix for the economy that's any different than the one that got us INTO this mess!

How are Bernie's ideas any different from the same old policies of increased government tax and spending?

 

[Padawanbater2]

How are Bernie's ideas any different from the same old policies of increased government tax and spending?

Well, for one, expansionary monetary policy wouldn't be wasted to fund the DOD and unwinnable wars, it would be spent on domestic jobs that put Americans back to work rebuilding and improving our infrastructure

 

[Not GOP]

Well, for one, expansionary monetary policy wouldn't be wasted to fund the DOD and unwinnable wars, it would be spent on domestic jobs that put Americans back to work rebuilding and improving our infrastructure

How come your buddy @titstick never wants to chat with me? does he have me on ignore?

 

[ttystikk]

Well, for one, expansionary monetary policy wouldn't be wasted to fund the DOD and unwinnable wars, it would be spent on domestic jobs that put Americans back to work rebuilding and improving our infrastructure

When the repubs gave the average American a lousy extra $500, it set off an economic expansion! Too bad they didn't learn the lesson, which was and still is that raising the floor of economic activity benefits everyone.

 

[Padawanbater2]

How come your buddy @titstick never wants to chat with me? does he have me on ignore?

Idk, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did

 

[Rob Roy]

You can't be "left alone" in a society that provides basic needs for the most unfortunate - disabled, sick, old, homeless, etc. because it takes money to pay for those things. If those needs are left up to charitable donations, like you would like, it ensures at least some of those needs go unmet. I'm unwilling to accept, as an individual in the wealthiest society the Earth has ever produced, that any of those needs go unmet. This is why libertarianism will never work in a society where individuals do not feel direct kinship to fellow citizens. Some people do, but most people don't, and there are even those among us who actively despise anyone different.

If taxes are "theft", then failing to provide those needs when you have the ability to, but choose not to is "murder"

You do not effectuate kinship by using initiatory force. Any means which arises from force cannot also eliminate force, it is impossible.

Your murder analogy is erroneous. Murder is not an act of indifference, it is an act of initiated aggression, an act of action, not an act of inaction.


You seem to be saying if a person has something and somebody else doesn't it is their duty to serve them. I'd like a sandwich and a cold beer now, after that I'd like to smoke all of your weed. What are you waiting for? Hop to!!!

 

[Rob Roy]

When the repubs gave the average American a lousy extra $500, it set off an economic expansion! Too bad they didn't learn the lesson, which was and still is that raising the floor of economic activity benefits everyone.

Then let's "give" everyone a million dollars and see how that works out.

 

[Rob Roy]

As far as I understand it, in libertipia there are no taxes, no regulations, and no government. What happens if I steal my neighbors stuff? Or kill him? Then supposedly there exists some tiny court system (in the minds of most, anyway) one can seek redress for physical harm or property theft. But how are these courts funded if there is no taxes? From where do they derive their authority? What keeps these mini-courts corruption free? Who appoints the judges?

Libertarians never seem to have answers for this question.

*Libertopia