And who the hell is highspeed? Is that an insult like saying 'slow down there, turbo' or are you refering to the T1 line I get to use at work...
I hope I answered your question, slowspeed.

 

Its "government was created to benefit all, not just the rich as a mechanism to get wealthier on the backs of the poor." And I certainly hope that it was not created to punish the wealthy by redistributing their wealth to those the government feels is "more deserving" thats dangerous ground there.

-deyes

 

No, I meant "society". People congegrate for the common good of sharing resources. Government is a result of society, not the other way around.

Are you imlpying that I am saying its punishment for the wealthy? Society usually begins one way (as I stated above) and then runs one of two ways: it either helps one group dominate another group's resources or it helps all people share resources. There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is something wrong with using that position to cause poverty. There is, however, a problem with wealth: the world contains a limited amount of resources (pick anything). When one person has more, another has less. And so when one person has more power, another has less. It is the duty of the wealthy to care for those who have less, because by not doing so, by definition, they dominate those with less.

 

Then you mean to say "a better society through government". Democrats are a political organization after all. I'm not saying you implied that, it was just a socialist theme that spilled over from another thread I was replying to. I agree with "It is the duty of the wealthy to care for those who have less," but not the rest, "because by not doing so, by definition, they dominate those with less." but I would add that its not the governments place, nor purpose to force the "wealthy" to care for those less fortunate. It is however the governments place to see that the "wealthy" be allowed to do as they see fit with their money be it give to charity or buy a yaucht. It seems to me that many see the government as a means to distribute "charity" (other peoples money) to those "less fortunate" (people that vote for them).

 

Then you mean to say "a better society through government".

No, I didn't mean what you said. I mean exactly what I said.

but not the rest, because by not doing so, by definition, they dominate those with less."

Yet this is true because when the wealthy do not care for those with less, it is intrinsic that the wealth of the wealthy will grow and the poverty of those with less will also grow. This is especially true in free market societies. The freer the market, the more this is true.

but I would add that its not the governments place, nor purpose to force the "wealthy" to care for those less fortunate.

The government is in place to lead the society (if it does otherwise, it will be overthrown eventually). Therefore, if the will of the society is that the wealthy serve the poor, then the government should lead the society in that.

It is however the governments place to see that the "wealthy" be allowed to do as they see fit with their money be it give to charity or buy a yaucht. It seems to me that many see the government as a means to distribute "charity" (other peoples money) to those "less fortunate" (people that vote for them).

You see the mechanics, but attribute the wrong values. Its not that gov't is meant to control the spending of the wealthy or play Robin Hood. The gov't ensures the welfare of the poor. If you believe the wealthy have the right to stuff their bellies rather than participate in ensuring the welfare of the poor, how can you then believe "It is the duty of the wealthy to care for those who have less"?

jason



.

 

A better society through society? Then why appeal only to Democrats?

That is assuming that all the potential wealth in the world is in the hands of only the wealthy. Don't get me wrong the wealthy have a lot but they do not have it all and there is more out there.



The governments place is to serve the will of the people in the society. I agree with "if the will of the society is that the wealthy serve the poor, then the government should lead the society in that. but replace the government should lead the society in that." with "the government should (if it serves the people) force the wealthy to serve the poor".



No. The government is meant to ensure that those who have an interest in ensuring the welfare of the poor are free to do just that. It is the right of the wealthy to "stuff their bellies rather than participate in ensuring the welfare of the poor" or not, but if your wealthy you can have your cake and eat it too. Unless the government steals your cake.

 

[QUOTE=deyes]A better society through society? Then why appeal only to Democrats? [quote]

Cuz the topic of this thread began as a Democractic issue and not its way off course?


That is assuming that all the potential wealth in the world is in the hands of only the wealthy. Don't get me wrong the wealthy have a lot but they do not have it all and there is more out there.

How did you manage to read that in there? It just saying that in free markets people serve themselves, as human nature has shown since history began, and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer... until the poor get real pissed.

the government should lead the society in that." with "the government should (if it serves the people) force the wealthy to serve the poor".

I already said, if the gov't goes against the society, the govt will be done away with. The gov't doesn't for anything. I'm not sure where you are getting that I am saying this.

No. The government is meant to ensure that those who have an interest in ensuring the welfare of the poor are free to do just that.

Hahahah, what? The government is around to make sure that the wealthy can give to the poor if they want? What? LOL Really, think about what you just said.

It is the right of the wealthy to "stuff their bellies rather than participate in ensuring the welfare of the poor" or not, but if your wealthy you can have your cake and eat it too. Unless the government steals your cake.

this does not answer the question:

If you believe the wealthy have the right to stuff their bellies rather than participate in ensuring the welfare of the poor, how can you then believe "It is the duty of the wealthy to care for those who have less"?

The wealthy cannot horde AND care for the poor at the same time. Those are contradictory acts.

jason

 

So helping society is purely a Democratic issue, Republicans need not apply. This is about a society that the Democratic Party built.


In this country it seems that the "poor" share in the continued rise of our standard of living. Poverty in this country is hardly relative to say poverty in France in the late 1700's, "poverty" in any of the developed countries can't be compared to a third world countries idea of poverty. When it comes to free market countries none come to mind when I think of the poor revolting because of their poverty.

Was that a rebuttal? What I said was the government does not lead society, society leads government. Government should not be in a leadership position, it should be in a position of service.


Its called freedom, if you don't want to the government should not be able to force you to. If the government takes money from me that I would otherwise give to charity then they are taking away my ability to give to the poor no? The more they take the less I can give. Get it? You seem to think that if the government didn't make people give to the poor that they wouldn't. The truth is that people still give to the poor in spite of the governments attempt to make it difficult for them to do so.

Your confusing what I feel they should be doing with what they may theoretically do. Just because I think they should do something doesn't mean that I think they should be forced to do it.

I'm sure all of the wealthy that continue to do well in business and give generously to charity are all baffled about how their bank accounts get bigger along with their donation checks to charity. The contradiction must make their heads spin!

 

And yet poverty runs amok, 1.2 BILLION people live in hunger and poverty in the world. How much effect does the current level of giving have? Perhaps is those with more gave more that number would be smaller? Or is 1/6 of the World's population destined to live like that?

Are you sure you think its the duty of the wealthy to care for the poor? Are you just arguing for the sake of it?

jason

 

I thought we were talking about America. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that there is a world society. To me it seems more like a coexistence of several different societies. Take my arguments to mean "here in the US". In the case of your argument meaning the whole world there would first need to be a world government and either a world wide free market economy or world wide socialist economy, borders would need to cease existing, etc. etc. for there to be a strong argument either way.

 

Not since you change it to a generic argument here:

https://www.i-club.com/forums/showpo...1&postcount=17

and since these ideas apply universally and since America does interact with the rest of the world there is such an international society. We have a world bank, a world court and a United Nations. Because they are not sovereign bodies of government doesn't mean there isn't a society.

I'm kinda tired of talking (about this) with you. You try to defeat one point by raising meta-conversational issues which are not really relevent if you just follow along. In doing so you avoid the real question(s) at hand. Talking about nothing so someone can eventually find some point far down the road that is pretty unrelated and say "Ah ha! I got you on this one! " Is a big, stupid waste of time.


jason

 

No I was talking about America there too. Wasn't it some famous American that said that about America in the first place. I thought the thread was about Dems making a better society? In my opinion (a guy that votes Republican) abortion was not even on the radar of concerns, likewise family members and freinds. My argument followed those lines.