Guaranteed Income Supplement


Sunday21
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Traveler said:

Most parents raise their children with cash supplements even in their college years.  And the more affluent  provide their children with more cash.  Being raised in such a culture - it is not strange that more and more expect, in all "Fairness" that the more affluent provide more cash to those with less available cash.  It is odd that we expect other children to be different than our own and think it fair - but we think fairness only applies when we are in need - it seldom happens when it is others in need.

 

The Traveler

 

19 hours ago, Grunt said:

Equality in outcome is not fairness.  Taking from one and giving to another is not fairness.  

 

Parents giving their children money is predicated on the children putting the money to uses approved of by the parents.  It would be a stupid parent who gives money to their children who will spend the money on hookers and meth.  This means that the parents exert control over their children's financial lives.

Applying the same principle to the general public does not work because - Affluent People should not have control over what non-affluent people do with their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

 

Parents giving their children money is predicated on the children putting the money to uses approved of by the parents.  It would be a stupid parent who gives money to their children who will spend the money on hookers and meth.  This means that the parents exert control over their children's financial lives.

Applying the same principle to the general public does not work because - Affluent People should not have control over what non-affluent people do with their money.

Even so, parents giving their children money is willful.  Me giving the Church money is willful.  Me donating to charity is willful.  Even if I don't agree with how it's spent, the choice is mine to give.  The government taking money from me by force and giving it to my neighbor isn't willful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

The government taking money from me by force and giving it to my neighbor isn't willful.

This can be argued in a Democracy.  Basically, Democracy means - the people willfully voted to give authorization to their government to take their money.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

This can be argued in a Democracy.  Basically, Democracy means - the people willfully voted to give authorization to their government to take their money.

Not really.  Liberty is individual.  If there are 5 of us in a room and 3 of us vote to beat you up and take your clothes, that doesn't make it just.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vort said:

And you truly believe this is a moral solution

If you read my comment, you would see that I said I don’t. I’m just trying to explain what he is wanting to do. My understanding may not be complete, but again, I do not agree with what he is proposing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Not really.  Liberty is individual.  If there are 5 of us in a room and 3 of us vote to beat you up and take your clothes, that doesn't make it just.

Of course not and that's why the USA is formed as a Democratic Republic.  But, unless you're going to go for complete removal of government, the only way you can form a government and maintain liberty is through the concept that Rights belong to the individual but that society can vote to give the collective responsibility of protecting those rights to the government.  The Society has declared that the Right to Life must be protected by government, therefore, the government has the duty to spend the collective's resources on saving Person A's life and property from fire.  You can cry "it's unjust!  it's not MY house, why should I protect it with My  money?" but, as Nick Nolte liked to say in The Mandalorian - the people has spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The Society has declared that the Right to Life must be protected by government, therefore, the government has the duty to spend the collective's resources on saving Person A's life and property from fire.  

Not true.  The government has no duty to protect life or property from anything.  https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Grunt said:

Equality in outcome is not fairness.  Taking from one and giving to another is not fairness.  

We come into this world naked and will so leave.  Many of the things we think we own belong to someone else (G-d) who has the right to take anything and give it to another - according to his law and covenants.  It would be better to say that it is unfair for anyone to take that which rightfully belongs to G-d and think that it is theirs.

I also purport that the only possibility for justice, freedom, fairness and liberty is in a society that correctly believes and keeps the laws of G-d.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MormonGator said:

You aren't the judge of what is "too much". Neither is anyone else. 

Let me rephrase that. You are 100% free to lecture me and judge me about having too much money. You should not be free to force me to give away my money. 

With all due respect @Traveler, you don't really understand economics. Just judging on past posts. That's not an insult .Everyone has topics that they don't understand. 

As you and I live and breve the government  (weather or not we believe it has the right or not) does define what is too much money and taxes that surplus.  You and others may not agree but I would purport that I am a better judge than your government as to what is too much money.  And I am not willing to spend such confiscated funds on a $2,000 hammer or other things even more foolish. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

As you and I live and breve the government  (weather or not we believe it has the right or not) does define what is too much money and taxes that surplus.  You and others may not agree but I would purport that I am a better judge than your government as to what is too much money.  And I am not willing to spend such confiscated funds on a $2,000 hammer or other things even more foolish. 

 

The Traveler

And I would say that I am the BEST judge when it is my property in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Grunt said:

And I would say that I am the BEST judge when it is my property in question.

No you aren't. The government, and random strangers, know how to run your life much better than you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Grunt said:

I just absolutely disagree with your wealth redistribution model, so we'll have to agree to disagree.   Just because other nations enslave one part of its population in forced service to another part of its population doesn't make it just.  It's still theft.

Government does have the power to tax citizens - and though you say it is theft - there is no legal means under the law that defines that a government is conducting theft.  I would point out that under Islamic Law Compound interest is theft.  But our western economy depends and runs it banking based on that very principle.  And if you borrowed money to purchase a home or use a credit card - you are a willing participant in what you call theft.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 And if you borrowed money to purchase a home or use a credit card - you are a willing participant in what you call theft.

 

Not everything that exists is just, as I showed in my example.   

 

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

  And if you borrowed money to purchase a home or use a credit card - you are a willing participant in what you call theft.

 

The Traveler

Again, that isn't true.  My willing entry into a contract is not the same thing as being forced to hand over money under threat of violence.  I also willingly barter services and livestock with my neighbors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not true.  The government has no duty to protect life or property from anything.  https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

 

Ok.  You want to twist everything.  That's fine.

Saying that the Government has the duty to protect your RIGHT TO LIFE is completely different from being able to sue a Police Officer for failing to save your life.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, anatess2 said:

Ok.  You want to twist everything.  That's fine.

Saying that the Government has the duty to protect your RIGHT TO LIFE is completely different from being able to sue a Police Officer for failing to save your life.  

No, it was "must spend collective resources on saving ......." that I took issue with.  Protecting the "right" and protecting the "life" are two very different things.  One requires action, the other requires nothing.  

The State acknowledges a right.  They can't protect it, preserve it, or anything else.  That is my individual responsibility, ultimately.  The State can only punish those who violate my rights, and even then only part of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

No, it was "must spend collective resources on saving ......." that I took issue with.  Protecting the "right" and protecting the "life" are two very different things.  One requires action, the other requires nothing.  

The State acknowledges a right.  They can't protect it, preserve it, or anything else.  That is my individual responsibility, ultimately.  The State can only punish those who violate my rights, and even then only part of the time.

Sure.  Society can decide they don't want to spend collective resources on putting out fires.  The fact still remains - the people has spoken.  This means, the minority claiming they were robbed by the majority is not accurate unless the government only puts out fires from those who voted yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

 

Parents giving their children money is predicated on the children putting the money to uses approved of by the parents.  It would be a stupid parent who gives money to their children who will spend the money on hookers and meth.  This means that the parents exert control over their children's financial lives.

Applying the same principle to the general public does not work because - Affluent People should not have control over what non-affluent people do with their money.

the reality is if a parent gives their children cash - especially if they are away at college - they may think or pretend to have control over how their children spend cash - but they do not.  The sad reality is that by the very gift they share some responsibility in how the money is spent.  I would point out that contributing cash to a terrorist organization is against the laws of this country and a giver can be held to account.  Are we less accountable to G-d for our "gifts"?  I believe with G-d we are accountable but that he understand our intent.  But because he knows our intent - it could be more of a problem for us.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  Society can decide they don't want to spend collective resources on putting out fires.  The fact still remains - the people has spoken.  This means, the minority claiming they were robbed by the majority is not accurate unless the government only puts out fires from those who voted yes.

Of course it's accurate.  If you, @MormonGator, and I are in a room and the two of us vote to beat you up and take your clothes, were you robbed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

No, it was "must spend collective resources on saving ......." that I took issue with.  Protecting the "right" and protecting the "life" are two very different things.  One requires action, the other requires nothing.  

The State acknowledges a right.  They can't protect it, preserve it, or anything else.  That is my individual responsibility, ultimately.  The State can only punish those who violate my rights, and even then only part of the time.

Just a note - only G-d can protect a right - but we need to realize that sometimes he charges the state (and others) to assist him.  For which they will be held accountable to him.

 

the Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

the reality is if a parent gives their children cash - especially if they are away at college - they may think or pretend to have control over how their children spend cash - but they do not.  The sad reality is that by the very gift they share some responsibility in how the money is spent.  I would point out that contributing cash to a terrorist organization is against the laws of this country and a giver can be held to account.  Are we less accountable to G-d for our "gifts"?  I believe with G-d we are accountable but that he understand our intent.  But because he knows our intent - it could be more of a problem for us.

 

The Traveler

Ahh... we're back to the Money vs Goods argument.

Contributing cash to a terrorist organization is governed by completely different laws from the government taking money from those who Have to give to those who Have Not (who may not believe they are accountable to any god).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Grunt said:

Of course it's accurate.  If you, @MormonGator, and I are in a room and the two of us vote to beat you up and take your clothes, were you robbed?

Correct. We aren't a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. If we can keep it. Which we can't 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Traveler said:

Just a note - only G-d can protect a right - but we need to realize that sometimes he charges the state (and others) to assist him.  For which they will be held accountable to him.

 

the Traveler

If you break into my house with the intent to harm me and I shoot you, who protected my right?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Grunt said:

And I would say that I am the BEST judge when it is my property in question.

I would say that if you believe it is your property and not G-d's or that you will have any claim to take it with you when you are dead - that you are delusional and not a very good judge about anything. 😉

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Traveler said:

I would say that if you believe it is your property and not G-d's or that you will have any claim to take it with you when you are dead - that you are delusional and not a very good judge about anything. 😉

 

The Traveler

Is the Constitution inspired of God?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share