Ok, Obamaniacs (Cali)....

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That doesn't even make sense. We are clearly not talking about whether the government can illegally take your money (which you imply by suggesting that it is analogous to illegally killing me with a gun).

Does the government have the legal authority, given to it by the people, to redistribute wealth? Answer that and we can get to the SHOULD.

why does he have to answer thqat first? Indeed, they may even collapse intot the same issue, depending on mhy he thinks they shouldn't. His point, I think, which does make some snese, is that the governemtn IS redistributing, so whether he things it is illegal is moot. It is a fact and and he thinks they shouldn't. WHy he thinks they shouoldn't can certainly be aadddressed without crossing the illegality issue, unless they do collapse.


I have bnot rfead thw whole thread, however, so maybe mine doesn't make sense.

[MikeWaters]

This thread gets me back to what I have been discussing recently: does anyone have any doubt that materialism and the love of money and things is at the root of much harm?

I am wondering why I don't hear much about it at General Conference, despite the entire Book of Mormon bein peppered with this message.

Prosperity gospel, we sneer at Joel Osteen, but frankly, I don't think we are very far removed from it.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

This thread gets me back to what I have been discussing recently: does anyone have any doubt that materialism and the love of money and things is at the root of much harm?

I am wondering why I don't hear much about it at General Conference, despite the entire Book of Mormon bein peppered with this message.

Prosperity gospel, we sneer at Joel Osteen, but frankly, I don't think we are very far removed from it.

its not about the love of money.... you of course have your blinders on and its the only thing you can focus on.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

why does he have to answer thqat first? Indeed, they may even collapse intot the same issue, depending on mhy he thinks they shouldn't. His point, I think, which does make some snese, is that the governemtn IS redistributing, so whether he things it is illegal is moot. It is a fact and and he thinks they shouldn't. WHy he thinks they shouoldn't can certainly be aadddressed without crossing the illegality issue, unless they do collapse.


I have bnot rfead thw whole thread, however, so maybe mine doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure I follow where you are going with this. The reason he has to answer that question first is to delineate which debate we are engaged in. I am finding his responses confusing and contradictory, and I think it is because he is shifting from one topic to the next without even realizing it. I don't think the issues collapse into each other as neatly as you have suggested. Whether the government SHOULD redistribute wealth is a separate question than whether it has the legal authority to redistribute wealth. The point has been made by at least Venkman that the government doesn't have the legal authority to redistribute wealth, which takes us down a far different path than a debate about whether or not it is desirable.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I'm not sure I follow where you are going with this. The reason he has to answer that question first is to delineate which debate we are engaged in. I am finding his responses confusing and contradictory, and I think it is because he is shifting from one topic to the next without even realizing it. I don't think the issues collapse into each other as neatly as you have suggested. Whether the government SHOULD redistribute wealth is a separate question than whether it has the legal authority to redistribute wealth. The point has been made by at least Venkman that the government doesn't have the legal authority to redistribute wealth, which takes us down a far different path than a debate about whether or not it is desirable.

I was talking legal in the abstract, ie. legitimate, moral. Alot of government actions throughout history have been "legal", that doesn't make them legitimate. I don't even think I used the term legal, but if I did, sorry for any confusion it may have caused you.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Adam

It has always amazed me that many myopic Americans think central organization of social services doesn't work. I think over the last 50 years the economies of the far more socialist/marxist/communist Denmark or Holland or Sweden have done pretty well, for instance.

I think you, and many right wing ideologues, mistake totalitarianism and central economic planning. When the government tells you how many kids to have that is bad. When the government provides health insurance to all citizens it is good. When the government tries to limit the freedom of the press it his bad. When the government provides old age pensions to senior citizens it is good. And so forth.

I think you hear "Marxism" or "Socialism" or "Communism" and you immediately think of the Gulag and lack of production of consumer products in the former Soviet Union. That is no more fair than if someone were to hear "Democracy" or "Free Market" and think of Abu Ghraib or the Dust Bowl or the failure of IndyMac.

There is no perfect system. The question, to me anyway, is whether I want my excesses and failures to be on the side of letting the poor and sick suffer and die without aid or whether I want a company to pay a bit more in taxes and have to comply with a few more environmental regulations. I will readily admit that excesses happen on the "liberal" side of political policy implementation. Will you admit that failures occur on the "conservative" side?

And on judgment day, I will feel sorrow for the excess regulation which slowed the growth of the economy. Will you feel sorrow for those your nation left cold and hungry without assistance in their hellish loneliness?

Extremism on either side causes damage. And it is hard to rally people to the banner of moderation. But to make a blanket statement that central planning doesn't work is just ignorant of history and current events. It would be just as true (or false) to say free markets don't work.

Yes, there are failures on the conservative side. I have no problem admitting it. I also believe there are far more problems created by government than solved.

The biggest problem I have is how much of what I earn is taken from my by the government and wasted. Government welfare seems to have created generations of dependents who believe that their mere existence warrants handouts. Do you deny that?

What I've said before and will say again is that I want to be able to decide where my money goes. Let me keep more in my pocket and I will have more in order to help others who are in need and I believe I am a better judge of which of my family or neighbors are in need than the government, as I live with them and interact with them on a daily basis.

All I and others are asking is to allow us to make that decision rather than the government.

[il Padrino Ute]

I believe I know how the money I earn is better spent. When I offer to buy a meal for a homeless person, I know that every dime will be spent on that meal for the homeless person and therefore, he gets the full value of my charitable help. At the same time, by offering to buy the homeless person a meal rather than give him money, I can quickly discern if he really is hungry or if all he wants is money for booze.

I can't say the same for government collection of my taxes. It goes wherever the government wants it to go, not necessarily where it needs to go.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Adam

It has always amazed me that many myopic Americans think central organization of social services doesn't work. I think over the last 50 years the economies of the far more socialist/marxist/communist Denmark or Holland or Sweden have done pretty well, for instance.

I think you, and many right wing ideologues, mistake totalitarianism and central economic planning. When the government tells you how many kids to have that is bad. When the government provides health insurance to all citizens it is good. When the government tries to limit the freedom of the press it his bad. When the government provides old age pensions to senior citizens it is good. And so forth.

I think you hear "Marxism" or "Socialism" or "Communism" and you immediately think of the Gulag and lack of production of consumer products in the former Soviet Union. That is no more fair than if someone were to hear "Democracy" or "Free Market" and think of Abu Ghraib or the Dust Bowl or the failure of IndyMac.

There is no perfect system. The question, to me anyway, is whether I want my excesses and failures to be on the side of letting the poor and sick suffer and die without aid or whether I want a company to pay a bit more in taxes and have to comply with a few more environmental regulations. I will readily admit that excesses happen on the "liberal" side of political policy implementation. Will you admit that failures occur on the "conservative" side?

And on judgment day, I will feel sorrow for the excess regulation which slowed the growth of the economy. Will you feel sorrow for those your nation left cold and hungry without assistance in their hellish loneliness?

Extremism on either side causes damage. And it is hard to rally people to the banner of moderation. But to make a blanket statement that central planning doesn't work is just ignorant of history and current events. It would be just as true (or false) to say free markets don't work.

It has always amazed me that many myopic Americans think central organization of social services do work. Especially when they try and compare countries that are 95% white and 1/20 the size to that of the US.

I think you, and many left wing ideologues, mistake capitalism leaving the market alone. When the government tells you how many kids to have that is bad. When the government provides health insurance to all citizens its expensive and halts innovation. When the government tries to limit the freedom of the press it is bad. When the government lets the free market decides how much goods and services cost its a good thing. And so forth.

I think you hear "Marxism" or "Socialism" or "Communism" and you immediately think of the Gulag and lack of production of consumer products in the former Soviet Union. That is no more fair than if someone were to hear "Democracy" or "Free Market" and think of Abu Ghraib or the Dust Bowl or the failure of IndyMac.

There is a fair system. Its called capitalism. It lets the invisible hand of the market decide how much goods and services cost. There is no government intervention.

And on judgment day, I will feel sorrow for the excess regulation which slowed the growth of the economy. I will feel sorrow for those in my nation left cold and hungry because the government took 30% of my money to pay subsidies to farmers for ethanol and bailed out the mortgage industry because they were stupid with their investments.

Extremism on either side causes damage. And it is hard to rally people to the banner of moderation. But to make a blanket statement that central planning doesn't work is right. It would be not true to say free markets don't work.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

It has always amazed me that many myopic Americans think central organization of social services do work. Especially when they try and compare countries that are 95% white and 1/20 the size to that of the US.

I think you, and many left wing ideologues, mistake capitalism leaving the market alone. When the government tells you how many kids to have that is bad. When the government provides health insurance to all citizens its expensive and halts innovation. When the government tries to limit the freedom of the press it is bad. When the government lets the free market decides how much goods and services cost its a good thing. And so forth.

I think you hear "Marxism" or "Socialism" or "Communism" and you immediately think of the Gulag and lack of production of consumer products in the former Soviet Union. That is no more fair than if someone were to hear "Democracy" or "Free Market" and think of Abu Ghraib or the Dust Bowl or the failure of IndyMac.

There is a fair system. Its called capitalism. It lets the invisible hand of the market decide how much goods and services cost. There is no government intervention.

And on judgment day, I will feel sorrow for the excess regulation which slowed the growth of the economy. I will feel sorrow for those in my nation left cold and hungry because the government took 30% of my money to pay subsidies to farmers for ethanol and bailed out the mortgage industry because they were stupid with their investments.

Extremism on either side causes damage. And it is hard to rally people to the banner of moderation. But to make a blanket statement that central planning doesn't work is right. It would be not true to say free markets don't work.

Amen and amen.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

It has always amazed me that many myopic Americans think central organization of social services do work. Especially when they try and compare countries that are 95% white and 1/20 the size to that of the US.

I think you, and many left wing ideologues, mistake capitalism leaving the market alone. When the government tells you how many kids to have that is bad. When the government provides health insurance to all citizens its expensive and halts innovation. When the government tries to limit the freedom of the press it is bad. When the government lets the free market decides how much goods and services cost its a good thing. And so forth.

There is a fair system. Its called capitalism. It lets the invisible hand of the market decide how much goods and services cost. There is no government intervention.

Extremism on either side causes damage. And it is hard to rally people to the banner of moderation. But to make a blanket statement that central planning doesn't work is right. It would be not true to say free markets don't work.

How white your country is only explains why you have a big welfare state. White people won't make your welfare state run efficiently.

For markets to function properly, you need 1. Perfect Information 2. No externalities 3. No barriers to entry 4. No transaction costs

Which of those hold in the real world, and doesn't need regulation?