Marxism

There is the definition thing again... Please define your version of the word... nwr is using the literal meaning of the word as relating to a crime. They are simply saying that the word "stealing" is defined by the laws that exist.You're getting worked up and I don't believe nwr was

Faith, in teh past several years I have not attended a public school; I have not required the direct services of the police or fire departments; I drive very short distances.Yet my tax dollars pay for the education of children who are not me or mine. My money pays for fire protection that I (thankfully) did not need to use. I help pay for the roads and freeways that I barely even use. My hard-earned dollars go to police officers who have never needed to protect me from a break-in, or punish anyone who has committed a crime against me.By your logic, the police are "stealing" from me, because I am forced to pay someone else's salary. California is "stealing" from me to pay for roads I don;t even use.Government exists for a very specific set of reasons, Faith. Among them is the protection of the public safety (which is why we all pay into the police, the fire department, the military, even if we don't directly use any of their services and even if we disagree with a given expenditure).I would argue that welfare, unemployment, and food stamps are in no way "stealing," but are rather a social safety net for when we stumble and fall - not much different from the police or the fire department.Is it morally acceptable to allow a family to become homeless or even die because a parent loses a job in an economic downturn? Who bears the responsibility to provide care and living accommodations for disabled people who cannot work, particularly those who don;t have any family to fall back on? What about the working poor, the people who do have jobs that pay only minimum wage and have to raise a family, and so cannot afford their living expenses alone?What about the consequences of not providing for social services like welfare, food stamps, disability, and unemployment?Without unemployment a few years ago, I would have been ruined as a productive member of society. Because of government aid when I was unable to provide for myself, I was able to take out student loans and return to school - the end result being that government aid in the form of unemployment insurance and federally guaranteed loans has allowed me to get back on my feet as an even more productive member of society than I was before. I have now paid far more into the government and the economy in general than I ever took in aid.What happens when people have no place to turn for food and shelter? From what I understand crime increases, as the desperate need to eat, and they'll steal to survive (that's real, violent theft, Faith, not just taxation). Theft forces a greater expenditure on police protection, and being robbed can drive another person into a desperate situation if they were already living close to the edge. Wouldn;t it simply be easier and more beneficial to everyone involved to simply make a program that provides money for basic living necessities like food and shelter so that, rather than focusing on tomorrow's meal, a destitute person can focus on ways to get back on their feet, like getting a job or going back to school?Here in the US, we have the capacity to guarantee an absolute minimum standard of living. We can take the moral stand that nobody [i]has[i] to be homeless, that no children need to starve, that losing your job doesn;t have to be the end of the world. Yes, this requires that all of us pay a small fraction of what's necessary in the form of taxes.But in your case, wouldn't Jesus want you to feed and clothe the poor and the sick? When you accuse the poor of "stealing" through taxation, aren't you accusing Jesus of stealing, since what you do to the lowest people, you also do to Him? Wouldn't Jesus, the guy who walked around healing blind people and lepers, feeding the hungry, and saying that the meek will inherit the Kingdom of God, support any social program that reduced the suffering of those in need?Yes, there will be people who abuse the system and sit around being lazy, living on the government teat. All systems are open to abuse. But what about the hard-working people who've just had some bad luck, or who have even made some bad decisions in their lives and want to make things right if given the chance? What about the sick and disabled, who physically cannot provide for themselves?Don't we have a moral obligation (and in your case even a religious obligation) as a society to help those people?

Don't be silly? Would I?I would use the verb "steal" in the same way that it is used by others in the community around me.You are using "steal" as it is used by a very narrow community of right wing extremists. And it is fine to use the word that way when communicating with that narrow community. But when you are trying to communicate with the larger community, then you must stick to the shared meaning used by that larger community -- that is, unless you are trying to be deliberately provocative and incendiary.It's your choice. If you want to be provocative and incendiary, then continue as you have been doing. If you want to communicate, then you will need to use words in accordance with the meanings shared by those with whom you wish to communicate. Good. Because that was what I was attempting to do.

Wow wow wow. Well I do understand the problem better now, gotta say that.I use the term "stealing" in the sense the English language uses it, the objective sense. You seem to use it in the sense of a moral consensus of some sort.Interesting to discover this difference but it doesn't solve the communication problem because I'm interested in objectivity and you aren't. You make everything into a moral issue, as if I'm accusing people of stealing when I'm merely calling a spade a spade and saying other solutions must be sought if in reality what is going on is stealing. I understand better why you dip Horowitz in slime and nail him to the wall too. He uses words in the objective sense just as I do. You use them to categorize things moralistically, or really ideologically.It's like by consensus you've all agreed together that stealing isn't stealing as long as the government is doing it for what you all agree is a good purpose.Depriving language of its objective meaning to serve an ideology.Just as it seemed. Fascinating really. Like going through the looking glass into a really bizarre other universe. Postmodernism at least I must assume.Interesting though. But objectivity is crucial to me so I will be avoiding communicating with anyone here from now on. I don't like being subjected to your moralistic hatred based on your community consensus to suck the objective meaning out of words.But wow, it IS fascinating.Thank you again for the clarity. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But you still won't tell us the basis upon which you distinguish things that are necessary to spend taxes on as opposed to things that you consider to be "stealing".Is spending tax on educating kids that would otherwise not be educated "stealing"? For example. I think the issue here is that you are not communicating effectively. I still don't know on what basis you think some tax spending is justified whilst considering other spending as "stealing".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Did you actually check any references?The English language is very complex, and words are used in a variety of ways. (that's one of several definitions). I have not said anything about a moral consensus.We are part of a language community, and we share meanings within that community. If we wish to communicate, then we need to choose words according to how they will be understood by those with whom we want to communicate.Meanings involve consensus. We can communicate based on that consensus with respect to meanings, even when there is no moral consensus. But if you are not willing to use shared meanings, then communication becomes impossible. And there you go, being incendiary again by making false accusations.You are in effect saying that Faith has the one true meaning of "steal" and anybody who disagrees is necessarily wrong and non-objective. That's similar to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

I and a few others have embraced your definition of "stealing" just for the sake of the argument however we still don't understand where you draw this line...What taxes are stealing and what aren't ?
Which are needed and which aren't?
Why is this the case?
What makes one more important than the other?I don't think asking these is unreasonable given that we already conceded and embraced your idea of "stealing"Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

Wow. Double wow.And now I'm being interrogated again on the issues I've already answered. Wow.I've already said I'm against universal public education because it indocrinates. I'm willing to compromise and have some public education as long as private education remains available. I'm not even going to oppose paying taxes for it although in some cases it may mean paying twice for an education for those who choose private education. Must make some concessions to the crazy world I live in.I'm not saying ANY more here. I see the method in the madness and that is very very interesting but I don't like getting chopped up in the shredder of your consensus ideology.Well, I guess I "lied" because I am going to say one more thing.I couldn't make any sense out of the idea that you think I think the needy don't "deserve" help as if I think of them as a class of "undeserving people" or something like that, which is really bizarre and nowhere near what I think. But now I understand that you get the term from my referring to stealing at all, because by definition one doesn't deserve what one steals.That's interesting too and I'm glad to understand it. But all this does just make it excruciatingly clear that you can't understand what I'm saying and again, I HATE being put through your moralistic people-shredder. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That isn't the point faith. We want to know why you think this.
Why is the police department not "stealing" and welfare and unemployment "stealing"We don't see into your mind faith and a big part of this board is learning. Click on my user name ... while I don't post often I've learned a lot over the years from trying to understand the other points of view

But still nobody seems able to discern the basis of what things you think tax should be spent on and what things you are describing as "stealing". So you (grudgingly) agree that tax spending on public education is in the national good. Hurrah. Indeed. As do we all.I will try once again - On what basis do you distinguish between those things it is necessary to spend tax and those things on which tax spending constitutes "stealing"?

Try considering what I'm saying: by my lights I've explained all that. But you live in another conceptual universe. Grasp that first because NOTHING I will say will register in your conceptual universe. That much I now understand only too well.

Hi Faith, You made it very clear that you don't think welfare is fair, because you portray it as stealing, rather than a form of social self interest.This was precisely my point - that you don't think it is fair. Interesting how an argument only based on emotion fails to persuade people that want facts. No, you only made the point that you think it is comparable to stealing in Faith-world, and that you can't conceive of a valid reason for any such programs.In the process you have also demonstrated a willingness to misuse terms to cause\incite an emotional response. This is the logical fallacy of Prejudicial Language:

quote:

---

Loaded or emotive terms are used to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

---

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, to the misuse of terms, and to the use of poor logic, but that doesn't mean that you have a logical argument, a rational argument, an honest argument, or one based on reality, just that you have an emotional response.Curiously, that too is precisely what I predicted. Thanks again for proving my point.Enjoy.

---

please point out the post? Clicking on your posts I can't seem to find it. Can you please point it out? I see what you consider not "stealing" but I don't see where you distinguish why you believe they are differentWhy should I pay to protect you from YOUR stalker but you not pay my unemployment?Edited by DC85, : No reason given.

I am in favor of public education. We can agree to disagree on that without having to be disagreeable.As it happens, my children were educated at private schools, mainly because of the poor quality of the neighborhood schools where I lived at that time. It cost an arm and a leg. But I still support public education, and I support paying for public education with taxes. As for the "as private education remains available" part, I agree that private education needs to be available as an option.And yes, the world has always been a crazy place. But we do what we have to do to live in it.I managed to survive 8 years of Bush (whom I consider a candidate for the worst president ever). So I dare say that you can survive 4 or 8 years of an Obama presidency.Even though we sharply disagree on some things, we probably agree on a lot more. Wouldn't it be better if people aired their differences in rational discussions, and avoided demonizing those with whom they disagree. Maybe there is a lot of common ground where people could work together to make the nation and the world better places.(subtitle line taken from the statement by Rodney King).

Where? Can you quote or link to where you answered that question?I am not the only one asking this. I don't think I, nor others here, are being unreasonable in asking this. We genuinely cannot see where you have made this clear.