<p>^^^Couldn’t you apply the same argument to taxation in general?</p>
<p>^ Yes… But let’s not go there. :P</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What ARE you talking about? I just said we should stop running in circles.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, laws that exist for no good reason should be removed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? If the logical conclusion of your argument is anarchism, why not embrace it? Most of the people here can already tell you have radical political views - why hide?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t be so vocal about this bill if it didn’t go completely against what the country was founded on, which is capitalism. </p>
<p>People that are for the bill have no better argument than “You’re a racist” or “Greed is bad” or “We all need healthcare, and the consequences of that don’t matter”.</p>
<p>When Barrack Obama was close to winning his presidency he said “We are going to fundamentally transform America”. No one really knew what he meant by that but it sounded good at the time.</p>
<p>If we continue down the path that he is leading us, the economy and possibly the country will head towards the verge of collapse.</p>
<p>That is all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you think this thought? You really think we will “collapse?”</p>
<p>What? Didn’t Obama tell you that entitlement programs and deficit spending are bad for the country?</p>
<p>Maybe you were too preoccupied with his rhetorical speeches.</p>
<p>^I said absolute nothing about that. I asked you a question. If that was your answer, it’s not very satisfactory. </p>
<p>Also, when did I ever say I was pro-Obama. Stop making assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just me, but sometimes it seems like you should read the thread before spewing a load of BS to make sure that it hasn’t been refuted many times over already.</p>
<p>I thought “greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Or at least someone told me that…</p>
<p>@schaden: Yeah, the country was founded on capitalism and yeah the healthcare bill somewhat goes against it, but isn’t it the ethical thing to do? Many people are struggling to pay their day to day bills and can’t afford insurance. Providing insurance for them would be the morally correct thing to do. You can’t force someone to pay for their life. It’s not right.</p>
<p>Yeah, its going to cost a ton of money in the shortrun. In the longrun, however, it will cut costs. Look at the Congressional Budget Office’s reports. </p>
<p>Also, deficit spending isn’t really that bad. There are positive aspects to it. If left uncontrolled its going to be a problem, but Obama already froze spending on a few huge things starting in 2011.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, I never actually noticed that.</p>
<p>An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations - March, 1776
North Carolina becomes the first state to authorize a vote in favor of independence - April, 1776</p>
<p>Clearly Capitalism had a decisive influence on the founding fathers!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bahahaha. You’re kidding right? </p>
<p>That’s about as educated as a criticism as those who scream our democracy is being taken away… :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Especially considering the United States, like its forebears in Western Europe, relied heavily on a mercantile system not only during the colonial period but for decades after independence.</p>
<p>I love capitalism. I think it’s the best system for a large civilization. However, there has long been a consensus that capitalism is not perfect and can’t do everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think we are running in circles. What is an example?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not an anarchist, and I’m not hiding. I just meant that my views on taxes are a whole 'nother can of worms, probably a whole thread’s worth… And I’m not 100% sure of my views there. Still for what it’s worth, I am in general very much pro small government, and would love to see more things handled at the state and local level, and more things optional. Take social security, for example. I think people who want to should be allowed to opt out of it. I know I’d rather have the money to invest than pay it in taxes. I think some things obviously have to be done at the federal level: for example, militia just doesn’t cut it in this age of stealth jets and fighting robots.</p>
<p>And yet the logical conclusion is still anarchism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s nice, except that your taxes would fund current retirees. Then once you’re retired, current workers fund your Social Security. That’s not to say it wouldn’t have been interesting to see all the people that opted out of Social Security and lost their savings when the Stock Market plunged. I wonder if that’s ever happened before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
So if America was ‘founded on’ monarchy, you’d be against a move towards democracy?</p>
<p>^ America was founded as a Republic (To the REPUBLIC to which we stand) ruled by white, land-owning, Christian men, but no one seems to have a problem with our moved towards democracy <em>shrug</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think a system that enslave all future generations in a giant pyramid scheme should never have been made. Since it was, we are faced with the choice between paying the price or adding to it and passing it to the next generation. I’d be in favor of phasing it out and replacing it with a system where the money you put in is the money you get back out, and you are free to invest it somewhere else if you choose.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with that, and I agree that the whole “our founding fathers are turning over in their graves” argument lacks any weight whatsoever. They deliberately designed a system that could adapt to changes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You keeping asking me that question, but I can’t answer it because you and me seem to have different ideas of what “harming” someone is. From my point of view, noone is legally obligated to do anything for anyone unless they promise to do so. As a Christian, I believe they are morally obligated, but I also support separation of church and state.</p>
<p>From my point of view, all just laws are based on two principles:</p>
<p>1: Do everything you agree to do.</p>
<p>2: Leave everybody else alone otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, letting people do with it as they wish defeats the whole point. One only has to look back to when it was created to see why. And given the recent economic conditions, we should all be very thankful that Bush’s proposed Social Security reform didn’t make it through. That’s not to say the system doesn’t have problems, but many of them could be fixed by taking the cap off the tax.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you not read what I wrote? Why would you ask those questions if you had no intention of actually reading the answer?</p>
<p>You asked if there was any sphere of life in which government the government should have limited power. I said that there wasn’t, with the caveat that generally if there is no harm, the correct action is inaction (with the implication that the government can act in cases where harm is done). You somehow extrapolated from that that I don’t believe we have any rights. The implication in your post was that the government should be inactive in more cases. Now that would logically extend government into cases in which harm had been done.</p>
<p>Note that the details of what constitutes harm is irrelevant to this debate, as long as we agree on the general concept. So, either you can stand by your assertion that there are more cases in which the government should be inactive (and in that case, I would be interested to know when people are free to harm others). Or you can agree with my original point - that rights are only limited to when you don’t harm others.</p>