Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Lucio is gunning for that #1 spot in the bear power rankings.
Amazing posting in here today with Luciom talking about how morally repugnant he thinks universal suffrage is.
It's amazing only to people who never read John Stuart mill (who was actually considered a progressive, and in favor of women voting well before that was a majoritarian opinion).
Welfare takers having the vote is absurd.
I read On Liberty.
It's amazing only to people who never read John Stuart mill (who was actually considered a progressive, and in favor of women voting well before that was a majoritarian opinion).
Welfare takers having the vote is absurd.
You're a welfare taker though. In your case it would certainly be good if you weren't allowed to vote.
Because you take a ton from your government.
It's ridiculous and offensive that you call yourself a libertarian. You have no conception of freedom. The government exists with the permission of the people, not the other way around. It serves at their whim and with their consent and under their rules. The people are the owners of the country. That's just as true for people who don't have money stolen from them by the government as it is for people who do.
You have a really bizarre sense of morality...do you think people who don't make money and don't pay taxes and don't get the vote should consider themselves citizens? Should they consider the state their enemy? Are they morally obliged to do so? Do they have a moral duty to make war on the state?
Yes, universal child allowance plus kindergarten vouchers. You’re on welfare too,
You obviously don’t work because your spend most of your day posting on here and you’ll lie about that, but that aside you say you have two kids. Doesn’t Italy have some form of child benefit that you got?
While I have no idea what Luigi here does and doesn't do (except mushrooms, obviously), I can quite confidently assert from personal experience that "getting paid by a company to work" and "working" are entirely different things. Probably 75%+ of my posting output here, online chess games, online poker games, personal errands and paperwork, etc. etc. have been while I was on the clock.
While I have no idea what Luigi here does and doesn't do (except mushrooms, obviously), I can quite confidently assert from personal experience that "getting paid by a company to work" and "working" are entirely different things. Probably 75%+ of my posting output here, online chess games, online poker games, personal errands and paperwork, etc. etc. have been while I was on th
Maybe I'm wrong but I doubt you'd find time to write 5-10,000 words of political opinions every day. He's a trust fund kid with little real world experience who's spent too much time reading nonsense online and has decided to add to it.
When Wazz was gracious enough in the cap v com thread to give me some links to some people and podcasts on people expressing his ideas, I went down that rabbit hole to try to find some good faith, mask off concrete stances and usurpingly came to the same conclusion that a lot of those from that position are some of the most rabid authoritarian mother ****ers as those on the far
If you aren't an anarchist at 20 then you have no heart. If you aren't a Stalinist at 40 then you have no brain.
Being on welfare means being a negative tax payer (receiving more than you pay in after deducting the capitaria quote for public goods like defense that taxes are for), getting back a small fraction of what they steal you lol. Net taxpaying, ever heard of it?
Besides we didn't send them to kindergarten (if that is the 6m-3y pre-pre-school) and those were income-tested anyway so we didn't qualify.
Receiving defense? Which means war.
Imagine receiving something you don't want which makes you a negative tax payer and then deserving no say in the matter and still owing fealty to the organization doing this to you. That's your moral stance?
Receiving defense? Which means war.
Imagine receiving something you don't want which makes you a negative tax payer and then deserving no say in the matter and still owing fealty to the organization doing this to you. That's your moral stance?
A society has 2 different kind of expenses. Public goods (in the old sense, actually public) like the legal framework, prisons, police and so on. And welfare (targeted distribution of money and/or goods& services to subset of the population, paid by others).
School is a hybrid (poor people who couldn't afford it get subsidized, but at least everyone gets it unlike actual welfare) as well as emergency healthcare.
Now for the actual public good, you have to pay even if you don't receive any value from it, because that's the societal arrangement. So what i mean is that SOME amount of taxes can't be used to determine if you are a tax taker or not, because that's fixed expenses you have to pay for regardless.
After that, you check how much you get in welfare, how much you pay in taxes (including everything, VAT is a major tax here for ex), and you know if you are a tax taker or tax payer on net, wrt welfare.
That has nothing to do with how much you like the public goods provided, you can hate them or love them, that's a different issue. In democracy though you have to accept the will of the majority regarding how much and for what to spend on public goods.
You have to accept the will of the majority even if you aren't enfranchised?
Forced to receive goods you are opposed to, have no say, obliged to follow their rules?
That's moral?
Does that person have a moral duty to make war on the state?
That has nothing to do with how much you like the public goods provided, you can hate them or love them, that's a different issue. In democracy though you have to accept the will of the majority regarding how much and for what to spend on public goods.
I don't know what you mean when you say you have to accept the will of majority. If you mean that I have to appreciate the practical reality that, in a democracy, I sometimes will be in the minority, and no matter what I say or do, the majority very likely will spend money differently (or in different amounts) than I would prefer, then I guess I agree.
But if you are saying that I have to accept those decisions as correct, moral, or justified simply because I live in a democracy and because those decisions reflect the prevailing view of the majority, I vehemently disagree.
I don't know what you mean when you say you have to accept the will of majority. If you mean that I have to appreciate the practical reality that, in a democracy, I sometimes will be in the minority, and no matter what I say or do, the majority very likely will spend money differently (or in different amounts) than I would prefer, then I guess I agree. But if you are saying
No i mean what you said in the bold. Topic was just what i define as "nex tax paying", i exclude public goods (even if you won't agree with the amount and the destination for those necessarily all the times).
Topic was "who should be suspended from voting rights", net tax takers for me (and for John S Mill) and i was defining the concept of net tax taker. Someone who took in , in targeted welfare, more than he pays in taxes after subtracting the per capita taxes necessary to fund public goods.
