jbalm wrote:There are always plenty of slavish people who don't mind having someone else make decisions for them.
I've always found that an interesting one. like those who don't make the decision and take it to the lord, but rather say "we'll leave that to the lord". Or "the lord told us to, so we did". now i don't mean to mock or belittle the truth of the principle, but my experiences are that a great many LDS- and christians in general, are taking the ultimate cop out of responsibility by always saying "the lord told us to do it", rather than taking it to the lord and saying "we're going to do this unless you tell us otherwise".
take it a step further, the slavish people, you mean like, those people who lived in the USA who weren't the signaturies of the constitution and weren't part of the first congress?
we believe in being subject to......
its always a fine line. granted, i agree all the same
The fact is, you probably can't name a dozen things you can do that isn't regulated in some way by government. Basically, you're free to do what the government allows. No more. If that's all you want, fine. The problem is many people aren't that subservient.
this is arguably the KEY point in this entire debate (as we discussed in the thread on chavez and venezuala, and congress taking away your SS benefits). Basically, ANY system that has any form of taxation, is a centralist system. lets not kid ourselves guys, we live under socialism. the same socialism that "they" warned us about.
The only difference is that this one appears different because it doesn't follow the Marx/ Engels version of socialism, which is the eradiction of institutions. and that is because the state doesn't need to. it has our obedience, we worship it.
Your comment >>>>>>They've discovered how to vote benefits for themselves out of the pockets of everyone else<< is not entirely true. I argue that this is exactly what government does. it taxes and redistributes in order to invest, develop, improve, and offer opportunity for its citizens. heck, why do you think it exists? why do you even think you have this great constitution and system?
It sounds like some of you guys want the model where you are farmers on a property, not beholden to anyone and hey all power to that. However, while that might have worked in Upper Vermont in 1604, if you want to participate in the society we have today, it costs.
You work, they take, you get some back. i'm all for minimal government, and no income tax, and people supporting other people in need, but unless you totally stop paying your income tax, then don't tell those who do, and look at ways to distribute that taxation for the betterment of society in general.
we all started as beggers in this system. We went to schools funded by someone else. we drove on roads initially funded by someone else. Drank water from a tap built form taxation. this is what government is about. and over the 60 years it averages out.
Sometimes your up, sometimes your down. when you are down those who are up can kick in, when you are down you can be helped. sounds like our gospel model to me.
Now if the LDG's only stopped spending your money on bombs and bullets there would be plenty for everyone.
Is it strange that some people decry this "socialism"- I should not have to support other people with my money they are lazy welfare bludgers- but they are happy having other peoples taxation building other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan, or donated to Israel in the form of more bombs and bullets. All we ask is that maybe, what if, couldn't, THAT money, be spent on our own citizens?
jbalm wrote:The masses are asses. How else can you explain the popularity of Paris Hilton, the ratings of "American Idol," or the fact that "Three's Company" stayed on the air for 8 years?
well now you understand the mindset of those in power. thats how they think. If average joe sixpack was left to send in a check to help the poor there would be poor kids lying in gutters and families destitute, not to mention societal breakdown, crime, urban ghettos. He'd spend it at wal-mart. Oh, hang on, you mean that taxation can alleviate some of those unwelcome side-effects of a failed society?
If you participate in this society, and partake of the spoils of it, such as by using ANY public infrastructure you have not directly paid for with a direct tax, please do not suggest to those who favour universal health, or welfare support for those in need, that they are socialist. maybe they are just good economists trying to improve the way the taxation revenue is spent? Oh, and by the way.......better a socialist then a hypocrite and a thief.