14-01-2002 05:16									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

No way in hell you'd ever get my vote then!!!

That's just outright cruel what you are advocating. There are alot of seniors out there who simply have no other means to exist other than social security.

Not only that, when someone explains to you that the economic ramifications are going to impact you personally anyway, I think you'll look at it differently.

How are they unconstitutional?

	14-01-2002 05:25									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Federal welfare programs are unconstitutional because there is no provision for them in Article 1, Section 8. Short answer, because I don't want this to be threadjacked. Start a new thread if you like on the subject.

States, by the way, can have them, although I still oppose them.

	14-01-2002 13:25									#33
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka Che is mostly correct about the origons of the LA SWAT and the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. The BPP started out doing things like giving food to poor people but were persecuted by COINTELPRO. Part of this included infiltrating the BPP and getting them to fight each other. To compare then to the KKK is racist nonsense. My source for all this is a history course I took a year ago which focused a lot on the 60s.

Im sure the KKK had plenty of BBQ's in it's time. All you can eat and more and while your here let us tell you how the blacks and Jews are taking over America. I'm not impressed with them handing out food. If you buy into "It's only for self defense" then I guess that is your right. But it only legitimizes their use of violence. Was the LAPD any better? In a lot of cases, no. But don't give me that bullshit about the BPP being in it for only self defense. Not all people in the 60's were about love and peace.

	14-01-2002 18:49									#34
	Suffering from ads?

Ted -

quote: I know where you are going with this berzerker.

I'm already there, greetings!

quote: The government hands out money for the practical welfare of its own citizens, (who can spend food stamps at a place of their choice that accepts them) not so they can "recruit" people or improve it's own public image.

I see, "I'm here from the government, and I'm here to help"? No, recruiting a political base has nothing to do with it

quote: That's putting a big spin on the situation.

The spin is claiming the Black Panthers did this to recruit supporters while politicians don't.

quote: You're just going to remove social security and welfare, unemployment benefits, because they are ONLY there for PR?

No, because these programs are unconstitutional and constitute legalized theft.

quote: That's just outright ridiculous.

Well, I don't know about that, these programs were invented to get votes in addition to any other reasons.

quote: Okay, watch what happens when those programs are removed, the entire country will go into chaos and plunged into the deepest Depression ever due to the resulting economic destruction that ensues. Bringing the whole world down with it.

Glory hallelujah! Government largesse has saved the world!!! These programs don't create wealth, they shift it around while wasting some on bureaucrats and nonsensical political pork barrel projects. If people were left with their own money, they'd generally find more effective ways to generate wealth.

quote: PR has nothing to do with it.

Haha hehe hoho.

quote: When you find yourself in dire straights some day and have no choice but to take advantage of some government program to tide you over, see how you feel about it then.

I spent several months as a "homeless" person and never asked for government to tide me over.

quote: No way in hell you'd ever get my vote then!!!

Hmm...has something about having the government tide you over attracted you to the politicians who support these programs? Pretty good "PR" I'd say.

quote: That's just outright cruel what you are advocating. There are alot of seniors out there who simply have no other means to exist other than social security.

Maybe if they never had to pay into this Ponzi scheme, they'd have even more money to retire on. Ever think of that? As for our position being "cruel", why is legalized stealing at the not so proverbial point of a gun compassionate? The average life span of a black male in this country is about 66 years, just in time to die after paying into Social(ist) Security their entire working life. I imagine there are a few million people driven into poverty by the "taxes" you're forcing them to pay to support wealthy retirees on Social Security; yeah, real compassionate.

quote: Not only that, when someone explains to you that the economic ramifications are going to impact you personally anyway, I think you'll look at it differently.

How so? By your dire predictions of doom and gloom?

quote: How are they unconstitutional?

The Constitution does not authorize Congress to spend money on charity no matter what name it's given. Try reading it while paying special attention to Art 1 Sect 8...

	14-01-2002 19:00									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

--"The other side of the militarization of law enforcement, not covered here, however, is the increasing use of paramilitary police forces"

Not in as much detail, but it is mentioned. They talk about the H&K MP5 and advertising.

And surely you could have found a better group to defend than the Black Panthers.

--"As an aside, here's a REALLY cool article on LAPD Swat."

Seems an odd topic for Popular Mechanics.
Interesting how they pay lip-service to their mission being capture/control, then go on to say that the policy is to use their MP5s in full-auto bursts at close range.

--"Basically it says that giving state police units more power is a bad idea."

It certainly is, but I don't agree that federal agencies need any more power.
Especially not when the BATF can get away with blatantly laundering military vehicle purchases through fake private companies.

--"My source for all this is a history course I took a year ago"

What level of schooling, and where? I think you'll find that the history taught in US public schools (at all levels, including university) has been heavily politicized. To what degree depends on the school, but you will not get anything close to an unbiased view.

--"The government hands out money for the practical welfare of its own citizens"

It's really hard to support that when you look at voting patterns and demographics.

--"You're just going to remove social security and welfare, unemployment benefits, because they are ONLY there for PR?"

No. I'd remove them, but not for that reason. They are unconstitutional, they amount to legalized theft, they can front as a huge vote-buying scheme, they can and are used as a means of increasing dependancy on government, and for these reasons should be ended.

--"When you find yourself in dire straights some day and have no choice but to take advantage of some government program to tide you over, see how you feel about it then."

Silly person. I've been unemployed. Know what I did? Got a job bagging groceries when I couldn't find better. Showed up to work on time, did my job, and didn't complain, and what do you know, I got a promotion and a raise real quick. Then I got a better job elsewhere, but that's another story.
The jobs are there, you just have to be willing to take them. The problem right now is that in so many cases the unemployment or welfare benefits are better than what you can get working, so a lot of people go "why work?" In Hawaii, for instance, you can get the equivalent of around $15/hr on welfare.

--"There are alot of seniors out there who simply have no other means to exist other than social security."

The government has already made promises to them, and it has to keep them. This can easily be done. You have no idea how much land the federal government owns. The proceeds from selling this off could easily be used to set up private accounts for any seniors dependant on SS, and probably get them bigger benefits than now.

Wraith
"Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent"
-- H. L. Mencken

	14-01-2002 19:52									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I will say that Wraith is right, in that the people who have already payed into Social Security must have some way to recoup their money. I think his idea of selling off federal land is a good one, for starters.

	14-01-2002 22:43									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The BPP was/is a schizophrenic organization. At its worst, it was a drug gang (and possibly committed murder, but most of the convictions have been overturned). At its best, it helped the cause of Black liberation in many ways that most folks don't know about.

Part of the problem was that the BPP was very militant and very macho. This tends to attract poseurs and thugs, who then get to strut their stuff around on the good name of the organization, dressed all in black leather and looking quite sharp, posturing their manliness, and gettin' all the chicks.

The reason that the BPP served as an attraction for such folks is because it had started out doing things like standing up to the police, at a time when doing so would get you killed. They also started the first breakfast programs for school children, started the first Black history programs (yes, I know, of dubious value for those of you who don't think Black people did anything in America except whine), forced the health care industry to start taking sickle cell anemia seriously as a problem (which overwhelmingly affects Black people).

It also depended on the branch. The LA branch was a highly political, serious minded group. The Oakland branch, however, was little more than a gang of thugs. The Chicago branch was likely one of the best branches in the country. Seriously political, and the most dangerous. They had organized a truce between the city's gangs, and had started politicizing them and weaning them away from crime.

Now, on which part of group do you suppose the police focused? Was is the gangsters, thugs, and drug runners? Or was it the serious political branches that didn't engage in that sort of crime? If you picked the later, you're correct. Nearly all the people convicted of various crimes or assassinated by the police were the politicos, while the thugs and drug dealers were more or less left alone.

George Jackson was assassinted in his jail cell. Mark Clark and Fred Hampton were killed in their sleep by the police. Angela Davis was the subject of a nation wide police hunt because one of the guns that George Jackson's little brother used to take that judge hostage had been purchased by her. Ronald Reagan said he would seek the death penalty for her (she was acquitted). Geronimo ji-Jaga spent almost 30 years in prison for a murder committed while he was 600 miles away (a random murder of a white woman). And so on.

How many of the thugs and drug runners went to jail? I can't say that I know of any?

Wraith, it's not about defending the BPP specifically. They were the first group that came to mind and the one about which I could rattle a bunch of stuff without having to hit the books for evidence. In any event, the fact that a group is unpopular is no reason not to defend it. They were unfairly targetted by the police for repression, simple as that. Or should we also ignore what happened at the Waco compound because those guys were a nutbag cult with a leader that possibly molested children?

	15-01-2002 02:02									#38
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I spent several months as a "homeless" person and never asked for government to tide me over.

quote: I've been unemployed. Know what I did? Got a job bagging groceries when I couldn't find better.

You guys both should have taken advantage of those programs. You already payed for them. Why make things harder on yourselves than was necessary? Pride can bring you down, you know. Are you too good to let the government help you? You could have spent the time retraining or exclusively looking for work. Wraith you are a highly skilled technical person, you were wasting yourself as a resource by accepting lower skilled work because your state could have better used you as a technical worker, something it has a shortage of, not bag people at the grocery, which anybody can do.

Oh excuse me, "you guys should have taken advantage of programs that the government stold your money from you to pay for."

Many states subsidize college tuition for schools within their states. Is that also unconsitutional? Is that simply for getting votes? No, it's not, it's to encourage the state to upgrade the level of the education of its population.

Some states have a problem of "brain drain," and have talked about a requirement that you have to stay in the state for a certain amount of years after going to a state sponsored school, to combat the problem. If you left the state, you'd have to pay the state sponsored tuition back.

Okay experts, tell me exactly what is going to happen when you get rid of alllll those social programs that so many people depend on? Everything is going to run smoothly, right? Riiiiiiight...

When you go to fill out unemployment, social security benefits, does it say ANYTHING on those forms at all about particular politicians? No it doesn't.

In fact I can't remember one single instance where I've voted and reference government funded programs to a particular politician.

The only one that ever sticks is federal income tax to a particular president, but that's about it.

It's great that you guy stand beside your ideals, but when practically applied, you're going to create a tremendous vaccuum that is going to destroy ALOT of people's lives.

	15-01-2002 02:27									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

[cynic]
Libertarians are doomed to failure because they foolishly and stubbornly cling to the antiquated and discredited notion that average people are intelligent enough to take care of themselves.
[/cynic]

On topic, I think that the military does have one very legitimate function in law enforcement. That function is to restrain abuses of local police. Ike's calling out the national guard to protect the black students from the police was a very good thing for our country.

Other than that, I think that they should stay out of policing. Seperation of powers is a very important concept.

	15-01-2002 03:02									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

--"Are you too good to let the government help you?"

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, why should I participate in something I find morally reprehensible when I don't have (as in am not being forced) to?
Those programs are inefficent, blatantly illegal by the government's own charter, and they can operate only by acting in ways that are against everything I stand for.
I also understand how these systems actually operate. They are not funds, they are pay-in-pay-out. This means that I would not be getting my money out of some rainy-day fund, I would be recieving money that is currently being taken from someone who is working. There is an important ethical difference between the two situations that I cannot ignore.

I don't have principles only when it's convenient to do so.

--"Many states subsidize college tuition for schools within their states. Is that also unconsitutional?"

Depends on the state constitution. Now, I'm not familiar with the constitutions of every state, but they are a lot easier to change than the federal constitution, so my initial guess would be that they aren't.
Now, federal funds for college is another story...

--"No, it's not, it's to encourage the state to upgrade the level of the education of its population."

Heh. Sure. Just like government schools are meant to encourage the state to upgrade the education of the population.
Been in any public schools, university or otherwise, lately?

--"Okay experts, tell me exactly what is going to happen when you get rid of alllll those social programs that so many people depend on?"

In many cases, private organizations (most already existing) will take over, at least for deserving cases (which is where a big difference comes in).
It would be nice to have a phase-out period, as the programs change over, but US politics makes this inherently impracticle. I can't think of any program that was meant to be phase-in ever making it throught the phase-in period without being radically changed (and the larger-scale it was the more the change, it seems).

--"In fact I can't remember one single instance where I've voted and reference government funded programs to a particular politician."

It's mostly by party at the moment. The farmers vote for the Republicans, who push farm subsidies, and basically everyone on welfare votes for Democrats, who are always willing to hand out a few more bucks of of someone else's money.

Wraith
"Democrats are... the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
-- P. J. O'Rourke

	15-01-2002 10:28									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ted -

quote: You guys both should have taken advantage of those programs. You already payed for them.

Whether or not we should have doesn't change the fact we are living refutations of your argument that we would call upon government for "help" when faced with difficult financial situations. Now, why would I want to take government handouts when I oppose them? If I paid "taxes" to have government provide me with a slave, should I accept the slave?

quote: Why make things harder on yourselves than was necessary?

Should I steal your money to make my life easier?

quote: Pride can bring you down, you know.

Nothing to do with pride.

quote: Are you too good to let the government help you?

If "government" is helping me with money stolen from others, yes.

quote: You could have spent the time retraining or exclusively looking for work.

I did.

quote: Wraith you are a highly skilled technical person, you were wasting yourself as a resource by accepting lower skilled work because your state could have better used you as a technical worker, something it has a shortage of, not bag people at the grocery, which anybody can do.

We don't live for the "state", and Wraith made his own decision and no one can justly accuse him of wrongdoing for his choice because he did not victimize others.

quote: Many states subsidize college tuition for schools within their states. Is that also unconsitutional?

Depends, read their constitutions. It's still theft...

quote: Is that simply for getting votes?

I said getting votes was a reason, not the only reason.

quote: No, it's not, it's to encourage the state to upgrade the level of the education of its population.

Educating me is not the "state's" business. The state's business is helping us to secure our freedom from criminals and nothing more. The irony is that this purpose for government - securing freedom from criminals - is at odds with educating me with money stolen from others. What is the relevant difference between a criminal who steals my money to educate himself and me using "government" to steal your money to pay for my education?

quote: Some states have a problem of "brain drain," and have talked about a requirement that you have to stay in the state for a certain amount of years after going to a state sponsored school, to combat the problem. If you left the state, you'd have to pay the state sponsored tuition back.

If a "state" has a "brain drain", it's probably because the state has anti-freedom policies that give intelligent people reason to live elsewhere. But why is this relevant?

quote: Okay experts, tell me exactly what is going to happen when you get rid of alllll those social programs that so many people depend on? Everything is going to run smoothly, right? Riiiiiiight...

Why do you use the term "experts" in an obviously derogatory manner when referring to us when you have made omniscient predictions about the future if these programs did not exist? I don't care if "society" runs smoothly, I care about freedom. Ever hear of charity? It tends to be decentralized and much more effective.
In the early part of the 20th century, out of wedlock births among blacks were single digit to the low teens with rates even lower among whites. After decades of social welfare programs, the rates for blacks is ~2/3rds with whites ~1/3. Making people dependent on government has been quite a success!

quote: When you go to fill out unemployment, social security benefits, does it say ANYTHING on those forms at all about particular politicians?

I wouldn't know never having filled these forms out.

quote: No it doesn't. In fact I can't remember one single instance where I've voted and reference government funded programs to a particular politician.

Politicians belong to parties. People know that every Democrat and virtually every Republican supports these programs because they belong to parties that support these programs.

quote: It's great that you guy stand beside your ideals, but when practically applied, you're going to create a tremendous vaccuum that is going to destroy ALOT of people's lives.

That's another "expert" prediction But this "vacuum" would be filled by charities and job producers. And my lack of money does not justify stealing your money, if it did, you shouldn't mind if a poor person robs you without asking a politician to rob you for them. So, why would you call a cop when a poor person robs you?

Richard Bruns -

quote: Libertarians are doomed to failure because they foolishly and stubbornly cling to the antiquated and discredited notion that average people are intelligent enough to take care of themselves.

You're confusing an opposition to "legalized" theft with Libertarian's opinions about the "average" person's ability to take care of themselves. Which of us is more qualified to make your decisions? Are you opposed to letting average people vote? If not, why? Since they cannot take care of themselves, how can they be qualified to vote for others to make their decisions? The truth is: the Libertarian Party won't make significant headway because most people do not believe in freedom and want the "government" to hand them other people's money.

quote: On topic, I think that the military does have one very legitimate function in law enforcement. That function is to restrain abuses of local police. Ike's calling out the national guard to protect the black students from the police was a very good thing for our country.

Agreed. But the FBI could have done the same thing so it isn't written in stone that only the military can prevent these abuses. Was the national guard "Ike" called upon from Arkansas or another state? If he chose the Arkansas NG, it may have been to prevent the governor from calling upon them for his purposes.

Wraith -

quote: "Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent" -- H. L. Mencken

And I'll bet he wrote that before Hitler and Stalin.

	15-01-2002 10:40									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Agreed. But the FBI could have done the same thing so it isn't written in stone that only the military can prevent these abuses. Was the national guard "Ike" called upon from Arkansas or another state? If he chose the Arkansas NG, it may have been to prevent the governor from calling upon them for his purposes.

Disagreed! The 14th Amendment is illegitimate, therefore civil rights laws based upon the 14th are unconstitutional in that they infringe upon States' Rights, which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and, by extension, the limits of the US Congress's power as laid out in Article 1 Section 8, and elsewhere. Therefore Ike's actions were improper usurpations in order to carry out illegal laws, based upon an illegitimate Constitutional amendment.
Further, I find it disturbing that you support the use of federal law enforcement agents to enter the grounds of a state high school or university, as the case may be, in order to enforce an unconstitutional federal law. The limit of the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement - if such a thing is even necessary, which I don't, necessarily, concede - should logically be federal property/districts, such as Washington DC and military bases.

	15-01-2002 10:46									#43
	What the heck Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Disagreed! The 14th Amendment is illegitimate,

Its legality has been affirmed by the SCOTUS. So for the time being lets opperate under the mass delusion that it is a legitimate ammendment of the following tangent you started.

quote: Further, I find it disturbing that you support the use of federal law enforcement agents to enter the grounds of a state high school or university,

What would you have them do in the instances when the state refuses to follow a duely constituted federal law?

	15-01-2002 10:58									#44
	Suffering from ads?

quote: lets opperate under the mass delusion

pssst! Most of the posters in this thread are operating under mass delusion Examples include this one:

quote: If a "state" has a "brain drain", it's probably because the state has anti-freedom policies that give intelligent people reason to live elsewhere. "

That's why specialized computer workers move out of Wyoming to San Francisco, because Wyoming is oppressive. Or actors migrate to LA or New York. Or investors migrate to New York. I think the #1 reason listed was that they were oppressed. It's called going where the opportunity is, Mr. McVeigh.

quote: Government is actually the worst failure of civilized man. There has never been a really good one, and even those that are most tolerable are arbitrary, cruel, grasping and unintelligent" -- H. L. Mencken

This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about. I suggest moving to Iraq and see how oppressive our government really is.

There are alot of people out there who will say that our government doesn't do ENOUGH to help those in need.

So berzerker, you are saying that I can't make these future predictions, yet you yourself just predicted that "this 'vacuum' would be filled by charities and job producers. "

How do you know that? Because you can predict the future?

Once again, caught as a HYPOCRITE!!!

	15-01-2002 11:07									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

David -

quote: Disagreed! The 14th Amendment is illegitimate, therefore civil rights laws based upon the 14th are unconstitutional in that they infringe upon States' Rights, which are guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, and, by extension, the limits of the US Congress's power as laid out in Article 1 Section 8, and elsewhere.

Agreed. My response was given within the context of reality - that the 14th Amendment has been accepted as legitimate by virtually everyone.

quote: Further, I find it disturbing that you support the use of federal law enforcement agents to enter the grounds of a state high school or university, as the case may be, in order to enforce an unconstitutional federal law.

See above.

quote: The limit of the jurisdiction of federal law enforcement - if such a thing is even necessary, which I don't, necessarily, concede - should logically be federal property/districts, such as Washington DC and military bases.

And I support validating the 14th Amendment to allow the federal government to prevent states from violating our rights. Unfortunately, it has been used to allow the feds to violate our rights without preventing the states from violating most of our rights, so I guess I should just oppose it.

DinoDoc -

quote: Its legality has been affirmed by the SCOTUS. So for the time being lets opperate under the mass delusion that it is a legitimate ammendment.

Which is the problem we who know the 14th was never ratified have. If we make an argument recognising the reality that everyone else assumes the 14th is valid, then we appear to be ignoring it's failure to pass the ratification process. If we make an argument based on it's failure to pass ratification, we get into another long debate over why and whether or not it did or didn't pass.

	15-01-2002 11:35									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Ted - In the early part of the 20th century, out of wedlock births among blacks were single digit to the low teens with rates even lower among whites. After decades of social welfare programs, the rates for blacks is ~2/3rds with whites ~1/3. Making people dependent on government has been quite a success!

This claim is racist and illogical to boot. First off, there are more whites on welfare then blacks so if welfare caused high out of wedlock birthrates then whites should be higher. Second, this is faulty logic. Correlation != causation. Higher birth rates could be caused by things other then welfare. It also assumes that out of wedlock births are bad & that it's the state's role to care about it. I'm not defending welfare, I advocate the abolition of the state, just pointing out this error.

	15-01-2002 11:39									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about. I suggest moving to Iraq and see how oppressive our government really is.

The Iraqi dictatorship would probably have been overthrown by now if it weren't for "my" government. They provided him with arms, weapons of mass destruction and other help in the '80s.

	15-01-2002 11:43									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Speculative Joe.

Saddam has made sure his share of wealth relative to his people is beyond lopsided.

Even now, with his people starving, he has amassed several billion dollars in personal worth and still maintains several palaces.

Who would have overthrown him?

	15-01-2002 11:58									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ted -

quote: That's why specialized computer workers move out of Wyoming to San Francisco, because Wyoming is oppressive. Or actors migrate to LA or New York. Or investors migrate to New York. I think the #1 reason listed was that they were oppressed. It's called going where the opportunity is, Mr. McVeigh.

Being compared to a mass murderer is assinine, but after all, you are Ted. Yes, opportunities are important, which is partly why I said "probably" and not "always", doh! Millions flock to this country because of anti-freedom policies in their home countries. Millions fled the south because of anti-freedom policies there. To claim this doesn't happen is to ignore history.

quote:

Can you do better than that when trying to refute Mencken? I'd love to see how many people have been murdered by governments as opposed to individuals outside of government.

quote: This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about.

Not everything, just some things.

quote: I suggest moving to Iraq and see how oppressive our government really is.

Unless you agree with everything government does, I suggest you take your own advice, hypocrite. Oh, and one not need be murdered to know that slavery is oppressive, duh!

quote: There are alot of people out there who will say that our government doesn't do ENOUGH to help those in need.

So what? Let them help those in need then instead of stealing from others.

quote: So berzerker, you are saying that I can't make these future predictions, yet you yourself just predicted that "this 'vacuum' would be filled by charities and job producers. "

No, I said predicting the disaster you predicted required omniscience. And I didn't say the vacuum would be filled to your satisfaction, only that charites and job producers would move in to help those in need thereby filling the vacuum to my satisfaction. Since you forgot to quote my statement, here it is again - I don't care if "society" runs smoothly.

quote: How do you know that? Because you can predict the future?

No, because that's what people do when others are in need. We got by in this country for more than a century without social welfare programs. How do you explain that?

quote: Once again, caught as a HYPOCRITE!!!

I see you're still hurting from the last thread you polluted with your hypocrisy and insults. Let the past go, let the past go, it's eating you up inside...

I see you didn't bother responding to my argument that social welfare programs are causing major problems. I'm not surprised! You seem to think these programs are manna from heaven, but ignore the problems they cause.

	15-01-2002 12:18									#50
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: charites and job producers would move in to help those in need thereby filling the vacuum to my satisfaction

WHICH AGAIN INVOLVES MAKING A OMNICIENT, FUTURE PREDICTION.

H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

quote: "probably"

Nice escape route you gave yourself. Given that you explicitly listed your reason and none others, we can understand that you actually give it priority.

quote: you explain that?

Maybe you missed that whole...oh what was that thing. I'm having trouble remembering exactly what that was. Damn, I know if I try hard enough to remember, it will come--OH YEAH! That whole Great Depression thing!

Where charities and private organizations moved in so effectively that 1/3 of people were out of work and the bread lines were longer than the lines to get on the roller coasters at Six Flags!

They were really effective then, weren't they!?!

Oh wait, the programs created to tie people over were just about FDR trying to win votes, eh?

quote: I don't care if "society" runs smoothly.

You mention all these tyrannical and ruthless governments, but that statement says it all to me.

You can live in your fantasy world outside of "society" but you need the government and the US of A, nobody lives completely on their own. But whether the USA needs you is questionable. Seeing as how you don't want to be a part of it, I suggest leaving and going elsewhere.

	15-01-2002 12:44									#51
	Support Apolyton

Joe -

quote: This claim is racist and illogical to boot. First off, there are more whites on welfare then blacks so if welfare caused high out of wedlock birthrates then whites should be higher.

First, how is it racist? It happens to be true. Second, white rates have been climbing too. The number of whites on welfare is greater than blacks, but not the percentage of whites within the white population as opposed to the percentage of blacks within the black population. So that means the percentage of out of wedlock births would be higher within that population with the higher welfare dependancy - which happens to be blacks.

quote: Second, this is faulty logic. Correlation != causation.

The causation is quite obvious. When you create a program that effectively displaces the father and his role as husband and father, out of wedlock births increase because the government is now providing the support usually provided by fathers. While this might not effect wealthier people, poorer people are given an incentive to stay unmarried and for fathers to walk away (or driven away by regulations) from their commitments to wife and family - and many do. I had friends back in LA that remained unmarried and the father could not live with his family because of regulations so the family could get welfare.

quote: Higher birth rates could be caused by things other then welfare.

It's not about higher birth rates, it's about higher out of wedlock birth rates.

quote: It also assumes that out of wedlock births are bad

OH C'MON! Children living in households with a single parent - female - have MUCH higher poverty rates than two parent families. This is NOT an assumption!

quote: & that it's the state's role to care about it.

The state created the problem, it better care.

quote: I'm not defending welfare, I advocate the abolition of the state, just pointing out this error.

No, perceived errors - erroneous perceptions

	15-01-2002 13:59									#52
	Put an end to popups!

Ted -

quote: WHICH AGAIN INVOLVES MAKING A OMNICIENT, FUTURE PREDICTION. H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E.

Ted, you're an idiot. We both made predictions about future events if a change was made in US domestic policies. You claimed the ruination of the world and I claimed charities and job producers would move in to take up the slack (to my satisfaction, not yours) for those in need. Making your prediction of a worldwide disaster due to the removal of social welfare programs requires omniscience because it never happened before. My "prediction" that charites and job producers would move in to provide jobs and help for poor people doesn't require this omniscience because I have history to support my position. Yelling hypocrite won't ever replace the proof you need to support such a ridiculous accusation. But we both know why you're so eager to make the accusation, you're still hurting from the other thread in which I exposed your hypocrisy and you are desparate to get back at me.

quote: Nice escape route you gave yourself.

It wasn't an "escape route", it was my attempt to avoid generalizing because obviously there are a variety of reasons people decide to live in certain places. Now that I have shown your critique to be invalid, you accuse me of being disenguous? Good comeback...NOT!

quote: Given that you explicitly listed your reason and none others, we can understand that you actually give it priority.

I wasn't asked for all the reasons people move, duh. But yes, I consider escaping anti-freedom policies to be a major if not primary reason for "brain drains" - intelligent people moving to another place. Why do you think Einstein left Germany?

quote: Maybe you missed that whole...oh what was that thing. I'm having trouble remembering exactly what that was. Damn, I know if I try hard enough to remember, it will come--OH YEAH! That whole Great Depression thing!

Are you now suggesting people did not help each other during the Depression?
Social welfare spending or the lack thereof neither caused or solved the Depression - government policies created it and WWII solved it.

quote: Where charities and private organizations moved in so effectively that 1/3 of people were out of work and the bread lines were longer than the lines to get on the roller coasters at Six Flags!

And what caused the Depression? A lack of social welfare programs?

quote: They were really effective then, weren't they!?!

How many people starved to death during the Depression? Got a number? If you don't, then you don't know how effective charities were, do you? Maybe the reason we don't look back at the Depression and lament all the cases of starvation was because charities were feeding people, doh!

quote: Oh wait, the programs created to tie people over were just about FDR trying to win votes, eh?

Certainly one of the reasons. Did you know what LBJ said when justifying civil rights laws to his inner circle? He said the Democrats will have the n****** voting for us for centuries! Yeah, politicians never think about buying votes with their policies...

quote: You mention all these tyrannical and ruthless governments, but that statement says it all to me.

It says I don't accept your rationale for government. The Nazis made "society" run smoothly given what they inherited from the 1920's, that doesn't mean they or their ideology was moral. And the rest of that statement was, "I care about freedom" which appears in the first post containing that phrase. You don't care about freedom, maybe your own, but what hypocrite doesn't.

quote: You can live in your fantasy world outside of "society" but you need the government and the US of A, nobody lives completely on their own.

And why does "society" need to legalize stealing? It was the fascists who placed so much importance on "society" at the expense of the individual. I see fascism is alive and well...

quote: But whether the USA needs you is questionable.

And the USA needs you? I don't, I just wish you leftists would try to do your own stealing without hiding behind "government". Oh yeah, alot of you do, they are called thieves. At least they have the balls to risk their own necks...

quote: Seeing as how you don't want to be a part of it, I suggest leaving and going elsewhere.

That was quite a tirade, Ted. If we don't want you stealing our money to pay for what YOU want, we are living in a fantasy world desiring to be separate from "society", blah blah blah. Now that is hypocrisy! You live here while disagreeing with policies and tell others who disagree with policies you like to move? And don't put words in my mouth. I know you're at a disadvantage debating people, but debating yourself and pretending you are debating me is just so immature. I see you're still ignoring how social welfare programs end up impoverishing those who become dependants. I understand why, the truth is inconvenient...

"I Legalized robbery, and called it belief" - Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits.

	15-01-2002 21:19									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

--"This is all it really boils down to for you guys. Basically anything the government does, you will b1tch about."

Not anything. If it limited itself to Constitutional levels I wouldn't have much to complain about. The problem is that the majority of current federal government functions are not Constitutional, and no attempts are being made to change the Constitution so that they are.

Your picture doesn't work for me, btw. Can't see it.

--"There are alot of people out there who will say that our government doesn't do ENOUGH to help those in need."

Yes, there are. So what? There were a lot of people saying Communism, even Stalin's particular brand of it, was a good thing at the time. They were still wrong, and would remain so no matter how many said it.

--"Even now, with his people starving, he has amassed several billion dollars in personal worth and still maintains several palaces."

Well, yes, since he built that wealth by starving his people.
Looks like the easiest way to get good food/clothing/etc would be to become one of his guards. A few months of pretend (the attrition rate is probably fairly high), and you'd be in a position to do something about Saddam pretty directly.

--"Damn, I know if I try hard enough to remember, it will come--OH YEAH! That whole Great Depression thing!"

This one's been covered here repeatedly. One of the best bits of spin-control ever. The Great Depression was caused by the government, and it was drawn-out because of the government. It was specifically not "solved" by the government, although they got credit for it and not the rest.
Without the massive (and idiotic) government intervention there would have been nothing more than a short recession. Historical evidence backs this position, as it happened many times. It was only government mismanagement of the money supply and the idiotic policies coming out of Congress that pushed it into a Great Depression.

Wraith
"The saddest epitaph which can be carved in the memory of a vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time."
-- Thomas Jefferson

	15-01-2002 23:33									#54
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Richard Bruns - You're confusing an opposition to "legalized" theft with Libertarian's opinions about the "average" person's ability to take care of themselves.

These two are inextricably related. If people are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, then they will petition the government to do it for them. If the government responds to this demand, then it must raise the money to do this. This is done by taxing. If people take care of themselves, there is no need for "legalized" theft. If they don't, there is.

quote: Which of us is more qualified to make your decisions? Are you opposed to letting average people vote? If not, why? Since they cannot take care of themselves, how can they be qualified to vote for others to make their decisions?

The idealist in my wants the world to be run by libertarian principles. But the realist in me knows that this would be almost impossible. Too much of the population has, through education, culture, apathy, and decadence, lost the spirit of self-reliance and responsibility. Thus they vote for the government we have now.

You must realize that when you critisize the government, you are critisizing the people who voted for it. Our government is put in place by the people. It does what the people want. If you believe that our government is doing the wrong thing, then you believe that the people who voted for them should not have voted the way they did.

If you support the democratic process, you have to accept the government that results. Sad but true. I understand that our government is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems in our nation. Attempts to change the government will be doomed to failure if it is the government that the people think they want. Changing things can only be accomplished by educating voters. A Libertarian system will not and cannot work until the population is self-reliant. This is not the case now, and so our government has evolved to fit the attitude of the populace.

quote: The truth is: the Libertarian Party won't make significant headway because most people do not believe in freedom and want the "government" to hand them other people's money.

That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Libertarian ideals will fail because too many people will not take care of themselves.

	16-01-2002 04:55									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Who would have overthrown him?

A coalition of Kurds and Shii'tes.

	16-01-2002 04:59									#56
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka A coalition of Kurds and Shii'tes.

Hehehehahahahohohohoho!

Oh, I wish I had time for another episode of the post-gulf war Iraq policy debate.

	16-01-2002 05:25									#57
	Remove this text

quote: Mark Knopfler, Dire Straits.

After reading that, I'm convinced. You win berzerker.

The point is, GUYS, nobody has claimed that the government solved the Great Depression, duh, learned that in 3rd grade. That they CAUSED it is laughable. But again, you government haters, I can see where you'd get that one.

Just like that recent case where you tried to tell us the government "MURDERED" an "author." (An armed extremist who just happened to fire on agents first).

The point is that the government serves a secondary function in that it acts as a buffer for people in need, something that doesn't fluctuate. Charity DEPENDS on people giving. When the economy goes south, giving goes with it, right when it is most in need. Government help can remain steady or even increase.

Is there one country in this entire world where there is a case of charities and private industry exclusively supporting those in need? Where? Name it.

There are widespread reports about how charities are falling short over 50% of what they need since September. So what happens when people aren't so generous?

Where is YOUR data regarding charities and how much they helped during the Depression? Thought so. It's all based on anecdotal evidence. I take the words of the people who lived through it and what they have to say about it. You take the words of what you read in "Anti-Government USA Magazine."

And again, berzeker, you are still a hypocrite for making future predictions but dismissing mine. The only difference in your perspective is that you think yours are more accurate so therefore you are allowed to make future predictions and I am not.

Makes sense to me!

"Insert stock witty quote here." Roger Clinton

	16-01-2002 07:43									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

--". That they CAUSED it is laughable. But again, you government haters, I can see where you'd get that one."

Feel free to consult any of the econ boys that hang around on this one.

--"When the economy goes south, giving goes with it, right when it is most in need. Government help can remain steady or even increase."

I am truly amazed at you here. Sure, it can. Government prints the money, so obviously even if the economy is going south they can increase their payouts. But there's always a price for such things.

--"Is there one country in this entire world where there is a case of charities and private industry exclusively supporting those in need? Where? Name it."

Name a country that isn't run by power-hungry people and you'll find your answer. This is a government function that, however corrupt and inept the reality, can be portrayed as a good thing. Especially now, after years of training in "the evils of capitalism" from the public schools. This is an easy area for politicans to gain power, so it will not be left alone by government long unless they are forced to.

Charities would be in a lot better shape, by the way, if the government weren't a) promising to do their job instead and b) forcing rather large sums of money from people in the name of doing so. Unfortunately, they haven't lived up to a) and spend most of the proceeds of b) to make sure they get elected again.

Wraith
"Unquestionably, there is progress. The average American now pays out twice as much in taxes as he formerly got in wages."
-- H. L. Mencken

	16-01-2002 11:11									#59
	Got spare money?

Joe - Will you respond to my post dealing with your accusations and claims?

Richard Bruns - I see your point, but the average person IMO is able to take care of themselves. The fact many or even most voters won't turn down a government handout doesn't mean they are incapable of being self-sufficient.

quote: The idealist in my wants the world to be run by libertarian principles. But the realist in me knows that this would be almost impossible.

Yup, it won't happen.

quote: You must realize that when you critisize the government, you are critisizing the people who voted for it.

Oh, I realize this. That's why I express my opinions to potential voters.

quote: Our government is put in place by the people. It does what the people want. If you believe that our government is doing the wrong thing, then you believe that the people who voted for them should not have voted the way they did.

You mean "some" of the people. But as long as the "some" outnumber the rest, we will continue having a system of legalized theft.

quote: If you support the democratic process, you have to accept the government that results.

I don't support the democratic process, and neither did the Founding Fathers.

quote: I understand that our government is a symptom, not a cause, of the problems in our nation.

True.

quote: That is exactly what I said. Exactly. Libertarian ideals will fail because too many people will not take care of themselves.

Agreed.


Ted -

quote: ...

Knopfler was showing that the leftist ideology - your ideology - is nothing but legalized robbery masquerading as a "belief" system. But laughing at his statement is the kind of "rebuttal" I'd expect from you, it's so much easier than actually disproving what he said.

quote: After reading that, I'm convinced. You win berzerker.

Maybe you should do more reading than just one quote. If your parents taught you that stealing was wrong, why did stealing become right at some point in your life?

quote: The point is, GUYS, nobody has claimed that the government solved the Great Depression, duh, learned that in 3rd grade.

You used the Great Depression as a reason for having government social spending and did refer to FDR's policies to tide people over, the implication was that his policies helped or solved it. We merely argued that government started it and didn't solve it with social policies, but you're too dense to see this as an indictment of the same government you think solves problems. You argued we need these programs because the Great Depression proved charities and job producers were incapable of helping people in tough times, then ignored my question about how many people actually starved during the Great Depression! So, how many people starved to death because of the Great Depression? Your failure to answer shows you were just mouthing off about something you don't know about. Besides, even if the Great Depression showed how we need social spending in exteme situatiuons, how does that prove we need social spending when times are not as bad?

quote: That they CAUSED it is laughable. But again, you government haters, I can see where you'd get that one.

You can't refute arguments, so you laugh instead, as if laughing is a rebuttal. Whenever I see you laugh at a question or claim, I know you don't have a clue. Monetary policies (the Fed) and protectionism started the ball rolling.

quote: Just like that recent case where you tried to tell us the government "MURDERED" an "author." (An armed extremist who just happened to fire on agents first).

That only shows I can make mistakes. You're immune?

You polluted that thread with your hypocisy and accusations of deceit and I nailed you for your obnoxious behavior. See, history is repeating itself.

quote: The point is that the government serves a secondary function in that it acts as a buffer for people in need, something that doesn't fluctuate. Charity DEPENDS on people giving. When the economy goes south, giving goes with it, right when it is most in need. Government help can remain steady or even increase.

And where does "government" get the money? IT INFLATES OUR MONEY! Why do you keep ignoring the point I made about how welfare programs have led to a massive increase in out of wedlock birthrates?

quote: Is there one country in this entire world where there is a case of charities and private industry exclusively supporting those in need? Where? Name it.

As Richard pointed out, most people don't want to take care of themselves. It's not that they can't, but if a politician comes along promising to rob the "rich" to make their existence easier, then they engage in the same kind of rationalizing you've engaged in to "justify" legally stealing from others. The fact a majority agrees with your desire to steal from others doesn't prove it's a moral endeavor.

quote: There are widespread reports about how charities are falling short over 50% of what they need since September. So what happens when people aren't so generous?

"We" just donated over a billion dollars to help the people affected by the attacks. Just how much do you think they need in addition to all the other non-governmental benefits? Naturally, you've ignored that the attacks would not have happened if not for your beloved government and it's policies overseas

quote: Where is YOUR data regarding charities and how much they helped during the Depression? Thought so.

You're the one who raised the issue of the Great Depression claiming charities failed - the burden of proof is on you! And smugly saying "thought so" in the same post you asked the question is moronic. As I already pointed out, the fact we don't look back and lament all the people who starved to death is proof charities filled the vacuum, duh.

quote: It's all based on anecdotal evidence. I take the words of the people who lived through it and what they have to say about it. You take the words of what you read in "Anti-Government USA Magazine."

Yes, it is anecdotal, and my parents lived thru it and say it was not nearly as bad as you leftists claim. So, where are your numbers for the deaths due to starvation resulting from the inability of charities to fill the vacuum?

quote: And again, berzeker, you are still a hypocrite for making future predictions but dismissing mine.

First, that isn't even hypocrisy you idiot. All predictions are not equally valuable or meritorious. Your "prediction" was the ruination of the world if some people here don't get their welfare checks. Mine was that people help each other in tough times and that the world would not face ruination. Dismissing your jacka$$ prediction and putting forth a much more reasonable prediction is not hypocrisy.

quote: The only difference in your perspective is that you think yours are more accurate so therefore you are allowed to make future predictions and I am not.

You can make them all you want, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them as anything other than the assinine rants of clueless left winger.

	16-01-2002 12:42									#60
	Inflate your Upload Space

Random interjectory comment:

The 14th Amendment is illegitimate

DF, how can something in the Constitution be Unconstitutional? You can say you don't like the 14th Amendment. You can say it goes against the principles this country was founded under. You cannot, however, say you are a strict constructionist under the Constitution... "but" one bit.

Unless you're trotting out some tired argument about it being not part of the Constitution because they forgot to dot an i or cross a t in the ratification process, of course.