These things I believe...

[jmcc]

I'm sick of arguing here. I don't want to be hateful anymore, so I'll leave you with a list of things I value for America, in case you ever wondered who was siding with you or against you.

I believe in keeping what works for as long as it works, but I think societal experimentation is necessary and beneficial as well and should be fostered and studied with tax-payer money.

I believe in better oversight on government spending all around. We waste lots of money on obvious studies and frivolous programs and mismanage what institutions we do need.

I believe in an armed populace as a mandatory practice and not just a right. Every man and woman should be versed in small arms use and safety as well as basic unarmed combat. We live in an age of war, it's undeniable, so there's no reason for anyone to have a lack of understanding or fear of it.

I believe in a better military. We don't pay our armed forces well enough, in my mind. Cops get paid better to start, and they're not being shipped off to other countries to get shot at on a more regular basis. I believe that education should be ongoing in the military as well. You can come into it poor and ignorant, but by the end of your tour you're going to be a better, smarter and richer person than when you went in.

I believe in active civic duty. There shouldn't be many government positions that aren't filled by "volunteers," by which I mean, people working them in exchange for significant tax cuts. We all hear how you work the first few months of the year just to pay your taxes. I'd rather see a system where you can work 6 hours in every week fixing our highways, for example. There's plenty of government jobs that can be filled by people with minimal training. Taxs could be better applied elsewhere if people would step up and do their nation a service.

I believe in a health care system in which no one would be without basic and emergency medical services. A system in which all doctors would need to serve 2 years of compulsory free service (with room and board provided) before they could be fully licensed to practice on their own could be mandated in order to cut the costs of such a system down to facilities and medication.

I believe religion should be severed entirely from government. Churches should be allowed to do what they want, so long as membership is optional for everyone involved (no cults!) and it's done on their own property. Marriage should be held only in church and should have no recognition in the eyes of the law. Civil unions would grant all the privileges and liabilities that marriage holds now, but would be applicable to any 2 consenting adults, regardless of race, creed, or sex. 10% of our nation is supposedly gay. That's roughly 30 million people we're witholding full rights from. That's unacceptable if we're really the best nation on earth.

I believe that the US government should decriminalize marijuana use (since our prisons don't need to bear the weight of such criminals) and, further, make it a federal industry. You could go into any store and pick up a pack of marijuana cigarettes for 10 dollars, with all proceeds going straight to the government's coffers (less the farmer's pay.) Laws regarding it could be adopted from alcohol laws (i.e. no driving high, involuntary manslaughter charges could be brought if it was involved in a death.)

I believe in a more healthy nation. If we need to put a tax credit on keeping yourself in shape, so be it. If current trends continue we're headed for an epidemic of cardio-vascular problems and one of biblical proportions. Since there doesn't seem to be any shame at being obese anymore, there needs to be some reward not to be, to motivate people in the right direction.

I believe we need to cut our dependence on oil in general. There's no need for most of the SUVs and trucks we have on the market, especially when they drag us into petty conflicts halfway around the globe. Stiff tax penalties should be levied against people who buy such vehicles without being able to solidly justify the cost.

I believe we should welcome and actively localize immigrants. People should not need to sneak across our border to work shitty jobs at shitty wages. We should have a localization centers at our borders in which we teach people who want in how to speak basic English and our system of laws, through a month or so of intensive teaching. By the end of it, they'd earn a visa and if they stayed employed for a year after that they could get a SSN and full citizenship. We should be helping people who want to come here instead of hindering them.

 

[Specter]

Agreed

 

[David85]

I have a dream.....

 

[Trancendental]

Rock on man. I agree with 95% of what you said, and I didn't see a part that I majorly disagree with.

However I'm pretty sure you'll come back. After all, you have to be here the next time someone drops the "Giant Vomiting Smiley" bomb.

 

[bmulligan]

You asked for it.

[quote name='jmcc']...I think societal experimentation is necessary and beneficial as well and should be fostered and studied with tax-payer money.[/quote] So did Hitler. Social experimentation is what people do when they risk their fortunes in the marketplace, the government has no business experimenting on us.

I believe in better oversight on government spending all around. We waste lots of money on obvious studies and frivolous programs and mismanage what institutions we do need.

You mean like wasting money on 'social experimentation' ?

I believe in an armed populace as a mandatory practice and not just a right. Every man and woman should be versed in small arms use and safety as well as basic unarmed combat. We live in an age of war, it's undeniable, so there's no reason for anyone to have a lack of understanding or fear of it.

Agreed, but it should be passed down from father to son, not mandated from government.

...We don't pay our armed forces well enough, in my mind... I believe that education should be ongoing in the military as well. You can come into it poor and ignorant, but by the end of your tour you're going to be a better, smarter and richer person than when you went in.

Agreed, we need to pay them more. And they already do come out better educated, disciplined, knowledgable in many subjects and versed in many skills.

I believe in active civic duty.

If they so choose. Voulenteer army, voulenteer civic duty.

...people working them in exchange for significant tax cuts. We all hear how you work the first few months of the year just to pay your taxes. I'd rather see a system where you can work 6 hours in every week fixing our highways, for example.

What you are describing here is a version of involuntary servitude, akin to slavery. Government mandated service is an affront to one's right to one's own life.

I believe in a health care system in which no one would be without basic and emergency medical services. A system in which all doctors would need to serve 2 years of compulsory free service (with room and board provided) before they could be fully licensed to practice on their own could be mandated in order to cut the costs of such a system down to facilities and medication.

You believe in socialized medicine and committing doctors to be slaves of the state. Guess how many people would want to become doctors...

I believe religion should be severed entirely from government. Marriage should be held only in church and should have no recognition in the eyes of the law.

Then what to do about property rights ? In reality, legal marriage centers around property rights of those involved and not much else. How about losing the tax exempt status of Churches ? Why should they be exempt and I'm not ?

I believe that the US government should decriminalize marijuana use (since our prisons don't need to bear the weight of such criminals) and, further, make it a federal industry.

What about Heroin, speed, extacy, or PCP ? Do you really want any of these more freely avalible to the youth of america?

...If we need to put a tax credit on keeping yourself in shape, so be it. ... there needs to be some reward not to be, to motivate people in the right direction.

You believe in government assuming personal responsibilities of citizens, therby eliminating freedom. When you become dictator, please feel free to shut down the hostess factories and find other jobs for the candy manufacturing workers.

I believe we need to cut our dependence on oil in general. ...Stiff tax penalties should be levied against people who buy such vehicles without being able to solidly justify the cost.

Wow, a whole new level of bureaucracy. And who said the Soviet Union was dead ! ? !

I believe we should welcome and actively localize immigrants....We should be helping people who want to come here instead of hindering them.

This is more of the social engineering part of your philosophy, I take it ?

In summary, you believe in freedom only in so much as it doesn't conflict with your version of a utopian society. You believe that the State has ultimate claim on your life, and you are allowed a portion of it when you have fulfilled your alloted duty to the state and your commrades.

I'd be interested to know how you would write the statutes and laws that would govern the bureau of standards and decency. That office that determines who gets their daily sugar ration (can't get too fat), their oil ration (can't drive that SUV) and who has used up their elective surgery ration for the decade (sorry, that brain tumor isn't as bad as that guy's bleeding heart, come back in a year). Perhaps we could just all parade in front of you and you can dole out our freedom individually on an 'as needed' basis ? Or maybe delegate the responsibilities your entourage. They could wear blue armbands as representitves of the jmcc party. You could drink vodka to keep warm as the global warming induced ice age re-takes north amerika.

 

[alonzomourning23]

Damn, comparing him to hitler right from the start, and you indirectly called him a communist as well. Took you a while to start making irrational leaps like that with me, but this time you decided not to wait. Not saying I agree with everything jmc said, but you go well beyond what he suggested.

 

[David85]

Didn't Hitler hate Communists? So he is a communist Hitler???

 

[Scrubking]

'm sick of arguing here. I don't want to be hateful anymore, so I'll leave you with a list of things I value for America, in case you ever wondered who was siding with you or against you.

So you aren't going to post here anymore??

Anyway, I thought it strange when you first showed up and started posting here. Just like I think it strange that sweeny is posting in here now.

Anyway, I'm glad you don't want to be hateful anymore, maybe less hate will help you see how conservatives and Christians aren't evil.

So long, the banter was fun while it lasted.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Scrubking']Anyway, I'm glad you don't want to be hateful anymore, maybe less hate will help you see how conservatives and Christians aren't evil.

So long, the banter was fun while it lasted.[/quote]

Says the man with an avatar that labels liberals as evil.

[quote name='Jesus']He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone[/quote]

 

[Firebrand]

"Hypocrisy: a lie in action - the legacy of indecency" -unknown

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Damn, comparing him to hitler right from the start, and you indirectly called him a communist as well. Took you a while to start making irrational leaps like that with me, but this time you decided not to wait. Not saying I agree with everything jmc said, but you go well beyond what he suggested.[/quote]

My statements are not leaps, they merely reveal the irrationality of the source. Everyone wants a happy world where eveyone shares their toys and doesn't have to eat their vegetables. But it takes more than clicking your heels together and wishing to understand that you can't force people to be nice and stand for freedom at the same time.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Damn, comparing him to hitler right from the start, and you indirectly called him a communist as well. Took you a while to start making irrational leaps like that with me, but this time you decided not to wait. Not saying I agree with everything jmc said, but you go well beyond what he suggested.[/quote]

My statements are not leaps, they merely reveal the irrationality of the source. Everyone wants a happy world where eveyone shares their toys and doesn't have to eat their vegetables. But it takes more than clicking your heels together and wishing to understand that you can't force people to be nice and stand for freedom at the same time.[/quote]

They are leaps, here is an example:

I believe in active civic duty. There shouldn't be many government positions that aren't filled by "volunteers," by which I mean, people working them in exchange for significant tax cuts. We all hear how you work the first few months of the year just to pay your taxes. I'd rather see a system where you can work 6 hours in every week fixing our highways, for example.

What you are describing here is a version of involuntary servitude, akin to slavery. Government mandated service is an affront to one's right to one's own life.

Just where does he suggest forcing people? Since when is volunteering slavery? You often do things like this.

He did not suggest anything to the extent you did. Though the very reasons you stated, that people won't be nice and get along, is why we need government, and It's why we need social programs. It has nothing to do with forcing people to be nice, it is forcing government to be "nice". Though the definition of freedom also seems to be a problem, to you being taxed infringes on freedom, to someone like me social and political freedom is what freedom is. Taxes (within reason) have little to do with freedom as far as I'm concerned. You also see taxes and social programs as some sort of communist wealth redistribution.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23']Damn, comparing him to hitler right from the start, and you indirectly called him a communist as well. Took you a while to start making irrational leaps like that with me, but this time you decided not to wait. Not saying I agree with everything jmc said, but you go well beyond what he suggested.[/quote]

My statements are not leaps, they merely reveal the irrationality of the source. Everyone wants a happy world where eveyone shares their toys and doesn't have to eat their vegetables. But it takes more than clicking your heels together and wishing to understand that you can't force people to be nice and stand for freedom at the same time.[/quote]

They are leaps, here is an example:

I believe in active civic duty. There shouldn't be many government positions that aren't filled by "volunteers," by which I mean, people working them in exchange for significant tax cuts. We all hear how you work the first few months of the year just to pay your taxes. I'd rather see a system where you can work 6 hours in every week fixing our highways, for example.

What you are describing here is a version of involuntary servitude, akin to slavery. Government mandated service is an affront to one's right to one's own life.

Just where does he suggest forcing people? Since when is volunteering slavery? You often do things like this.

He did not suggest anything to the extent you did. Though the very reasons you stated, that people won't be nice and get along, is why we need government, and It's why we need social programs. It has nothing to do with forcing people to be nice, it is forcing government to be "nice". [/quote]

Forcing government to be 'nice' IS forcing individuals to be 'nice'. The fact that you do not understand this concept speaks volumes. It is a leap in your mind because you do not understand the concept of government, it's source of power, and it's legitimate commitment to it's citizens. Even the fact the he put 'volunteers' in quotation marks is an unconcious choice on his part that shines light into his belief that civic duty should be mandatory. Someone like you who has dangerous knowledge of psychology might refer to it as a freudian slip. It's nice to imagine a world where everyone 'volunteers' their time for 4 months out of the year for government service to their fellow man, but the reality is, and you admit such, that you know this is unrealistic and people would have to be coerced into servitude for their fellow man. You consider my accusatory 'leap' an exageration, yet it's really another example of your denial of reality orhe inability to discern it from the imaginary.

Though the definition of freedom also seems to be a problem, to you being taxed infringes on freedom, to someone like me social and political freedom is what freedom is. Taxes (within reason) have little to do with freedom as far as I'm concerned. You also see taxes and social programs as some sort of communist wealth redistribution.

Again, your kind always associates the 'laisse-faire' believers with anarchy, that we believe in no government, no taxes, and no control whatsoever. It is a baseless accusation, not just a leap. Time after time I, and others, have described overnment as a necessary evil. You would do well to read your history and understand why that opinion was held by the framers of our great nation and it's founding documents.

Yes all taxation is an infringement upon freedom (look up the definition on TAX, or TAXING, or TAXATION), but never have any of my kind claimed the elimination of all taxes to be necessary on moral or legal principle. And again your idea of most social programs is forcing the government, and individuals, to be nice and give up their wealth for the sake of others who are deemed more needy by the likes of people like you. Have you read Marx, or is he just some infatuation you hold in your mind like a pretty girl who's just never been given a chance to be a supermodel ?

 

[alonzomourning23]

It's nice to imagine a world where everyone 'volunteers' their time for 4 months out of the year for government service to their fellow man, but the reality is, and you admit such, that you know this is unrealistic and people would have to be coerced into servitude for their fellow man.

What he seemed to be suggesting was instead of paying your taxes out of you paycheck, you could have the OPTION of volunteering which would pay used to pay for your taxes so they do not come out of your paycheck. I don't agree with this, mainly because of the low quality volunteers you're likely to get, and the high likelyhood of bribery if (though I don't think he suggested this) volunteers get into any positions of power, as can be seen in countries where police and officials recieve little pay. But nowhere is this volunterring forced, it is an alternative having taxes taken out of your paycheck.

Again, your kind always associates the 'laisse-faire' believers with anarchy, that we believe in no government, no taxes, and no control whatsoever. It is a baseless accusation, not just a leap. Time after time I, and others, have described overnment as a necessary evil. You would do well to read your history and understand why that opinion was held by the framers of our great nation and it's founding documents.

I did not suggest you were an anarchist. But you don't believe the government has any place in improving society, that's the peoples concern. To you that infringes on freedom, not to me. And as for the founding fathers, there concepts matter as they make up the constitution, but if we tried to emulate their beliefs exactly our country wouldn't have survived this long. Times change, beliefs change, the beauty of our constitution is that, due to the way it was written, it can change with it. It's always mentioned, but no one is saying that we have to have slaves because some of the founding fathers did, that's because things change. You can argue that the constitution does not expressly support my beliefs, but it does not expressly oppose them either. If you want to warp it into some pseudo soviet system then yes, but taken at face value, and the way my beliefs have been stated, it is not even close to unconstitutional.

And again your idea of most social programs is forcing the government, and individuals, to be nice and give up their wealth for the sake of others who are deemed more needy by the likes of people like you. Have you read Marx, or is he just some infatuation you hold in your mind like a pretty girl who's just never been given a chance to be a supermodel ?

As I've said before I want you to explain to me how a single mother who can't pay her rent and can barely afford food for her family is not more needy than you or I. There are some people that they are needy, there should be no argument there, yet you create one. Though you opposition to taxes for social programs seems to be a moral and ideological one, regardless of the benefit it can have to a society. Whether you think it could benefit the society seems to be meaningless in your opinion. And only those with wealth, such as you or I, start associating taxation (again, within reason) with freedom. If you want to say by taxing people I'm forcing them to be nice then so be it, it benefits society, and nothing more is required than tax dollars. There are things people can do if they want to be nice, but no one is being forced to volunteer, to work extra or anything. As for who I've read, I've read Marx and I've read Hitler, I don't look up to either.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
What he seemed to be suggesting was instead of paying your taxes out of you paycheck, you could have the OPTION of volunteering which would pay used to pay for your taxes so they do not come out of your paycheck. [/quote]

There is no difference in the explanation you gave and the reality of the values being traded, or forfeited. Either paying the tax, or paying the time in place of the tax is the EXACT SAME THING. Again you really don't understand what money is, do you ?

I did not suggest you were an anarchist.

Yes, you did. And you just did it again:

But you don't believe the government has any place in improving society, that's the peoples concern. To you that infringes on freedom, not to me. And as for the founding fathers, there concepts matter as they make up the constitution, but if we tried to emulate their beliefs exactly our country wouldn't have survived this long. Times change, beliefs change, the beauty of our constitution is that, due to the way it was written, it can change with it.

Some things do not change. The right to one's own life endowed by the creator is the primary purpose for the constitution and is not subject to change by you, a majority, or the government. Some things are constant, and have value. Just because the document is slightly ammended, does not mean you should throw out the entire document and start over.

As I've said before I want you to explain to me how a single mother who can't pay her rent and can barely afford food for her family is not more needy than you or I. There are some people that they are needy, there should be no argument there, yet you create one.

The argument isn't whether or not needy people exist. The argument is whether or not you should have the power to force me to contribute to that needy person's welfare. You think people are needy, fine, give up your salary and assets before subjugating me to your oppression.

Though you opposition to taxes for social programs seems to be a moral and ideological one, regardless of the benefit it can have to a society. Whether you think it could benefit the society seems to be meaningless in your opinion. And only those with wealth, such as you or I, start associating taxation (again, within reason) with freedom.

No matter how many times I say it, you just don't get it. It's your job to be charitible and identify those in need, not the government's. There is no objective standard except for the subjective judgement of individuals. It's my moral responsibility to be charitable, not to force other people to be through the proxy of government. Who decides who is the most needy? Who decides how much is enough to tax? Who decides when it's enough? Someone has to make these decisions, it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

If you want to say by taxing people I'm forcing them to be nice then so be it, it benefits society, and nothing more is required than tax dollars. There are things people can do if they want to be nice, but no one is being forced to volunteer...

You are the poster child for contradiction.

As for who I've read, I've read Marx and I've read Hitler, I don't look up to either.

Yet you emulate them in philosophy and in practice. Your parents have either done their job well, or totally neglected it.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']

There is no difference in the explanation you gave and the reality of the values being traded, or forfeited. Either paying the tax, or paying the time in place of the tax is the EXACT SAME THING. Again you really don't understand what money is, do you ? [/quote]

First it was not something I suggested. Second, this idea is to do a public service and have that replace the taxes you would normally pay out of your normal work. It is different since you are doing the work, not contributing tax dollars so someone else can be paid to do it (this is why I don't support it, since you are taking away jobs). You should support the idea, in doing so you are doing the work yourself and not by proxy.

I did not suggest you were an anarchist.

Yes, you did. And you just did it again:

But you don't believe the government has any place in improving society, that's the peoples concern. To you that infringes on freedom, not to me. And as for the founding fathers, there concepts matter as they make up the constitution, but if we tried to emulate their beliefs exactly our country wouldn't have survived this long. Times change, beliefs change, the beauty of our constitution is that, due to the way it was written, it can change with it.

Believing in a limited government that is just there to maintain a functioning nation and law and order is anarchy? Much like you don't understand what communism is, you don't understand anarchy either.

Some things do not change. The right to one's own life endowed by the creator is the primary purpose for the constitution and is not subject to change by you, a majority, or the government. Some things are constant, and have value. Just because the document is slightly ammended, does not mean you should throw out the entire document and start over.

Umm... that's nice. The right to ones own life has nothing to do with this, but ok. If anything this has to do with the rights to a percentage of money, since we both agree with taxes but differ on how much. It actually seems you made up this entire statement, since I never talked about limiting a persons rights to their life, and I never talked about throwing out the constitution. I simply said following the founding fathers exactly would be disasterous, and is not a good model for a successful nation. As usual, you have twisted my words beyond recognition.

The argument isn't whether or not needy people exist. The argument is whether or not you should have the power to force me to contribute to that needy person's welfare. You think people are needy, fine, give up your salary and assets before subjugating me to your oppression.

You are forced to contribute to the maintenance of roads, you are forced to contribute to the building of an army, you are forced to contribute to public schools, you are forced to contribute to libraries. You are forced to contribute for the common good, social programs are no different. And again you take it to the extreme, no one is asking you to give up all your salary, yours assets, your education etc. You are an alarmist, and by the time you interperet my words they bear no resemblance to what I actually typed.

No matter how many times I say it, you just don't get it. It's your job to be charitible and identify those in need, not the government's. There is no objective standard except for the subjective judgement of individuals. It's my moral responsibility to be charitable, not to force other people to be through the proxy of government. Who decides who is the most needy? Who decides how much is enough to tax? Who decides when it's enough? Someone has to make these decisions, it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Basically, if I'm reading correctly, you are essentially saying "no matter how many times I state my opinion, you don't agree. Agree damnit!". You agree with some taxation, so there is obviously a decision on your part of how much is enough. You condemn me for wanting to decide that, but to agree with some taxation you must do it yourself. Again it is good when people contribute to charity and social causes, but that charity is unreliable, as well as inadequate, and the lives of people should not depend on the whims of their fellow man. Also, charities generally help the poorest of the poor, leaving most out of their reach until they have hit rock bottom, with little support to prevent that.

If you want to say by taxing people I'm forcing them to be nice then so be it, it benefits society, and nothing more is required than tax dollars. There are things people can do if they want to be nice, but no one is being forced to volunteer...

You are the poster child for contradiction. [/quote

Yes, because being taxed (which you state you believe in to some extent) is the the same as being forced to work.

As for who I've read, I've read Marx and I've read Hitler, I don't look up to either.

Yet you emulate them in philosophy and in practice. Your parents have either done their job well, or totally neglected it.

You're right, you should have seen me on the commons yesterday calling for the mass extermination of the jews. Now all that's left is for you to have your little hissy fit and we have our entire previous conversation down to just six posts. But I'm sure your stomping and chest thumping will come soon enough.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Umm... that's nice. The right to ones own life has nothing to do with this, but ok. If anything this has to do with the rights to a percentage of money, since we both agree with taxes but differ on how much. It actually seems you made up this entire statement, since I never talked about limiting a persons rights to their life, and I never talked about throwing out the constitution. I simply said following the founding fathers exactly would be disasterous, and is not a good model for a successful nation. As usual, you have twisted my words beyond recognition. [/quote]

I don't have to twist becuase you do enough wriggling of your own words. The right to ones' life includes one's property. Whether it's money, land, a patent, or an idea, depriving an individual any of these things they own is equivalent to depriving them of a part of their life.

Second, this idea is to do a public service and have that replace the taxes you would normally pay out of your normal work. It is different since you are doing the work, not contributing tax dollars so someone else can be paid to do it

It is no different. Your efforts = your compensation = your time = your life. Your failure to recognize this tells me you haven't had to work for a living for very long, if at all.

Believing in a limited government that is just there to maintain a functioning nation and law and order is anarchy? Much like you don't understand what communism is, you don't understand anarchy either.

I welcome an explanation. Feel free to elaborate, if you can.

You are forced to contribute to the maintenance of roads, you are forced to contribute to the building of an army, you are forced to contribute to public schools, you are forced to contribute to libraries. You are forced to contribute for the common good, social programs are no different. And again you take it to the extreme, no one is asking you to give up all your salary, yours assets, your education etc. You are an alarmist, and by the time you interperet my words they bear no resemblance to what I actually typed.

Yes, and some things are legitimate taxes on my freedom, most are not. I accept them as necessary evils. However, social entitlements are completely different than free rider conveniences. You don't seem to know the difference. You think I'm an alarmist? Fine, I accept the badge. People need to be woken up from their comas and stop accepting altruism as the savior of man.

Basically, if I'm reading correctly, you are essentially saying "no matter how many times I state my opinion, you don't agree. Agree damnit!". You agree with some taxation, so there is obviously a decision on your part of how much is enough. You condemn me for wanting to decide that, but to agree with some taxation you must do it yourself.

No, I don't expect you to ever agree with me. The Government cannot possibly determine who is the most needy, it's your job. It's a subjective matter, and who better to do it than a single person. The government cannot help people becuase it cannot hold a person's hand, invite them into their house, share a story, build a trust. The government is not a person.

Again it is good when people contribute to charity and social causes, but that charity is unreliable, as well as inadequate, and the lives of people should not depend on the whims of their fellow man.

So, our lives should depend on the whims of government? That's crazy talk. Man has always been more dependable than government, why do you think so many european people crossed the atlantic in the first place ?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']So, our lives should depend on the whims of government? That's crazy talk. Man has always been more dependable than government, why do you think so many european people crossed the atlantic in the first place ?[/quote]

Freedom of religion.

Pretty funny when you look at the USA today.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='camoor'][quote name='bmulligan']So, our lives should depend on the whims of government? That's crazy talk. Man has always been more dependable than government, why do you think so many european people crossed the atlantic in the first place ?[/quote]

Freedom of religion.

Pretty funny when you look at the USA today.[/quote]

Yeah, one might describe it as irony.