Am I the only one . . .

[exstatic]

My conscience is clear.

Yay. Isn't that what's it's all about?

If the only way for the 3rd worlders not to starve is for the wealth to come from those with very high net worth, then such an action seems to be quite well implied.

I'm just stating facts, Travis. Any conclusions you draw are your own. Yes, they'll starve without help. Does that statement in any way advocate seizure of wealth? No. It's just a statement of fact. Anything beyond that is your interpretation, or a vehement wish not to know the facts.

The world can be an ugly place where those with refuse to help those without. I wish people were better, but they're not; they're people, after all.

[smeagol]

The underlying problem is that the rulers of those countries, by and large, really are the kind of people that many on the Left accuse conservatives of being...enriching themselves at the expense of the needy in their own countries.

I agree 100% with your statement. I have seen this first hand from the country I come from.

Until and unless those structures are toppled...one way or the other...all the aid in the world will not help them. It will just go down that "bottomless hole".

I disagree. There has to be an effort from the developed countries, even if the poor countries are not receptive at the beginning.

There are certain things the First World can do which have nothing to do with direct aid that could be diverted to corrupt politicians pockets. I've already said it more than once, I will say it again. Level the playing field. Eliminate subsidies and trade barriers.

One thing I do disagree with in your statement, though...and that is the implication that anyone should be limited to keeping only what "would allow them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives".

No implication on my part, just a random number for my example.

The danger in this view is...who decides?? And what amount is arrived at? For what reason? No...this is definitely fascism.

Again yo are trying to imply my comments are fascist, which they are not. As I said before, its up to them to decide (its up to you and me to decide how much we give). Nobody can coerce them, you or me. We will have to explain our actions someday, but not to anybody of this World.

[travis2]

I didn't say that you were fascist, smeagol...nor did I say you were advocating it...but you did say that it was a dream of yours. It was the implication (I bolded that word before on purpose) that there was "an amount" that could be fixed as to how much someone could keep that I was decrying as fascist.

That's all.

[Guru of Nothing]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

[MannyIsGod]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

It's almost like they're arguing the same thing, it's kinda funny.

[smeagol]

I didn't say that you were fascist, smeagol...nor did I say you were advocating it...but you did say that it was a dream of yours. It was the implication (I bolded that word before on purpose) that there was "an amount" that could be fixed as to how much someone could keep that I was decrying as fascist.

That's all.

My dream is that the people that have a lot (and countries that are rich) give to the people that have nothing (and countries that are poor). And they do this because they feel it is the right thing to do.

How much they give it's up to them. I read a book by C.S. Lewis where the author says something like: "Ideally, people should give as much as they can. How much? I don't know. I give approximately 30% of what I make. And this does not include giving to my direct family in need. If you are buying stuff which you don't really need, or you can afford taking one vacation per year to the fanciest of places, then you are probably not giving enough" (am quoting from memory).

The book is called Mere Christianity and I thoroughly recommend it. Four years ago, I started reading the book as a convinced Atheist, and when I finished it I was seriously questioning my beliefs. Shortly after that I became a Christian.

Scott, if you are still reading this thread and you have nothing else to read, go ahead and read it. We can talk about it on another thread (I have read it five times since then).

[smeagol]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

True, must be my poor English.

[ALVAREZ6]

I own 3.

And, no, every family does not own at least 2 cars.

Exactly, you own 3 guns.
that is different than 3 people owning 1 gun each.

What do you use your guns for, and what guns do you have?

[ClintSquint]

Guns?...we don't need no stinkin' guns!

[MannyIsGod]

Gun Control advocates are simply people with good intentions going about it in a really stupid way.

[scott]

All I'm saying is that I would like to see people (and governments) which are rich to share their wealth with the poor. I'm not talking about socialism or communism.

Smeagol, this is my problem with your arguement. The implication that governments should share anything with anyone is in and of itself a socialist idea. Government's are not individual beings, but rather a representation of a collective. I can buy off that maybe the collective of American, Canadian, English, French etc. people should perhaps give more- but not Governments. Taking revenue from taxes and giving it to other people (who paid no taxes) is a socialist act, plain and simple.

[smeagol]

Gun Control advocates are simply people with good intentions going about it in a really stupid way.

Can you elaborate?

[smeagol]

Smeagol, this is my problem with your arguement. The implication that governments should share anything with anyone is in and of itself a socialist idea. Government's are not individual beings, but rather a representation of a collective. I can buy off that maybe the collective of American, Canadian, English, French etc. people should perhaps give more- but not Governments. Taking revenue from taxes and giving it to other people (who paid no taxes) is a socialist act, plain and simple.

Its a Christian idea.

The difference being that in a socialist government you are coerced by the state to share your wealth with those who have less. Its not a bad idea, but it has very negative implications. Loss of basic liberties, for starters. Less innovation, more bureaucracy in general, which in my view, leads to a "dull" society (for the lack of a better word).

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly, because deep in their hearts, they know its the best thing, the right thing to do.

[Guru of Nothing]

Its a Christian idea.

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly, because deep in their hearts, they know its the best thing, the right thing to do.

Leggo of my Eggo

[MannyIsGod]

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly, because deep in their hearts, they know its the best thing, the right thing to do.

Government sharing of money willingly is an oxymoron and socialist in nature because of the very fact that if the government shares the money people are not getting a choice, it is being made for them.

[scott]

What I'm advocating is that people and governments share their wealth willingly

Manny already hit on this for me... but I'll unnecessarily elaborate. A government doesn't have it's own wealth- how can it willingly share something that it forcefully coerced from the public (tax money)?

Drop the idea that Governments are obligated to do anything but protect the people it represents, and you might have a point.

And despite the teachings of whatever books you may read, charity is not soley a "Christian Idea" as you put it any more than the notion of killing other people being wrong is a "Christian Idea." The self-serving assignment of morals to the ins ution of Christianity is awefully selfish, wouldn't you say?

[Nbadan]

Government sharing of money willingly is an oxymoron and socialist in nature because of the very fact that if the government shares the money people are not getting a choice, it is being made for them.

This statement makes the assumption that if companies paid less taxes, they would automatically pass those added savings onto their employees in the form of higher wages and benefits which simply isn't always true. In fact, what happens most of the time is that these companies pass those savings onto their customers instead which is great for the businesses bottom-line, but not necessarily always better for employees of the company whom frequently have to work harder for the same money and less benefits. Also, a companies always gonna look after its own best interests first, and that means that if the company needs cash, and needs cash fast, employee pension plans are always the first looted.

Let's call our progressive tax structure what it is - a redistribution of wealth, but it is a redistribution that is necessary since 5% of the U.S. population own 90% of the wealth in this country, but the 90% of owners would be nothing without the help of the 95% of the population that keeps America working at the highest productivity rate in the world.

[MannyIsGod]

This statement makes the assumption that if companies paid less taxes, they would automatically pass those added savings onto their employees in the form of higher wages and benefits which simply isn't always true.

Dan,

Reading comprehension is a difficult skill for many to grasp, but this is way off your rocker.

My statement implies that if the government is doing it the citizen doesn't have a choice. And that's it.

I swear man, you need to back away from the pipe because it's affecting your ability to read.

[Nbadan]

My statement implies that if the government is doing it the citizen doesn't have a choice. And that's it.

Please. Social Security is a program that has worked. What else is there to say? If People had the money to invest themselves the safest investment they could make are government treasury bonds and bills. This is exactly were the current Social Security surplus goes into now. So whats the difference?

The difference is that under W's proposed system, private financeers would get a cut out of your retirement money before its ever put into government securities.

[smeagol]

Manny already hit on this for me... but I'll unnecessarily elaborate. A government doesn't have it's own wealth- how can it willingly share something that it forcefully coerced from the public (tax money)?

If the public believes their money should be shared with people who are starving in other parts of the World, I don't see that as coercion. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; it's almost impossible that it will ever happen. People, although good in nature, are easily corrupted to satisfy the desires of this World and therefore they hardly ever think about the needs of others (I'm included in this group of people, which is the majority of us).

Drop the idea that Governments are obligated to do anything but protect the people it represents, and you might have a point.

Explained above.

And despite the teachings of whatever books you may read, charity is not soley a "Christian Idea" as you put it any more than the notion of killing other people being wrong is a "Christian Idea." The self-serving assignment of morals to the ins ution of Christianity is awefully selfish, wouldn't you say?

I said it was a Christian idea, not that it is only a Christian idea. Personally, I have found this concept deeply embeded in the Christian Theology, but because I have not read other philosopies in depth, I can't really say how developed the concept of "Love your neghbor as you love thyself" is in those philosophies. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure charity is not the exclusivity of Christianity.

C'mon, dude, pick up "Mere Christianity" and tell me what you think of it. Its a short book. You'll read it in no time.

[MannyIsGod]

Please. Social Security is a program that has worked. What else is there to say? If People had the money to invest themselves the safest investment they could make are government treasury bonds and bills. This is exactly were the current Social Security surplus goes into now. So whats the difference?

The difference is that under W's proposed system, private financeers would get a cut out of your retirement money before its ever put into government securities.

Dude, how the you got on SS I don't know. Once again, you're missing hte point.

I'm not talking about a specific program or evena specific country or government.

I'm talking about general government theory.

However, SS is a great example because the government makes you invest, and you have no choice. What if I don't WANT to invest? Doesn't matter, becasue I don't have a choice.

[MannyIsGod]

If the public believes their money should be shared with people who are starving in other parts of the World, I don't see that as coercion. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; it's almost impossible that it will ever happen. People, although good in nature, are easily corrupted to satisfy the desires of this World and therefore they hardly ever think about the needs of others (I'm included in this group of people, which is the majority of us).

Unless 100% of the public wants to use their money that way then someone is having their money taken and used without their choice.

And if 100% want to donate their money, why does government need to be involved? Can't theyjust do it on their own? The only reason to involve government is to forceibly coerce a segment of the population to do what it considers law. That's socialist.

Anyhow, you're also wrong about the general public and their level of generosity. Most people would be happy with about 10% of our budget going out in forgien aid, but they think we are giving too much right now.

They are simply uninformed because we give away much less than that. Less than 1% of our budget goes out in forgien aid.

[smeagol]

Unless 100% of the public wants to use their money that way then someone is having their money taken and used without their choice.

Since when does the Government use the money they collect from taxes the way 100% of the taxpayers wants them to use it?

In any case, as I said before, this will never happen.

And if 100% want to donate their money, why does government need to be involved? Can't theyjust do it on their own? The only reason to involve government is to forceibly coerce a segment of the population to do what it considers law. That's socialist.

Manny, I'll put it in a simple way. What I'm proposing sounds like socialism, but it is not. It's premise is not that the people from US/Europe/Japan/Canada/[insert other developed countries] and their governments are coerced to give money away to the underdeveloped nations.

I'm saying that there has to be a way where the people who have a lot are able to help the people who are not that fortunate. It has to be done on a global scale. This can only be done with a coordinated effort from everybody. Governments, private charity ins utions and the general public. Everybody has to be convinced that it is the right thing to do. Everybody has to do it willingly. And that is the premise.

Please stop saying it is socialism, because it is not. It is exactly what Christ would ask everyone of the people who live in the US to do (including me). I don't know if you are a Christian, so I'm not sure it means a lot to you, but it means a lot to other posters.

Anyhow, you're also wrong about the general public and their level of generosity. Most people would be happy with about 10% of our budget going out in forgien aid, but they think we are giving too much right now.

Not sure where I'm wrong. If I'm wrong because I'm asking the rich countries to help develop the poor ones so there is no more hunger, so be it.

[scott]

Since when does the Government use the money they collect from taxes the way 100% of the taxpayers wants them to use it?

Is this supposed to serve as some sort of justification for further misappropriation of taxpayer dollars?

Please stop saying it is socialism, because it is not. It is exactly what Christ would ask everyone of the people who live in the US to do (including me). I don't know if you are a Christian, so I'm not sure it means a lot to you, but it means a lot to other posters.

What would you have us call it then? We can give it any name you want, but it will just be socialism in different clothes. You propose a government controlled expenditure of taxpayer funds. By the way, this sounds awefully similar to the dictionary definition of socialism, which can be found as follows:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

And again, Manny already hit on the key point which you continue to evade... people are free to do what they wish with their money- there is no need for a government charity program (taking tax money and giving it to non-tax payers).

In your own words:

If the public believes their money should be shared with people who are starving in other parts of the World, I don't see that as coercion. It's not a difficult concept to grasp; it's almost impossible that it will ever happen.

You are right, it wouldn't coercion then, it would be an unneccesary government beauracracy that does with taxpayer money what tax-payers were going to do anyway. Since this government agency will no doubt require paying someone a salary, all you have done is taken money away from the recipients of the charity.

There are two options for what you envision:

1) The government takes money from tax-payers and gives it to non tax-payers against the wishes of the tax-payers, otherwise known as Socialism with a hint of coercion.

or

2) Everyone is going to want to give their money to charity anyway, so there is no need for the Government to do anything, otherwise known in Free Enterprise.

[smeagol]

Is this supposed to serve as some sort of justification for further misappropriation of taxpayer dollars?

How is it a misapproapriation of taxpayer dollars when, in my example, people are happy to allow the government use the funds for a just cause such as helping develop third world countries.

What would you have us call it then? We can give it any name you want, but it will just be socialism in different clothes. You propose a government controlled expenditure of taxpayer funds. By the way, this sounds awefully similar to the dictionary definition of socialism

How does my example sound like your definition of socialism?

Your definition says: "various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government".

Please show me where I advocate for the estatization of the means of production? Where do I advocate for the government to further control de economy?

All I want is for people to realize that in parts of the World, people are starving, have no education, no healthcare . . . while in other parts of the World, people are deciding if they buy a $5,000 plasma TV for Christmas or if they drop $1,000 on a bottle of wine.

And again, Manny already hit on the key point which you continue to evade... people are free to do what they wish with their money- there is no need for a government charity program (taking tax money and giving it to non-tax payers).

I'm not evading anybody's point . . .

You want to do it through private charities . . . that's fine. I already said it won't work until the approach is organized: governments, private charities and the public in general.

If governmets don't help as much as they can (by eliminating trade barriers and subsidies, for example), the effort will be fruitless.

There are two options for what you envision:

1) The government takes money from tax-payers and gives it to non tax-payers against the wishes of the tax-payers, otherwise known as Socialism with a hint of coercion.

or

2) Everyone is going to want to give their money to charity anyway, so there is no need for the Government to do anything, otherwise known in Free Enterprise.

Scott, Happy Holidays my friend!