2012 Elections results finally in US officially applies 4 Banana Republic status @ UN

[DeistPaladin]

Never gave my consent to be 'governed' so that's bs. It's not 'consent' when the other option is to be thrown in a cage. I think comply is a better word; Which I don't. So you are wrong.

Consent of the governed in a democracy is done by majority vote or at least by representation that theoretically reflects the will of the majority. It is unfortunately not feasible to run a country in a fashion that makes everyone happy. You can grin and bear it, you can petition your representatives and fellow citizens to change the parts you don't like or you can move to another country that suits you.

[Annik]

You have the option to give up your citizenship. There is always a choice.

[Violet]

You have the option to give up your citizenship. There is always a choice.

Choices are quaint ideals, but nonetheless: fanciful.

[BGChuckLee]

Never gave my consent to be 'governed' so that's bs. It's not 'consent' when the other option is to be thrown in a cage. I think comply is a better word; Which I don't. So you are wrong.

Consent of the governed in a democracy is done by majority vote or at least by representation that theoretically reflects the will of the majority. It is unfortunately not feasible to run a country in a fashion that makes everyone happy. You can grin and bear it, you can petition your representatives and fellow citizens to change the parts you don't like or you can move to another country that suits you.

No, no you don't understand- I don't agree with democracy- full stop. Why is that hard for you to comprehend? I know my wishes for a peaceful society wont be met in my lifetime, but I can work towards that. There's just so much b/s and violence, it's hard to know where to start.

Would you at least agree that taxation is force?

[LastPoet]

That weed dealer you use sure is an honest guy.

[DeistPaladin]

No, no you don't understand- I don't agree with democracy- full stop.

I believe it was Churchill who said "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.". If you can think of something better, I'd like to hear it.

Would you at least agree that taxation is force?

Nope. I used to think so but then I grew up. Taxes are levied per the consent of the governed in order to cover the expenses of running a civilization. As a member of a civilization and one of its beneficiaries, taxes are your assessed share of that cost. You don't like it? Go live in the wild.

[downbeatplumb]

I came from wealth

And have demonstrated that you have no idea what it means to be poor.

You seem to lack basic human empathy or understanding of what no money AND no job means.

Under your 'ideal' people would starve and die of hypothermia.

[BGChuckLee]

I came from wealth

And have demonstrated that you have no idea what it means to be poor.

You seem to lack basic human empathy or understanding of what no money AND no job means.

Under your 'ideal' people would starve and die of hypothermia.

Economics is a complex universe/eco system whatever you want to call it. It's incredibly complex, if you reduce welfare programs, that doesn't mean it is going to equal worse conditions for poor. The hidden costs and benefits and how it changes things for everyone, is what you should be thinking about. The same way, if you take away krill from the ocean, that doesn't simply mean that it will be the same ocean minus krill- there are many things that will change as a result of that. To prove how not simple economics is; top traders win 50.5-51.5% of trades. Economics is the collective genius of 7 billion people, it's not easy to understand.

I, and many other people that spend their time learning the nature of the universe of economics mostly agree that welfare programs harm the recipient in the long term, and everyone associated. You understand that bail outs/corporate welfare is bad for the economy, since the companies in question make more bad decisions, when there is free capital subsidies. It's no different for poor people. Human psychology is the same for everyone, if you give someone free money, they wont work as hard/smart for the money in the long term.

TLDR: You don't solve complex socio-economic problems with violence in any long term.

[Ryantology]

A 12 year old trust-fund sociopathic Randian economics wizard. I knew this forum was missing something.

[Tiberius]

Welfare is a double edged sword. I don't object to giving the poor money to keep themselves alive, but I do object to creating dependance on welfare. If a person can get by on welfare, they have no incentive to actually go and get a job. Indeed, some forms of welfare simply create more problems by adding more money (i.e. having extra kids gets you more money, so the incentive will be to produce more children).

Getting rid of welfare won't work unless we first sort out the economy so that business (especially small business) with thrive. Competition needs to be a factor. The minimum wage is also something that holds this back; it sounds great on paper, but in reality, the government cannot rationally judge how much a job should be worth to a company...only the company can do that. Some jobs are not worth $7.25 an hour, period.

Edit: Before someone objects, let me state that when I say people who can get by on welfare have "no incentive", I refer to the minority of welfare receivers who just mooch off the government. I am well aware that there are people on welfare who would rather have a job, and actively try to find one. It was bad phrasing on my part.